Sustainability Assessment Framework for Urban Transportation Combining System Dynamics Modeling and GIS; A TOD and Parking Policy Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban transportation systems face increasing pressure to reduce car dependency and greenhouse gas emissions while supporting sustainable growth. This study addresses the lack of integrated modeling approaches that capture both spatial and temporal dynamics in transport planning. It develops a novel framework combining System Dynamics (SD) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to assess the sustainability of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) strategies and parking policies in two brownfield redevelopment sites in Montreal. The framework embeds spatial metrics, such as proximity to transit, parking availability, and active transportation infrastructure into dynamic feedback loops. Using scenario analysis, the study compares a baseline reflecting current norms with an intervention scenario emphasizing higher density near transit, reduced parking ratios, and improved walkability and bike infrastructure. The results suggest that aligning TOD principles with targeted parking limits and investments in active mobility can substantially reduce car ownership and emissions. While primarily conceptual, the model provides a foundation for location-sensitive, feedback-driven planning tools that support sustainable urban mobility.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it