MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390933918 · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3347392

Leveraging Dynamic Right-of-Way Allocation and Tolling Policy for CAV Dedicated Lane Management to Promote CAV and Improve Mobility

2024· article· en· W4390933918 on OpenAlexaffabout
Huiyu Chen, Fan Wu, Kaizhe Hou, Tony Z. Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHeadwaySubsidyTollComputer scienceTransport engineeringSimulationEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the capability of communicating with surrounding vehicles and infrastructures, connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) can safely drive closer with reduced headway, thereby potentially improving traffic efficiency. However, their superiority is compromised in the mixed traffic environment because of the interruption of human-driving vehicles (HDVs). In this circumstance, researchers proposed to physically separate CAVs and HDVs by deploying CAV-dedicated lanes (CAV-DLs). Nevertheless, the CAV-DLs may be underutilized, especially in low CAV penetration rate (PR) cases which may even reduce traffic efficiency. To solve this problem, two novel strategies were proposed in our study to better manage the CAV-DLs and magnify the benefit of CAVs: The first one is to dynamically allocate the right-of-way for CAV-DLs based on the predicted CAV-DLs’ effective utilization rate so that the HDVs can be allowed to use the dedicated lanes when they are not adequately occupied. The second strategy is motivated by the economic instrument, which allows HDVs to use the CAV-DLs by paying a toll. The toll is determined by the travel time difference between CAV-DL and general lane (GL), and these tolls can be utilized as subsidies to stimulate drivers to purchase CAVs for promoting their adoption. The two strategies were evaluated using the case study designed based on the network of Edmonton downtown area in Canada, and the results demonstrated that both methods can significantly reduce travel time. Besides, the two strategies were compared comprehensively in terms of their effectiveness and policy enforceability, which can provide some guidance for both traffic policymakers and practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207