Aerial Cable Cars in Urban Public Transit: Queuing Capacity Thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the feasibility of urban aerial cable cars as a mobility option combined with conventional modes of transport, discusses the use of cable cars in urban public transit, and places the results in an extended context of existing literature. Specifically, the study aims at (1) defining the capacity thresholds of conventional modes of transport that serve as feeders to cable cars and (2) determining the corresponding space requirements for arising queues. Key performance indicators are accordingly waiting time, queue length and queue space. Queuing theory is utilized to determine waiting times and queue lengths, and subsequently, the space requirements for queues are derived. Findings indicate that cable cars can serve as a viable mobility option if passenger demand from feeder conventional modes of transport is appropriately limited and excessively large batches of passengers arriving simultaneously are avoided. For example, subways and commuter rails, even if operating in long headways of 30 minutes, would lead to overcrowded transport systems and long waiting times. However, feeders such as buses, BRT, or trams demonstrate good operability. Accordingly, the work identifies suitable thresholds for interoperability to further promote transit as a crucial part of future urban mobility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".