Search results

This paper addresses the problem of bunching of buses and how it may be counter-acted. An algorithm is presented for providing selective priority to buses at traffic signals according to their headways, the highest levels of priority being given to those buses with the highest headways, i.e. those buses which are running late or falling behind the bus in front.

Alternative selective priority strategies are evaluated in terms of their effects on bus journey time regularity, bus delay and general traffic delay. A simulation model SPLIT (Selective Priority for Late buses Implemented at Traffic signals) has been developed to investigate the performance of different priority strategies. The paper describes the details of the model, including bus stop dwell times and overlapping bus services, and compares results obtained from the model for a number of different priority strategies.

This work was driven by the keen interest in bus priority applications in London within the EC DGVII project INCOME.

Traffic signal control is one of the oldest application areas of fuzzy sets in transportation. In general, fuzzy control is found to be superior in complex problems with multi-objective decisions. In traffic signal control, several traffic flows compete for the same time and space, and different priorities are often set to different traffic flows or vehicle groups

The public transport priorities are a very important part of the effective traffic signal control. Normally, the public transport priorities are programmed by using special algorithms, which are tailor-made for each intersection. The experiences have proved that this kind of algorithms can be very effective if some compensation algorithms and the traffic-actuated control mode are used. We believe that using the fuzzified public transport priority algorithms, the measures of effectiveness of traffic signal control can be even better. In this paper, our fuzzy control algorithm of the public transport priorities will be presented.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe a method for priority setting that can be used to identify options for disinvestment, and is also meant to serve as a tool for re-allocation of resources to achieve better outcomes with a given pot of resources.

This chapter draws on findings from the application of a priority setting and resource allocation framework known as Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA). Case studies are used to illustrate key points around implementation including factors for success and guidelines for improving priority setting in practice.

PBMA has been applied in over 150 settings over the last 30 years. Purposes varied from focusing strictly on disinvestment to examining opportunities for re-allocation. Many organizations report continued use of the framework and decision makers typically express a desire to not revert to historical allocation or political negotiation in deciding on the funding for programs.

Practical implications of this body of work on priority setting abound in that there are significant opportunities to improve resource allocation practice including better engagement of staff, clinicians and public members, greater use of evidence in decision making and improving process transparency.

As healthcare resources are limited, particularly in predominantly publicly funded health systems, prudent use of resources is critical. Actually applying the appropriate tools to ensure that funding aligns with organizational and system objectives is paramount.

Although there is a large body of literature on priority setting particularly in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, this chapter serves to highlight key messages specifically in the context of fiscal constraint and in relation to the concept of disinvestment or service reduction.

It has been suggested that “space and artifacts constitute systems of communication which organizations build up within themselves” (Gagliardi, 1992a, b, p. vi) and reflect the cultural life within that organization. This is a study of how the “landscape” of a public library (“Library X”), as an information retrieval system, relates to the values of the people who created it. The efforts here are geared towards understanding the physical instantiation of institutional culture and, more specifically, institutional values as they are reflected through the artifact.

The main goal of the current research was to investigate whether and how leaders in health care organizations can stimulate incident reporting and error management by “walking the safety talk” (enacted priority of safety).

Open interviews (N=26) and a cross-sectional questionnaire (N=183) were conducted at the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) in The Netherlands.

As hypothesized, leaders’ enacted priority of safety was positively related to incident reporting and error management, and the relation between leaders’ enacted priority of safety and error management was mediated by incident reporting. The interviews yielded rich data on (near) incidents, the leaders’ role in (non)reporting, and error management, grounding quantitative findings in concrete case descriptions.

We support previous theorizing by providing empirical evidence showing that (1) enacted priority of safety has a stronger relationship with incident reporting than espoused priority of safety and (2) the previously implied positive link between incident reporting and error management indeed exists. Moreover, our findings extend our understanding of behavioral integrity for safety and the mechanisms through which it operates in medical settings.

Our findings indicate that for the promotion of incident reporting and error management, active reinforcement of priority of safety by leaders is crucial.

Social sciences researchers, health care researchers and health care practitioners can utilize the findings of the current paper in order to help leaders create health care systems characterized by higher incident reporting and more constructive error handling.

The need to provide efficient public transport services in urban areas has led to the implementation of bus priority measures in many congested cities. Much interest has recently centred on priority at signal controlled junctions, including the concept of pre-signals, where traffic signals are installed at or near the end of a with-flow bus lane to provide buses with priority access to the downstream junction. Although a number of pre-signals have now been installed in the UK, particularly in London, there has been very little published research into the analysis of benefits and disbenefits to both buses and non-priority vehicles at pre-signalised intersections. This paper addresses these points through the development of analytical procedures which allow pre-implementation evaluation of specific categories of pre-signals.

This chapter demonstrates that social business models do not meaningfully prioritize or impose accountability to “social good” over other purposes in ways that (a) best protect against owners changing their minds or entry of new owners with different priorities and (b) enable reliable accountability over time and across circumstances. This chapter further suggests a model – a “social primacy company” – that actually prioritizes “social good” and meaningful accountability to it. This chapter thus clarifies circumstances under which existing models might be most useful and are not particularly useful, especially as investors, entrepreneurs, employees, regulators, and others pursue shared, common understandings about purposes, priorities, and accountability.

Purpose – This chapter investigates fathers who have both biological and social children from different relationships in order to examine how they prioritize between their children, both in theory and in practice.

Methodology – Interviews were conducted with 57 low-income fathers in Oakland experiencing multiple-partner fertility.

Findings – These fathers used nine criteria to prioritize children: timing of life course interruptions, distance, formal child support, desirability of the pregnancy, restraining orders, other resources available to the child, age of the child, gender of the child, and the child's reaching-out behavior.

Research implications – These fathers distribute finite resources of time and money using priority-ordered queuing. This method allowed them to maximize their impact by focusing on a small number of children, rather than having their scarce resources become so diffuse that they became virtually meaningless.

Practical implications – These fathers utilized priority-ordered queuing, in contrast to the equal-distribution queuing method preferred by child support enforcement agencies. The difference in queuing model preference may explain fathers’ noncompliance with child support orders.

Value – In contrast with previous research findings, this chapter finds that these fathers were more likely to be simultaneously “good fathers” and “bad fathers” to different children at the same time, rather than one or the other (Furstenberg, 1988). This chapter also demonstrates a novel use of queuing theory for family research.