Affordability, Transit, And Housing: A Case Study Of Vivanext On Yonge Street In Richmond Hill And Newmarket
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The GTA has experienced population growth in the past decade, and the majority of this growth is attributed to immigration. As municipalities push for more sustainable ways to travel, it is crucial that it is done in a just and equitable manner that caters to the diversity in cities. This includes cost effective means of travel for children, the elderly, families, low income communities, people with disabilities, and also the working population. There are many overlaps in these groups and they should not be considered as separate groups, for instance a working woman may have low income or high income. To fully harness the benefits of transit systems, walkable, compact and mixed use developments in proximity to transit stations have been suggested in the form of Transit-oriented Development (TOD). \n \nTransit and housing are big indicators of affordable neighborhoods. TOD has added to the equation of affordability in YR because of the low numbers of affordable housing along major transit corridors and Stations. York Region is becoming highly unaffordable, especially for low and moderate income earner. Policy solutions should not only cater for low income families but also alleviate the challenges of moderate income earners who spend more than 50% of their household income on housing. Affordability affects overall livelihood of families especially those with high risk of homelessness. \n \nThrough a case study of the environmental justice implications of Vivanext bus rapid transit Yonge Street - Richmond Hill and Newmarket in York Region, it is evident that there is a connection between transit, housing and poverty, a connection that does not get much attention in urban planning in Canada. Environmental Justice (EJ) offers a framework to analyse the current transportation planning practices. Environmental justice incorporated in planning for transit is usually applied to communities with low income or those with minorities, but is it applicable in the mostly affluent York Region? The paper explores the tenets of power in urban planning and unconventional avenues for negotiating power and the sources of power. The Right to the City framework uses "rights" to fight injustices that are usually dictated by minority elite. Claiming one's right in place making creates avenues to challenge power, contest decisions and realizing the right to the city. All these frameworks are insufficient independently but can inform one another to understand and challenge current power relations that claim invincibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".