The rapid advance of smart cities increasingly depends on trajectory data mining, yet underrepresented demographic groups, particularly the elderly, are often sparsely represented in public mobility datasets. This underrepresentation can introduce systematic bias into mobility modeling and downstream urban planning. Using the 2016-2020 Jersey City subset of the Citi Bike System Data, this study quantitatively examines how the absence of underrepresented subgroups' mobility signatures affects mobility modeling, using synthetic trajectory generation as a case study. The analysis reveals that elderly riders exhibit a structurally distinct mobility signature, including localized activity spaces (958 m vs. 1,189 m for young riders), lower mobility entropy (1.82 vs. 4.15), and asymmetric off-peak temporal patterns. To demonstrate that relying on majority-dominated training data yields biased synthetic outcomes, we further evaluate both a first-order Markov chain and a Qwen3-4B model fine-tuned with QLoRA across three demographic training settings: the full population, young riders only, and elderly riders only. Results show that models trained on majority-dominated populations systematically misrepresent elderly mobility behavior, particularly for spatial mobility metrics. The Markov model trained on the full population overestimates elderly step length by 4.5% and dwell time by 8.9%, whereas the elderly-specific model achieves substantially lower errors across most metrics. Comparisons between the Markov and LLM-based frameworks further show that higher-capability models do not necessarily improve subgroup-level fidelity under limited demographic data. These findings underscore the importance of demographic representation in mobility modeling and its downstream applications for underrepresented populations.
Problem, Research Strategy, and Findings: The rise of large language models (LLMs) raises a key question for urban planning: which forms of professional planning knowledge can AI replicate, and which still require human judgment? Although AI tools are increasingly used in planning practice, there is still no systematic framework for testing whether they can reason with the contextual sensitivity, value awareness, and institutional literacy central to planning expertise. This paper introduces Urban Planning Bench (UPBench), a domain-specific evaluation framework that assesses LLM reasoning through a 4x5 matrix of four knowledge pillars and five cognitive levels adapted from Bloom's revised taxonomy. Evaluating 25 LLMs with automated scoring and expert review, we find a non-monotonic cognitive curve: models perform better on higher-order analytical tasks than on factual recall and integrative judgment. This suggests that planning knowledge often treated as lower-order is deeply shaped by institutional, jurisdictional, and temporal context, making it hard for LLMs to generalize. We summarize these limits as four epistemic diagnostics: regulatory hallucination, conceptual conflation, wickedness paralysis, and phronetic deficit. Takeaway for Practice: The findings support differential delegation in planning. LLMs can assist with cross-disciplinary synthesis, literature review, scenario generation, and preliminary policy analysis. However, they remain unreliable for jurisdiction-specific regulation, normative conflict resolution, and context-sensitive procedure. Agencies should require verification for AI-assisted regulatory analysis, while planning education should emphasize institutional literacy, normative judgment, and contextual sensitivity.