Freeway Interchange Planning: A Public Involvement Success Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For planning of major transportation projects, technical analysis is important, however public engagement is playing an increasingly critical role in the development and acceptance of technically complex transportation infrastructure. Over the past two years, the City of Edmonton has completed a freeway interchange planning project for Yellowhead Trail using a collaborative approach with area stakeholders. This approach stemmed from a desire to develop a technically feasible conceptual plan while building understanding and support from area stakeholders. The bulk of the planning study was completed by in-house City staff. To aid in some of the more technically complex aspects of the planning study, the City retained the services of a consultant to advise the team through the technical details of developing and refining interchange options. Additionally, a public involvement consultant was retained to support public engagement and communication aspects of this project. The study area is currently fully developed and most interchange configurations have the potential to impact numerous operating businesses. The project team designed a program to allow area stakeholders to participate during the development, refinement, and selection stages of the interchange planning process. This approach was used as a means of reducing potential public and political backlash that may result from large, transformative projects. Throughout the study, the project team worked with a group of area stakeholders assembled to provide the City with input to aid in decision making processes. Over a series of workshops, the stakeholder group was educated regarding interchange planning, discussed site-specific issues, developed and reviewed options, prepared evaluation criteria, and assisted the City in refining and narrowing down options. The process successfully solicited input from stakeholders and ultimately resulted in understanding and general agreement with the recommended option. A unique solution was arrived at for the area which balances the needs of the City with the needs of area stakeholders. This solution may not have been selected through a traditional planning process. The public engagement process utilized in this planning study has provided insight and valuable lessons learned that will be implemented in future studies to enhance public engagement.
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 | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".