Design Guidance for Channelized Right-Turn Lanes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report documents and presents the results of research to develop design guidance for channelized right-turn lanes. Observational field studies were conducted at 35 intersection approaches in cities to assess pedestrian crossing behavior, motorist yield behavior, and the interaction between pedestrians and motor vehicles at channelized right-turn lanes. Simulation modeling was performed to quantify the traffic operational benefits of channelized right-turn lanes with various types of traffic control and to compare the delay reduction of channelized right-turn lanes and conventional right-turn lanes. Crash data for nearly 400 intersection approaches in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, including intersection approaches with channelized right-turn lanes, conventional right-turn lanes, and shared through/right-turn lanes, were analyzed to compare the safety performance of the three right-turn treatment types. The research results indicate that channelized right-turn lanes have a definite role in improving operations and safety at intersections. However, to achieve these benefits they should have consistent design and traffic control and should be used at appropriate locations. The research provides design guidance for channelized right-turn lanes that addresses geometric elements such as crosswalk location, special crosswalk signing and marking, island type, radius of turning roadway, angle of intersection with cross street, acceleration and deceleration lanes, and traffic control.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it