Lewis–Mogridge Points: A Nonarbitrary Method to Include Induced Traffic in Cost-Benefit Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new method to estimate benefits of road network improvements, which allows to include the induced demand without arbitrary assumptions. Instead of estimating induced demand (which is nontrivial and hardly possible in practice), we search for demand induction where initial benefits are mitigated to zero. Such approach allows to formulate a dual measure of benefit, covering both the potential benefits and the likelihood of consuming them by the induced traffic. We first estimate benefits of road network improvement assuming that traffic demand is fixed. Consequently, we find demand model configurations at which the benefits of the new investment become null, i.e., all the initial benefits are consumed by the traffic demand growth. We call such states of induced demand the Lewis–Mogridge points of the analysed improvement. We select the most probable of such points and use it to calculate the proposed novel indicator μ, for which the initial benefits (obtained under a fixed-demand assumption) are multiplied with a demand increase rate needed to consume them. We believe that such measure allows to include the critical phenomena of induced traffic and, at the same time, to overcome problems associated with reliable estimation of induced demand. As we illustrate with the case of two alternative road improvement schemes in Kraków, Poland, the proposed method allows to estimate maximal threshold of induced traffic and to select scenario more resilient to induced traffic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".