Investigating the applicability of exclusive pedestrian phase at two‐phase actuated controlled intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The exclusive pedestrian phase (EPP) has been used in many countries to promote walking around downtown areas by increasing the ease and convenience of pedestrian crossing. However, its applicability has not been systematically demonstrated, especially when an intersection is operated in actuated mode. This paper presents an extensive simulation‐based analysis of the applicability of EPP as compared with a normal concurrent pedestrian‐phase pattern at an isolated intersection controlled by actuated logic. Actuated signal control logics for EPP‐actuated and conventional concurrent pedestrian phase‐actuated controls are developed. Both of these control logics consider pedestrian crossing demands and can adapt to changes in vehicle traffic to reduce vehicle delay as well. A simulation model of a two‐phase controlled intersection is built and calibrated based on field data using VISSIM (PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG in Karlsruhe, Germany). Extensive analysis is conducted to reveal fully the applicable EPP domain in terms of vehicle traffic demand, pedestrian demand, vehicle turning ratio, and pedestrian diagonal crossing ratio. The results show that the performance and applicable domain of EPP are jointly determined by those five factors. EPP significantly outperforms concurrent pedestrian phase if the vehicle turning ratio is greater than 0.6 and the pedestrian diagonal crossing ratio is greater than 0.6. These results can help traffic engineers in choosing the appropriate pedestrian‐phase patterns at actuated signalized intersections. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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".