Designing Transportation Corridors with Context, Theme and Aesthetics--Some Recent Examples from Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a collaboration between a geometric designer and an aesthetics planner on approaches to designing and preparing specifications for major arterial corridor projects in Western Canada. Selected routes are extremely sensitive in terms of context. Most areas have strong senses of community and history. Corridors or new connectors invariably cross environmentally rich flood plains or established residences and farmland. They may also traverse steep and sensitive mountain slopes with salmon-bearing creeks. Vistas are usually varied mountain and river scenery. There is an urgent desire not to repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in providing earlier arterial corridors that are often aesthetically bland and devoid of character. In Canada, new or upgraded non-freeway roads are being conceived as limited speed facilities which incorporate explicit safety and provide opportunity for initiative in the form of contemporary geometric design and construction practices. These include requirements to incorporate human factors and speed management as supported by crash prediction. Opportunity is provided for the provision of state-of-the-art river crossings and supporting structures. Central to arterial planning is the desire by project developers to design facilities within context and to illustrate this graphically be means of visual theme and aesthetics plans. These plans are to be incorporated into every geometric component of the design and have led to the preparation of sets of context sensitive design guidelines to steer the corridor design in order to meet the community and environmental values. Such guidelines incorporate the need for aesthetics and design to meet driver expectations. Current Canadian practice encourages geometric designers to move away from purely functional requirements of vehicles towards providing roads that are seen as community assets with designs that are flexible, safe and still meet demands of mobility. Taking clues from precedents established by the Great Parkways of the past, design aesthetics are divided into three categories: segments, gateways and transitions. Themes include such design features as entry gates and icons, coordinated signage, viewing promontories and development themes aimed at establishing a sense of place for the resultant project. The authors have worked for both owner development teams and design/build contractor teams. As a result, they have been able to both contribute and respond to design guidelines, thereby putting theory into practice. The end result is to use context sensitive approaches to provide road facilities that are attributes to communities and are operationally safe, implementable and affordable. This paper describes the rational for the development of guidelines, the requirements of design/builders and the challenges of successful implementation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".