Employer-paid transit subsidies and travel behaviour: Experimental evidence from Vancouver hotels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report findings from an experimental study of the impacts of employer-paid transit subsidies on workers at downtown hotels in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Partnering with the union and management of seven hotels, the regional transit agency and city government, we collected representative surveys of commuting behavior in three waves, each six months apart, in 2018 and 2019. Four of the hotels had offered a 15% transit subsidy prior to the study. We grouped six of the hotels in three similarly located pairs with the same initial subsidy condition. After the first survey wave, we provided an experimental subsidy at four hotels: 25% at one hotel in each of three pairs, and 15% at the seventh hotel. After the second survey we further increased the subsidy to 50% at two hotels. The larger the transit subsidy offered, the more employees become transit riders and the more transit-only commuting increased. Overall, a modest increase in transit-only commuting was accompanied by a reduction in auto-only and auto-and-transit commuting. It appears that transit subsidy acceptance and effectiveness can be dampened by factors such as the availability of cheap parking, or greater distance between the workplace and rapid transit, leading to variability in outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".