Vem kör bussen? : Förhandlingar om flernivåstyrning av bus rapid transit i Metro Vancouver, Kanada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In metropolitan regions around the world, there is a need to expand public transit to both accommodate growing populations and economies as well as achieve a shift to sustainable modes of transportation. While rail rapid transit is common, the alternative of bus rapid transit (BRT) has also become increasingly popular amongst governments due to its lower capital costs and ability to use reconfigured existing streets. One of BRT’s challenges, though, is how its infrastructure competes with existing uses of urban space; conflicts in road space allocation between curbside parking, general traffic lanes, and BRT rights-of-way can be contentious and must be effectively managed. Metro Vancouver is one such region where there are active plans to introduce BRT as a novel mode of transportation. In addition to the need to negotiate urban space and funding allocations for BRT infrastructure, the Province of British Columbia will also designate BRT stations as transit-oriented areas (TOAs) with accompanying mandates that municipalities permit higher-density redevelopment, further complicating the governance of regional transportation and land-use planning. Together with TransLink, the regional transportation authority, the abovementioned actors form a unique institutional arrangement presenting corresponding challenges and opportunities. Employing lenses of multi-level governance, new institutionalism, and power relations, two proposed BRT routes are examined as case studies. Findings include assessments of how public interests and other factors are variably considered by different governance actors, how different actors employ hard and soft forms of power, and how TOA mandates have brought about unintended complications. Ultimately, should the BRT proposals be indeed implemented, they would constitute a break with current path dependence and mark the beginning of a period under a new transportation planning paradigm in Metro Vancouver.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".