The impact of planning policies on bicycle-transit integration in Calgary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts to manage Canadian cities through smart growth policies emphasize the importance of integrated public transit system and bicycle-transit integration. The goal of this paper is to review the impact of planning policies that promote utilitarian cycling on the provision of bicycle facilities (pathways, bikeways and parking) in Calgary. The focus is on new suburban communities built since the 1990s, where new policies and standards affecting cycling have been implemented. The methodology draws on literature review, content analysis of major planning policies affecting utilitarian cycling, GIS spatial analysis of three case study areas and key informant interviews to holistically assess levels of bicycle-transit integration in Calgary. The research applies a straightforward and relatively robust framework for analysis of bicycle-transit integration using a number of quantitative indicators to assess levels of provision/accessibility and connectivity in transit commuter zones. The spatial analysis confirms that newer communities have better developed commuter-oriented cycling networks, bicycle facilities and integration with the light transit system compared to older ones. Despite area-specific challenges, findings indicate that the shift in planning policies in Calgary has a positive impact over the level of provision of bicycle infrastructure, which have the potential to increase utilitarian cycling in the future.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".