MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156029825 · doi:10.1080/01441647.2021.1912849

Economic impacts on local businesses of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure: a review of the evidence

2021· review· en· W3156029825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamey Volker, Susan Handy

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Air Resources Board
KeywordsPedestrianBusinessTransport engineeringEconomic impact analysisTransport infrastructureFinancePublic economicsEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local officials in North America frequently face opposition to new or expanded bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The most vocal opponents are usually motorists and local business owners who fear that the removal of or reductions in vehicular parking or travel lanes will reduce patronage from motorists and that any increased patronage from pedestrians or cyclists will not offset the lost revenues. A lack of direct evidence on the economic impacts of facilities on local businesses has made it difficult to support or debunk such fears. A lack of quantitative evidence in particular has prevented the incorporation of such impacts into cost–benefit analyses. The issue has received enough attention from researchers in recent years that a review of the evidence is now warranted. We reviewed the relevant literature and identified 23 studies, focusing on the US and Canada, that either (1) quantified and compared consumer spending between active travellers and automobile users (n = 8), or (2) quantified an economic impact to local businesses following the installation of bicycle or pedestrian facilities (n = 15). Taken together, the studies indicate that creating or improving active travel facilities generally has positive or non-significant economic impacts on retail and food service businesses abutting or within a short distance of the facilities, though bicycle facilities might have negative economic effects on auto-centric businesses. The results are similar regardless of whether vehicular parking or travel lanes are removed or reduced to make room for the active travel facilities. The studies also highlight best practices for designing future research. Ten of the 15 studies that quantified an economic impact to local businesses used both before-and-after data and comparison sites or other statistical controls for variables unrelated to the active travel facility “treatment;” six of those used statistical testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransport ReviewsSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207