Community-Oriented BRT: Urban Design, Amenities, and Placemaking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to provide a useful resource for communities that wish to learn how others have successfully used BRT as a tool for enhancing the public realm. Information for this effort was gathered through a literature review, in-depth profiles of three BRT systems, and a detailed questionnaire that was administered to transit agencies in the United States, Canada, and Australia. While the literature review provides historical background on the relationship between transit projects and the public realm, the questionnaire focuses specifically on the interaction between BRT and public space. The system profiles provide a detailed account of the Los Angeles Orange Line, Cleveland’s HealthLine, and the EmX in Eugene, Oregon, along with recommendations and lessons learned. It should be noted that this report does not attempt to offer detailed instructions of the type that would be found in design manuals or other highly technical literature. Rather, the focus is on sharing the experiences of agencies that have been successful in designing and building community value into BRT projects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it