Active transit signal priority for streetcars: experience in Melbourne and Toronto
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
Active traffic signal priority (TSP) has been identified as a cost effective way to better manage traffic systems to make on-street public transport more reliable, faster and more cost effective. While the implementation of TSP is growing throughout the world, there are relatively few studies which have examined their application to streetcar based systems. This paper reviews the experiences of TSP in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada. These cities run some of the world's oldest and largest streetcar based TSP systems. This paper describes the TSP systems adopted in both cities including key experiences. TSP performance is reviewed including an assessment of problems and issues identified. The review established that TSP systems in both cities have many similarities including the configuration of approach/request loop and stop line/cancel loop detection, the degree of priority provided and the targeting of clearance phases for turning traffic at intersections. There are some slight differences in the handling of bunching trams and opposing tram movements, which are better handled in the Toronto case. Both systems see rather different futures for TSP development. Toronto is focussed on full system-wide TSP implementation and advancement of TSP algorithms, while Melbourne aims to make priority more conditional on the degree of lateness of trams and on the degree of traffic congestion experienced.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it