SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICIES: CASE STUDIES AS EVIDENCE FOR A SAFETY CONSCIOUS PLANNING AND DESIGN APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the methodology used for the development of a proactive safety program for the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario, Canada (Durham) commencing with a network screening of sites with potential for safety improvements and progressing into a detailed safety assessment comprising of office and site investigations. Two case studies were assessed in terms of safety and their relationships with access management. iTRANS Consulting Inc. and Durham identified site-specific safety-related issues that resulted from existing traffic movements and mix, traffic operations, road geometry and adjacent land-use, and proposed potential alternative measures to prevent collisions in the future. The case studies demonstrate a higher occurrence of collisions at access points, specifically those that are not in compliance with Durham's Draft Access Management Policies, 2001. There are direct costs related to non-compliance with access policies. These costs can be attributed to the property damage, hospital costs, and lost employment productivity from vehicle collisions. Furthermore, for more serious collisions, there are quality of life costs that relate to injuries, permanent disabilities and loss of life. Often the benefits of safety related improvements are substantially higher than their capital and operating costs of implementation. For all communities, there are opportunities for safety related benefits through a proactive approach by the enforcement of access management policies at an early stage in the planning and design processes in order to prevent future development resistance against policy implementation, and while there are roadway and land-use planning opportunities before construction.
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 | 0.040 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".