MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113902708 · doi:10.1016/j.urbmob.2025.100174

Proximity planning for urban electrification: Walkable access to EV charging infrastructure in Montreal

2025· article· en· W7113902708 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Mobility · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsEquity (law)Software deploymentPublic transportWalkabilityLand-use planningPopulationLand useSpatial planningUrban planningTransportation planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As cities pursue low-carbon mobility transitions, equitable access to electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure remains a persistent planning challenge, particularly for aging populations with reduced mobility. This study evaluates walkable access to public EV charging stations on Montréal Island, with a focus on elderly care facilities, highlighting that equitable, age-sensitive charger placement is increasingly vital as the city’s aging population risks being overlooked in current infrastructure planning. Using GIS-based spatial analysis, we model accessibility to public EV charging infrastructure for both the general adult population and older adults, applying age-adjusted walking speeds within a 15-minute threshold. The results show that walk-up accessibility is systematically lower for older adults and is strongly associated with median age and the spatial concentration of urban amenities. We identify “double-burden” zones where demographic vulnerability (higher shares of older residents) intersects with infrastructure gaps, underscoring the limitations of proximity-based planning when it is decoupled from equity considerations. Building on these findings, our focused analysis of elderly care facilities and their surrounding walkable environments exposes a critical infrastructure gap: nearly half of these sites have no public EV charging stations within a reasonable walking distance. To inform targeted interventions, we overlay areas of poor charger accessibility with point-of-interest (POI) density and apply a simple greedy siting heuristic, identifying priority zones for deployment that maximize both need and broader community benefit. To contextualize these disparities, we develop a causal loop diagram that links charger deployment, equity objectives, and market dynamics, framing policy levers for equity-based planning of EV charging infrastructure. This research offers a transferable framework for cities aiming to align EV infrastructure with inclusive, proximity-based urban planning goals, ensuring that the electrification transition does not leave aging populations behind

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban MobilitySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207