Valuation of travel time reliability: a review of current practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report introduces key methodologies and the associated challenges with regards to defining and measuring travel time reliability, in particular, for improving the valuation of travel time in project appraisal by Australian jurisdictions. The numerous studies undertaken in the past internationally and in Australia have been based on existing theories, concepts and definitions; and in existing models and estimation methodology of travel time reliability/ variability. The consensus at the international meeting on ‘value of travel time reliability and cost-benefit analysis’ in Vancouver (November 2009) was that current methodologies are not the most appropriate for analysing travel time reliability/variability; however, they should be used until better methods are developed. The issues and challenges reflected in the findings of this report constitute useful input and a starting point for the work that may be required in Australia to improve on the way of valuing travel time and the importance of the travel time reliability concept. This is an important area of research as travel time savings have tended to dominate economic appraisals of road projects. Estimates of these savings affect decisions about the allocation of available funds between rural and urban roads and between new construction and rehabilitation/ maintenance of existing road networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".