Critical Parameters Governing the Planning of Calgary's Airport Trail as an Effective East-West Corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With Calgary Airport's (YYC) growing passenger base bringing expansion of the passenger terminal and a fourth runway, the City of Calgary (City) had to decide whether to have the crossing through road, Airport Trail, to run as a continuous uninterrupted roadway; as the newly constructed runway will break Airport Trail into a discontinuous corridor. In February 2011, the decision was made by City Council to make Airport Trail continuous with a sub-lease agreement negotiated with YYC initiating the design and construction of the tunnel, along with a functional planning study of Airport Trail which this paper discusses. The planning of the corridor was atypical of standard freeway facilities. A major design challenge encountered in the study was a change in Airport Trail's roadway classification from an arterial, which has more relaxed access and movement provisions, to the reclassified skeletal standard, which emphasizes on free-flow movement and on enhanced access management. Additional modelling effort was required at the onset of the study in order to allow Airport Trail to be designed to applicable volumes. Additionally, specific attention was required at constrained locations which involved geometric design decisions to provide safer and more efficient operations. Constraints include tunnel proximity, integrating high vehicle volumes and balancing the right-of-way requirements for vehicle and LRT inside the tunnel. As well, the design of Airport Trail was to be integrated with existing infrastructure including the construction of airport infrastructure. Challenges encountered during the study are outlined and their solutions described including lessons learnt from the project. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".