Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1976, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) compiled their first Handbook of guidelines and methods for evaluating development-level transportation impacts, specifically vehicular impacts (Institute of Transportation Engineers 1976). Decades later, these methods--essentially the same as when they were originally conceived--are used ubiquitously across the US and Canada. Only recently, with the guidelines in its third edition of the ITE's Trip Generation Handbook (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2014) new data and approaches have been adopted--despite substantial evidence that questions the accuracy of older data, automobile bias, and lack of sensitivity to urban contexts. This dissertation contributes to this literature by focusing on the data, methods, and assumptions so commonly included in development- or site-level evaluation of transportation impacts. These methods are omnipresent in development-level review--used in transportation impact analyses or studies (TIAs/TISs) of vehicular or mode-based impacts, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and estimates of emissions, scaling or scoping development size, and evaluating transportation system development, impact or utility fees or charges. However, few have evaluated the underlying characteristics of these foundational data--with few exceptions--this manuscript takes aim at understanding inherent issues in the collection and application of ITE's data and methods in various urban contexts. This manuscript includes a compiled dissertation, four papers written consecutively. The first, evaluates state-of-the-art methods in Chapter 2--identifying gaps in the literature. Two such gaps are explored in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. In Chapter 3, a larger implicit assumption present in ITE's methods--that the existing land-use taxonomy is an optimal and accurate way to describe land use and segment data. Results indicate a simplified taxonomy would provide substantial reductions in cost corresponding with a minor loss in the model's explanation of variance. Following, Chapter 4 explores a common assumption that requires ITE's vehicle trips be converted into person trips and applied across contexts. The results point to the need to consider demographics in site-level transportation impact analysis, particularly to estimate overall demand (person trips, transaction activity) at retail and service development. In Chapter 5, the findings from this research and previous studies are extrapolated to evaluate and quantify the potential bias when temporal, special, and social contexts are ignored. The results indicate the compounding overestimation of automobile demand may inflate estimation by more than 100% in contexts where ITE should be applicable (suburban areas with moderate incomes). In the conclusions (Chapter 6), the implications of this work are explored, followed by recommendations for
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 | 0.050 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".