Does compact development increase car use among car users?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the goals of compact urban development is to reduce driving and increase the use of sustainable modes of transportation (public and active transport). Nonetheless, the reduced travel distances associated with compactness may lead to two potential outcomes for car users: encouraging them to increase the use of sustainable forms of transportation or encouraging them to increase car trip frequency. We analyze car users in Montreal, Canada, from two perspectives: 1) “observed car users”, who made at least one trip using a private car on the day of the survey and 2) “potential car users”, who hold a driving license and reside in a household with a private vehicle, regardless of whether they used it on the survey day. To assess the impact of urban compactness on car trip frequency, sustainable trip frequency, and Vehicle-Kilometers Traveled (VKT), we conduct two distinct analyses—one for observed car users and another for potential car users— using instrumental variable regression. We find that though compactness marginally increases car trip frequency among observed car users, their overall car use is substantially decreased. A 10 % increase in compactness results in a 0.62 % marginal increase in observed car users' auto trips, 26 % substantial increase in sustainable mode trips, and 10 % decrease in VKT. A 10 % increase in compactness results in a 3.2 % reduction in potential car users' car trips, 25 % increase in sustainable mode trips, and a 14 % reduction in VKT. The findings' policy implications for accomplishing sustainable mobility, Montreal's target for 2050, are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".