Characterization and comparison of traffic flow on reversible roadways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reversible traffic operations have become an increasingly popular strategy for mitigating traffic congestion associated with the directionally unbalanced traffic flows that are a routine part of peak commute periods, planned special events, and emergency evacuations. It is interesting that despite its widespread and long‐term use, relatively little is known about the operational characteristics of this form of operation. For example, the capacity of a reversed lane has been estimated by some to be equal to that of a normal lane while others have theorized it to be half of this value. Without accurate estimates of reversible lane performance it is not possible to confidently gauge the benefits of reversible roadways or model them using traffic simulation. This paper presents the results of a study to measure and evaluate the speed and flow characteristics of reverse‐flow traffic streams by comparing them under various operating conditions and locations. It was found that, contrary to some opinions, the flow characteristics of reverse‐flowing lanes were generally similar to normally flowing lanes under a variety of traffic volume, time‐of‐day, location, and type‐of‐use conditions. The study also revealed that drivers will readily use reversible lanes without diminished operating speeds, particularly as volumes increase. Copyright © 2010 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".