Toward Equitable Transit: Examining Transit Accessibilityand Social Need in Toronto, Canada, 1996-2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The location of transit infrastructure distributes publicly-funded benefits to residents throughout a region. However, these benefits are not always distributed equally among different population groups. This research seeks to determine whether the benefits of Toronto’s public transit system are equitably distributed, and how these benefits change from 1996 to 2006 after the implementation of several transit projects in the region. The authors develop a methodology using a social indicator based on census tract level socio-economic characteristics to measure the relationship between social disadvantage and accessibility to jobs and transit travel time in the Toronto region over time. Transit equity is examined at three levels: spatially, temporally, and by job type. The authors find the range in accessibility and transit travel time narrows over the 10 year period. In addition, the most socially disadvantaged census tracts have statistically significantly better accessibility and lower transit travel times relative to the rest of the region in both 1996 and in 2006. Our findings show that Toronto has a generally equitable transit system that benefits those in social need, who are likely to gain the most from transit. The methodology proposed presents a useful way to bring issues of social equity directly into the land use and transportation planning process.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".