Coordination of transportation and land use planning : a case study of Greater Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the coordination between transportation and other aspects of land use planning. This purpose is achieved through studying transportation planning and decision making in light of general overall metropolitan planning. Transportation planning is defined as a process for addressing societal concerns while attempting to meet the demands for transport made by the populace. Decision making is the final result of this process. In developing a model of the interrelationships between transportation and land use, this thesis examines theoretical literature and international examples. This examination illustrates benefits of transportation / land use coordination, such as the mutual support they can provide one another when pursuing similar policy objectives. The literature studied highlighted these relationships while acknowledging the unknown nature of causalities. In relation to the coordination of transportation and land use policy, planning and decision making, only the technical aspects should be achieved through disciplinary isolation. A two-example case study of transportation planning and decision making within Greater Vancouver is introduced with a discussion of the past thirty years of regional transportation planning and with a look at the Livable Region Program. This provides the context within which transportation planners of today must work. The case study utilizes interviews with planning staff members from agencies and municipalities with interest in the two major transportation facilities examined. The first example is the Alex Fraser Bridge over the Fraser River which was opened to automobile traffic in September of 1986. The second example is the possible future extension of rapid transit into Coquitlam, a facility which the provincial government has not yet committed itself to building. It is concluded that the Alex Fraser Bridge example does not support the policies of the Livable Region Program while the Coquitlam rapid transit example does. Furthermore, neither example supports the notion that the Livable Region Program is coordinated with transportation planning in Greater Vancouver. The final conclusion is that no coordination is apparent between the planning and implementation of regional transportation facilities and regional planning goals within Greater Vancouver. The transportation decisions analyzed in this thesis have been imposed upon the region by the provincial government. Promotion of regional goals by these transportation facilities is seen to result from similar objectives within different agencies rather than from coordination of planning between those agencies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".