Design of Light-Rail Transit Signal Priority to Improve Arterial Traffic Mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a cost effective strategy for improving the movement of transit vehicles, such as Light Rail Transit (LRT), buses or streetcars, through controlled intersections. Application of TSP strategies improves the reliability and quality of services of transit vehicles, while causes less disruption to normal traffic. City of Edmonton in Canada has recently extended the LRT system, most of the part of which run through at grade intersections. LRT is currently operating under preemption which is causing significant delay to other traffic. The problem is more pronounced during peak hours when the frequency of LRT is increased to 5 minutes. This has led to dissatisfaction among the motorists along the corridor. In this paper, different TSP strategies for improving the performance of the LRT corridor are analyzed. VISSIM, a micro-simulation tool with its Ring Barrier Controller (RBC) emulator is used to implement the strategies at a major intersection during peak hours. Field data for both AM and PM peak hours were collected at four intersections along the corridor for the calibration of the VISSIM model. The three TSP strategies explored in this paper are (a) LRT preemption (b) LRT prediction, and (c) LRT prediction together with transit bus priority. Each strategy is evaluated in terms of a number of measures of performances. It is found from the results that the strategy (b), where LRT arrival time is predicted to provide LRT preemption, yields the highest improvement in the corridor performance.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".