Rapid transit, transit-oriented development, and the contextual sensitivity of land value uplift in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid transit projects that increase accessibility should result in a localised land value uplift (LVU) benefit for locations near stations. A rich history of research has tested this hypothesis, generally operationalising transit accessibility by proxy through distance from a transit station. However, a growing body of research has also demonstrated LVU effects from transit-oriented development (TOD) as individuals sort themselves into locations that best match their preferences and willingness to pay. Considering the interdependence of transportation and land use in the urban system, we argue that these benefits create a spatial bundle of TOD goods around transit stations and hypothesise that households are willing to pay a premium for locations in more transit-oriented station catchment areas. Utilising latent class analysis, we quantify station area TOD submarkets. Next, interactions between these submarkets and station proximity in spatial hedonic regressions reveal that TOD is capitalised into land values in Toronto, though the maximum amount and spatial impact area of this capitalisation differs by TOD context.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".