Assessing the mobility benefits of proactive optimal variable speed limit control during recurrent and non-recurrent congestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, several active traffic control methods have been proposed to improve freeway efficiency at bottleneck locations. Variable speed limit (VSL) is one of these effective controls. Previous studies have evaluated VSL control, but primarily during recurrent congestion only. This study focuses on evaluating the performance of VSL control for both recurrent and non-recurrent congestion. To assess the effectiveness of a previously proposed VSL control in a real-world situation, this study has three evaluation objectives: (1) examine the control performance when recurrent and (or) non-recurrent congestion occurs; (2) assess the effectiveness of the control when a queue encounters the VSL sign; and (3) consider the impact of system detection delay in VSL control. Comparative experiments for Whitemud Drive in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, are simulated in the VISSIM platform, and traffic performance is compared among scenarios with and without control. The simulation results show that VSL improves mobility for both recurrent and non-recurrent congestion. The VSL control reduces total travel time, and improves total travel distance and total flow. Furthermore, it slows down the shockwave propagation speed, improves the average speed on most of the freeway segments, and reduces the duration of traffic recovery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".