Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2009 annual review of bus rapid transit (BRT) projects in North America shows that plans are moving along despite the poor economy. The survey covers 35 projects, 33 in the U.S. and two in Canada. Start dates range from 2009 to 2014. Some new projects have been added since last year’s survey, and two in last year’s survey are defunct or delayed. The newest projects are emerging on the west coast, with nearly half planned in Seattle. One of those, King County Metro Transit’s Rapid-Ride, will include five new lines, for a total cost of $171 million. The midwest has the second highest number among those responding to the survey, with five in the region. Two are in Minnesota. Funding sources range from Federal Transit Administration Small Starts, New Starts, and other federal programs (nearly 70 percent of projects) to state funding, which is supporting 31 percent, and local sales taxes, which are going to 54 percent. (Many projects rely on a combination of these sources.) A total of 119 vehicles are projected to be purchased for BRT implementation, with 54 percent of the projects using clean diesel, followed closely by hybrid-electric. Many transit authorities are using two propulsion methods, so percentages overlap. That represents a slight decrease in hybrid-electric and a slight increase in clean diesel from the previous year. Included in the article are survey results for the top 25 cities with bus rapid transit systems. Included for each city are the project or agency, capital cost, start year, number of BRT vehicles, running way features, station characteristics, styles of vehicles, fare collection methods, type of propulsion, and use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) features.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".