Transit-oriented development and bikeability: Classifying public transport station areas in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit-oriented development (TOD), characterized by a high and mix development around public transport stations, is gaining traction as a sustainable way to support the use of public transport for regional trips and active transport for local trips. To support integrated land use and transport planning, several TOD typologies have been developed, with a focus on land use and transport characteristics, and more recently walkability. While TOD aims to motivate the use of active modes, including cycling, assessments of bikeability have been left out of TOD typologies. To fill this gap, this study seeks to develop a bicycle-oriented TOD typology that combines indicators related to the cycling environment with traditional land use and transport indicators. Using Montreal, Canada as a case study , 14 indicators are generated to develop a TOD typology oriented on bikeability and the 114 public station areas are grouped into seven distinct clusters. The results demonstrate that the addition of bikeability criteria to the TOD typology helps discriminate the different types of stations based on their current bikeability and bikeability potential. The proposed framework enables identifying and prioritizing targeted interventions to station development. This study is of relevance to planners and researchers aiming to integrate cycling in the development of TOD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".