Rail Fixed Guideway Systems in Western U.S. Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the policy factors influencing the intraregional development of rail transit. For the purpose of this research, policy factors include: institutional arrangements, factors associated with governance, and factors in the policymaking process. The research questions are studied in five case study MSAs within the Pacific West and Mountain West regions of the United States: Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ; Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA; and Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR. The foundational problems that frame this research are the challenges of urban planning at a regional scale, specifically for transportation. The more specific challenge of transportation planning is situated within the challenge of regional planning. The primary research question is: what policy factors influence the development of regional rail? Several sub-questions stem from the primary question. How do these policy factors differ among the case study regions? How do institutional arrangements, governance and policymaking differ among the cases? What policy recommendations can be drawn from the five case study regions and the specific perspectives of their regional leaders in rail development? Six policy recommendations are provided based upon the interview responses and the case study data. These emphasize policy for operations and maintenance (O&M) funding, budgeting for dire economic times, flexing environment and health funds for transit, the symbiosis of bus and rail transit, considerations for replicating aspects of the Portland model of governance, and equitable transit policy related to the housing crisis. The study also offers considerations of these data in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued U.S. economic recovery plans and investment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".