UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Work trip lengths within the Greater Vancouver Region 1978

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1978_A6_7 A33.pdf
UBC_1978_A6_7 A33.pdf
UBC_1978_A6_7 A33.pdf [ 7.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0094265.json
JSON-LD: 1.0094265+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0094265.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0094265+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0094265+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0094265+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0094265.ris

Full Text

WORK TRIP LENGTHS WITHIN THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGION by KWASI KWAFO ADARKWA B.Sc. (Hons.) University of Science and Technology Kumasi, Ghana, 1975 A THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1978 © Kwasi Kwafo Adarkwa, 1978 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . School of Community & Regional Planning The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 2 4 M a y 1 9 7 8 i i ABSTRACT The study examines the " L i v i n g Close to Work" p o l i c y within the Greater Vancouver Region. S p e c i f i c a l l y i t investigates the e f f e c t s this p o l i c y would have on work t r i p lengths within the region. A review of relevant l i t e r a t u r e and empirical research reveals factors which could influence work t r i p lengths within the Greater Vancouver Region. Among these factors are c i t y s i z e , l o c a t i o n of residences and workplaces, and income. Data f o r the study were taken from the Vancouver Area Travel Study and the 1971 Canada Census. Data on work t r i p lengths were obtained from the Vancouver Area Travel Study f i l e s and data on labour force:job r a t i o s and average household incomes from the 1971 Census. Regression analysis was used to investigate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between work t r i p lengths and labour force:job r a t i o s and work t r i p lengths and average household incomes. A des c r i p t i v e analysis of work t r i p length c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r downtown and non-downtown employment centers was used to study how t r a v e l and job l o c a t i o n are r e l a t e d . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n establishes that: a) people who l i v e i n high income subareas of the Lower Mainland t r a v e l no le s s and no more than the population as a whole i n going to and from work; b) mean and median t r a v e l times to the suburban centers are shorter than the corresponding figures to the downtown workplaces; c) between 1965 and 1972 mean work t r i p distances to non-downtown locations increased f a s t e r than the mean work t r i p distance to the i i i downtown; d) areas with high labour force:job ratios tend to have long work trip lengths; e) average work trip length in Greater Vancouver and the trip length frequency distribution for Greater Vancouver appear quite typical of those for moderate and large ci t i e s . The implications of these conclusions for the "Living Close to Work" policy for the region are worked out. The study suggests that this policy w i l l not result in a substantial reduction in work trip travel distance. However, there are indications that i t w i l l result in worthwhile work trip travel time savings as well as other benefits. An area for further research is suggested and observations made on data requirements for such a study. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . v LIST OF FIGURES v i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY 1 Introduction 2 Approach and Methodology 3 Organization of the Study 4 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 6 Introduction 7 City Size 7 Place of Residence 12 Job Status or Income 13 S ummary 15 3 ANALYSIS OF VATS AND THE CENSUS DATA 17 Introduction 18 Methodology 18 Section A - Work T r i p Lengths Within the GVRD 21 Section B - Relationship between Factors 46 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 55 Introduction 56 Section A - Summary of Findings 56 Section B - Conclusion 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY 62 APPENDICES 1 Place of Residence/Place of Work Matrix 67 2 Summary of Work T r i p Length Measures f o r the Geographical Areas . . . . 81 3 Travel Distance Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Major Employment Centers 93 4 Travel Time Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s for Major Employment Centers 105 V LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 Comparison of Work T r i p Length D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Vancouver and Chicago 9 2 Average Work T r i p Length Data, Selected SMSAs 10 3 A Comparison of Home Based and Non-home Based Work T r i p Lengths 25 4 A Summary of S t a t i s t i c a l Measures f o r the Various Work T r i p s . 28 5 Mode of T r a v e l to Employment Centres 38 6 A Comparison of Average Work T r i p Lengths f o r the Vancouver Region from Three Studies 45 v i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Scattergram of Average Work T r i p Length and City Size . 11 2 Sub-areas Used f o r S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 19 3 Labour Force:Job Ratios f o r the Geographical Areas of the Region 22 4 Mean Work Tr i p Lengths f o r Geographical Areas of the Region 23 5 Work Trip Distance P r o f i l e s f o r the GVRD 27 6 Work Tr i p Travel Time P r o f i l e 29 7 Cumulative Frequency Plot f o r Home Based Work Tr i p Travel Time 30 8 Time P r o f i l e for Male and Female Workers 31 9 Mode of Travel f o r a l l Home Based Work Trips 33 10 Modal Choice of Travel by Sex 34 11 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Work Trips by Trip Length . 36 12 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Work Trip Travel Times . . . 37 13 O r i g i n of Work Trips to Downtown 40 14 Or i g i n of Work Tr i p s to Surrey 41 15 O r i g i n of Work Tr i p s to Burnaby 42 16 O r i g i n of Work Tr i p s to Coquitlam 43 17 Or i g i n of Work Trips to Port Coquitlam 44 18 Scattergram of Travel Time and the Labour Force:Job Ratios 48 19 Scattergram of Travel Distance and.the Labour ',. Force:Job Ratios 49 20 Average Household Income by Sub-area 51 v i i Figure Page 21 A Scattergram of Mean T r a v e l Distance w i t h Mean Household Income 52 22 A Scattergram of Mean T r a v e l Time w i t h Average Household Income 53 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank my a d v i s o r s , Dr. Michael Poulton and Doug Spaeth f o r t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s . I am a l s o g r a t e f u l to Mike Patterson of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Center f o r h i s i n i t i a l suggestions and help i n " c l e a n i n g up" the Vancouver Area T r a v e l Study data f i l e s . My s i n c e r e thanks a l s o go to the numerous o f f i c i a l s of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t who helped me w i t h the data c o l l e c t i o n by making them r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to me. F i n a l l y , I am g r a t e f u l to the Government of Ghana f o r sponsoring my s t u d i e s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY 2. INTRODUCTION Of a l l the t r i p purposes w i t h i n North American m e t r o p o l i i , work t r i p s tend to be the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of volume, l e n g t h , time spent t r a v e l l i n g and o b l i g a t i o n . In the Vancouver Region f o r example, the journey to work i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t of a l l t r i p purposes. Data i n the Vancouver Area T r a v e l Study (VATS) show that t h i s was 30.3% of a l l t r i p s by purpose (VATS: P r e l i m i n a r y Report, 1974: 37, 38)^ and was the t h i r d l a r g e s t category of t r i p s f o l l o w i n g "to home" and r e c r e a t i o n t r i p s . Journeys to and from work tend to be long, concentrated i n time and concentrated i n space. Hence any attempt to t a c k l e the t r a f f i c problems i n Vancouver must n e c e s s a r i l y deal w i t h work t r i p s . This argument becomes even more evident when the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of work t r i p s are examined i n d e t a i l . Out of the 3,354 VATS sample t o t a l of work t r i p s generated w i t h i n the r e g i o n , 2,605 or 77% were home based and out of these home based t r i p s , about 90% took place during the peak hours, that i s 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. A f u r t h e r examination of the peak hour t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d i c a t e s that out of the t o t a l sample t r i p s w i t h i n these p e r i o d s , 80% were work t r i p s . Since t r a f f i c congestion i n c i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g Vancouver, i s most severe i n peak hour t r a v e l c o n d i t i o n s , one can e a s i l y i n f e r that a re d u c t i o n i n the volume of work t r i p s during the peak hours w i l l a l s o mean a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n to the congestion problem. So f a r , e f f o r t s which have been made i n t r y i n g to solve the problem i n c l u d e : i n c r e a s i n g v e h i c l e occupancy r a t e s by car p o o l i n g ; staggered work hours; f l e x i b l e This f i g u r e i s made up of both "home to work," "work to home" t r i p s and "on the j o b " work t r i p s . -3. work hours, and the d i v e r s i o n or r e l o c a t i o n of jobs to the suburbs. Job r e l o c a t i o n to the suburbs i s an e f f o r t to create a balance between the number of workers and number of jobs i n the various l o c a l areas of the region. I t i s hoped that t h i s w i l l lead to l e s s t r a v e l . I f these work t r i p lengths can be reduced then c e r t a i n advantages w i l l accrue to s o c i e t y . These w i l l be i n the form of savings i n energy consumption because of sh o r t e r t r i p s and l e s s use of congested f a c i l i t i e s . Another b e n e f i t w i l l be the e f f e c t the p o l i c y would have on minimizing the expenditures r e q u i r e d to provide a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y f o r r e g i o n a l t r a n s - p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s f o r peak hour use. The Regional Town Centers Programme and the d e f l e c t i o n of jobs to suburban centers w i l l , i t i s hoped, enable workers to l i v e c l o s e t o where they work w i t h major advantages to the region as described above. The programme w i l l a l s o give the workers the opportunity to l i v e c l o s e to t h e i r work, even i f they do not use the opportunity. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY In order to examine the " L i v i n g Close to Work" p o l i c y f o r Vancouver, t h i s study uses the VATS data and the 1971 Census. VATS i n c l u d e d a v a r i e t y of in f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the l o c a t i o n of both t r i p ends (from which the t o t a l work t r i p lengths could be c a l c u l a t e d ) and the t o t a l t r a v e l times. These two v a r i a b l e s were c o r r e l a t e d i n the a n a l y s i s w i t h average household incomes and labour f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s f o r groups of census t r a c t s obtained from the 1971 Census of Canada. Although VATS has s e v e r a l other c a t e g o r i e s of in f o r m a t i o n i t was not w e l l s u i t e d to t h i s a n a l y s i s . This i s because the VATS i s an 4. o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t i o n survey conducted at one p o i n t i n time i n the Greater Vancouver Region w i t h a one per cent sample. VATS' shortcomings includ e the f a c t that i t gives a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l p i c t u r e of the s i t u a t i o n at one po i n t i n time and s t r i c t l y speaking i t cannot be used i n a n a l y z i n g ;the dynamic aspects of p o l i c y i s s u e s that the t h e s i s attempts to address. This makes i t l e s s than i d e a l f o r the purposes of t h i s study. VATS was the second comprehensive t r a n s p o r t a t i o n survey of the region. The f i r s t was conducted during the e a r l y f i f t i e s and p r i o r to VATS i t was the only data base f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n planning w i t h i n the region. A c c o r d i n g l y , VATS i s the best data a v a i l a b l e , d e s c r i b i n g f o r the 26,700 sample t o t a l of a l l t r i p s w i t h i n the r e g i o n , the t r i p maker and h i s t r a v e l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These i n c l u d e o r i g i n and d e s t i n a t i o n of the t r i p , t r i p purpose, t o t a l t r a v e l time and mode of t r a v e l as w e l l as s o c i o - economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the t r a v e l l e r . The study attempts to overcome the d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e l y i n g on VATS by an a l y z i n g the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and the VATS data base together to address the question i n s t e a d of j u s t depending on the VATS data alone. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY A b r i e f and general overview of past r e l e v a n t theory and e m p i r i c a l research i s the subject of Chapter 2. This i s an overview of the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e work t r i p length. I t a l s o attempts to r e l a t e the r e l e - vant f a c t o r s to the Vancouver Region. This w i l l help i d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s which could i n f l u e n c e work t r i p lengths w i t h i n the Vancouver Region. Chapter 3 i s d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n analyzes 5, the general trip length distributions for various geographical areas within the Vancouver Region. This information w i l l help establish the general trip making patterns within the region. The second section investigates the relationship between work trip length and the labour force:job ratios for small areas within the region. This w i l l indicate whether or not any relationship exists between work trip length and the labour force:job ratios. Chapter 4 is also divided into two sections. The f i r s t section summarizes the findings of the study. The second section combines the findings of Chapter 3 with the literature and empirical research reviewed in Chapter 2.to assess the effects the "Living Close to Work" policy w i l l have on work trip lengths within the Vancouver Region. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 7. INTRODUCTION The l i t e r a t u r e review indicates that there are several factors which could be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to work t r i p length. These factors include c i t y s i z e , place of residence i n r e l a t i o n to place of work and job status or income. The l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s h e l p f u l i n s i g h t s for the Vancouver s i t u a t i o n . However, most of the studies are not conclusive so f a r as Vancouver i s concerned because they r e l a t e to large c i t i e s . This section of the study w i l l review relevant l i t e r a t u r e and assess the s i g n i f i c a n c e of conclusions drawn from this body of work for the Greater Vancouver Region. 1. CITY-SIZE Cit y s i z e often appears in the l i t e r a t u r e as a factor that may influence work t r i p length. It would seem reasonable to expect people i n small c i t i e s to l i v e closer to work and have shorter work t r i p s than people l i v i n g i n big c i t i e s . I f t h i s i s the case, then i t i s p l a u s i b l e to analyze data on work t r i p length v i s - a - v i s c i t y s i z e i n order to deter- mine whether t h i s i s i n fact true. Available l i t e r a t u r e on work t r i p length i n r e l a t i o n to c i t y s i z e presents c o n f l i c t i n g views. In 1951, a marked c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the size of a c i t y and work t r i p length (A.S.P.O., Information Report #26, 1951). The conclusion of t h i s study was that b i g c i t i e s have longer work t r i p lengths. However, i n 1968, a f t e r the a r e a l expansion and development of many c i t i e s , Lawton (1968: 22-40) claimed that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the average work t r i p lengths for four types of settlements, namely: conurbations, large boroughs, small 8. towns and r u r a l areas. A l l four had an average work t r i p length of 35 minutes duration. S u r p r i s i n g l y , an analysis and comparison of c i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t sizes confirm Lawton's claim. This i s true when one uses distance i n the measurement of work t r i p lengths. For example, i f one uses distance i n the comparison of work t r i p lengths for Chicago and Vancouver, there i s no great difference between the work t r i p length frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s (see Table 1). Chicago had an average work t r i p length of 6.72 miles to the downtown area and 5.23 miles to the job centers outside downtown (Taaffe, et a l . ; 1963: 16). The corresponding figures for Vancouver from the VATS data were 6.11 and 5.8 miles respectively. Table 2 i s the average work t r i p length data f o r ten selected Standard Metropolitan S t a t i s t i c a l Areas (SMSAs). Figure 1 shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sizes of these SMSAs and t h e i r average work t r i p lengths. The summary s t a t i s t i c s and the p l o t i n d i c a t e that there i s v i r t u a l l y no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between average work t r i p length and c i t y s i z e . This supports Lawton's claim that there i s no consistent pattern connecting average work t r i p length and town or c i t y s i z e . Vancouver's work t r i p length d i s t r i b u t i o n and average work t r i p length f a l l within the range that i s t y p i c a l f o r c i t i e s of s u b s t a n t i a l population. This analysis of work t r i p length and c i t y s i z e has indicated that there i s quite a wide spread i n the average work t r i p lengths but t h i s i s not c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to c i t y s i z e . The newer western c i t i e s seem to have longer t r i p s than older, e a s t e r n c c i t i e s and i n general they are also l e s s compact. 9. TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF WORK TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VANCOUVER AND CHICAGO I : 2~ m . ^ • Vancouver Chicago T r i p Length m Mxles ( 1 9 ? 2 ) 0 - 2 28 26.7 2 - 4 21 20.2 4 - 6 16 15.3 6 - 8 10 14.7 8 - 1 0 8 7.7 1 0 - 1 2 5 5.6 1 2 - 1 4 2 3.8 1 4 - 1 6 2 2.5 1 6 - 1 8 2 0.5 18 - 20 2 1.3 20 and longer 4 1.7 TOTAL 100% 1.00.0% 1. Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 2. 'Goodman, W.I. and E.C. Freund, P r i n c i p l e s and Practice of Urban Planning. International City Managers' Association, Washington, 1968, p. 142. 3. They are a l l s t r a i g h t distance measures. TABLE 2: AVERAGE WORK TRIP LENGTH DATA SELECTED SMSAs SMSA Miles Year of Study 2 Los Angeles (includes Orange and Venture Counties) 8.89 N/A 3 Chicago 6.62 N/A 4 Philadelphia 4.40 1960 6 San Francisco (Nine-county Area) 15.80 1965 7 Washington 7.20 1968 16 Dallas 6.20 1964 17 Seattle 8.55 1970-71 19 Milwaukee 5.11 1963 24 Buffalo 3.70 1962 26 Kansas C i t y 8.07 1970 Source: American I n s t i t u t e of Planners. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc., Urban Transportation Factbook Part 1, Where People Live, Where People Work, How People Travel. March, 1974, p. 1-19. 11. FIGURE 1: SCATTERGRAM OF AVERAGE WORK TRIP LENGTH AND CITY SIZE *« ]f T R I P L E N G T H F I L E F I CUR S C A I T E k G R t * C U T SIZE RE L AT IQN.H I PS (CREATION BATE - 05/19/791 ICGWNI TLCNGTH IACPSSI CIT l l a . 9 5 I D 5 2 . 8 5 2 J 6 6 . 7 S 2 8 8 3 . 6 5 1 ) 9 * . 5 5 1 9 0 8 . - . 5 '.Ml. SAN FRANCISCO ^Nine County Area) •SEATTLE •KANSAS CITY GREATER VANCOUVER DALLAS • MILWAUKEE 3 . 7 0 . • BUFFALO _ 1 0 3 2 . 0 3 1 5 9 5 . 9 0 2 1 J 9 . S 0 . 2 6 2 3 . 7 0 WASHINGTON 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 H P A G E 2 S U E • 5 t i l t . 2 5 5 * 5 . 1 . 15 5 9 6 < . . 0 S LOS ANGELES CKCAGO • PHILADELPHIA 3 1 3 7 . 6 0 1 6 5 1 . 5 0 A 1 6 5 . 4 0 4 6 7 9 . 1 J 5 1 9 1 . 2 J 5 7 3 7 . 1 3 6 2 2 1 . 0 0 T * 1 P L E N G T H A N D C I T Y S I Z E R E L A T I O N S H I P S S T A T I S T I C S . . C 0 R P E I A T 1 C N ( R l - S T O t K R O F E S T - 0 . 1 1 6 2 7 3 . 1 4 T A 1 R S O U A i i E D I N T E R C E P T ( A l 0 . 0 1 1 5 2 6 . C J 0 0 9 T H E R E G R E S S I O N L I N E C J T S T H E M A R G I N S O F T H C P L O T A T A V A L U F . O F 7 . 0 6 4 5 0 U N T H E L E F T M A R G I N A V A L U E O F 8 . 0 0 2 8 9 O N |K ' . R I G H T M A * G I N P L 0 1 I E O V A L U E S • 1 1 E I C L U O E O V A L U t S - S I J N I F I C A ' . C E S L O P E I B I H I S S I N " . V A L U E S 0 . 1 6 6 7 6 0 . 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . |s P R I ^ T E ' U I f • C O E F F I C I E N T C A N N O T BE C O M P U T E D . 12. 2. PLACE OF RESIDENCE The importance of work t r i p length i n r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n of house- holds has been studied over and over again i n various m e t r o p o l i i of the world. This l i t e r a t u r e includes works of V i r i r a k i s (1968), Kain (1961), Alonso (1971) and Richardson (1971). Alonso (1971) argued that r e s i d e n t i a l locations can be explained i n terms of the r e l a t i v e value placed on space by the household and the cost of the journey to work at the CBD. V i r i r a k i s (1968) explained home loc a t i o n i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t manner. After a study of the Athens Basin he concluded that there was a marked r e l a t i o n s h i p between workplace and residence. He explained t h i s i n terms of an equilibrium between the tendency to search for a more advantageous place of residence i n terms of cost, amenity and environment, and the cost of the journey to work. Kain (1961) on the other hand explained the r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n f or each worker s o l e l y i n terms of the worker's a b i l i t y to meet the cost of t r a v e l . Richardson (1971) dismissed the extreme t r a v e l cost minimization hypotheses ( i . e . the trade-off model) as advanced by Alonso and V i r i r a k i s . He stressed the importance of environmental preferences i n home lo c a t i o n choice. He argued that i f the pure r e n t / t r a v e l cost trade-off idea i s v a l i d then the r i c h who can outbid lower income groups f o r any s i t e would l i k e to l i v e near the c i t y center, close to t h e i r place of work and undertake short work t r i p s . However, t h i s i s inconsistent with empirical observation and therefore there must be other factors accounting f o r t h i s phenomenon. In the Greater Vancouver Region', the trade-off between t r a v e l and l o c a t i o n costs may be a factor i n l o c a t i o n decisions of households, but there i s evidence that the primary explanation i s to be found more i n terms of house p r i c e , amenity and l o c a l environmental fa c t o r s . The importance of these factors iSwhighlighted by the VATS data (Preliminary Report, 1974: 18) which indicate that f or 16% of the sampled households that changed residence, house siz e was an important f a c t o r and f o r another 10% q u a l i t y of dwelling was important. Other less important factors i n terms of the number of residents giving these as reasons for moving from one home to another included lower p r i c e s , good views and nearness to ce r t a i n uses l i k e shops, schools and parks. Only 9% c i t e d the fact that they wanted to be nearer t h e i r place of work as an important reason f o r moving. Work t r i p length was the fourth most s i g n i f i c a n t ' factor of consideration i n household r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n decisions. If work t r i p lengths are important i n the l o c a t i o n a l decisions of households then one would expect a marked p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between work t r i p lengths and the r a t i o of workers to jobs a v a i l a b l e i n the sub- areas. This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s examined l a t e r on in Chapter 3 of the thesis to see i f there i s further confirmation of these i n d i c a t i o n s that reducing journey to work i s a f a i r l y l l o w personal p r i o r i t y . 3. JOB STATUS OR INCOME Job status or income i s another f a c t o r which may influence work t r i p length. The basis of t h i s argument i s the fa c t that one's income w i l l determine one's a b i l i t y to overcome distance. A high job status i s usually associated with a high income and therefore the l i k e l i h o o d of such 14. a worker having a wider choice i n the l o c a t i o n of h i s residence. In addition to t h i s choice, such people normally have shorter working hours and therefore they can a f f o r d a longer d r i v i n g time to work (Hoover and Vernon, 1962: 155). Much of the work done i n t h i s respect has been r e l a t e d to large c i t i e s . (Hoover and Vernon, 1962; Daniels, 1973). For example, i n a study c a r r i e d out i n South West Chicago (Daniels, 1973: 167-88) the high income occupa- t i o n groups behaved as expected i n that they had longer work t r i p lengths than low income occupation groups. Reasons f o r t h i s included the fact, that high income workers could a f f o r d two cars and were thus be t t e r able to l i v e i n sections of the c i t y f a r from centers of a c t i v i t y , employment and p u b l i c transportation f a c i l i t i e s (Hoover and Vernon, 1962: 155). The high income groups are l i t t l e concerned with transport cost as compared to the low income/status workers. The long work t r i p lengths of the high income groups can also be explained by t h e i r preference f o r spacious l i v i n g which i s usually to be found i n new suburbs with a l o t of space per house. In a study c a r r i e d out by Hoover and Vernon (1962: 159) i n New York i t was found that commuting time to Manhattan tended to increase with higher income l e v e l , though not at a l l sharply. There was only seven or eight minutes difference i n commuting time between the highest-income f i f t h and the lowest-income f i f t h of the workforce. So f a r as Vancouver i s concerned these studies are inconclusive because they r e l a t e to very large c i t i e s . In Vancouver, there may not be such a c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job status or income and work t r i p lengths. This i s primarily because there are su b s t a n t i a l high 15. income neighbourhoods close to the CBD and at moderate and long distances from the CBD. High income workers l i v e i n West Vancouver, Shaughnessy or South West Marine Drive areas. Likewise, low income workers who l i v e i n the West End, Downtown Eastside, R i l e y Park, Fairview or Cedar Cottage l i v e at a range of distances from the dominant downtown Vancouver employ- ment center. Thus, income or status may not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to work t r i p lengths i n the Vancouver Region. Using the 1970 income d i s t r i - bution f i g u r e s and work t r i p lengths from VATS, th i s i s analyzed i n Chapter 3 of the t h e s i s . SUMMARY This overview has discussed the factors which influence work t r i p length i n metropolitan areas insofar as these can help i n determining whether the " L i v i n g Close to Work" p o l i c y proposed f o r Vancouver w i l l produce major benefits. From the published material i t appears that c i t y s i z e , job status and income are not l i k e l y to be factors i n f l u e n c i n g work t r i p length i n Greater Vancouver: the l o c a t i o n of residence and jobs may be a s i g n i f i - cant f a c t o r . Of these f a c t o r s , those f o r which data are a v a i l a b l e f o r Greater Vancouver from VATS and the Census are: income or job status i n r e l a t i o n to the work t r i p length; the r e l a t i o n s h i p between work t r i p lengths f o r t r i p s with the home end i n a sub-area and the labour force (place of residence):job (place of work) r a t i o s i n that sub-area. If there i s a marked p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p length and the number of jobs i n r e l a t i o n to the resident workers in the l o c a l area, then i t means 16. that more workers i n r e l a t i o n to jobs you have i n an area, the longer the work t r i p lengths tend to be. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between such a r e s u l t and the issues being addressed i s also simple. I f such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s found to hold i n the Vancouver Region, then i t supports the conclusion that the l o c a t i o n of jobs within the suburbs w i l l i n fact reduce work t r i p lengths, assuming other factors remain the same. Associated with t h i s w i l l be the s o c i a l benefits which w i l l accrue to society as a whole i n the form of a l l e v i a t i o n of downtown t r a f f i c congestion during the peak hours. CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS OF VATS AND THE CENSUS DATA 18. INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the importance of the various factors discussed i n Chapter 2 and how they may influence work t r i p lengths within the region. This i s done by r e l a t i n g an analysis of work t r i p lengths from the VATS f i l e s to income, labour force and job r a t i o s derived from the 1970 Census. The analysis s t a r t s with a discussion of the methodology used. This i s followed by a discussion of work t r i p lengths within the region. The re l a t i o n s h i p between the factors i s next discussed. The chapter ends with a summary of the analysis and the most s i g n i f i c a n t findings. METHODOLOGY (i) Basis of S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis The Vancouver Region was divided into a number of sub-areas that are manageable i n terms of data c o l l e c t i o n . The subdivision was necessary because, f o r example, the c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p length and labour force:job r a t i o depends on a reasonable geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n to give the s p a t i a l patterns needed. Figure 2 i s an index map showing the sub- areas which were used for the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. ( i i ) Method of Analysis Work t r i p lengths were calculated from VATS for a l l the home based work t r i p s from these sub-areas. The average household income and the various labour force:job r a t i o s f o r each of these areas were calculated from the 1971 Census data. A v i s u a l a nalysis supported by a regression analysis was then performed on the two sets of v a r i a b l e s ; work t r i p length V D 20. and income, work t r i p length and labour force:.job r a t i o s . The 1971 Census data had to be used in conjunction with the VATS data because i t was not possible to cross-match pieces of data on d i f f e r e n t VATS f i l e s . ( i i i ) Measuring Work Trip Length The l i t e r a t u r e indicated that time and distance are the two most u s e f u l measures of work t r i p length when the matter of concern i s f u l l t r i p cost. They are r e l a t i v e l y easy indices to c o l l e c t and are together s u f f i c i e n t to allow comparison of r e l a t i v e costs. In view of the fact that some e a r l i e r studies used 'as the crow f l i e s ' distance as a unit of measurement, i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to compare the r e s u l t s of these studies and the 7"- present study. Thus, i n a d d i t i o n to time and rectangular route distance the study also used the d i r e c t distance measure. Reported work t r i p t r a v e l time i s an item on the VATS f i l e and was therefore read o f f from the f i l e . Distance i s , however, not an actual item on the f i l e and had to be computed from the co-ordinates of the o r i g i n and destination of the work t r i p s surveyed by VATS. As mentioned above, the measurement of distance was done both i n terms of a rectangular distance or a :direct distance measure. The rectangular distance measure tends to be a good estimate of actual t r i p distance for short work t r i p s but the d i r e c t distance measure i s better for longer distances. Time and distance are used at d i f f e r e n t points in the study because t r a v e l time i s s e n s i t i v e to congestion and distance may better r e f l e c t other costs of t r a v e l . 21. SECTION A - WORK TRIP LENGTHS WITHIN THE GVRD (i) Work Tr i p Lengths within the Sube.areas Out of the 3,354 sample work t r i p s generated, 11 .TL of these t r i p s s tarted at home. The remaining 22.3% were on the job or business t r i p s . Appendix 1 i s a place of residence (labour force) - place of work (jobs) matrix. It gives the o r i g i n s and destinations of the sample work t r i p s . In terms of work t r i p o r i g i n s , North Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Sunset and the Hastings-Grandview Woodlands are the most s i g n i f i c a n t . In terms of work t r i p destinations or concentrations of jobs, Surrey, Richmond, the downtown and North Vancouver are the most s i g n i f i c a n t areas (see column t o t a l s i n Appendix 1). This job d i s t r i b u t i o n r e f l e c t s the populationL.size of some areas, which markedly influences r e s i d e n t i a l population serving employment, and i n d u s t r i a l concentrations in the region. Figure 3 shows the labour force:job r a t i o s f or various areas of the region. Areas with large r a t i o s include Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Surrey, Delta and White Rock and West Vancouver, a l l bedroom suburbs. Figure 4 shows the mean work t r i p lengths f o r the sub-areas of the region. These vary between 21.63 minutes (3.15 miles) for the West End and 33.2 minutes (12.96^miles)for Delta and White Rock. A cursory look at Figures 3 and 4 indicates that work t r i p lengths are longer for areas with larger labour force:job r a t i o s . The examples of Delta and White Rock, Surrey and Coquitlam i l l u s t r a t e t h i s . In these areas most workers have to t r a v e l to work outside t h e i r various places of residence and thus, the high mean work t r i p lengths (see Appendix 2 for a . ; s t a t i s t i c a l summary of work t r i p length c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) . ho to 29-3 mins or 24. If areas with large labour force:job r a t i o s tend to have long work t r i p lengths, then i n crude terms i t appears that a reduction i n the r a t i o by say increasing the number of jobs i n the various areas should have the e f f e c t of reducing work t r i p lengths. For the same work t r i p lengths, there tends to be a decline i n t r a v e l time as the distance of the home and from the CBD increases. For example, the short work t r i p length of 3.152 miles f o r West End workers was t r a v e l l e d i n 21.63 minutes on average. On the other hand the mean work t r i p length of 3.251 miles f o r Shaughnessy and South Cambie residents was t r a v e l l e d i n 13.4 minutes. This could r e f l e c t the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of a c c e s s i b i l i t y by the a l t e r n a t i v e modes of t r a v e l i n d i f f e r e n t parts of the c i t y . ( i i ) Work T r i p Lengths Within the Whole Region The work t r i p lengths within the region were broken down into home based and non-home based. Table 3 i s a summary of the various types of t r i p s and how they vary with distance. Home based work t r i p s comprise about 77.7% of the t o t a l work t r i p s and the non-home based work t r i p s make up the remaining 22.3% of the t r i p s . Home based work t r i p s vary between the recorded range of one minute (0.1 mile); and 420 minutes (48.9 miles). About 60% of the labour force l i v e d within 24 minutes of t h e i r places of work. This together with the median t r i p length of 4.285 miles goes to substantiate what the GVRD estimated to be the average work t r i p length within the region. "... Today, most people i n the region l i v e within 4 or 5 miles of t h e i r work ..." (GVRD, 1975: 15). The mean work t r i p length of 24 minutes or 6.81 miles f o r the whole TABLE 3: A COMPARISON OF HOME BASED AND NON-HOME BASED WORK TRIP LENGTHS T r i p Length A l l Work Home Based Non-Home Based In Miles T r i p s Work Trips Work Tr i p s 2 27% 24% 62% 2 - 4 21 21 12 4 - 6 16 17 11 6 - 8 10 11 6 8 - 10 8 8 2 10 - 12 3 4 2 12 - 14 3 3 1 14 - 16 2 3 1 16 - 18 2 1 1 18 - 20 1 2 1 20 - 22 1 0 0 22 - 24 0 1 1 24 - 26 0 0 - 26 - 28 1 1 - 28 - 30 1 0 - 30 - 32 1 1 - 32 - 34 1 1 - 34 - 36 0 1 - 36 - 38 1 0 - 38 - 40 0 0 - 40 1 1 - T o t a l 100% 100% 100% Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 26. region i n 1972 i s s l i g h t l y higher than the mean work t r i p lengths f o r Philade l p h i a , Dallas, Milwaukee and Buffalo (see Table 2 i n Chapter 2). Even though Vancouver cannot be compared to most of these c i t i e s i n terms of s i z e , there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the mean work t r i p lengths. Figure 1 i n Chapter 2 i l l u s t r a t e s that there i s .at best a very weak rel a t i o n s h i p between c i t y s i z e and mean work t r i p length. It also f i t s i n with Lawton's f i n d i n g that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between work t r i p lengths i n d i f f e r e n t types of c i t i e s and towns. Figure 5 shows the work t r i p length d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r both home based and non-home based work t r i p s . The " a l l work t r i p s " d i s t r i b u t i o n follows the same pattern as the home based work t r i p s but these two are d i f f e r e n t from the hon-home based work t r i p s . Non-home based work t r i p s are generally less than two miles, with a smaller number of t r i p s beyond 24 miles. On the other hand home based work t r i p s tend to be longer than non-home based work t r i p s . In p a r t i c u l a r the home based work t r i p length d i s t r i b u t i o n has a long t a i l . Table 4 i s a summary of the various s t a t i s t i c a l measures of the three ..distributions. Figure 6 shows the work t r i p t r a v e l time p r o f i l e . Figure 7 i s the cumulative frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n curve for these t r i p s . F o r t y - s i x per cent of the workers l i v e d within 15 minutes of t h e i r workplaces. Eighty-two per cent of these workers undertook work t r i p s of less than 30 minutes and i n fact 60% of these home based work t r i p s had a t r a v e l time of less than 25 minutes. Only 7% of the work force spent more than 45 minutes i n t r a v e l l i n g to work. Figure 8 i s the time p r o f i l e f o r male and female workers. There are few differences between the two d i s t r i b u t i o n s . There are r e l a t i v e l y more Fig 5- Work trip distance profiles for the GVRD- •<—Non-home based work trips Trip length (miles) Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes TABLE 4: A SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL MEASURES FOR THE VARIOUS WORK TRIPS S t a t i s t i c a l A l l Work Home Based Non-home Based Measure Trips Work Trips Work Trips Mean 6.81 Median 4.29 Standard 8.15 Deviation 7.06 3.23 4.67 1.80 7.87 4.15 Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 29. Fig 6- Work trip travel time profile- 20f Reported commuting time (minutes) Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes Fig 7- A cumulative frequency plot for home based work trip travel time- •I 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 r Y^* 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Reported commuting time (minutes) Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes Fig 8- Time profile for male and female workers 120 Time (mins) Source: VATS(1972) - Data Tapes 32. women than men who spent less than 17 minutes i n t r a v e l l i n g to work and the men generally spent s l i g h t l y longer times i n t r a v e l l i n g than women. Figures 9 and 10 i l l u s t r a t e the modes of t r a v e l to work and a break- down of the modal choice c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by sex. The s a l i e n t features are the importance of the automobile as a mode of t r a v e l to work, and the s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of females who use bus t r a n s i t , walked or t r a v e l l e d to work as auto passengers as compared to male workers. This description of t r a v e l times and mode indicates that most work t r i p s are quite short and that there i s not much difference i n t r a v e l time between men and women. There were also t i e s i n t r a v e l time as reported and hence the " z i g zag" i n the p r o f i l e as people tend to report quarter hour i n t e r v a l s . The use of t r a n s i t as a mode' of t r a v e l to work i n v a r i a b l y means waiting time and hence i t i s hard to reduce these t r i p s to 15 minutes or l e s s . Thus, i t i s not going to be easy to s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduce the t r a v e l time for the bulk of workers who use t r a n s i t . ( i i i ) Differences Associated with Work Tr i p Lengths to the CBD and : . v ; Other Employment Centers The downtown i s the center of a l l commercial and administrative functions within the region and therefore employs a s u b s t a n t i a l number of people from a l l over the region. In 1971 the downtown employed 73,000 people"'' or 35% of the region's labour force. Out of t h i s , 62% l i v e d within the City boundaries, the other 38% commuted from the other munici- p a l i t i e s . In comparison with t h i s the suburban areas including the ^ Extracted from a Special Computer Cross Tabulation Run commissioned by the GVRD Planning Department using the 1971 Population Census. 33. Fig 9- Mode of travel work trips- for all home based £70-1 <D or a +-> § 6 0 5 0 4 0 - 3 0 20+ 101 0 6 6 % <D C D C 0) CO 8 O +-> a 1Q& 00 c o 00 11% c o a i i u 2% 0) u 0 U u J_ O 10% .t: .a y o o o o. 0) o 0%i-^ ai0%0°/o 0°/Q Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 7Ci 8- 6- !! i l l ill i - IN in i i I! A U T O D R I V E R Fig 10 Modal choice of travel by sex so, AoTo male female .1-7 , f I 60S T * U C « TAXI WALK WlTCH- 6lCTtl£ H-OfCuE CAR O T w e w OKuY HIK£ FOOL Mode of travel Source: VATS - Data Tapes 35. North Shore employed 135,660 people or 65% of the region's labour force. Figure 11 i s the work t r i p length d i s t r i b u t i o n for "downtown," " a l l suburban" and "major suburban employment centers". The mean work t r i p length f o r the downtown workers was 6.11 miles and the d i s t r i b u t i o n had a median of 5.16 miles. The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n curve shows that about 18% of the workers l i v e d within two miles of the downtown area which i s e s s e n t i a l l y the area bordering the downtown and incl u d i n g the very densely populated West End. The mean t r a v e l time to a l l employment centers outside the downtown was 23.2 minutes (8.1 miles) and the d i s t r i b u t i o n had a median of 19.67 3 minutes (4.86 m i l e s ) . However the mean and median t r a v e l times to the major suburban employment centers i n Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam were 20.9 minutes (5.8 miles) and 16.68 minutes (4.96 miles) r e s p e c t i v e l y . Figure 12 i s the work t r i p t r a v e l time p r o f i l e for the three d i s t r i b u t i o n s . The above seems to in d i c a t e that e i t h e r workers i n the suburban centers l i v e d closer to t h e i r workplaces than the downtown workers or t r a v e l i s quicker outside the congested CBD. The l a t t e r i s the predomin- ant reason suggested by an examination of the mode of t r a v e l . This • reveals the r e l a t i v e importance of auto t r a v e l to the suburban centers and t r a n s i t to the downtown area (see Table 5). Auto i s generally f a s t e r than t r a n s i t and therefore t r a v e l to the suburban centers i s l i k e l y to be fa s t e r than to the downtown. 2 Extracted from a Special Computer Cross Tabulation Run commissioned by the GVRD Planning Department using the 1971 Population Census. 3 See Appendices 3 and 4 for work t r i p length frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n to the various employment centers. 36. Fig 11 Frequency distributions of work trips by trip length 0 5 10 15 20 2 5 30 35 4 0 Trip length (miles) Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 37. Fig 12 Frequency distributions of work trip travel times- M— Major employment centers outside downtown Time(mins) Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes TABLE 5: MODE OF TRAVEL TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS Employment Mode X 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Center Downtown Vancouver 48.6 10.5 27.5 0.4 0.4 - 11.0 0.6 - - 0.4 Outside Downtown 72.8 9.5 4.8 3.5 0.1 - 6.0 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 Modes: 1 Auto Driver 2 Auto Passenger 3 Bus Tr a n s i t 4 Truck 5 Taxi 6 School Bus 7 8 9 10 11 12 Walk Only Hitchhike. Bicycle Motorcycle. Car Pool Other Note: Percentage t o t a l s do not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding-off. Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 39. Both the downtown and the other employment centers have catchment areas extending a l l over the region (see Figures 13-17). The downtown work t r i p s have o r i g i n s i n v i r t u a l l y a l l the geographical areas. Work t r i p s to the suburban centers on the other hand did not have o r i g i n s from a l l over the region. This can be a t t r i b u t e d to the smaller sample sizes to the major 4 employment centers as compared to the sample of t r i p s to the downtown area. (iv) Comparison with Other Studies Table 6 i s a summary and comparison of the various work t r i p lengths within the region as presented by Wolforth (1965), Hickman (1968) and the VATS data (1972). While Hickman's study endorses Wolforth's study, the analysis using the VATS data suggests t r i p s are longer and more time consuming than i s indicated i n these e a r l i e r studies. Mean work t r i p lengths for downtown workers have increased le s s than work t r i p lengths for employment areas outside the downtown area. This trend could be explained i n terms of the pattern of job lo c a t i o n and the a r e a l growth of the region. Between 1965 and 1972 there was a l o t of p e r i p h e r a l suburban r e s i d e n t i a l development i n areas l i k e Surrey and Delta whose populations grew by 3.75% per annum and 17.28% per annum respectively.^"" The higher rate of increase i n the suburban work t r i p lengths may be explained by the f a s t e r population growth i n r e l a t i o n to the increase i n the number of jobs within the suburban areas. It can also be i n f e r r e d from this that i f work t r i p lengths within the sub-areas are to be reduced, then 4 See Appendix 3 for the various sample s i z e s . Computed from the Census figures of 1966 and 1971 for Surrey and Delta.   4^ ho 4>-  TABLE 6: A COMPARISON OF AVERAGE WORK TRIP LENGTHS FOR THE VANCOUVER REGION FROM THREE STUDIES6 Place of Employment Wolforth's Study7 Hickman's Study8 VATS Data Employed i n Downtown 4.0 miles 4.1 miles 4.74 (6.11) miles Employed Outside Downtown 3.4 miles 3.6 miles 6.20 (8.1) miles-'-0 Sample Size 825 709 2,605 Notes: Figures i n parentheses indicate rectangular measures, a l l other distances are s t r a i g h t a i r l i n e distances. ^ Wolforth's study was conducted i n 1965. He used the 1963 Vancouver City Director as the source of data. g Hickman's study was conducted l a t e r on i n 1968 and he used the same source as Wolforth. 9 The VATS data base was c o l l e c t e d i n the spring of 1972. The average work t r i p length to the major employment centers i s , however, 5.8 miles, (rectangular distance) 46. the rate of growth i n the labour force should be matched with the rate of growth in the number of jobs. Another possible explanation for t h i s difference could be because of the differences i n sample s i z e and the sources of data. The two other studies used the 1963 City Directory which covered only Vancouver, Burnaby, North and West Vancouver and contains information gathered from voluntary respondents. Wolforth, for example, took 0.78% of the resident labour force of these areas and examined the a t t r i b u t e s of the workers and t h e i r workplaces. Unlike these studies the VATS took a 1% sample of a l l the resident population within the Greater Vancouver Region i n 1972 (3,562 households) and examined the a t t r i b u t e s of the t r i p makers, t h e i r house- holds, modal choice c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t r i p record. It therefore forms a much wider and less biased data source than the Directory. SECTION B - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACTORS (i) Work Tr i p Length and Labour Force:Job Ratios Figure 3 shows the 1971 labour force:job r a t i o s f or sub-areas of the region. This r a t i o indicates the number of workers i n r e l a t i o n to the number of jobs available i n the various areas. A r a t i o of 1.0 implies that there are equal number of workers and jobs within an area. If a l l the jobs within such an area match the labour force s k i l l s then a l l the workers can work within that area and hence work t r i p lengths may be short. However, since the jobs i n an area r a r e l y f u l l y match labour force s k i l l s t h i s r a t i o i s only a crude measure of l o c a l job opportunities for an area's workers. Whether or not i t i s possible to conclude that within the Vancouver Region the higher the r a t i o , the longer the work t r i p lengths i s an important question because a major regional planning p o l i c y , balancing the number of jobs and workers i n sub-areas, i s based i n large measure on the b e l i e f that i t i s . This hypothesis i s tested f o r the Vancouver Region by performing a regression analysis on both the mean and median work t r i p lengths and the labour force:job r a t i o s f or the geographical sub-areas of the region i d e n t i f i e d i n Figure 2. Figures 18 and 19 are p l o t s of these r a t i o s i n r e l a t i o n to length as measure by the "mean times and distances". From the various s t a t i s t i c a l measures i t appears as i f t r a v e l time i s more rela t e d to the labour force:job r a t i o than t r a v e l distance. This r e l a t i o n s h i p has the highest c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n (0.3098)"'""'", which i s a measure of the extent or degree to which these two variables are related. It also has the highest c o e f f i c i e n t of determination (0.09598) which i s the v a r i a t i o n i n mean work t r i p lengths accounted for by the v a r i a t i o n s i n the labour force:job r a t i o . Only 9.6% of the v a r i a t i o n s i n mean work t r i p lengths i s accounted f o r by v a r i a t i o n s i n the labour force: job r a t i o s . This c l e a r l y indicates the importance of factors other than the labour force:job r a t i o s i n determining work t r i p lengths. These factors may include s k i l l s of the labour force i n r e l a t i o n to the jobs a v a i l a b l e , the time the jobs are a v a i l a b l e on the market and the preference of the labour force for the jobs a v a i l a b l e . Distance i s not much re l a t e d to the labour force:job r a t i o s . This i s exhibited by the wide s c a t t e r of data points and the low c o r r e l a t i o n This i s highest only i n terms of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the variables. 48. FIGURE 18: A SCATTERGRAM OF TRAVEL TIME AND THE LABOUR FORCE:JOB RATIOS' TRIP LEA'CTH R E C R C S S I O » AHALTSIS f l L E THESIS (CREATIOR H T ! • 05/11/7* ) scATTtRORAn 3 J . : o 25.28 2). 30 (Dow*) T i r t c 0.60 1.07 (ACROSS) L r jRAT IO 2.»7 2.01 3. HI 1.87 u.jci ».ai 0.37 0.81 1 .30 1.7T 2.2K 2.70 3 17 J . 6 « 5.01 TBIP LESCTH BECSESSIdll AHALTSIS STAT IST ICS . . COBkEI.ATIOH ( " » - STO ERR Of 1ST - 0.30980 «. 311»7 B S3UIHED IHTEPCEPT (A) THE RIGBESSIOI! L INE CUT= THE 1A3GIXS Or THE PLOT IT A VALUE or 21.3M7HS OH THE LEET nAJGIH 1 V/.l'Ji: Or 27.01013 OH THE RIGHT (lARttlH PLOTTED VALUES 2t EICLUUED VALOES- 0. 09518 20. a j j a s SIGBI rlCAHCE SLOPE (B) H I S S K 6 VALUES 0.0b176 1.38910 l s 1>B IU TED I f A O E r r l C I E a ? CAL HOT UE COrt?UTED. 49. FIGURE 19: SCATTERGRAM OF TRAVEL DISTANCE AND THE LABOUR FORCE:JOB RATIOS T R I P l E H G T H R E G R E S S I O N A R A L J S I S • P H I T H E S I S ( C H E A T I O R D A T E - 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 ) S C A T T E R G RAH O f (0OWH| T L E N G T H 0 . 6 0 1 . 0 7 1 . 5 » 2 . 0 0 2 . 1 7 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 3 ( A C R O S S ) L f J R A T I O 2.9H 3.HI 3 . 8 7 l a . « » 1 3 . 3 1 9 . 9 2 7 . 6 7 A . 2 8 3 . I S • o . 3 7 5 . 8 A « . 1 0 L - 7 ' 7 7 2 . 2 1 * 2 . 7 0 3 . 1 7 3.6H 0 . 11 " • i 7 I I I • I I I 8 . 7 9 T B I ? I E 5 G T S B E T I U S S i a l J .HAITSIS 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 S T A T I S T I C S . . C C t R E H T I O I I < P | - S 1 D El - B Of E S T - 0 . 1 0 2 « 3 . 0 6 C G O R S 3 U » l ! E 3 U T E R C E P T (A) - T H E P E G P E S S I 0 5 L I K E C U T S TI! K R A K U I K S OP T . l 6 P L O T » T . , , , , ) t o r 6 . ' . 2 2 ' . ' . T H E L E l T r . A C I S A l / L U K 0 7 7 . I S C ] / O I T H E R iG I I T f ! « 1 < : ! U P L O T T E D » A L ! I E 3 - 2 6 E X C L U D E D V A L ! I f S - 0 . 0 1 0 5 7 6 . H 0 I . 7 0 5 I 5 N I P I C A K C E S L O P E (U) H I S S I N G V A L U E ! I S P U U T i O I P A C O E . - f l C l E H T C A U K O T H E C O H P U T E 0 . 0. J O l ' . O 0 . 3 1 1 « 3 50. c o e f f i c i e n t (0.10283) and the extremely low c o e f f i c i e n t of determination (0.015057). Thus, time seems to be more correlated with the labour force:job r a t i o than t r a v e l distance. It mildly supports the claim that the higher the r a t i o the longer the mean work t r i p length for work t r i p s leaving a p a r t i c u l a r area. It gives s l i g h t support to the contention that one way of reducing mean work t r i p lengths i s to achieve a balance between the labour force and jobs within sub-areas of the region. ( i i ) Work Tr i p Length and Income The l i t e r a t u r e review i n Chapter 2 presented the view that income influences work t r i p length. It appears that the w e l l to do have longer work t r i p lengths than the other workers in most c i t i e s , at l e a s t i n the United States, and that the low income workers have the shortest work t r i p lengths. Is t h i s the case i n the Greater Vancouver Region? This question was investigated by analyzing work t r i p lengths from VATS of 1972 and average household incomes from the 1971 Census. Figure 20 indicates the average household incomes f or the various sub-areas of the region. A regression analysis was done using these data on income and data on mean work t r i p lengths f o r home to .work t r i p s for each sub-area. Figures 21 and 22 are the plo t s of income with time and distance. The analysis reveals that income i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to work t r i p length i n terms of e i t h e r time or distance. This i s indicated by the 2 -5 R 's of 4.0 x 10 for the r e l a t i o n s h i p between distance and income, and -3 2.13 x 10 for that between time and income. Their c o e f f i c i e n t s of -3 -2 c o r r e l a t i o n are also extremely low: 6.63 x 10 and 4.616 x 10 Ul FIGURE 21: SCATTERGRAM OF MEAN TRAVEL DISTANCE WITH MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 52. T B I P LENGTH R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S 05/19/78 PICS 8 M L E T H E S I S ( C R E A T I O N DATE • 05/19/78) SCATTERGRAII O r (DOWN) T I .1E (ACROSS) INCO.IE 7050.25 8278.75 9507. 25 107)5.75 11961.25 13192.75 10121.25 15609. 75 168H.25 1810*.75 33.20 » 15.38 13.10 • I I *. 13.90 . • . , . • . , , , . 6136.00 7661.50 8893.00 10121.50 11350.00 12578.50 13807.00 15035.50 16261.00 17192.50 18721.00 27. 26 23. 30 TBIP LEKCTB R E G R E S S I O N AM ALTSIS 05/19/78 PACE 9 STATISTICS.. COllRELATION (*)- STD t u t o r 1ST - 0.01616 1.52973 B SQUARED INTERCEPT (A) 0.00213 22. 78658 StCSlriCAHCL SLOPE (b| 0.11 HO 0.00007 THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE n i l l G I N S Or THE P L O T AT A VALUE Or 23. 20779 OH Tilt LEr T ."IARG1N A VA1UE Or 29.01183 ON THE BIGHT MARGIN PLOTTED VALOES 26 EXCLUDED IALUES- MSSIHG VALUES - IS PRINTED If 1 COtrriCIEHT CANBOT DE COMPUTED. 53. FIGURE 22: A SCATTERGRAM OF MEAN TRAVEL TIME WITH AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME TRIP L ENliTH R E G R E S S I O N A S A L T S 1 S 05/19/73 P A G E ( r u t T H L S I S ( c n e x T i o . i D « T E • o s / i 9 / ; 8 ) S C » t T E U l i B » n o r (Ddi l . l ) T L E N U T H • (1CROG5) 1.1CCME 7050.25 827H.75 1507. 25 10735. 71 11964.25 13192.75 14421.25 15649.75 16.173.2S 18106.75 1 4 . 4 4 8 . 7 9 3.15 • • I I • • 3. 15 • • • • • — • • • • • • . . . •. 6436.00 7664.50 8893.00 10121.50 11350.00 12578.50 13907.00 15035.50 16260.00 17492.50 13721.00 TBIP Litem REGRESSION ANALYSIS STATISTICS.. CORRELATION [S|- STD ER R Of EST - 0.00663 3.08231 I SOUAPED INTEBCEPT (A) THE REGRESSlm LINE CUTS THE HAHGUS Or T H E p L O T A T A » A L U L O r 6.Y7656 ON THt LETT HA PC IN A I A L U E Cr 7.05506 ON THE B I G H T nARGIN PLOTTED tALUES 26 EXCLUDED t i L U E S - 0. 00004 6. 93543 SIGNlflCANCE SLOPE |0) HISSINS TALUES 0.43717 0.6J915Z-0S .......... I s PRINTED I f A COEPrlCIENT CANNOT HE CilnpOTED. 54. respectively. However, a v i s u a l analysis of the pl o t s indicates that the low income workers generally undertake short work t r i p lengths. On the other hand the middle income workers undertake the highest work t r i p lengths and the high income workers undertake modest work t r i p lengths. As a conclusion, i t can be s a i d that even though c e r t a i n studies indicate that as income increases work t r i p lengths increase, t h i s does not appear to be the case i n the Greater Vancouver Region. CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 56. INTRODUCTION This chapter i s i n two parts. The f i r s t states the findings of t h i s study and the second discusses these findings and r e l a t e s them to the " L i v i n g Close to Work" p o l i c y to indicate the benefits to be expected from such a p o l i c y . The s p e c i f i c aspects of the p o l i c y being discussed are: 1. whether a balance between the labour force and jobs on a l o c a l area basis w i l l have the e f f e c t of reducing work t r i p lengths, and 2. whether the above strategy w i l l lead to an easing of downtown t r a f f i c congestion. SECTION A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The major findings of the study could be summarized as follows: 1. Mean and median work t r i p distances to a l l the suburban centers together are somewhat shorter than the corresponding figures to the downtown employment center. This seems to suggest that i n general terms i f employment centers are located outside the downtown work t r i p distances w i l l be shorter than those to the downtown area. This supports the proposition that one way of reducing work t r i p lengths w i l l be to decentralize jobs from the downtown area to suburban centers. 2. Mean and median work t r i p .travel times to the suburban centers are s u b s t a n t i a l l y shorter than the corresponding t r a v e l times to the down- town employment center. One i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s to the study i s the fact that even though a job l o c a t i o n outside the downtown might not lead to a s u b s t a n t i a l reduction i n t r a v e l distances, there may be s i g n i f i c a n t time savings. 3. Areas with high labour force:job r a t i o s tend to have the longest work t r i p lengths. This i s the case with Delta and White Rock, Surrey and Port Coquitlam. However, a balance of labour force and jobs i n a p a r t i c u l a r area ( i . e . a r a t i o of 1.0) does not ne c e s s a r i l y imply short work t r i p lengths. The case of North Burnaby i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s . (This area has a r a t i o of 0.99 and a mean work t r i p length of 29.54 minutes or 7.481 miles.) This suggests that a balance between labour force and jobs i n an area may not n e c e s s a r i l y lead to short work t r i p lengths i n comparison with other areas. The fact that the labour force balances the number of jobs may have l i t t l e influence on work t r i p lengths because many other conditions are required i f the jobs are to be f i l l e d by candidates who l i v e l o c a l l y . The r i g h t man must be a v a i l a b l e from the l o c a l area when a job i s vacant, must want the job, and must be preferred over a l l others applying for i t . 4. Between 1965 and 1972 mean work t r i p lengths to a l l the employment centers outside the downtown increased f a s t e r than the mean work t r i p 12 ' length to the downtown. (see Table 6). This may be a t t r i b u t e d i n part to the increase i n r e s i d e n t i a l development on the periphery of the region. One implication of t h i s i s that as the population of the areas outside the downtown increases, the mean work t r i p length also This conclusion was a r r i v e d at by comparing work t r i p lengths derived by Wolforth (1965), Hickman (1968) and VATS (1972). However, the VATS surveys were ca r r i e d out i n a d i f f e r e n t way from the two other studies. See page 46 for a discussion of the survey methodology used i n each study. 58. increases. Thus, to reduce the mean work t r i p length outside the downtown, jobs can be located i n such areas. The comparison of t r a v e l modes to the suburban centers and the downtown revealed the importance of t r a n s i t to the downtown and auto to the non-downtown employment centers. Women were also found to be heavily dependent on t r a n s i t as compared to men. This suggests that i f jobs are deflected from the downtown and located i n the suburban areas, there may be a change i n the mode of t r a v e l to work. Most workers w i l l s h i f t to the use of auto because of i t s advantages and higher q u a l i t y of t r a v e l as compared to the bus t r a n s i t . The analysis of work t r i p lengths i n r e l a t i o n to the average household incomes of the various geographical areas of the region revealed that people who l i v e i n high income sub-areas of the Lower Mainland t r a v e l no less and no more than the population as a whole to and from work. This i s at variance with the general conclusion from empirical and t h e o r e t i c a l studies that the r i c h do make longer journeys than the population as a whole. The study a t t r i b u t e s this to the fact that high income workers can f i n d high q u a l i t y r e s i d e n t i a l areas of s u b s t a n t i a l size adjacent to the CBD, i n the inner suburbs and i n the outer suburbs. Low income workers l i v e i n low-cost r e s i d e n t i a l areas and there i s a preponder- ance of these i n the inner c i t y and the journey to work from these areas i s r e l a t i v e l y short. Middle income sub-areas produce the longest work t r i p s o v e r a l l and t h i s appears to r e f l e c t the development of new, mid-priced single family subdivisions on the urban f r i n g e . 59. 7. The comparison and analysis of the various populations and mean work t r i p lengths f o r ten SMSA's and Greater Vancouver show that average work t r i p length i n Vancouver and the t r i p length frequency d i s t r i b u - tion f o r Vancouver appear to be quite t y p i c a l of those for moderate and large c i t i e s . 8. The study was able to confirm the findings of some e a r l i e r studies that mean work t r i p lengths to suburban employment centers are shorter than the mean work t r i p to the downtown. However, i t did not show that suburban employment centers draw t h e i r labour from a smaller catchment area as compared to the CBD. This was because there was no clear pattern i n the o r i g i n of work t r i p s to these two centers. They a l l seemed to have had o r i g i n s over the whole region. In general the t r i p length frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r suburban centers has a very s i m i l a r p r o f i l e to that for t r i p s to the CBD. The key differences are that more t r i p s to suburban centers s t a r t close to these centers and the d i s t r i b u t i o n i s more compact for short and medium length t r i p s . SECTION B - CONCLUSION One conclusion from the analysis was the fact that between 1965 and 1972, the increase i n work t r i p lengths to employment centers outside the CBD was p r i m a r i l y the r e s u l t of a greater increase i n r e s i d e n t i a l develop- ment on the region's periphery. The analysis also established "the f a c t that mean and median work t r i p lengths to suburban centers were shorter than the corresponding figures to the downtown. The above conclusions seem to suggest that there are two ways of 60. reducing work t r i p lengths: (i) maintaining a balance between the population (labour force) and jobs f o r both downtown and non-downtown employment centers; ( i i ) d e f l e c t i n g jobs to non-downtown l o c a t i o n s . These seem to be the legitimate bases of the GVRD's " L i v i n g Close to Work" p o l i c y which seeks to de f l e c t jobs from the CBD to the suburbs and also seeks to maintain a balance between the labour force and jobs on a l o c a l area basis. The comparison of work t r i p lengths from the three studies between 1965 and 1972 also suggests that one way of reducing work t r i p lengths i s to maintain a balance between sub-area labour force and sub-area jobs. However, the analysis of the VATS and the 1970 Census data indicated that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p length and the r a t i o of sub-area labour force and sub-area jobs. A long work t r i p length was not necessa r i l y the r e s u l t of an imbalance between the sub-area labour force and sub-area jobs. Apart from t h i s r a t i o , other factors r e l a t e d to employee s k i l l s , a v a i l a b i l i t y of jobs and preference of the workers i n an area w i l l determine whether people w i l l t r a v e l l e s s to work. There was a very s l i g h t c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p time and the r a t i o of sub-area labour force to sub-area jobs. This i n r e l a t i o n to the shorter t r a v e l times to the suburban centers as compared to corresponding figures to the downtown has an important implication f o r the study. Even though the matching of jobs to the labour force i n the sub-areas might not lead to s i g n i f i c a n t reductions i n work t r i p distances, there w i l l s t i l l be subs t a n t i a l time savings. The VATS data on work t r i p t r a v e l mode indic a t e d the o v e r a l l 61. importance of t r a n s i t and auto to the downtown and suburban centers re s p e c t i v e l y . The " L i v i n g Close to Work" p o l i c y by d e f l e c t i n g jobs from the downtown to the suburban centers may lead to a change i n the workers' mode usage. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t and for the i n d i v i d u a l t r a v e l l e r a b e n e f i c i a l s h i f t to the use of the auto because of i t s advantages and the higher q u a l i t y of t r a v e l as compared to the bus t r a n s i t . One other benefit the p o l i c y has i s the advantage i t w i l l have i n d i v e r t i n g t r a f f i c from the CBD oriented peak hour flows. The p o l i c y can therefore lead to an easing of the t r a f f i c congestion within the downtown area and the c i t y as a whole. To some degree these conclusions must be regarded as tentative because of l i m i t a t i o n s of a v a i l a b l e data. As and when data on, say, decentralized firms and o f f i c e s from the downtown become av a i l a b l e , the issue should be further examined because i t would be valuable to ascertain the e f f e c t s of the p o l i c y i n terms of the reaction of firms to moves over time. Such a study w i l l not only be an in d i c a t o r of the effectiveness of the p o l i c y but i t w i l l also indicate i t s e f f e c t on work t r i p lengths. F i n a l l y , since i t i s c l e a r that home s e l e c t i o n depends to a high degree on the s u i t a b i l i t y of the dwelling i n terms of s i z e and neighbourhood amenities, research on exactly how important these factors are i n Vancouver i s c a l l e d f o r . This research should be coupled with p o l i c y recommendations that w i l l encourage the creation of housing and amenities that f i t the desires of l o c a l area employees and i s within t h e i r p r i c e range. BIBLIOGRAPHY 63. American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s (ASPO). Information Report #26, 1951. Aucott, J.W. "Dispersal of O f f i c e s from London," Town Planning Review, 31 (1960): 37-51. Burtenshaw, D. and A. Duffet. " O f f i c e Decentralization - Ten Years Experience," The Surveyor, 143 (1974): 22-5, 21-3. Cherry, C. " E l e c t r o n i c Communication: A Force f or D i s p e r s a l , " O f f i c i a l Architecture and Planning, 33 (1970): 773-6. Daniels, P.W. " O f f i c e Decentralization from London: P o l i c y and P r a c t i c e , " Regional Studies, 3 (1969): 171-8. . "Transport Changes Generated by Decentralized O f f i c e s , " Regional Studies, 6 (1972): 273-89. . "Some Changes i n the Journey to Work of Decentralized O f f i c e Workers," Town Planning Review, 44 (1973): 167-88. . O f f i c e D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n : An Urban and Regional Study. G. B e l l and Sons, Ltd., London, 1975. Evans, A.W. "Myths About Employment i n Central London," Journal of Transport Economics and P o l i c y , 1 (1967): 214-25. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . The Livable Region, 1976/1986. Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver, 1971. . Regional Town Centers Programme. August, 1974. . "The T r a f f i c Problem," We've talked about i t f o r too long, i t ' s time we do something (pamphlet). 1975. Goddard, J.B. "Changing O f f i c e Location Patterns within Central London," Urban Studies, 4 (1967): 276-84. Goodman, William I. and E r i c C. Freund. P r i n c i p l e s and Pr a c t i c e of Urban Planning. International C i t y Managers' Association, Washington, 1968. H a l l , R.K. "The Movement of O f f i c e s from Central London," Regional Studies, 6 (1972): 385-92. . "The Movement of O f f i c e s from London," Regional Studies, 6 (1972): 387-391. 64. Hammond, E. "Dispersal of Government O f f i c e s : A Survey," Urban Studies, 3 (1967): 258-75. Hickman, Richard Michael. The Peripheral Journey to Work i n Vancouver. A thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r the degree of Master of Arts i n Community and Regional Planning, 1968. Hoover, E.M. and R. Vernon. Anatomy of a Metropolis. Doubleday and Company, Inc., New York, 1962. Johnston Associates Management Limited. Assessment of Errors i n the VATS Data Base, Report and Appendix, n.d. Jones, D.E. and R.K. H a l l . " O f f i c e Suburbanization i n the United States," Town and Country Planning, 40 (1972): 470-3. Kain, J.F. The Journey to Work as a Determinant of R e s i d e n t i a l Location. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , December 1961. Koike, Hirotaka and Paul 0. Roer. VATS, Vancouver A c t i v i t y Travel Study Preliminary Report. School of Community and Regional Planning, and Centre for.JTransportation Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, May, 1974. Koike, Hirotaka. VATS, Vancouver A c t i v i t y Travel Study User's Manual. School of Community and Regional Planning, Centre f o r Transportation Studies, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, May, 1974. Lawton, R. "The Journey to Work i n B r i t a i n ; Some Trends and Problems," Regional'Science, 2:1 (September 1968): 27-40. Lind, H.G. "Location by Guesswork," Journal of Transport Economics and P o l i c y , 1 (1967): 154-63. Manners, G. "Decentralization i n Metropolitan Boston," Geography, 45 (1960): 276-85. . "On the Mezzanine Floor: Some Reflections on Contemporary O f f i c e Location P o l i c y , " Town and Country Planning, 40 (1972): 210-15. Pappas, P. "Trip Lengths i n Relation to F a c i l i t i e s and Journey to Work," E k i s t i c s , 30:177 (August 1970): 87-89. Reeder, L.G. " S o c i a l D i f f e r e n t i a l s i n Modes of Tra v e l , Time and Cost i n the Journey to Work," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 21 (February 1956): 56-63. Rhodes, K.T.L. "Moving out of London," Town and Country Planning, 37: 68-71. Richardson, Harry W. Urban Economics. Penguin Education, 1971. 65. Taafe, Edward J . , Barry J . Garner, Maurice H. Yeates. The Peripheral Journey to Work. A Geographical Consideration, Northwestern University Press, 1963. V i r i r a k i s , J . "Place of Residence and Place of Work," E k i s t i c s , 26:152 (July 1968): 123-141. Wabe, J.S. " O f f i c e Decentralization: An Empirical Study," Urban Studies, 3 (1966): 33-55. . "Dispersal of Employment and the Journey to Work," A Case Study, Journal of Transport Economics and P o l i c y , 1 (1967): 345-361. Westergaard, J o t i n . "Journeys to Work i n the London Region," Town Planning Review, 28 ( A p r i l 1957): 37-62. Wilbur, Smith and Associates. L i v i n g Close to Work, A P o l i c y Study f o r the Vancouver Region. November, 1973 ( D. Spaeth). Wolforth, John Raymond. Work-residence Relations i n Vancouver. A thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t f o r the award of a Master of Arts i n Geography, 1965. . "The Journey to Work," Ch. 2 of Re s i d e n t i a l Location and Place of Work, B.C. Geographical Series, No. 4, 1965. 66. APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK CROSSTABULATIONS 68. Meaning of Codes Used i n Appendix 1 Code Meaning 0 Blank Records 1 UEL and Point Grey 2 K i t s i l a n o 3 Dunbar-Southlands 4 Kerrisdale and S.W. Marine 5 West End 6 Fairview 7 Shaughnessy and South Cambie 8 Oakridge and Marpole 9 Strathcona and Mt. Pleasant 10 Riley Park 11 Sunset 12 Hastings, Sunrise and Grandview Woodlands 13 Kensington, Cedar Cottage and Renfrew Collingwood 14 V i c t o r i a - Fraserview and K i l l a r n e y 15 North Burnaby 16 Central Burnaby 17 South Burnaby 18 New Westminster 19 Richmond 20 Delta and White Rock 21 Surrey 22 Coquitlam 23 Port Moody 24 Port Coquitlam 25 West Vancouver 26 North Vancouver 27 Downtown 250 Subdivision 'A' (Census Met. Area Rural Fringe) 610 U n o f f i c i a l Census Tract (Rural Fringe) PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX F I L E APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/15/761 05/19/78 PAGE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * m * * * * * m * * * * * * m * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * # * # * * # * ^ * * * * M * * PAGE 1 0 F 1 2 PLRESID PLWORK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. COLUMN TOTAL ROW TOTAL (CONTINUED) I - 0 . [ 1. 2. 3. [ 5.1 6. 7. 8 .1 9. 10.1 I 3 15 I 2 t 1 I - 1 [ 6 I 0 [ 0 [ 6 [ 0 I 52 I 5.8 I 28.3 [ 3.8 1. 9 t 1.9 11.5 0. 0 [ 0.0 [ 11.5 [ 0.0 I 2.0 I 2. 1 [ 22 .4 1 3.2 t 5.0 I 1.8 1 3.3 0. 0 0.0 . 2. 6 0. 0 I I 0.1 0.6 t 0. 1 0. 0 [ 0.0 0.2 [ 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.2 0.0 I I 1 7 I 13 2 I 3 [ 11 [ 4 1 I 6 2 I 106 I 0.9 [ 6.6 I 17. 0 1. 9 [ 2.8 10.4 3.8 [ 0 .9 [ 5.7 t 1.9 I 4. 1 I 0.7 ! 10.4 I 29.0 [ 10.0 [ 5.3 1 6. 1 8. 5 2. 7 2.3 4.2 I I 0.0 t 0.3 [ 0.7 0.1 I 0.1 0.4 I 0.2 [ 0.0 [ 0.2 0.1 I I 4 9 [ 1 1 [ 3 I 3 [ 13 [ 3 [ 3 I 3 1 3 I 90 I 4.4 [ 10.0 [ 12.2 1 3. 3 t 3. 3 [ 14.'* [ 3.3 I 3.3 3.3 [ 3.3 I 3.5 I 2.8 13.4 [ 17.7 I 15. 0 5.3 1 7.2 6.4 1 8.1 1 1.3 6.3 I I 0.2 0.3 [ 0.4 ] 0. 1 [ 0.1 [ 0.5 0. 1 0.1 0. 1 0. 1 I I 4 [ 3 [ 3 1 [ 13 7 1 2 1 3 1 1 4 3 I 115 I 3.5 ] 2.6 [ 2.6 I 0.9 [ 11.3 6.1 t 1.7 [ 2.6 12.2 [ 2.6 I 4. 4 I 2.8 ] 4.5 [ 4.8 1 5. 0 22.8 1 3.9 1 4.3 a .1 6.1 6.3 I I 0.2 0.1 [ 0.1 0.0 0. 5 I 0.3 0. 1 0.1 I 0. 5 0. 1 I I 2 3 [ 3 1 0 1 1 26 1 2 1 0 1 3 ? I 79 I 2.5 1 3.8 [ 3.8 1 0.0 1.3 32.9 2.5 0.0 I 3. 8 2. 5 I 3.0 I 1.4 1 4.5 4. 8 ] 0. 0 1.8 1 14.4 I 4.3 0 .0 1 1.3 4.2 I 1 0.1 0.1 I 0.1 [ 0.0 0.0 1 1.0 0. 1 1 0. 0 I 0. 1 0.1 I I — «. _ _r I 0 ] 3 [ 0 ] 5 1 0 1 9 6 1 1 1 3 2 I 43 I 0.0 7.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 20.9 14. 0 [ 2.3 I 7.0 1 4. 7 I I .7 I 0.0 4.5 0.0 1 25. 0 1 0. 0 5 .0 12.8 2 .7 1.3 4.2 I I 0.0 0.1 1 0.0 ] 0. 2 0.0 1 0.3 0.2 1 O.J 1 0.1 0 .1 1 I 6 1 5 4 1 1 3 1 7 4 1 12 1 7 4 I 113 I 5.3 1 4.4 3.5 0.9 1 2.7 1 6.2 1 3. 5 1 10.6 6.2 [ 3.5 I 4.3 I 4 . 1 ] 7. 5 6.5 I 5.0 [ 5.3 3.'i 8. 5 32 .4 3.0 8.3 I I 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0. 0 0.1 1 0.3 1 0. 2 0 .5 0.3 0.2 I 145 67 62 20 57 181 47 37 230 ' 48 2605 5.6 2.6 2.4 0. 8 2.2 6.9 1.3 I .4 8.8 1.8 100.0 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/19/78 PAGE 4 FILE APPENDIX I CREATION DATE = C5/19/78) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * * * * * * * * , * , , , , ! ; , , , , , * * * , , ^ , , , , , ^ PAGE 2 OF 12 PLKORK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT PLRESIC 6. 7. 8. COLUMN TOTAL RDM TOTAL (CONTINUED) I 11.1 13.1 14. 15. I 16.1 17. 1 18 . I 19.1 20.1 2 1.1 I 2 I 2 I 1 I 3 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 52 I 3.8 I 3.8 I 1.9 [ 5.8 1 1.9 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.0 i I 3.0 I 4.3 I 4.8 I 2.4 I 0.8 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I I 0.1 I 0.1 I 0. 0 0. 1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 4 I 1 I 0 I 4 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 3 I 0 I I I 106 I 3.8 1 0.9 I 0. 0 [ 3. 8 I 1.9 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2 .3 I 0.0 I 0.9 I 4.1 I 6.0 I 2.1 I 0. 0 [ 3.2 1 1.6 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 1.7 I 0.0 I 0.7 I I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0. 0 [ 0.2 I 0.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I o . i i 0.0 I 0.0 I I 0 I 5 I 2 1 I I 0 I 1 I 0 I 2 I 0 I 1 I 90 I 0.0 I 5.6 I 2.2 2.2 I 0.0 I 1.1 I 0.0 I 2.2 I 0.0 I 1. 1 I 3.5 I 0.0 I 10.6 I 9.5 1.6 I 0. 0 I 2.9 I 0.0 I 1.1 I 0.0 I 0.7 I I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.1 [ 0.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I I 1 I 1 I 1 0 I 5 I 0 I 0 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 115 I 0.9 I 0.9 I 0. 9 1 0.0 • I 4.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 6.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4. 4 I 1.5 I 2.1 I 4.8 0. 0 I 3.9 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 3 .9 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.3 I 0.0 I 0. 0 • I I 2 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 4 I 0 I 1 I 79 I 2.5 1 0.0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I. 3 I 5.1 I 0. 0 I 1.3 I 3.0 I 3.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 ] 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.3 I 2.2 I 0.0 I 0.7 I I 0. 1 I 0.0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I [ 0 1 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 2 I 43 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.3 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.3 I 0.0 I 4.7 I 1.7 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4.8 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 .6 I 0.0 I 1.4 I I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 ] 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.1 I I 5 I 1 I 0 1 2 I 3 I 0 I 2 I 10 I 1 I 0 I I 1 3 I 4.4 1 0.9 I 0.0 [ 1.8 I 2.7 I 0.0 I 1.8 I 8.8 I 0.9 I 0.0 I 4.3 [ 7.5 I 2.1 I 0.0 1.6 I 2.4 I 0.0 I 1.6 I 5.5 I 1.9 I 0.0 I I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 1 0. 1 I 0. 1 • I 0.0 I 0.1 I 0 .4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 67 47 2 1 125 127 34 123 181 52 139 2605 2.6 1.8 0.8 4. 8 4.9 1.3 4.7 6.9 2.0 5.3 100.0 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/19/78 PAGE 5 FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) PLRESID PLRESID (CONTINUED) * * * * * * * * * * * * c R O S S T ABU L A T I Oli Or * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * « * * * PAGE 3 PLWORK COUNT ROW PCT ROW COL PCT ] TOTAL TOT PCT 1 22. I 23. 24. I 25. 26 .1 27. I 71. I 250. t 610.1 1. 0 I 0 0 I 1 0 I 8 I 0 I 0 0 I 52 0.0 I 0.0 0. 0 I 1.9 0.0 I 15.4 I 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.0 I 2.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 2. 2 0. 0 I 1.6 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 2. 2 I 1 0 I 0 2 I 31 I 0 I 0 [ 0 I 1 06 1.9 I C.9 0.0 I 0.0 1.9 I 29.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4. 1 3.5 I 4.8 0.0 I 0. 0 1.5 I 6.0 I 0.0 I J .0 [ 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0. 1 I 1.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 3. 0 I 0 0 I 0 2 I 20 I 0 I 0 [ 0 1 90 0. 0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 2.2 I 22.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 I 3. 5 0.0 I 0.0 0. 0 I 0. 0 1.5 I 3.9 I 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0. 1 I 0.8 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 0.0 I 5. 0 I 0 0 I 0 1 I 46 I 0 I 0 [ 0 I 115 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.9 I 40.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 4.4 0.0 I 0.0 0. 0 I 0. 0 0.8 I 9.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0. 0 0. 0 I 1.8 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 6. 2 I 0 0 I 2 0 I 25 I 0 I 0 0 I 79 2.5 I 0.0 0.0 I 2.5 0.0 I 31.6 I 0. 0 I 0.0 0.0 I 3.0 3. 5 I 0.0 0.0 I 4.3 0.0 I 4.9 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.0 0.0 I 0. 1 0.0 I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.0 I 7. 0 I 0 0 I 1 1 I 8 I 0 I 0 [ 0 I 43 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 2. 3 2. 3 I 18.6 I 0. 0 I 0.0 ] 0.0 I 1 .7 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 2.2 O.U I 1.6 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0. 0 I 0. 0 0.0 I 0.3 I 0.0 I 0 .0 0.0 I a. 0 . I 0 0 I 1 1 I 34 I 0 I 0 [ 0 I 113 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0. 9 0. 9 I 30.1 I 0.0 I O.J 0.0 I 4.3 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 2. 2 0.8 I 6.6 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0. 0 0.0 I 1 .3 I 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.0 I COLUMN 57 21 22 46 133 513 1 1 I 2605 TOTAL 2.2 0.8 0. 8 1. 8 5.1 19.7 0.0 0 .0 0.0 100.0 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/ 19/78 PAGE 6 FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) PLRESID PLRESID (CONTINUED) * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I 0 N OF * * * * * * * * * if * * * « * * * BY PLWORK i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 4 OF 12 PLWCRK COUNT 1 ROW PCT ROW COL PCT TOTAL TOT PCT 1 -0. 1. 2.1 3. I 5 6. 7.1 8. I 9.1 10. 9. 12 2 2 I 0 t . 4 \ 18 1 I 0 I 52 1 3 2 06 5. 8 1.0 1. 0 I 0. 0 I 1.9 I 8.7 [ 0.5 I 0 .0 1 25.2 I 1.5 [ 7.9 8.3 3.0 3.2 I 0. 0 7.0 I 9.9 I 2.1 I 0 .0 I 22.6 I 6.3 0. 5 0.1 0.1 I 0.0 I 0.2 1 0.7 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.0 I 0. 1 10. 7 0 3 I 0 [ . 3 I 8 1 6 I 2 I 10 1 8 77 9. 1 0.0 3.9 I 0.0 I 3.9 I 10.4 7.8 I 2 .6 I 13.0 I 10.4 3. 0 4.8 0.0 4.8 I 0. 0 [ 5. 3 I 4.4 1 12.8 I 5 .4 I 4.3 I 16.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 I 0.0 I 0. 1 1 0.3 0.2 I 0.1 I 0.4 1 0.3 11. 5 4 3 I 0 I 2 I 9 1 1 I I I 5 I 4 87 5.7 4.6 3.4 -I 0.0 I 2.3 I 10 .3 1.1 I I. 1 I 5. 7 I 4.6 ] 3.3 3.4 6.0 4. 8 I 0. 0 [ 3.5 I 5.0 1 2.1 I 2 .7 I 2.2 I 8.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 I 0.0 I 0. 1 1 0.3 1 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.2 13. 3 1 4 I 1 [ 2 I 10 1 5 I 2 I 24 I 4 113 2.7 0.9 3.5 I 0.9 t 1.8 I 8.8 4.4 I 1.8 I 21.2 I 3.5 i 4.3 2.1 1.5 6.5 I 5.0 I 3.5 I 5.5 1 10.6 I 5 .4 I 10.4 I 8. 3 0.1 0.0 0.2 I 0. 0 0. 1 1 0.4 I 0.2 I 0.1 I 0.9 1 0.2 14. 2 1 3 I 1 [ 1 I 11 1 3 I 0 I 8 I 5 76 2.6 1.3 3.8 I 1.3 I 1.3 I 14. 1 ] 3. 8 I 0. 0 I 10.3 I 6.4 3.0 1. 4 1.5 4.8 I 5.0 I 1 .8 I 6.1 6.4 I 0.0 I 3.5 1 10.4 1 0.1 0.0 0. 1 I 0. 0 [ 0.0 1 0.4 ] 0.1 I 0 .0 I 0.3 I 0.2 15. 5 2 0 I .0 [ 2 I 4 0 I 2 I 14 1 0 96 5.2 2.1 0. 0 I 0. 0 [ 2. 1 I 4.2 1 0.0 I 2.1 I 14.6 I 0.0 3.7 3.4 3.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 3.5 I 2.2 ] 0.0 I 5.4 I 6. 1 I 0. 0 1 0.2 0. 1 0. 0 I 0. 0 [ 0. 1 1 0.2 ] 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.5 I 0.0 16. 1 2 I I 0 I 1 I 9 1 I 1 I 6 I 1 1 118 0.8 1.7 0.8 I 0. 0 [ C. 8 I 7.6 ] 0.8 I 0.3 I 5.1 I 0.8 4.5 0.7 3.0 1.6 I 0.0 [ 1.8 I 5.0 2.1 I 2.7 I 2. 6 I 2. 1 0.0 0.1 0. 0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 1 0.3 [ 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.2 I 0. 0 COLUMN 145 67 62 20 57 181 47 37 230 48 2605 TOTAL 5.6 2.6 2. 4 0. 8 2.2 6.9 1.8 1 .4 8.8 l.a 100.0 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF V.URK MATRIX 05/ 19/78 PAGE 7 FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/781 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R 0 S S T A 8 U L A T I ON OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PL WORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M M * M * M M 'M M M * * * * M * M * M * * * * * PAGE 5 OF 12 PLWCRK PLRESID COUNT ROW PCT CCL PCT TOT PCT 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. COLUMN TOTAL TOTAL (CONTINUED) [ 11.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 13.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 I 6 I 9 2 1 7 1 6 I 1 I 3 I 13 I 0 I 2 I 2 06 I 2.9 I 4.4 [ I. 0 I 3. 4 ] 2.9 I 0.5 I 1.5 I 6.3 I 0.0 I 1.0 1 7.9 I 9.0 1 19.1 [ 9.5 1 5. 6 1 4. 7 I 2.9 I 2.4 I 7.2 I 0.0 I 1.4 I [ 0.2 I 0.3 [ 0. 1 I 0.3 0.2 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I 0.5 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I I 4 I 2 I 1 I 1 4 I 0 I 1 I 3 I 0 I 0 I 77 I 5.2 I 2.6 [ 1.3 1 1.3 ! 5.2 I 0.0 I 1.3 J 3.9 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 3.0 I 6.0 1 4.3 [ 4.8 1 0. 8 I 3. 1 I 0.0 I 0.3 I 1 .7 I 0.0 I 0.0 I [ 0.2 1 0.1 I 0.0 1 0.0 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I I 11 I 3 I 0 I 3 1 4 I 4 I 0 I 2 I 1 I 3 i 87 I 12.6 I 3.4 [ 0.0 I 3.4 [ 4.6 1 4.6 I 0.0 I 2.3 I 1. 1 I 3.4 I 3.3 I 16.4 I 6.4 [ 0.0 I 2. 4 3.1 I 11.8 I 0.0 I 1 .1 I 1.9 I 2.2 I I 0.4 I 0.1 I 0.0 I 0. 1 0.2 I 0.2 I 0. 0 I 0. 1 I 0.0 I 0.1 I [ 6 1 7 I 4 I 5 1 4 I 0 I 1 I 3 I 3 I 2 I I 13 I 5.3 I 6.2 I 3.5 I 4.4 3.5 I 0.0 I 0.9 I 2.7 I 2. 7 I 1.8 I 4.3 I 9.0 I 14.9 I 19.0 I 4. 0 3.1 I 0.0 I 0.8 I 1.7 I 5.8 I 1.4 I I 0.2 I 0.3 [ 0.2 I 0. 2 C.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.1 I 0.1 I 1 4 I 4 3 I 5 1 I 4 I 0 I 4 I 0 I 2 I 78 I 5.11 5.1 [ 3.8 1 6.4 I 1.3 I 5.1 I 0. 0 I 5. 1 I 0.0 I 2.6 I 3.0 I 6.0 I 8. 5 [ 14.3 I 4.0 [ 0.8 1 11.8 I 0.0 I 2.2 I 0.0 I 1.4 I 1 0.2 I 0.2 [ 0. 1 I 0. 2 0.0 I 0.2 1 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.1 I [ 4 I 1 [ 0 I 22 [ 8 I 1 I 5 I 2 I 0 I 2 I 96 I 4.2 1 1.0 I 0.0 I 22. 9 8. 3 I 1.0 I 5.2 I 2.1 I 0.0 I 2.1 I 3.7 I 6.0 1 2.1 [ 0.0 I 17.6 1 6.3 I 2.9 I 4. 1 I 1.1 I 0. 0 I 1.4 I I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 8 1 0.3 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0 .1 I 0.0 I 0.1 I I 3 I 2 I 0 I 9 I 32 I 3 I 11 I 3 I 0 I 3 I 118 I 2.5 I 1.7 I 0.0 I 7. 6 [ 27.1 I 2.5 I 9.3 I 2.5 I 0.0 I 2.5 I 4.5 I 4.5 1 4.3 I 0.0 I 7.2 [ 25.2 I 8.8 I 8.9 I 1.7 I 0.0 I 2.2 I I 0. 1 I 0.1 I 0.0 I 0. 3 I 1.2 1 0.1 1 0.4 I 0.1 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I 67 47 21 125 127 34 123 181 52 139 2605 2.6 1.8 0. 8 4. 8 4.9 1.3 4.7 6.9 2.0 5.3 100.0 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/ 19/78 PAGE 8 FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78» * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWQRK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE * OF PLWCRK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT PLRESID 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. COLUMN TOTAL ROW TOTAL 22. I 23.1 24.1 1 I 0.5 I 1.8 I 0.0 I 1- 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1- 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 3 I 1.5 I 14.3 I 0.1 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 I 1. 0 I 4.5 I 0.0 I 5 I 4.2 . I 8.8 I 0.2 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 I 0.8 I 4. 5 I 0.0 I •I- •I-57 2.2 21 0. 8 22 0. 8 25. I 26. ! 27. I 71. I 250.1 610.1 4 I 8 I 47 I ' 0 I J I 0 I 206 1 .9 I 3.9 22.8 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 7.9 8. 7 I 6.0 I 9.2 1 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0. 2 I 0.3 1 1.8 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 1 1 13 I 0 I 0 I • 0 I 77 0.0 I 1.3 I 16.9 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I . 3.0 0. 0 I 0.8 [ 2.5 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 0.5 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I _ j ; - I- I — -I — -I 1 I 1 I 19 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 87 1.1 I 1. 1 [ 21.8 I 1.1 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 3.3 2.2 I 0.8 I 3.7 I 100.0 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.7 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0 I 3 I 19 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 113 0. 0 I 2. 7 I 16.8 I 0.0' I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4.3 0.0 I 2.3 I 3.7 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.1 I 0.7 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 1 I - 1 I 14 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 78 I. 3 I 1.3 I 17.9 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 3.0 2.2 I 0. 8 I 2.7 I 0.0 I 0.0 1 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.5 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0 I 1 I 20 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 96 0. 0 I 1.0 I 20.8 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 3.7 0.0 I 0. 8 I 3.9 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.8 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 I 5 I 17 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 118 0. 8 I 4.2 I 14 .4 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 4.5 2.2 I 3. B I 3.3 I 0.0 I' 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.7 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4 6 133 513 1 1 1 2605 1.8 5.1 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 (CONTINUED) PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/ 19/78 PAGE 9 FILE APPENOIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 7 OF 12 PLRESID COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT 17. 18. PLWORK -0. 19. 20 . 21. 22. 23. COLUMN TOTAL 5 7.4 3.4 0.2 5 6. 1 3.4 0.2 16 9.0 11.0 0.6 14 11.2 9.7 0.5 13 5.6 9.0 0.5 4 4.7 2.8 0.2 7 21.9 4.8 0.3 1. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 1.7 4.5 0.1 1 0.8 1.5 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 145 5.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67 2.6 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 2 . I 3. I 5.1 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 3 4.4 5.3 0.1 3 4.4 1.7 0.1 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 ' I 0.0 I 1 I 0.6 I 1.6 I 0.0 I 2 I 1.1 I 10. 0 I 0. 1 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 3 3.7 1.7 0.1 7 I 4.0 I 12.3 I 0.3 I 3 1.7 1.7 0. 1 0 I 0.0. I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 0.8 5.0 0. 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 62 2.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 20 0. 6 0 ' I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 4 3.2 2 .2 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0. 6 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 2 I 0.9 I 3.5 I 0. 1 I 5 2.2 2.8 0.2 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I C.C I 0.0 I 0.0 I 57 2.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. -0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 2 l . l 4.3 0. 1 1 0.8 2.1 0. 0 2 0. 9 4.3 0. I 2 2. 3 4.3 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0 0 .0. 0.0 0.0 1 1.2 2 .7 0.0 3 1.7 8 .1 0. 1 0 0.0 0 .0 O.J 1 0.4 2.7 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 181 6.9 47 1.8 37 1 .4 6 8.8 2.6 0. 2 2 2.4 0.9 0. 1 a 4. 5 3.5 0.3 11 8.3 4.8 0.4 5 2.2 2.2 0.2 4 4.7 1. 7 0.2 2 6.3 0.9 0.1 230 8.8 10.1 [ 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0.0 0 .0 0. 0 1 0. 6 2. 1 0.0 1 0. 8 2.1 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 1 1 .2 2. 1 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 48 1.8 ROW TOTAL 68 2.6 82 3. 1 177 6. 8 125 4.8 232 8.9 86 3.3 32 1.2 2605 10J.0 (CONTINUED) PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/19/78 PAGE 10 FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE - 05/19/78) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N ' OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 8 OF 12 PLWCRK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT PLRESID 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. COLUMN TOTAL I 1. 5 1.5 0.0 11.I I I 13. 1 1. 5 2.1 0.0 3 I 3.7 I 4.5 I 0. I I 1 1.2 2.1 0.0 4 I 2.3 I 6.0 I 0.2 I 1 I 0.8 I 1.5 I 0.0 I 1 0.6 2.1 0.0 2 1 .6 4.3 0.1 4 I 1.7 I 6.0 I 0.2 I 1 0.4 2.1 0.0 2 I 2.3 I 3.0 I 0.1 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 3.1 2.1 0. 0 14.1 1 I 15.1 16 , 1.5 4.8 0.0 10 14. 7 8. 0 0.4 13 19.1 10. 2 0.5 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 I 0.6 I 4. 8 I 0.0 I 5 I 6. 1 I 4.0 I 0.2 I I I 0.6 I 0.8 1 0.0 I 6 7.3 4. 7 0.2 2 1.1 1.6 0. 1 0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 5 I 4.0 I 4.0 I 0. 2 I 3 2.4 2.4 0. 1 2 0.9 9. 5 0. I 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 7 I 3.0 I 5.6 I 0. 3 I 12 5.2 9.4 0.5 6 I 7. C 1 4.8 I 0.2 I 10 11.6 7.9 0.4 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 67 2.6 47 1.8 21 o.a 3 I 9. 4 I 2.4 I 0. 1 I 125 4. 8 2 6.3 1.6 0.1 17. 5 7.4 14.7 0.2 3 3.7 8. 8 0.1 2 1.1 5.9 0. 1 2 1.6 5.9 0.1 3 1.3 8.8 0. 1 3 3.5 8.8 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18. 5 7.4 4. I 0.2 34 41.5 27.6 1.3 1 0.6 0.8 0. 0 9 7.2 7.3 0.3 23 9. 9 18.7 0.9 16 18.6 13.0 0.6 1 3.1 0. 8 0.0 19. 2 2 .9 1 .1 0. 1 1 1.2 0.6 0..0 91 51.4 50 .3 3.5 11 8.8 6.1 0.4 14 6.0 7.7 0 .5 3 3.5 1.7 0 .1 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 127 4.9 34 1.3 123 4.7 181 6 .9 20. I 1.5 1 .9 0. 0 2 2.4 3.8 0. 1 1 0. 6 1.9 0.0 21 21.6 5 1.9 1 .0 13 5.6 25.0 0.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 3.1 1.9 0.0 52 2.0 21. 1 3 4.4 2 .? 0. 1 3 3. 7 2.? 0. 1 1 0.6 0.7 0.0 13 10.4 9.4 0.5 94 40.5 67. 6 3.6 1 1 .? 0.7 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 139 5.3 ROW TOTAL 2605 1G0.0 (CONTINUED) PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/ 19/78 PAGE 1J FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 9 OF PLWGRK PLRESID COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. COLUMN TOTAL ROW TOTAL 22. I 23.1 24 . I 25. I 26. 27.1 71 .1 250.1 610. I 0 I 0 1 I 0 I 2 1 6 ] 0 I 0 I 0 I 68 0. 0 I 0.0 1.5 I 0.0 I 2.9 [ 8.8 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 2.6 0.0 I 0.0 1 4. 5 I 0. 0 I 1.5 1 1.2 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 1 ] 0.2 0. 0 I 0. 0 I . 0.0 I — I — ; -I — — I — — -1- -1- -1 4 I 1 i 0 I 0 I 0 8 0 I 0 I 0 I 82 4.9 I 1 .2 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 r 9 . 8 I 0.0 I 0.0 I .0.0 I 3. 1 7.0 I 4.8 [ 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 1 .6 I 0.0 I ' 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 0. 3 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I — .— • , — j — I— [_—_—— — -1-— — — — -I--------I 0 I 0 0 I 2 I 2  22 I 0 I 0 I 0 I . 177 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1.1 I 1.1 I 12.4 [ 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 6.8 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4.3 I I .5 I 4.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I — 0.0 I 0.0 I - I — 0. 1 I C. 1 [ 0.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 16 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 125 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.8 I 0. 8 I 0. 0 I 12. 8 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.3 I 4.8 0. 0 I 0.0 I 4.5 I 2.2 I 0.0 I 3.1 I 0.0 -I 0.0 I 100. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.6 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 9 I 1 I 1 I I I 2 I 17 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 232 3.9 I 0.4 I 0.4 I 0. 4 I 0. 9 I 7.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 8.9 15. 8 I 4.8 I 4.5 I 2.2 I 1. 5 I 3.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.1 I 0.7 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 20 I 6 I 1 I 0 I 1 I 6 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 86 23.3 1 7.0 I 1. 2 I 0. 0 I 1.2 I 7.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 3.3 35. 1 I 28 .6 I 4.5 I 0.0 I 0.8 I 1.2 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 8 1 0.2 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4 I 5 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 3 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 32 12.5 I 15.6 I 3. 1 I 3. 1 I 0.0 I 9.4 I 0.0 I 3.1 I 0.0 I 1.2 7.0 I 23.8 I 4.5 I 2. 2 I 0. 0 I 0.6 I 0. 0 I 100 .0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 57 21 22 46 133 513 I 1 1 2605 2.2 0.8 0.3 1.6 5.1 '19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 (CONTINUED) PLACE DF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/19/78 PAGE 12 FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I C N OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 10 OF 12 PLWORK PLRESID COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT ROW TOTAL TOT PCT I -0. [ 1 . 2.1 3. I 5. I 6. I 7.1 8. I 9.1 10.1 24. 8 0 [ 1 1 0 I 1 I 3 I 1 I 0 I 6 I 1 I 67 11.9 [ 0.0 1.5 1 0.0 I 1.5 I 4.5 I 1.5 I 0.0 I 9. 0 I 1.5 I 2.6 5.5 0.0 1 1.6 1 0. 0 I 1.8 I 1.7 I 2.1 I 0 .0 I 2.6 I 2.1 I 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 25. 6 I 3 I 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 1 I 4 I 1 I 82 7.3 I 3.7 1 1.2 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1.2 I 4.9 I 1.2 I 3.1 4. 1 [ 4.5 [ 1.6 1 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.7 I 1.7 I 2. 1 I 0.2 I 0.1 I 0.0 1 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 26. 10 I 2 [ 2 2 I 2 I 8 I 0 I 3 I 15 I 2 I 226 4.4 I 0.9 I 0.9 I 0.9 I 0.9 I 3. 5 I 0. 0 I 1.3 I 6.6 I 0.9 I 8.7 6.9 [ 3.0 [ 3.2 [ 10.0 I 3.5 I 4.4 I 0.0 I 3.1 I 6.5 I 4.2 I 0.4 I 0.1 [ 0. 1 [ 0. 1 I C. 1 I 0.3 I 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.6 I 0.1 I 27. [ 1 I 0 [ 0 0 I 3 I 4 I 1 I 0 I 6 I 0 I 52 1.9 [ 0.0 [ 0.0 0. 0 I 5.8 I 7.7 I 1.9 I 0.0 I 11.5 I 0.0 'I 2.0 0.7 [ 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 5.3 I 2.2 I 2. 1 I 0.3 I 2. 6 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 0. 0 I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 250. 1 [ 1 I 0 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 3 33.3 I 33.3 I 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I CO I 0. 1 0.7 I 1 .5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 . I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 145 67 62 20 57 181 47 37 230 48 2 605 TOTAL 5.6 2.6 2.4 0. 8 2.2 6.9 1.8 1.4 8.8 1.8 100.0 (CONTINUED) PLACE OF RESIOENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/19/78 PAGE 13 FILE • APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 11 OF 12 COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT PLWORK 11. PLRESID 24. 25. 27. 250. COLUMN TOTAL 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0 C. 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67 2.6 13. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47 1.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 — I-I I 15. 13 19. 4 10.4 0. 5 1 I 1.2 I 4.8 I 0.0 I 1 1.2 0. 8 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.9 0. 8 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 16. 1 1.5 0. 8 0.0 3 3.7 2.4 0.1 26. I 0 I 2 I 1 I 10 I 4 I 2 I 4 I 2 I 1 I 3 0.0 I 0.9 I 0.4 I 4.4 I 1.8 I 0.9 I 1.8 I 0.9 I 0.4 I 1.3 0.0 I 4.3 I 4. 8 I 8. 0 I 3. 1 I 5.9 I 3.3 I 1.1 I 1.9 ! 2.2 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.0 I 0.4 I 0.2 I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0. 1 I 0.0 I 0. 1 1 1.9 0. 8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 18. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 6.0 3. 3 0.2 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 1.2 0. 8 0.0 1- 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 33.3 0.8 0. 0 19. 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 .0 0. 0 20. 21 0.8 125 4.8 127 4.9 34 1.3 123 4.7 181 6.9 1 1.5 1.9 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 (CONTINUED) 52 2.0 21. 2 3.0 1.4 0. 1 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 139 5.3 ROW TOTAL 2605 100.0 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX 05/19/78 PAGE 14 FILE APPENDIX ICREAT ION DAT E = 05/19/78) * « * * * * * * * * * * * * < < * « * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N ' OF • * * * . * * * * * * * * * * « * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * *'* f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 12 OF PLWORK PLRESID COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT COLUMN TOTAL 57 2.2 21 0.8 22 0.8 46 1.8 133 5.1 513 19.7 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 ROW TOTAL OT PCT I 22. [ 23.1 24. I 25. I 26. I 27. I 71.1 250. I 610.1 24. ] 8 I 3 I 13 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 67 11.9 I 4.5 1 19.4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1.5 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2 .6 14.0 ] 14.3 I 59. 1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.3 . [ 0.1 I 0. 5 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 25. 1 0 [ 0 I 0 I 23 I 11 I 26 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 82 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 28. C I 13.4 I 31.7 I 0.0 I 0 . j I 0.0 I 3.1 0. 0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 8.3 I 5.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 9 I 0.4 I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 26. I 2 [ I I 2 I 5 I 86 I 55 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 226 0.9 I 0.4 1 0.9 I 2. 2 I 38. 1 I 24.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 8.7 3.5 I 4.8 I 9. 1 I 10.9 I 64.7 I 10.7 I 0.0 I 0.0 t 0.0 I 0. 1 I 0.0 I 0. 1 I 0. 2 I 3.3 I 2.1 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 27. 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 2 I 32 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 52 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I. 9 I 3.8 I 61.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2.2 I 1.5 I 6.2 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.1 I 1.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 250. 1 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 3 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0. 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 . 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I -0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I - 2605 100.0 CHI SOUARE = 5338.37891 WITH 700 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000 APPENDIX 2 SUMMARY OF WORK TRIP LENGTH MEASURES FOR THE SUB-AREAS 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. PAGE 0ISTA MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 6.060 C.258 0.258 52 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.818 5.895 26.820 MISSING CASES 2553 MEDIAN RANGE 4.298 26.562 T I ME A MEAN MODE MIN I MUM VALID CASES 23.750 20.000 5.C0C 48 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 1.921 13.309 6C.000 MISSING CASES 2557 MEDIAN RANGE 20.500 55.0C0 DISTB MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 3.785 2.930 0.290 85 STD ERR STO OEV MAXIMUM 0.356 3.280 19.093 MISSING CASES 2520 MEDIAN RANGE 2.942 18.803 T IMEB MEAN 18.250 STD ERR 1.129 MEDIAN 15.684 MODE 15.000 STD DEV 1C.350 RANGE 40.000 MINIMUM 5.000 MAXIMUM 45.00C VALID CASES 84 MISSING CASES 2 521 DISTC MEAN 5.654 STO ERR 0.581 MEDIAN 4.556 MODE 4.411 STD DEV 5.516 RANGE 27.786 MINIMUM C. 258 MAXIMUM 28.044 VALID CASES 90 MISSING CASES 2515 83. .05/19/78 F I LE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 C 'TRACT-TR IP LENGTH ANAL, PAGE TIMEC MEAN MODE MINI HUM VALID CASES 27.443 15.000 1 .000 88 STD ERR STO OEV MAX I MUM 3.357 31.490 220 .000 MISSING CASES 2517 MEDIAN RANGE 19.900 219.000 DISTD MEAN 5.798 MOOE C.902 MINIMUM 0.064 VALID CASES 56 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.751 5.622 26.788 MISSING CASES 2549 MEDIAN RANGE 5. 135 26.723 TIMED MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 21.818 15.000 5.000 55 STD ERR STD DEV MA XI MUM 2.282 16.925 9C.000 MISSING CASES 2550 MEDIAN RANGE 18.250 85.000 DISTE MEAN 3.152 MODE 1.159 MINIMUM C.193 VALID CASES 77 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0i,472 4.142 30.555 MISSING CASES 2 52 8 MEDIAN RANGE 1.513 30.362 T IMEE MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 21.628 15.000 2.000 78 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 2.600 22.966 195.000 MISSING CASES 2527 MEDIAN RANGE 15.500 193.000 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE DISTF MEAN MODE M IN I MUM 3.29 8 0. 129 0. 097 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0. 596 5.300 29.686 MEDIAN RANGE 1.935 29.589 VALID CASES 79 MISSING CASES 2526 TIMEF MEAN 17.392 STD ERR 1.330 MEDIAN 14.950 MODE 5.000 STD DEV 11.817 RANGE 53.000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 55.000 VALID CASES 79 MISSING CASES 2526 DISTG MEAN MODE MIN I MU M 3.251 0.419 0.419 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.563 3.691 17.000 MEDIAN RANGE 2.061 16.581 VALID CASES 43 MISSING CASES 2562 TIMEG MEAN MODE M IN I MUM VALID CASES 13 .395 15.000 1...CC0 43 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 1. 614 10.586 45.00C MISSING CASES 2562 MEDIAN RANGE 14.545 44.000 DISTH MEAN MODE MINI MUM 6.141 3.574 0.161 STD ERR STO DEV MAXIMUM C. 747 5.641 27.496 MEDIAN RANGE 4.765 27.335 VALID CASES 57 MISSING CASES 2548 85. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. PAGE i IMEH MEAN MOOE MINIMUM VAL ID CASES 27.321 20.CCO 5.000 56 STD ERR STD DEV MAX I MUM 3..53 8 26.474 180.000 MISSING CASES 2549 MEDIAN RANGE 20.357 175.000 DISTI MEAN MOD E M IN IMUM VALID CASES 6.018 0.258 C.032 64 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 1. 126 9.012 32.93 3 MISSING CASES 2541 MEDIAN RANGE 2.334 32.905 T I ME I MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 24.286 15.000 5.GOO 63 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 1.93 9 15.394 90.000 MISSING CASES 2542 MEDIAN RANGE 18 .000 85.000 DISTJ MEAN 5.692 MODE 0.773 MINIMUM 0.708 VALID CASES 77 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 0.91 1 7.99 3 2 1.167 MISSING CASES 2528 MEDIAN RA NGE 3.4 37 30.453 TIME J MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 20.761 15.COO 5.000 71 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 2.771 23.347 19C.000 MISSING CASES 2534 MEDIAN RANGE 15.389 185.000 86. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - C R EAT ED 05/19/78 C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. PAGE DISTK MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 6.378 6 .005 0.419 51 STD ERR STO DEV MAXIMUM C. 918 6.559 29.847 MISSING CASES 2554 MEDIAN RANGE 4.830 29.423 T IMEK MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 19.957 20.COO 5 .000 46 STD ERR STD DEV M AX I WJM 1 .376 9. 336 45.000 MISSING CASES 2559 MEDIAN RANGE 19.714 40.000 DI STL MEAN 4.965 MODE 0.161 MINIMUM 0.161 VALID CASES 142 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.533 6.349 34.419 MISSING CASES 2463 MEDIAN RANGE 3.131 34.258 TIMEL MEAN MODE MINIMUM 24.113 15.000 3. 000 STD ERR STD DEV NAXINUM 2. 098 25.001 255.000 MEDIAN RANGE '19.717 252.000 VALID CASES 142 MISSING CASES 2463 DISTM MEAN 6.279 STD ERR 0.596 MEDIAN 4.991 M 0 ° E 5.023 STD DEV » 6.331 RANGE 33.742 MINIMUM 0.129 MAXIMUM 33.871 VALID CASES 113 MISSING CASES 2492 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 6 TIMEM MEAN 24.309 STD ERR 1.792 MEDIAN 15.867 MODE 15.COO STD DEV 18.796 RANGE 115^000 MINIMUM 5.000 MAXIMUM 120.000 VALIO CASES 110 MISSING CASES 2495 DISTN MEAN MODE MIN I MUM 5.857 0.676 .0.322 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.53 8 4. 749 30. 136 MEDIAN RANGE 5.377 29.814 VALID CASES 78 MISSING CASES 2527 TIMEN MEAN MODE MINI MUM 23.385 15.000 4. 000 STD ERR STD OEV MAXIMUM 1.486 13.124 60.000 ME D IA N RANGE 20.000 56.000 VALID CASES 78 MISSING CASES 2527 DISTO MEAN MODE MINIMUM 7 . 48 1 1.288 0.064 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.730 7. 149 39.216 MEDIAN RANGE 6.488 39.151 VALID CASES 96 MISSING CASES 2509 TIMEO MEAN 29.538 STD ERR 1.551 MEDIAN 29.516 MODE 30.000 STD DEV 14.960 RANGE 78.000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 80.000 VALID CASES 93 MISSING CASES 2512 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE DISTP MEAN MODE MINI MUM 5.877 1.771 0. 161 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.414 4.441 33.163 MEDIAN RA NGE 5.892 33.002 VALID CASES 115 MISSING CASES 2490 TIMEP MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 21.886 20.000 2.000 1 14 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 1 .344 14.350 90.000 MISSING CASES 2491 MEDIAN RANGE 19.783 88 .000 DI STO MEAN 8.151 MODE 1.964 MINIMUM 0.419 VALID CASES 68 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM C. 970 7.998 35.223 MISSING CASES 2537 MEDIAN RANGE 6.214 34.805 TIMEQ MEAN MODE MINIMUM 29.844 20.000 5. OOC STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 2.965 23.721 120.000 MEDIAN RANGE 21 .875 115. 000 VALID CASES 64 MISSING CASES . 2541 DISTR MEAN MODE MINIMUM 6.779 0.676 0.129 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.938 8.495 36.189 MEDIAN RANGE 3.300 36.061 VALID CASES 82 MISSING CASES 2523 0 5/19/78 O TRACT-TRIP FILE - APPENDIX LENGTH ANAL. CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 8 TIMER MEAN 19.139 STD ERR 1.322 MEDIAN 16.200 M 00E 20.000 STD DEV 11.748 RANGE 58.000 MINIMUM 2.COO MAXIMUM 6C.000 VALID CASES 79 MISSING CASES 2526 DISTS MEAN 6.545 STD ERR C.426 MEDIAN 4.347 MODE 2.833 STD OEV 5.647 RANGE 22.023 MINIMUM C.129 MAXIMUM 22.152 ,c VALID CASES 176 MISSING CASES 2429 TIMES MEAN MODE MINIMUM 22.763 5.0CC 1.000 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 1.334 17.545 110.000 MEDIAN RANGE 15.870 109.000 VALID CASES 173 MISSING CASES 2432 DISTT MEAN MODE MINIMUM 12.963 I .578 0. 161 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.751 8. 194 33.87 1 MEDIAN RANGE 12.975 33.710 VALID CASES 119 MISSING CASES 2486 TIMET MEAN 33.198 STD ERR 1.765 MEDIAN 30.179 MO°E 30.000 STD DEV 19.419 RANGE 100.000 MINIMUM 5.COO MAXIMUM 105.000 VALID CASES 121 MISSING CASES 2484 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - C•TRACT— TRIP LENGTH ANAL. CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 9 DISTU MEAN 10.440 STD ERR 0.612 MEDIAN 7.759 MODE 2.962 STD DEV 9.309 RANGE 39.763 MINIMUM 0.225 MAXIMUM 39.989 VALID CASES 231 MISSING CASES 2374 TI ME U MEAN 28.900 STD ERR 1.901 MEDIAN 25.000 MODE 30.000 STD DEV 28.768 RANGE 358.000 MINIMUM 2.COO MAXIMUM 36C.000 VALID CASES 229 MISSING CASES 2376 DISTV MEAN MODE MINIMUM 8.354 0.451 0.451 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.972 9.013 45.848 MEDIAN RANGE 6.069 45.398 VALID CASES 86 MISSING CASES 2519 TIMEV MEAN MODE MINI MUM 21.628 15.COO 5.000 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 1.624 15.058 75.OOC MEDIAN RANGE 17.237 70.000 VALID CASES 86 MISSING CASES 2519 DISTW MEAN 14.433 STD ERR ' 2.803 MEOIAN 6.420 MODE 41.695 STD DEV 15.859 RANGE 43.691 MINIMUM 0.6 12 MAXIMUM 44.30 3 VALID CASES 32 MISSING CASES 2573 05/19/78 C'TRACT-TR IP FILE - APPENDIX - LENGTH ANAL. CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 10 TIMEW MEAN 22.517 STD ERR 2.532 MEDIAN 20.400 MODE 10.000 STD OEV 13.635 RANGE 57.000 MINIMUM 3.CCO MAXIMUM 60.000 VALID CASES 29 MISSING CASES 2576 DISTX MEAN 14.263 STD ERR 1.788 MEDIAN 10.255 MODE 1.320 STD DEV 14.523 RANGE 43.778 MINIMUM 0.193 MAXIMUM 48.972 VALID CASES 66 MISSING CASES 2539 TIMEX MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES 23.167 30.000 3.000 66 STD ERR STD* DEV MAXIMUM 1.826 14.835 60. 000 MISSING CASES 2539 MEDIAN RANGE 2 1.000 57.000 DI STY MEAN MODE MINIMUM 7.880 2.608 0. 129 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.907 8.165 33.324 MEDIAN RANGE 5.634 33.195 VALID CASES 81 MISSING CASES 2524 TIMEY MEAN 29.300 STD ERR 5.258 MEDIAN 22.500 MODE 30.CCO STD DEV 47.025 RANGE 416.000 MINIMUM 4.000 MAXIMUM 420.000 VALID CASES 80 MISSING CASES 2525 92. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL. PAGE 11 DISTZ MEAN 6.564 MODE 0.419 MINIMUM 0.032 VALID CASES 134 STD ERR STD DEV MA X I MUM 0.715 3.280 39.66 7 MISSING CASES 247 1 MEDIAN RANGE 4.556 39.634 APPENDIX 3 TRAVEL DISTANCE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS 94. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 1 TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA DISTCBD (Downtown) ADJ CUM CODE ERE Q PCT PCT 0.200 2 0 0 0.400 12 2 3 0.600 12 2 5 0.800 13 3 8 1.000 12 2 11 1 .200 13 3 13 1.400 12 2 16 1. 600 7 1 17 1.800 5 1 18 2 .000 8 2 20 2.200 10 2 22 2.400 12 2 24 2. 600 9 2 26 2.800 3 1 27 3.000 8 2 29 3. 200 5 1 30 3 .400 9 2 31 3.600 8 2 33 3.8 00 11 2 35 4.000 5 1 36 4. 200 9 2 38 4.400 6 1 39 4.600 13 3 42 4. 800 20 4 46 5.000 13 3 49 5.200 17 4 52 5.40C 13 3 55 5.600 14 3 58 5. 80 0 16 3 61 6.000 10 2 63 6.200 14 3 66 6.400 8 2 68 ADJ CUM CODE FREQ PCT PCT 6.600 5 1 69 6.8 00 I 1 2 71 7. OCC 7 1 73 7.200 8 2 74 7.400 1 0 75 7.60C 7 1 76 7.800 3 I 77 8. 000 4 1 77 8.200 2 0 78 8.400 2 0 7 8 8. 6CC 4 1 79 8. 800 9 2 8 I 9. 000 3 1 82 9.2C0 1 0 82 9.400 3 1 82 9.600 4 I 83 9.800 6 1 85 10.000 3 I '85 LO. 2 CO 2 0 86 10.400 1 0 86 1 0. 600 2 0 86 10.800 5 1 . 87 11.000 4 1 8 8 11.400 1 ' 0 88 11.600 3 1 89 12.000 1 0 89 12.200 2 0 89 12.600 1 0 90 12.800 2 0 90 13.000 2 0 90 ;13.200 2 0 91 13.400 1 0 91 ADJ CUM CD DE F RE 0 PCT PCT 13.600 2 0 92 14.000 3 1 92 14.400 3 1 93 14.800 1 0 93 1 5.000 1 0 93 15.400 1 0 93 16.000 I 0 94 16.400 I 0 94 1 7.000 1 0 94 17.200 4 1 95 I 7.400 I 0 95 L 7.600 I 0 95 17.800 1 0 95 18.000 0 96 18.200 I 0 96 1 8.400 0 96 18.800 1 0 97 19.000 I 0 97 19.200 0 97 19.400 1 0 98 19.600 1 0 93 19.800 0 93 20.400 0 99 20.800 1 0 99 22.600 1 0 99 22.800 1 0 99 24.400 L 0 99 26.400 I 0 100 29.400 1 0 LOO 31.400 I 0 100 M I S S I N G D A T A CODE FREQ CODE FREO CODE FREO 0.0 2121 95. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRIP CCNCENT RAT IONS IN STUDY AREA PAGE MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES 6. 112 4.8 00 0.200 434 STD ERR STO DEV MAX I MUM 0.226 4. 964 31.400 MISSING CASES 2121 MEDIAN RANGE 5. 159 31.2 00 96. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA DISTSUBR ( A l l Suburban Areas) ADJ CUM CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE 0,200 24 2 2 8. 300 0.400 28 2 3 9.000 0.600 46 3 6 9. 200 0.800 35 2 9 9.400 l.CCO 47 3 12 9. 600 1.200 35 2 14 9. 800 1.4C0 30 2 16 10.000 1.600 37 2 19 1 0.200 1 .800 40 3 21 10.4 00 2.000 43 3 24 10.600 2.200 29 .2 26 IC.800 2.400 24 2 27 11.000 2.60C 23 2 29 11.200 2.800 30 2 31 11.400 3.000 39 3 34 11.600 3.200 35 2 36 11.8 00 3 .400 35 2 38 12.000 3.600 30 2 40 12.200 3 .800 30 2 42 12.400 4.000 31 2 44 12.600 4.200 21 1 46 12.800 4.400 27 2 47 13.CCO 4.600 20 1 49 13.200 4. 800 26 2 50 13.4C0 5 .000 17 1 51 13.600 5.200 21 1 53 13.800 5.4CC 27 2 55 14. COC 5.600 16 1 56 14.200 5.800 20 1 57 14.400 6.000 17 1 58 14.600 6.200 18 1 59 14.800 6. 400 15 1 60 15.000 6.600 16 1 61 15.200 6.800 21 1 63 15.400 7.000 19 I 64 15.6CC 7.200 12 1 65 15.800 7.400 16 I 66 16.000 7.600 18 1 67 16.2C0 7.800 8 1 67 16.600 8.000 19 1 69 16.800 8.200 12 1 70 17.000 8.400 12 1 70 17.200 8.600 14 1 71 17.600 - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE ADJ CUM ADJ CUM <.EQ PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT 15 1 72 17.800 2 0 89 19 1 73 18.000 3 0 89 14 1 74 18.400 3 0 89 5 0 75 18.600 2 0 39 7 0 75 18.800 2 0 89 13 1 76 1 9. 000 6 0 90 14 1 77 1 9.200 4 0 90 7 0 V 19.400 2 0 90 5 0 78 19.600 1 G 90 9 1 78 19.800 2 0 90 5 0 79 20.000 5 0 91 7 0 79 20.600 1 0 91 5 fc° 79 20.800 1 0 91 8 1 80 21.000 1 0 91 6 0 80 21.200 1 0 91 5 0 81 21.600 I 0 91 9 1 8 I 21.800 1 0 91 3 1 32 22.000 \J 91 2 0 82 22.200 4 0 9 I 7 0 82 22.400 0 92 6 0 83 23.200 1 0 92 3 0 83 24.000 1 0 92 "'3 0 33 24.200 J 92 8 1 84 25.000 1 0 92 5 0 84 25.600 1 0 92 1 0 84 26.000 4 0 92 5 0 84 26.2 00 2 0 92 3 0 85 26.600 2 0 92 8 1 85 26.800 2 0 93 7 0 86 27.000 3 0 93 6 0 86 27.600 I 0 93 1 0 86 27.800 2 0 93 2 0 86 28.200 3 0 93 6 0 87 28.400 1 G 93 4 0 87 28.800 1 0 93 8 1 87 29.200 1 0 93 3 0 88 29.600 1 0 93 1 0 88 29.800 2 0 94 3 0 88 3 0.000 6 0 94 2 0 88 30.2 00 2 0 94 2 0 88 30.400 1 0 94 4 0 88 30.600 2 0 94 2 0 89 30.800 1 0 94 97. 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 F I L E - A P P E N D I X - C R E A T E D 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 P A G E 4 T R I P C O N C E N T R A T I O N S IN STUDY AREA D I S T S U 8 R ( A l l Suburban Areas) A D J CUM ADJ CUM A D J C UM CODE FREO PC T PCT CODE F R E O PCT PCT CODE F R E O PCT PCT 3 1 .COO 1 0 9 4 3 5 . 2 0 0 3 0 9 7 4 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 9 9 3 1 . 2 0 0 1 0 9 4 3 5 . 4 C C 2 0 97 4 0 . 4 0 0 I 0 9 9 3 1 . 4 0 0 2 0 9 5 3 5 . 6 0 0 5 0 9 7 4 1 . 6 0 0 I »J 9 9 3 1 . 6 0 0 2 0 9 5 3 6 . 0 0 0 4 0 9 7 4 1 . 8 0 0 2 0 9 9 31.aco 2 0 9 5 3 6 . 2 C 0 I 0 9 8 4 2 . 0 0 0 2 0 9 9 3 2 . 0 0 0 1 0 9 5 3 6 . 4 0 0 2 0 9 8 4 3 . 0 0 0 1 0 9 9 3 2 . 2 0 0 1 0 9 5 3 6 . 6 0 0 3 0 9 8 4 3 . 6 0 0 1 0 9 9 3 2 . 6 0 0 3 0 9 5 3 6 . 8 0 0 I 0 9 8 4 4 . 2 0 0 2 0 9 9 3 2 . 8 0 0 1 0 9 5 3 7 . 0 0 0 1 0 9 8 4 4 . 4 0 0 2 0 9 9 3 3 . 0 0 0 5 C 9 6 3 7 . 6 0 0 2 0 9 8 4 5 . 2 0 0 1 0 100 3 3 . 2 0 0 6 0 9 6 3 7 . 8 0 0 2 0 9 8 4 5 . 8 0 C I c 1 0 0 3 3 . 4 0 0 5 C 96 3 8 . 0 0 0 1 0 9 8 4 6 . 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 4 . 0 0 0 2 0 9 6 3 8 . 6 0 0 1 0 9 8 4 7 . 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 3 4 . 2 0 0 1 0 9 7 3 9 . 4 0 0 2 0 9 9 4 7 . 8 0 0 2 G 1 0 0 3 4 . 6 C 0 1 0 9 7 3 9 . 8 0 0 1 0 9 9 4 9 . 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 CODE 0 . 0 F R E O 1 0 8 5 I S S I CODE N G D A FREO r A CODE FREO MEAN MODE M I N I M U M 8 . 1 0 4 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 0 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0 . 2 3 7 9 . 2 5 3 4 9 . 0 0 0 MEO IAN RANGE 4 . 8 6 2 4 8 . 8 0 0 V A L I D C A S E S 1 5 2 0 M I S S I N G C A S E S 1 0 8 5 98. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA PAGE DISTSUR (Surrey) ADJ CUM ADJ CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT 0.400 4 3 3 4. 800 5 4 0.600 3 2 5 5.200 3 2 0.800 2 2 7 5.400 4 3 1 .000 7 5 12 5. 800 4 3 1.200 2 2 14 6.200 3 2 1 .400 2 2 15 6. 400 2 2 1 .600 1 1 16 6. 800 3 2 1.800 5 4 20 7.000 3 2 2 .000 5 4 24 7. 4C0 1 1 2 .200 2 2 25 7.6G0 3 2 2.400 3 2 28 7. 800 2 2 2.800 4 3 31 8. CCO 3 2 3.000 2 2 32 8.200 2 2 3. 200 2 2 34 8.400 1 1 3 .600 1 1 35 8.600 I 1 3.800. 5 4 38 9.000 2 2 4 .000 3 2 41 9.2C0 2 2 4.400 1 1 42 9.400 2 2 4.600 5 4 45 9.600 1 1 M I S S I N G D A CODE FREO CODE FREO PCT CODE 49 9.800 52 10.000 55 10.200 58 10.600 60 11.6C0 62 11.800 64 12.200 66 12.600 67 12.800 69 13.000 71 13.800 73 14.000 75 14.600 75 16.600 76 19.600 78 19.800 79 21.800 31 33.400 82 35.400 T A CODE FREO ADJ- CUM FREO PCT PCT 2 2 83 84 85 85 86 87 88 88 91 92 92 94 95 95 96 97 98 99 1 100 0.0 2475 MEAN 6.512 MODE 1.000 MINIMUM 0.400 VALID CASES 130 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.535 6.104 35.40 0 MISSING CASES. 2475 MEDIAN RANGE 5.167 35.000 99. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRIP CCNCENTRAT IONS IN STUDY AREA PAGE DISTPCR (Port Coquitlam) CATEGORY LABEL MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES 6.467 0. 800 0.800 15 CODE ABSOLUTE FREQ RELAT IVE FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) 0.800 2 0.1 13.3 13.3 1.000 1 0. 0 6 : 7 20 .0 1 .400 1 0.0 6 . 7 26. 7 2.800 1 0.0 6 .7 33.3 3.200 1 0.0 6.7 -40.0 4.000 0.0 6.7 46. 7 5. 800 1 0. 0 6.7 53.3 6.600 1 0. 0 6.7 60.0 6.800 CO 6 . 7 6o.7 7.600 1 0. 0 6.7 73 .3 8 .600 1 0. 0 6.7 80.0 13.4C0 i 0.0 6.7 86.7 15.400 1 0.0 6.7 93.3 18 .800 I 0.0 6.7 100.0 0. 0 2 590 99.4 MISSING 100 .0 TOTAL 2605 100.0 100.0 STD ERR STD DEV 1.442 5.583 MEDIAN RANGE 5. 800 18 .000 MAX IMUM 18.800 MISSING CASES 2590 100. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA DISTCOR (Coqultlam) ADJ CUM CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE 0.400 1 3 3 2.600 0.6C0 2 7 10 3. OOC 0.800 3 10 20 3.200 1.2C0 1 3 23 3.400 1 .400 1 3 27 3. 800 1.600 2 7 33 4.000 2. 200 1 3 37 4.600 2.400 1 3 40 6.000 - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE ADJ CUM ADJ CUM : G PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT 1 3 43 7.4CC 2 7 80 1 3 47 8.800 1 3 83 1 3 50 9.000 1 3 87 3 10 60 10.000 1 3 90 1 3 63 1 0.800 1 3 93 1 3 67 11.40C 1 3 97 1 3 70 19.000 1 3 100 1 3 73 CODE 0.0 FREO 2575 M I S S I N G D A T A CODE FREO CODE FREO MEAN MODE MINIMUM 4.520 0.800 C.400 STD ERR STD DEV MAXI MUM 0. 783. 4.236 19.000 MEDIAN RANGE 3.300 13.600 VALID CASES 30 MISSING CASES 2575 101. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 8 TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA DISTNWR (New Westminster) CATEGORY LABEL CODE 0.400 0.800 1.000 1 .200 1 .600 5 .400 6.000 10.COO 11.400 19.000 0.0 TOTAL ABSOLUTE FREO RELATIVE ADJUSTED FREO FREO 2 59 2605 ( PCTt 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.1 0.0 0. 0 0.0 99.6 100.0 ( PCT ) 9.1 9 . 1 9.1 9. 1 9.1 9.1 18.2 9.1 9. 1 9.1 MISSING 100 .0 CUM FREO (PCT I 9. 1 18.2 27.3 36.4 45.5 54 .5 72.7 81.8 90.9 100. 0 100.0 MEAN •MODE MINIMUM 5.709 6. 000 C.400 STO ERR STO DEV MAX IMUM 1.757 5.326 19.000 MEDIAN RANGE 5. 400 18.600 VALID CASES 11 MISSING CASES 2594 102. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 9 TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA D 1ST BUR (Burnaby) ADJ CUM CODE FREO PCT PCT 0.200 5 2 2 0.4C0 7 2 4 0 .600 5 2 5 C.800 6 2 7 1 .000 9 3 10 1.200 6 2 12 1. 4 00 9 3 14 1.600 6 2 16 1 .800 10 3 19 2.000 10 3 22 2 .200 5 2 24 2.400 5 2 25 2.600 4 . 1 26 2.800 6 2 28 3.000 6 2 30 3.200 4 1 31 3.400 6 2 33 3. 600 4 I 34 3.800 6 2 36 4.COO 8 2 38 4.200 3 1 39 4.400 5 2 41 4.60C 10 3 44 4.800 9 3 47 5.000 1 0 47 5. 2C0 8 2 49 5.4C0 8 2 52 ADJ CUM CODE FREQ PCT PCT 5.600 5 2 53 5. 8C0 8 2 56 6.000 2 1 56 6.200 7 2 58 6. 400 8 2 61 6.600 5 2 62 6.800 4 1 64 7. CCO 4 1 65 7.200 5 2 66 7.400 2 1 67 7.60 0 7 2 69 7.800 3 I 70 8. COO 10 3 73 8.200 5 2 75 8.400 5 2 76 8.600 4 1 77 8.8 00 3 1 78 9. 000 4 1 i . 79 9.200 '5 2 81 9.400 2 1 82 9. 6C0 1 0 82 9. 800 6 2 8 4 10.000 5 2 85 1C.200 2 1 86 10.400 3 1 87 1 0.600 3 1 88 11 .000 1 0 88 ADJ C UM COOE FREO PCT PCT 11 .2GC 1 0 83 1 1 .400 3 1 89 1 1.600 2 1 90 11.800 2 I 90 12.000 3 1 91 12.200 3 1 92 12.600 1 0 92 12.800 3 1 93 13.000 1 0 94 13.400 1 0 94 13.800 1 0 94 14.000 1 95 14.400 1 0 95 14.800 1 0 95 15.600 1 0 96 15. 300 1 0 96 16.OOC 1 97 18.400 1 0 97 1 8. 600 1 0 97 19.000 I 98 19.200 I 0 98 19.600 I 0 98 19.800 2 1 99 33.400 2 1 100 35.4C0 1 C 100 CODE 0.0 FREQ 2275 M I S S I N G D A T A CODE FREO CODE FREO MEAN MODE MINIMUM 6.177 1 .80C 0.200 STD ERR STD DEV MAX I MUM 0.273 4.965 35.400 ME DI AN RANGE 5.350 35.200 VALIC CASES 330 MISSING CASES 2275 103. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE NCN HOME EASEC WORK TRIP ANALYSIS DISTNHBT (Non-home Based Work Trips) ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT 0.200 14 2 2 11.200 6 I 20 19.800 6 .) 1 89 0.600 1 0 2 11 .400 14 2 22 20.0C0 3 C 90 1. 400 1 0 2 11.600 9 1 23 20.200 2 C 90 1 .800 1 0 2 11.8C0 20 3 26 20.400 3 0 90 2.000 4 1 3 12.000 14 2 28 2C.6CC 3 C 91 2.400 2 0 3 12.200 1 7 2 30 2 C.8C0 3 0 91 2.600 2 0 3 12.400 15 2 32 21.000 5 1 92 2.800 1 0 3 12.600 20 3 34 2 1 .200 4 1 92 3.000 2 0 4 12.8G0 10 1 36 21.400 1 0 93 3.200 1 0 4 13.000 6 I 37 21.600 3 0 93 3.40 0 1 0 4 13.200 16 2 39 21 .800 1 c 93 4.200 1 0 4 13.400 12 2 40 22.400 3 0 93 4.400 1 0 4 13.600 24 3 44 22.60C 4 1 94 5.C0C 1 0 4 13.800 26 3 47 22.800 4 I 95 5.400 1 0 5 14.000 31 4 51 23.000 2 0 95 5.600 I 0 5 14.200 35 5 56 23.400 I 0 95 5.800 3 0 5 14.4CC 34 5 60 24.200 1 0 95 6.000 1 , 0 5 14.600 16 2 62 24.400 I C 95 6. 200 2 0 5 14.800 10 1 64 24.600 1 0 95 6.400 2 0 6 15.CCC 11 1 65 24.800 1 0 95 6.600 1 0 6 15.200 16 2 67 25.200 1 0 96 6.8C0 7 1 7 15.400 11 1 69 26.000 2 0 96 7.COO 2 0 7 15.600 9 1 70 26.200 1 0 96 7.200 3 0 7 15.800 12 2 72 28.000 2 0 96 7.4C0 I 0 8 16.CCO 1 0 1 73 29.000 1 0 96 7.600 3 0 8 16.200 8 1 74 30.0CO 1 0 97 7.800 4 1 9 16.400 4 1 75 30.200 1 0 97 8.000 4 1 9 16.6C0 10 1 76 30.400 2 0 97 8.200 4 1 10 16.800 5 I 77 31.200 4 1 97 8.40C 5 1 10 17.000 8 1 78 31 .600 3 0 98 8.6 00 4 1 11 17.200 11 1 79 31.800 1 0 98 8.800 1 0 11 17.400 4 1 80 32.200 1 0 98 9.000 2 0 11 17.600 8 I 81 33.000 2 0 98 9.200 7 1 12 17.800 12 2 82 33.8CC 1 0 99 9. 400 4 1 13 18.000 14 2 84 34.600 1 C 99 9.600 4 1 13. 18.2CC 6 I 85 34.800 1 0 99 9.800 1 0 13 18.40C 4 I 86 35.200 1 C 99. 10.000 7 1 14 18.600 3 0 86 35.600 1 0 99 10.200 4 1 15 18. 800 3 0 86 35.800 1 0 99 10.400 5 1 15 19.000 2 0 87 37.000 1 0 99 10.600 15 2 17 19.2CC 7 1 88 38.200 4 1 100 10.800 7 1 18 19.400 5 1 88 39.400 1 0 100 11.000 5 1 19 19.600 2 0 89 104. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE NON HOME BASED WORK TRIP ANALYSIS M E A N 14.439 STD ERR 0.213 MEDIAN 14.045 M 0 0 E 14.200 STD DEV 5.823 RANGE ^9.200 MINIMUM C.200 MAXIMUM 39.40C VALID CASES 749 'MISSING CASES 0 APPENDIX 4 TRAVEL TIME FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS 106. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS PAGE TIMEGVRO (The Whole Region) MEAN MODE COOE ADJ CUM ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT COOE FREO PCT PCT 1. 8 0 0 21 . 1 0 58 2. 17 1 1 22. 4 0 58 3. 14 1 2 23. 2 0 58 4. 4 0 2 24. I 0 58 5. 231 9 11 25. 173 7 65 6. 2 0 11 28. 2 0 65 7. 16 1 11 30. 412 16 82 8. 11 0 12 32. 1 0 82 10. 359 14 26 35. 69 3 84 11. 2 0 26 38. 2 0 84 12. 4 0 26 40. 73 3 87 13. 3 0 26 45. 148 6 93 15. 461 18 44 48. 1 0 93 17. 1 0 44 50. 28 1 94 18. 1 0 45 52. 1 0 94 19. 1 0 45 55. 12 0 95 20. 346 14 5 8 60. 75 3 98 M I S S I N G D A T A CODE FREO CODE FREO -0. 58 24. 026 STD ERR 0.418 MUM 15. 000 STD DEV 21.099 1.000 MAX IMUM 42C.000 ADJ CUM CODE FREO PCT PCT 65. 5 C 93 7 0. 6 0 98 75. 11 0 93 80. 8 0 99 85. 2 0 99 90. 14 1 99 105. 1 0 99 110. 1 0 99 120. 5 C 100 180. 2 0 100 19C. 1 0 100 195. 1 0 100 220. 1 0 100 255. 1 0 100 360. 1 0 100 42 0. 1 C 100 COOE MEDIAN RANGE FREO 19.900 419.000 VALID CASES 2547 MISSING CASES 58 107. 05/19/78 F I L E - A P P E N D I X - C R E A T E D 05/19/78 T R A V E L T I M E A N A L Y S I S PAGE T I M E S U B (Suburban Areas) M E A N M O D E M I N I M U M A D J C U M A D J C U M - A C J C U M : O D E F R E O P C T P C T C O D E F R E O P C T P C T C O D E . F R E O P C T P C T 1. 8 0 0 22. 3 0 61 65. 2 0 98 2. 17 1 1 . 23. 2 0 61 70. 5 0 93 3. 14 1 2 24. 1 0 61 75. 9 0 98 4. 4 0 2 25. 140 6 68 80. 7 0 99 5. 222 10 12 28. 2 0 68 85. 2 0 99 6. 2 0 12 30. 337 15 83 90. 14 1 99 7. 14 1 13 32. 1 0 83 105. 1 0 99 8. 11 1 13 35. 52 2 86 110. 1 0 99 10. 337 15 29 38. 1 0 86 120. 5 C 100 11. 1 0 29 40. 60 3 88 180. 2 0 100 12. 3 0 29 45. no 5 93 190. 1 C 100 13. 2 0 29 48. 1 0 93 19 5. 1 0 100 15. 402 18 48 50. 21 1 94 220. 1 0 100 17. 1 0 48 52. 1 0 94 36 0. 1 C 100 19. 1 0 48 55. 9 0 95 42 0. 1 0 100 20.. 286 13 61 60. 59 3 98 M I S S I N G D A T A : O D E F R E O C O D E F R E O C O D E F R E O 0. 427 23.218 S T D ERR 0.458 M E D I A N 19.675 15. 000 S T D D E V 21 .383 R A N G E 419. 000 1.000 M A X I M U M 42C.OO0 V A L I D C A S E S 2178 M I S S I N G C A S E S 427 108. 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 F I L E - A P P E N D I X - C R E A T E D 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 P A G E T R A V E L T I M E A N A L Y S I S T I M E C 8 D (Downtown) A D J C U M A D J C U M A D J C U M ; O D E F R E O P C T P C T C O D E F R E G P C T P C T C O D E F R E G P C T P C T 3 . 2 0 0 2 1 . 1 0 4 4 5 5 . 6 1 9 3 5 . 1 3 3 3 2 2 . 1 0 4 4 6 0 . 2 3 5 9 7 7 . 2 0 3 2 5 . 4 6 9 5 3 6 5 . 4 1 9 8 1 0 . 3 8 7 1 1 3 0 . . 9 5 1 9 7 2 7 0 . 3 1 9 8 1 1 . 1 0 1 1 3 5 . 2 5 5 7 7 7 5 . 5 1 9 9 1 2 . 1 0 1 1 3 8 . 1 0 7 7 8 0 . 1 C 1 0 0 1 3 . 1 0 1 1 4 0 . 1 6 3 8 0 9 0 . I C 1 0 0 1 5 . 6 0 1 6 2 7 4 5 . 4 6 9 8 9 2 5 5 . 1 0 1 0 0 1 8 . 1 0 2 7 5 0 . 9 2 9 1 2 0 . 8 3 1 6 4 4 5 2 . 1 0 9 1 C O D E 0 . F R E O 2 0 9 8 I S S I N G D A T A C O D E F R E O C O D E F R E Q M E A N M O D E M I N I M U M 2 8 . 6 5 3 3 0 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 S T D E R R S T D D E V M A X I M U M 0 . 8 1 7 1 8 . 4 0 2 2 5 5 . 0 0 0 M E D I A N R A N G E 25.141 2 5 2 . 0 0 0 V A L I D C A S E S 5 0 7 M I S S I N G C A S E S 2 0 9 8 109. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS PAGE TIMESURR (Surrey) CATEGCRY LABEL CODE 3. 5. 7. 10. L5. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 75. 80. 9C. 0. TOTAL A8S0LUTE FREO 2 12 1 39 21 11 10 25 1 7 3 1 2 1 2469 2605 RELATIVE ADJUSTED FREO FREO (PCT) 0. 1 0. 5 0.0 1- 5 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 0. 3 0.1 0. 0 0.1 0.0 94. 8 100.0 !PCT) 1.5 8.8 0.7 28.7 15.4 8.1 7.4 18.4 0.7 5. 1 2 .2 0.7 1.5 0.7 MISSING 100.0 CUM FREO (PCT) 1.5 10.3 11.0 3 9.7 55.1 63.2 70.6 89.0 89.7 94.9 97.1 97 .8 99.3 100.0 100.0 MEAN MODE MINIMUM 20.390 10.000 3.000 STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM 1 .292 15.062 90.000 MEDIAN RANGE 15.333 87.000 VALID CASES 136 MISSING CASES 2469 110. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 5 TRAVEL T IME ANALYSIS . TIMEPC (Port Coqultlam) CATEGORY LABEL RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM CODE ABSOLUTE FREO FREO ( PCT) FREG (PCT) FREO (PCT) 3. 2 0. 1 9.5 9.5 5. 2 0. 1 9.5 19.0 10. 6 0.2 28.6 47.6 15. 3 0.1 14.3 61.9 20. 1 0. 0 4.8 66.7 30. 5 0.2 23.8 90. 5 45. 1 0. 0 4.8 95.2 60. 1 0.0 4. 8 100.0 0. 25S4 99.2 M ISS ING 100.0 TOTAL 2605 100.0 100 .0 MEAN MODE MINI MUM 18.857 10.000 3.000 STD ERR STD DEV MAX I MUM 3.237 14.833 60.000 MEDIAN RANGE 14.333 57.000 VALID CASES 21 MISSING CASES 2584 111. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS PAGE T IMECO0 (Coquitlam) CATEGORY LABEL MEAN MODE MINIMU M VALID CASES 20.789 10.GOO 5.000 57 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ADJUSTED FREO FREO CUM FREO • CODE FREO (PCT) (PCT ) (PCT 5. 10 0. 4 17.5 17.5 10. 11 0.4 19.3 36. 8 15. 7 0.3 12.3 49.1 20. 9 0.3 15.8 64.9 25. 2 0.1 3.5 68.4 30. 7 0.3 12.3 80.7 35. 3 0.1 5.3 86.0 40. 4 0.2 7.0 93.0 45. 1 0.0 1.8 94 . 7 50. 1 0.0 1 .8 96.5 6C. 2 0.1 3.5 100.0 0. 2548 97.8 MISSING 1C0.0 TOTAL 2605 100.0 100.0 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 1 .876 14.167 60.000 ( MEDIAN RANGE 17.778 55.000 MISSING CASES 2548 112. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRAVEL TICE ANALYSIS PAGE TIMENW (New Westminster) CATEGORY LABEL RELATIVE ADJUSTED CODE 2 . 5. 10. 11. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 50. 75. 0. TOTAL ABSOLUTE FREQ 2 11 19 1 27 16 9 20 1 4 8 1 1 2485 2605 F RE 0 (PCT) 0. 1 0. 4 0. 7 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0. 8 0.0 0. 2 0.3 0.0 0.0 95.4 100.0 FREO (PC T) 1.7 9.2 15. 8 0 .8 22. 5 13.3 7.5 16.7 0.8 3.3 6.7 0.8 . 0.8 MISS ING 100.0 CUM FREO (PCT) 1.7 10.8 26.7 27.5 50.0 63. 3 70.8 87.5 88.3 91.7 98. 3 99.2 100.0 100.0 MEAN MODE MINI MUM 2C.750 15.000 2.000 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 1.144 12.531 75 .000 MEDIAN RANGE 15.500 73.000 VALID CASES 120 MISSING CASES 2485 113. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 8 TRAVEL TIPE ANALYSIS TIMEBURN (Burnaby) ADJ CUM AOJ CUM ACJ CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT 2. 3 1 I 25. 26 9 63 55. 2 1 5. 21 7 9 30. 58 2 1 84 60. 5 2 7. I 0 9 35. 10 4 88 75. I 0 10. 36 13 22 40. 6 2 90 20. I 0 15. 47 17 38 45. 14 5 95 90. 4 1 20. 45 16 54 50. I 0 95 12 0. 1 0 M I S S I N G D A T A CODE FREQ CODE FREO CODE FREO 0. 2323 M E A N 24.C71 STD ERR 0.962 MEDIAN MODE • 30.000 STD DEV 16.161 RANGE MINIMUM 2.000 MAX INUM 120.000 20.467 118.000 VALID CASES 282 MISSING CASES 2323 TRIP LENGTH AND CITY SUE RELATIONSHIPS FILE FIGURE! (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78} SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) TLENGTH 1338.95 1852,85 2366.75 05/19/78 P4GE 2880.65 3 394. 55 (ACROSS I CITYSIZE 3908.45 4422.35 4936.25 5450.15 5964.05 14.59 13.38 12.17 9. 75 8.54 6. 12 4 . 9L 3.70 15.80 + I 1 I I + I I I I + I I I I + I I- I I 10.96 + I I I I + I I I I + I I I- * SEATTLE * KANSAS CITY i 7.33 + i * GREATER VANCOUVER i i i + i i i i + i i i i + .+— 1082.00 iSAN FRANCISCO j^Nine County A r e a ) i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i DALLAS * MILWAUKEE * BUFFALO i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i WASHINGTON i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i * PHILADELPHIA i i i — — — — 4 . — — — _ 4 - — 1595.90 2109.80 2623.70 3137.60 3651.50 4165.40 4679.30 5193.20 I I I I ^ I I I I + I I I I + I 1 I I + I T I I I I I LOS ANGELES 1 i i . — i i + i i * i i + i i i i i i i i + .+ + +-—+m 5707.10 6221.00 CHICAGO 15.80 14.59 13.38 12. 17 1 0. 96 9.75 8.54 7. 3 3 6. 12 4.91 3.70 TRIP LENGTH AND CITY SIZE RELATIONSHIPS 05/19/78 PAGE STATISTICS.. CORRELATION CR1- STO ERR OF EST - 0.11627 3.38741 R SQUARED INTERCEPT (A) THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE MARGINS Of THE PLOT AT A VALUE OF 7.06450 ON THE LEFT MARGIN A VALUE OF 8.08289 ON THE RIGHT MARGIN N PLOTTED VALUES - 11 EXCLUDED VALUES- 0.01352 6.85 009 0 SIGNIFICANCE SLOPE IB) MISSING VALUES - 0.36676 0.00020 •********• IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 8E COMPUTED. TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE FILE THESIS {CREATION DATE = 05/19/78} SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) TLENGTH (ACROSS) LFJSATIG 0,60 1,07 1.54 2.00 2.47 2.94 3,41 3,87 4. 34 4.81 + * I j . + I I * I I X I I I I I I I I I I I 13,31 • I I + I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I 12. 18 + I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11.05 + I I + I I I I I I * I I I I I I 9.92 + I I •#• T - i . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.79 + I I + I I I I I I * I I I * I I I I * I I 7.67 * I I + I * I I I I I I I I * I I I 6.54 + * * I I + I * I * I I I ** *I I I I * I * * I I I I * I *I 5. 41 + I I 4h I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I 4.28 + I I • I I I I I * I I I I I I I I* T J_ I I 3.15 + * I * I + 0.37 0,84 1.30 1.77 2.24 2.70 3,17 3.64 4.11 4.57 5,04 14. 44 13.31 12. 18 1 1.05 9,92 8,79 7.67 6. 54 5.41 4. 28 3. 15 TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE 3 STATISTICS,. CORRELATION {R)- STD EES OF EST - O.10283 3.06604 R SQUARED INTERCEPT (A) 0.01057 6,40670 THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE MARGINS OF THE PLOT AT A VALUE OF 6. 52266 ON THE LEFT HARGIN A VALUE OF 7.98637 ON THE RIGHT MARGIN SIGNIFICANCE SLOPE {B) 0.30858 0.31343 PLOTTED VALUES - 26 EXCLUDED VALOES- 1ISSING VALUES - ********** IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CAMNOT BE CQSPUTED. -0 TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE FILE THESIS SCATTERGRAH OF 33.20 3 1 . 2 2 29.24 2 7 . 2 6 25.28 23. 30 2 1 . 3 2 19. 34 17.36 15.38 1 3 . 4 0 ICREATION DATE (DQSN) TIME 0 . 6 0 1 .07 = 05/19/78) 1.54 2 . 0 0 2 . 4 7 (ACROSS) LFJ RATIO 2. 94 3. 41 3 . 8 7 4, 34 4.81 . +--- + I * I + 33.20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + 31.22 I I I I I I I I I * I I I * I I I + I * I + 29. 24 I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + *I I * + 27. 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + 2 5. 28 I I I I I I * I I I * * I I I X * I I I + I * * I + 23. 30 I * I I I I * I I I I I I I I * I * * * I I + I I + 21. 32 I I I I I * I I I I I I I + I I + 19.34 I * I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I • * I I + 17.36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + 15.38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * * I I + 13.40 0.37 0.84 1.30 1.77 2.24 2.70 3.17 3.64 4. 11 4.57 5,04 TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE STATISTICS.. CORRELATION {R) - 0.30980 R SQUARED - 0. 09598 SIGNIFICANCE - 0.06176 STD ERR OF EST - 4.31147 INTERCEPT (A) - 20. 83388 SLOPE (B) - 1. 38914 THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE MARGINS OF THE PLOT AT A VALUE OF 21.34785 ON THE LEFT MARGIN A VALUE OF 27.83513 ON THE RIGHT MARGIN PLOTTED VALUES - 26 EXCLUDED VALUES- 0 MISSING VALUES - 0 •********• IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED, C O T R I P LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 PAGE 6 P I L E THESIS (CREATION DATE = 0 5 / 1 9 / 7 8 ) 14. 44 13.31 12 . 18 1 1 . 05 9.92 8.79 7 . 6 7 6 . 5 4 5.41 4 . 2 8 3 . 15 OF (DOWN) T LENGTH (ACROSS) INCOME 7 0 5 0 . 2 5 8 2 7 8 . 7 5 9 5 0 7 . 2 5 1 0 7 3 5 . 7 5 1 1 9 6 4 . 2 5 1 3 1 9 2 . 7 5 1 4 4 2 1 . 25 1 5 6 4 9 . 7 5 16878 . 25 1 8 1 0 6 . 7 5 + * I I + i * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I + I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ••• I I + I I I I I * I I I I I I I + I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + I I I I I I * I I I * I I I I I I *' I • I I + I I * I I I I I I I * I I I + * i * I + I * * i I I I * I * I * I I * * I * I I * I * I I + I I + I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I + I I <- I I I I I * I I I I I I I I * I I I + * I I ** 6436.00 7664.50 8893.00 10121.50 11350.00 12578.50 13807.00 15035.50 16264.00 17492.50 18721.00 14. 44 13.31 12. 18 11. 05 9. 92 8. 79 7.67 6. 54 5. 41 4.28 3. 15 T R I P LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE S T A T I S T I C S . . CORRELATION ( R ) - 0.00663 R SQUARED STD ERR OF EST - 3.08231 INTERCEPT |A) THE REGRESSION LI N E CUTS THE MARGINS OF THE PLOT AT A VALUE OF 6.97656 ON THE LEFT MARGIN A VALUE OF 7.05508 ON THE RIGHT MARGIN PLOTTED VALUES - 26 EXCLUDED VALUES 0,00004 SIGNIFICANCE - 0.48717 6.93543 SLOPE (B) - 0.63915E-05 0 HISSING VALUES - 0 ********** I S PRINTED I F A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED, LP TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE FILE THESIS (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) 33,20 31, 22 29. 24 27, 26 25.28 23, 30 21.32 19. 34 17.36 15.38 OF (DOWN) TIME (ACROSS) INCOME 7050.25 8278.75 9507,25 10735.75 11964.25 13192.75 14421 , 25 15649.75 16873,25 18106.75 + I # I + I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I * I I + I I * + I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I * I* +• I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + I I I I I * I I I I* * I I I I I * I I * * I I + I I* I I I * I I I I I I I I * I * I + I I + I * I I I I * I I I I I I I + I I + I * I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I + * I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I * + 13, 40 6436.00 7664.50 8893.00 10121.50 11350.00 12578.50 13807.00 15035.50 16264.00 17492.50 18721.00 3 3. 20 3 1. 22 29.24 27. 26 25. 28 23. 30 21. 32 19.34 17. 36 15.38 13.40 TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE STATISTICS.. CORRELATION (R) - STD EES OF EST - 0.04616 4.52973 R SQUARED INTERCEPT (A) 0.00213 22. 78658 THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE MARGINS OF THE PLOT AT A VALUE OF 23,20779 ON THE LEFT MARGIN A 7 A L T J E OF 24,01183 ON THE RIGHT MARGIN SIGNIFICANCE SLOPS (B) 0.41140 0,00007 PLOTTED VALUES - 26 EXCLUDED VALUES- MISSING VALUES - »********» IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 9 23
Ukraine 1 0
Japan 1 0
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 9 0
Unknown 1 10
Tokyo 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items