Optimizing Road Networks for Automated Vehicles with Dedicated Links, Dedicated Lanes, and Mixed-Traffic Subnetworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on network configurations to accommodate automated vehicles (AVs) on road networks during the transition period to full automation. The literature suggests that dedicated infrastructure for AVs and enhanced infrastructure for mixed traffic (i.e., AVs on the same lanes with conventional vehicles) are the main alternatives so far. We utilize both alternatives and propose a unified mathematical framework for optimizing road networks for AVs by simultaneous deployment of AV-ready subnetworks for mixed traffic, dedicated AV links, and dedicated AV lanes. We model the problem as a bilevel network design problem where the upper level represents road infrastructure adjustment decisions to deploy these concepts and the lower level includes a network equilibrium model representing the flows as a result of the travelers’ response to new network topologies. An efficient heuristic solution method is introduced to solve the formulated problem and find coherent network topologies. Applicability of the model on real road networks is demonstrated using a large-scale case study of the Amsterdam metropolitan region. Our results indicate that for low AV market penetration rates (MPRs), AV-ready subnetworks, which accommodate AVs in mixed traffic, are the most efficient configuration. However, after 30% MPR, dedicated AV lanes prove to be more beneficial. Additionally, road types can dictate the viable deployment plan for certain parts of road networks. These insights can be used to guide planners in developing their strategies regarding road network infrastructure during the transition period to full automation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".