Impact of Autonomous Vehicles on the Physical Infrastructure: Changes and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few years, autonomous vehicles (AVs) have witnessed tremendous worldwide interest. Although AVs have been extensively studied in the literature regarding their benefits, implications, and public acceptance, research on the physical infrastructure requirements for autonomous vehicles is still in the infancy stage. For the road infrastructure, AVs can be very promising; however, AVs might introduce new risks and challenges. This paper investigates the impact of AVs on the physical infrastructure with the objective of revealing the infrastructure changes and challenges in the era of AVs. In AVs, the human factor, which is the major factor that influences the geometric design, will not be a concern anymore so the geometric design requirements can be relaxed. On the other hand, the decrease in the wheel wander, because of the lane-keeping system, and the increase in the lane capacity, because of the elimination of the human factor, will bring an accelerated rutting potential and will quickly deteriorate the pavement condition. Additionally, the existing structural design methods for bridges are not safe to support autonomous truck platoons. For parking lots, AVs have the potential to significantly increase the capacity of parking lots using the blocking strategy. However, the implementation of this parking strategy faces multiple issues such as the inconsistent marking system. Finally, AVs will need new infrastructure facilities such as safe harbor areas.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".