Bibliographic record
Abstract
The operational performance of signalized intersections can be significantly affected by heavy left-turn movements. Therefore, several measures to improve the performance of intersections with heavy left-turn movements, including some unconventional schemes, have been investigated. In this paper the performance of two of these unconventional schemes, namely, the crossover displaced left-turn (XDL) intersection and the upstream signalized crossover (USC) intersection, is compared. The XDL intersection eliminates left-turn opposing conflicts by displacing the left-turn lane to the opposing direction and crossing the left-traffic to the left side of the road before the intersection. The USC intersection eliminates left-turn opposing conflicts by crossing both the left and through traffic to the left side of the road before the intersection. The microsimulation software VisSim was used to analyze the two unconventional intersections for comparison. The analysis showed that the XDL outperforms the conventional intersection under various volume scenarios. In contrast, the USC outperforms the conventional intersection under moderate- and high-volume conditions or in the existence of extremely heavy left-turn movements. The results showed that the USC and the XDL exhibit similar average delays in low-, moderate-, and moderately high-volume conditions, with the XDL slightly outperforming the USC. However, the XDL significantly outperforms the USC under high-volume scenarios. The XDL has, as a basic design element, a left-turn bay that extends between the primary and the secondary intersections. The existence of this bay is probably the main reason for the high capacity of the XDL. Such an additional bay requires more right-of-way and higher construction costs than USC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".