MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W590767920

Congestion Relief Using HOT Lanes

2007· article· en· W590767920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D R Samdahl, Shuming Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueITE 2007 Annual Meeting and ExhibitInstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTollTransport engineeringTraffic congestionCongestion pricingSound (geography)OccupancyTransit (satellite)BusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringPublic transport
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will discuss how the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted a congestion relief analysis for the State’s three major urban areas: Central Puget Sound, Spokane and Vancouver during the 2003-2004 timeframe. Phase 1 of the analysis examined a variety of congestion relief scenarios ranging from highway, transit, and roadway value pricing strategies. This phase concluded that value pricing is a very effective strategy in reducing congestion and that a strategic combination of transportation supply and demand management, particularly value pricing should be given greater attention in the future. In 2005, a Phase 2 study was initiated to further examine how pricing, in the form of a network of high occupancy toll (HOT) lane facilities, could affect travel patterns and congestion within the Puget Sound region. Three HOT lane scenarios were tested using the Puget Sound Regional Council’s travel demand forecasting model. The first scenario considered converting all of the region’s 200+ miles of existing and planned high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and reversible express facilities into HOT lanes. The second scenario examined the effects of adding a lane to most of the freeways to create a two-lane HOT system. The third scenario blended the high performing HOT lane elements of Scenarios 1 and 2, together with full pricing of I-5 and the cross-lake bridges. A final scenario priced all roadway lanes within the region. Through modeling analysis, it was found that the HOT scenarios produced favorable reductions in delay and travel time, and increases in person throughput, in comparison to the existing HOV-only policy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITE 2007 Annual Meeting and ExhibitInstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Same topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207