UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Work trip lengths within the Greater Vancouver Region Adarkwa, Kwasi Kwafo 1978-12-31

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
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
Original Record: 1.0094265 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0094265.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 in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1978 © Kwasi Kwafo Adarkwa, 1978 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community & Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 24 May 1978 ii ABSTRACT The study examines the "Living Close to Work" policy within the Greater Vancouver Region. Specifically it investigates the effects this policy would have on work trip lengths within the region. A review of relevant literature and empirical research reveals factors which could influence work trip lengths within the Greater Vancouver Region. Among these factors are city size, location of residences and workplaces, and income. Data for the study were taken from the Vancouver Area Travel Study and the 1971 Canada Census. Data on work trip lengths were obtained from the Vancouver Area Travel Study files and data on labour force:job ratios and average household incomes from the 1971 Census. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between work trip lengths and labour force:job ratios and work trip lengths and average household incomes. A descriptive analysis of work trip length characteristics for downtown and non-downtown employment centers was used to study how travel and job location are related. The investigation establishes that: a) people who live in high income subareas of the Lower Mainland travel no less and no more than the population as a whole in going to and from work; b) mean and median travel times to the suburban centers are shorter than the corresponding figures to the downtown workplaces; c) between 1965 and 1972 mean work trip distances to non-downtown locations increased faster than the mean work trip distance to the iii 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 cities. The implications of these conclusions for the "Living Close to Work" policy for the region are worked out. The study suggests that this policy will not result in a substantial reduction in work trip travel distance. However, there are indications that it will 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. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . v LIST OF FIGURES vi 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 SizePlace of Residence 12 Job Status or Income 3 S ummary 15 3 ANALYSIS OF VATS AND THE CENSUS DATA 17 Introduction 8 Methodology 1Section A - Work Trip Lengths Within the GVRD 21 Section B - Relationship between Factors 46 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 55 Introduction 5Section 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 Trip Length Measures for the Geographical Areas .... 81 3 Travel Distance Frequency Distributions for Major Employment Centers 93 4 Travel Time Frequency Distributions for Major Employment Centers 105 V LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 Comparison of Work Trip Length Distribution for Vancouver and Chicago 9 2 Average Work Trip Length Data, Selected SMSAs 10 3 A Comparison of Home Based and Non-home Based Work Trip Lengths 25 4 A Summary of Statistical Measures for the Various Work Trips . 28 5 Mode of Travel to Employment Centres 38 6 A Comparison of Average Work Trip Lengths for the Vancouver Region from Three Studies 45 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Scattergram of Average Work Trip Length and City Size . 11 2 Sub-areas Used for Statistical Analysis 19 3 Labour Force:Job Ratios for the Geographical Areas of the Region 22 4 Mean Work Trip Lengths for Geographical Areas of the Region 3 5 Work Trip Distance Profiles for the GVRD 27 6 Work Trip Travel Time Profile 29 7 Cumulative Frequency Plot for Home Based Work Trip Travel Time 30 8 Time Profile for Male and Female Workers 31 9 Mode of Travel for all Home Based Work Trips 33 10 Modal Choice of Travel by Sex 34 11 Frequency Distributions of Work Trips by Trip Length . 36 12 Frequency Distributions of Work Trip Travel Times ... 37 13 Origin of Work Trips to Downtown 40 14 Origin of Work Trips to Surrey 1 15 Origin of Work Trips to Burnaby 42 16 Origin of Work Trips to Coquitlam 3 17 Origin 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 vii Figure Page 21 A Scattergram of Mean Travel Distance with Mean Household Income 52 22 A Scattergram of Mean Travel Time with Average Household Income 3 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank my advisors, Dr. Michael Poulton and Doug Spaeth for their constructive criticisms. I am also grateful to Mike Patterson of the University of British Columbia Computing Center for his initial suggestions and help in "cleaning up" the Vancouver Area Travel Study data files. My sincere thanks also go to the numerous officials of the Greater Vancouver Regional District who helped me with the data collection by making them readily available to me. Finally, I am grateful to the Government of Ghana for sponsoring my studies at the University of British Columbia. 1. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY 2. INTRODUCTION Of all the trip purposes within North American metropolii, work trips tend to be the most significant in terms of volume, length, time spent travelling and obligation. In the Vancouver Region for example, the journey to work is the most significant of all trip purposes. Data in the Vancouver Area Travel Study (VATS) show that this was 30.3% of all trips by purpose (VATS: Preliminary Report, 1974: 37, 38)^ and was the third largest category of trips following "to home" and recreation trips. Journeys to and from work tend to be long, concentrated in time and concentrated in space. Hence any attempt to tackle the traffic problems in Vancouver must necessarily deal with work trips. This argument becomes even more evident when the characteristics of work trips are examined in detail. Out of the 3,354 VATS sample total of work trips generated within the region, 2,605 or 77% were home based and out of these home based trips, about 90% took place during the peak hours, that is 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. A further examination of the peak hour trip characteristics indicates that out of the total sample trips within these periods, 80% were work trips. Since traffic congestion in cities, including Vancouver, is most severe in peak hour travel conditions, one can easily infer that a reduction in the volume of work trips during the peak hours will also mean a partial solution to the congestion problem. So far, efforts which have been made in trying to solve the problem include: increasing vehicle occupancy rates by car pooling; staggered work hours; flexible This figure is made up of both "home to work," "work to home" trips and "on the job" work trips. -3. work hours, and the diversion or relocation of jobs to the suburbs. Job relocation to the suburbs is an effort to create a balance between the number of workers and number of jobs in the various local areas of the region. It is hoped that this will lead to less travel. If these work trip lengths can be reduced then certain advantages will accrue to society. These will be in the form of savings in energy consumption because of shorter trips and less use of congested facilities. Another benefit will be the effect the policy would have on minimizing the expenditures required to provide additional capacity for regional trans portation facilities for peak hour use. The Regional Town Centers Programme and the deflection of jobs to suburban centers will, it is hoped, enable workers to live close to where they work with major advantages to the region as described above. The programme will also give the workers the opportunity to live close to their work, even if they do not use the opportunity. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY In order to examine the "Living Close to Work" policy for Vancouver, this study uses the VATS data and the 1971 Census. VATS included a variety of information, including the location of both trip ends (from which the total work trip lengths could be calculated) and the total travel times. These two variables were correlated in the analysis with average household incomes and labour force:job ratios for groups of census tracts obtained from the 1971 Census of Canada. Although VATS has several other categories of information it was not well suited to this analysis. This is because the VATS is an 4. origin-destination survey conducted at one point in time in the Greater Vancouver Region with a one per cent sample. VATS' shortcomings include the fact that it gives a cross-sectional picture of the situation at one point in time and strictly speaking it cannot be used in analyzing ;the dynamic aspects of policy issues that the thesis attempts to address. This makes it less than ideal for the purposes of this study. VATS was the second comprehensive transportation survey of the region. The first was conducted during the early fifties and prior to VATS it was the only data base for transportation planning within the region. Accordingly, VATS is the best data available, describing for the 26,700 sample total of all trips within the region, the trip maker and his travel characteristics. These include origin and destination of the trip, trip purpose, total travel time and mode of travel as well as socio economic characteristics of the traveller. The study attempts to overcome the difficulties associated with relying on VATS by analyzing the relevant literature and the VATS data base together to address the question instead of just depending on the VATS data alone. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY A brief and general overview of past relevant theory and empirical research is the subject of Chapter 2. This is an overview of the factors which influence work trip length. It also attempts to relate the rele vant factors to the Vancouver Region. This will help identify the factors which could influence work trip lengths within the Vancouver Region. Chapter 3 is divided into two sections. The first section analyzes 5, the general trip length distributions for various geographical areas within the Vancouver Region. This information will 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 will 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 first 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 will have on work trip lengths within the Vancouver Region. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 7. INTRODUCTION The literature review indicates that there are several factors which could be significantly related to work trip length. These factors include city size, place of residence in relation to place of work and job status or income. The literature offers helpful insights for the Vancouver situation. However, most of the studies are not conclusive so far as Vancouver is concerned because they relate to large cities. This section of the study will review relevant literature and assess the significance of conclusions drawn from this body of work for the Greater Vancouver Region. 1. CITY-SIZE City size often appears in the literature as a factor that may influence work trip length. It would seem reasonable to expect people in small cities to live closer to work and have shorter work trips than people living in big cities. If this is the case, then it is plausible to analyze data on work trip length vis-a-vis city size in order to deter mine whether this is in fact true. Available literature on work trip length in relation to city size presents conflicting views. In 1951, a marked correlation was found between the size of a city and work trip length (A.S.P.O., Information Report #26, 1951). The conclusion of this study was that big cities have longer work trip lengths. However, in 1968, after the areal expansion and development of many cities, Lawton (1968: 22-40) claimed that there were no significant differences in the average work trip lengths for four types of settlements, namely: conurbations, large boroughs, small 8. towns and rural areas. All four had an average work trip length of 35 minutes duration. Surprisingly, an analysis and comparison of cities of different sizes confirm Lawton's claim. This is true when one uses distance in the measurement of work trip lengths. For example, if one uses distance in the comparison of work trip lengths for Chicago and Vancouver, there is no great difference between the work trip length frequency distributions (see Table 1). Chicago had an average work trip length of 6.72 miles to the downtown area and 5.23 miles to the job centers outside downtown (Taaffe, et al. ; 1963: 16). The corresponding figures for Vancouver from the VATS data were 6.11 and 5.8 miles respectively. Table 2 is the average work trip length data for ten selected Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Figure 1 shows the relationship between the sizes of these SMSAs and their average work trip lengths. The summary statistics and the plot indicate that there is virtually no linear relationship between average work trip length and city size. This supports Lawton's claim that there is no consistent pattern connecting average work trip length and town or city size. Vancouver's work trip length distribution and average work trip length fall within the range that is typical for cities of substantial population. This analysis of work trip length and city size has indicated that there is quite a wide spread in the average work trip lengths but this is not clearly related to city size. The newer western cities seem to have longer trips than older, easternccities and in general they are also less compact. 9. TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF WORK TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VANCOUVER AND CHICAGO I : 2~ m . ^ • Vancouver Chicago Trip Length m Mxles (19?2) 0 - 2 28 26.7 2 - 4 21 20.2 4-6 16 15.3 6-8 10 14.7 8-10 8 7.7 10-12 5 5.6 12-14 2 3.8 14-16 2 2.5 16-18 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, Principles and Practice of Urban Planning. International City Managers' Association, Washington, 1968, p. 142. 3. They are all straight 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 City 8.07 1970 Source: American Institute 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 TRIP LENGTH FILE F I CUR SCAITEkGRt* CUT SIZE RE L AT IQN.H I PS (CREATION BATE - 05/19/791 ICGWNI TLCNGTH IACPSSI CIT lla.95 ID52.85 2J66.7S 2883.65 1)9*.55 1908.-.5 '.Ml. SAN FRANCISCO ^Nine County Area) •SEATTLE •KANSAS CITY GREATER VANCOUVER DALLAS • MILWAUKEE 3.70 . • BUFFALO _ 1032.03 1595.90 21J9.S0 . 2623.70 WASHINGTON 05/19/7H PAGE 2 SUE • 5 tilt.25 5*5.1. 15 596<..0S LOS ANGELES CKCAGO • PHILADELPHIA 3137.60 1651.50 A165.40 4679.1J 5191.2J 5737.13 6221.00 T*1P LENGTH AND CITY SIZE RELATIONSHIPS STATISTICS.. C0RPEIAT1CN (Rl-STO tKR OF EST -0.11627 3.14TA1 R SOUAiiED INTERCEPT (Al 0.01152 6.CJ009 THE REGRESSION LINE CJTS THE MARGINS OF THC PLOT AT A VALUF. OF 7.06450 UN THE LEFT MARGIN A VALUE OF 8.002 89 ON |K'. RIGHT MA* GIN PL01IEO VALUES • 11 EICLUOEO VALUtS-SIJNIFICA'.CE SLOPE IBI HIS SIN". VALUES 0.16676 0.00020 .......... |s PRI^TE'U If • COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED. 12. 2. PLACE OF RESIDENCE The importance of work trip length in residential location of house holds has been studied over and over again in various metropolii of the world. This literature includes works of Virirakis (1968), Kain (1961), Alonso (1971) and Richardson (1971). Alonso (1971) argued that residential locations can be explained in terms of the relative value placed on space by the household and the cost of the journey to work at the CBD. Virirakis (1968) explained home location in a slightly different manner. After a study of the Athens Basin he concluded that there was a marked relationship between workplace and residence. He explained this in terms of an equilibrium between the tendency to search for a more advantageous place of residence in terms of cost, amenity and environment, and the cost of the journey to work. Kain (1961) on the other hand explained the residential location for each worker solely in terms of the worker's ability to meet the cost of travel. Richardson (1971) dismissed the extreme travel cost minimization hypotheses (i.e. the trade-off model) as advanced by Alonso and Virirakis. He stressed the importance of environmental preferences in home location choice. He argued that if the pure rent/travel cost trade-off idea is valid then the rich who can outbid lower income groups for any site would like to live near the city center, close to their place of work and undertake short work trips. However, this is inconsistent with empirical observation and therefore there must be other factors accounting for this phenomenon. In the Greater Vancouver Region', the trade-off between travel and location costs may be a factor in location decisions of households, but there is evidence that the primary explanation is to be found more in terms of house price, amenity and local environmental factors. The importance of these factors iSwhighlighted by the VATS data (Preliminary Report, 1974: 18) which indicate that for 16% of the sampled households that changed residence, house size was an important factor and for another 10% quality of dwelling was important. Other less important factors in terms of the number of residents giving these as reasons for moving from one home to another included lower prices, good views and nearness to certain uses like shops, schools and parks. Only 9% cited the fact that they wanted to be nearer their place of work as an important reason for moving. Work trip length was the fourth most significant' factor of consideration in household residential location decisions. If work trip lengths are important in the locational decisions of households then one would expect a marked positive relationship between work trip lengths and the ratio of workers to jobs available in the sub-areas. This relationship is examined later on in Chapter 3 of the thesis to see if there is further confirmation of these indications that reducing journey to work is a fairlyllow personal priority. 3. JOB STATUS OR INCOME Job status or income is another factor which may influence work trip length. The basis of this argument is the fact that one's income will determine one's ability to overcome distance. A high job status is usually associated with a high income and therefore the likelihood of such 14. a worker having a wider choice in the location of his residence. In addition to this choice, such people normally have shorter working hours and therefore they can afford a longer driving time to work (Hoover and Vernon, 1962: 155). Much of the work done in this respect has been related to large cities. (Hoover and Vernon, 1962; Daniels, 1973). For example, in a study carried out in South West Chicago (Daniels, 1973: 167-88) the high income occupa tion groups behaved as expected in that they had longer work trip lengths than low income occupation groups. Reasons for this included the fact, that high income workers could afford two cars and were thus better able to live in sections of the city far from centers of activity, employment and public transportation facilities (Hoover and Vernon, 1962: 155). The high income groups are little concerned with transport cost as compared to the low income/status workers. The long work trip lengths of the high income groups can also be explained by their preference for spacious living which is usually to be found in new suburbs with a lot of space per house. In a study carried out by Hoover and Vernon (1962: 159) in New York it was found that commuting time to Manhattan tended to increase with higher income level, though not at all sharply. There was only seven or eight minutes difference in commuting time between the highest-income fifth and the lowest-income fifth of the workforce. So far as Vancouver is concerned these studies are inconclusive because they relate to very large cities. In Vancouver, there may not be such a clearly discernible relationship between job status or income and work trip lengths. This is primarily because there are substantial high 15. income neighbourhoods close to the CBD and at moderate and long distances from the CBD. High income workers live in West Vancouver, Shaughnessy or South West Marine Drive areas. Likewise, low income workers who live in the West End, Downtown Eastside, Riley Park, Fairview or Cedar Cottage live at a range of distances from the dominant downtown Vancouver employ ment center. Thus, income or status may not be significantly related to work trip lengths in the Vancouver Region. Using the 1970 income distri bution figures and work trip lengths from VATS, this is analyzed in Chapter 3 of the thesis. SUMMARY This overview has discussed the factors which influence work trip length in metropolitan areas insofar as these can help in determining whether the "Living Close to Work" policy proposed for Vancouver will produce major benefits. From the published material it appears that city size, job status and income are not likely to be factors influencing work trip length in Greater Vancouver: the location of residence and jobs may be a signifi cant factor. Of these factors, those for which data are available for Greater Vancouver from VATS and the Census are: income or job status in relation to the work trip length; the relationship between work trip lengths for trips with the home end in a sub-area and the labour force (place of residence):job (place of work) ratios in that sub-area. If there is a marked positive correlation between work trip length and the number of jobs in relation to the resident workers in the local area, then it means 16. that more workers in relation to jobs you have in an area, the longer the work trip lengths tend to be. The relationship between such a result and the issues being addressed is also simple. If such a relationship is found to hold in the Vancouver Region, then it supports the conclusion that the location of jobs within the suburbs will in fact reduce work trip lengths, assuming other factors remain the same. Associated with this will be the social benefits which will accrue to society as a whole in the form of alleviation of downtown traffic 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 in Chapter 2 and how they may influence work trip lengths within the region. This is done by relating an analysis of work trip lengths from the VATS files to income, labour force and job ratios derived from the 1970 Census. The analysis starts with a discussion of the methodology used. This is followed by a discussion of work trip lengths within the region. The relationship between the factors is next discussed. The chapter ends with a summary of the analysis and the most significant findings. METHODOLOGY (i) Basis of Statistical Analysis The Vancouver Region was divided into a number of sub-areas that are manageable in terms of data collection. The subdivision was necessary because, for example, the correlation between work trip length and labour force:job ratio depends on a reasonable geographical distribution to give the spatial patterns needed. Figure 2 is an index map showing the sub-areas which were used for the statistical analysis. (ii) Method of Analysis Work trip lengths were calculated from VATS for all the home based work trips from these sub-areas. The average household income and the various labour force:job ratios for each of these areas were calculated from the 1971 Census data. A visual analysis supported by a regression analysis was then performed on the two sets of variables; work trip length VD 20. and income, work trip length and labour force:.job ratios. The 1971 Census data had to be used in conjunction with the VATS data because it was not possible to cross-match pieces of data on different VATS files. (iii) Measuring Work Trip Length The literature indicated that time and distance are the two most useful measures of work trip length when the matter of concern is full trip cost. They are relatively easy indices to collect and are together sufficient to allow comparison of relative costs. In view of the fact that some earlier studies used 'as the crow flies' distance as a unit of measurement, it would be interesting to compare the results of these studies and the 7"-present study. Thus, in addition to time and rectangular route distance the study also used the direct distance measure. Reported work trip travel time is an item on the VATS file and was therefore read off from the file. Distance is, however, not an actual item on the file and had to be computed from the co-ordinates of the origin and destination of the work trips surveyed by VATS. As mentioned above, the measurement of distance was done both in terms of a rectangular distance or a :direct distance measure. The rectangular distance measure tends to be a good estimate of actual trip distance for short work trips but the direct distance measure is better for longer distances. Time and distance are used at different points in the study because travel time is sensitive to congestion and distance may better reflect other costs of travel. 21. SECTION A - WORK TRIP LENGTHS WITHIN THE GVRD (i) Work Trip Lengths within the Sube.areas Out of the 3,354 sample work trips generated, 11 .TL of these trips started at home. The remaining 22.3% were on the job or business trips. Appendix 1 is a place of residence (labour force) - place of work (jobs) matrix. It gives the origins and destinations of the sample work trips. In terms of work trip origins, North Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Sunset and the Hastings-Grandview Woodlands are the most significant. In terms of work trip destinations or concentrations of jobs, Surrey, Richmond, the downtown and North Vancouver are the most significant areas (see column totals in Appendix 1). This job distribution reflects the populationL.size of some areas, which markedly influences residential population serving employment, and industrial concentrations in the region. Figure 3 shows the labour force:job ratios for various areas of the region. Areas with large ratios include Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Surrey, Delta and White Rock and West Vancouver, all bedroom suburbs. Figure 4 shows the mean work trip lengths for 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 trip lengths are longer for areas with larger labour force:job ratios. The examples of Delta and White Rock, Surrey and Coquitlam illustrate this. In these areas most workers have to travel to work outside their various places of residence and thus, the high mean work trip lengths (see Appendix 2 for a.;statistical summary of work trip length characteristics). ho to 29-3 mins or 24. If areas with large labour force:job ratios tend to have long work trip lengths, then in crude terms it appears that a reduction in the ratio by say increasing the number of jobs in the various areas should have the effect of reducing work trip lengths. For the same work trip lengths, there tends to be a decline in travel time as the distance of the home and from the CBD increases. For example, the short work trip length of 3.152 miles for West End workers was travelled in 21.63 minutes on average. On the other hand the mean work trip length of 3.251 miles for Shaughnessy and South Cambie residents was travelled in 13.4 minutes. This could reflect the different levels of accessibility by the alternative modes of travel in different parts of the city. (ii) Work Trip Lengths Within the Whole Region The work trip lengths within the region were broken down into home based and non-home based. Table 3 is a summary of the various types of trips and how they vary with distance. Home based work trips comprise about 77.7% of the total work trips and the non-home based work trips make up the remaining 22.3% of the trips. Home based work trips vary between the recorded range of one minute (0.1 mile); and 420 minutes (48.9 miles). About 60% of the labour force lived within 24 minutes of their places of work. This together with the median trip length of 4.285 miles goes to substantiate what the GVRD estimated to be the average work trip length within the region. "... Today, most people in the region live within 4 or 5 miles of their work ..." (GVRD, 1975: 15). The mean work trip length of 24 minutes or 6.81 miles for the whole TABLE 3: A COMPARISON OF HOME BASED AND NON-HOME BASED WORK TRIP LENGTHS Trip Length All Work Home Based Non-Home Based In Miles Trips Work Trips Work Trips 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 -Total 100% 100% 100% Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes 26. region in 1972 is slightly higher than the mean work trip lengths for Philadelphia, Dallas, Milwaukee and Buffalo (see Table 2 in Chapter 2). Even though Vancouver cannot be compared to most of these cities in terms of size, there is no significant difference between the mean work trip lengths. Figure 1 in Chapter 2 illustrates that there is .at best a very weak relationship between city size and mean work trip length. It also fits in with Lawton's finding that there is no significant difference between work trip lengths in different types of cities and towns. Figure 5 shows the work trip length distribution for both home based and non-home based work trips. The "all work trips" distribution follows the same pattern as the home based work trips but these two are different from the hon-home based work trips. Non-home based work trips are generally less than two miles, with a smaller number of trips beyond 24 miles. On the other hand home based work trips tend to be longer than non-home based work trips. In particular the home based work trip length distribution has a long tail. Table 4 is a summary of the various statistical measures of the three ..distributions. Figure 6 shows the work trip travel time profile. Figure 7 is the cumulative frequency distribution curve for these trips. Forty-six per cent of the workers lived within 15 minutes of their workplaces. Eighty-two per cent of these workers undertook work trips of less than 30 minutes and in fact 60% of these home based work trips had a travel time of less than 25 minutes. Only 7% of the work force spent more than 45 minutes in travelling to work. Figure 8 is the time profile for male and female workers. There are few differences between the two distributions. There are relatively 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 Statistical All 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 in travelling to work and the men generally spent slightly longer times in travelling than women. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the modes of travel to work and a break down of the modal choice characteristics by sex. The salient features are the importance of the automobile as a mode of travel to work, and the significant proportion of females who use bus transit, walked or travelled to work as auto passengers as compared to male workers. This description of travel times and mode indicates that most work trips are quite short and that there is not much difference in travel time between men and women. There were also ties in travel time as reported and hence the "zig zag" in the profile as people tend to report quarter hour intervals. The use of transit as a mode' of travel to work invariably means waiting time and hence it is hard to reduce these trips to 15 minutes or less. Thus, it is not going to be easy to substantially reduce the travel time for the bulk of workers who use transit. (iii) Differences Associated with Work Trip Lengths to the CBD and : .v; Other Employment Centers The downtown is the center of all commercial and administrative functions within the region and therefore employs a substantial number of people from all over the region. In 1971 the downtown employed 73,000 people"'' or 35% of the region's labour force. Out of this, 62% lived within the City boundaries, the other 38% commuted from the other munici palities. In comparison with this 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 +-> §60 50 40-30 20+ 101 0 66% <D CD C 0) CO 8 O +-> a 1Q& 00 c o 00 11% c o a ii 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-!! ill ill i -IN in ii I! AUTO DRIVER Fig 10 Modal choice of travel by sex so, AoTo male female .1-7 , f I 60S T*UC« TAXI WALK WlTCH- 6lCTtl£ H-OfCuE CAR OTwew 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 is the work trip length distribution for "downtown," "all suburban" and "major suburban employment centers". The mean work trip length for the downtown workers was 6.11 miles and the distribution had a median of 5.16 miles. The frequency distribution curve shows that about 18% of the workers lived within two miles of the downtown area which is essentially the area bordering the downtown and including the very densely populated West End. The mean travel time to all employment centers outside the downtown was 23.2 minutes (8.1 miles) and the distribution had a median of 19.67 3 minutes (4.86 miles). However the mean and median travel times to the major suburban employment centers in Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam were 20.9 minutes (5.8 miles) and 16.68 minutes (4.96 miles) respectively. Figure 12 is the work trip travel time profile for the three distributions. The above seems to indicate that either workers in the suburban centers lived closer to their workplaces than the downtown workers or travel is quicker outside the congested CBD. The latter is the predomin ant reason suggested by an examination of the mode of travel. This • reveals the relative importance of auto travel to the suburban centers and transit to the downtown area (see Table 5). Auto is generally faster than transit and therefore travel to the suburban centers is likely to be faster 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 trip length frequency distribution to the various employment centers. 36. Fig 11 Frequency distributions of work trips by trip length 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 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 Transit 4 Truck 5 Taxi 6 School Bus 7 8 9 10 11 12 Walk Only Hitchhike. Bicycle Motorcycle. Car Pool Other Note: Percentage totals 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 all over the region (see Figures 13-17). The downtown work trips have origins in virtually all the geographical areas. Work trips to the suburban centers on the other hand did not have origins from all over the region. This can be attributed to the smaller sample sizes to the major 4 employment centers as compared to the sample of trips to the downtown area. (iv) Comparison with Other Studies Table 6 is a summary and comparison of the various work trip 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 trips are longer and more time consuming than is indicated in these earlier studies. Mean work trip lengths for downtown workers have increased less than work trip lengths for employment areas outside the downtown area. This trend could be explained in terms of the pattern of job location and the areal growth of the region. Between 1965 and 1972 there was a lot of peripheral suburban residential development in areas like Surrey and Delta whose populations grew by 3.75% per annum and 17.28% per annum respectively.^"" The higher rate of increase in the suburban work trip lengths may be explained by the faster population growth in relation to the increase in the number of jobs within the suburban areas. It can also be inferred from this that if work trip lengths within the sub-areas are to be reduced, then 4 See Appendix 3 for the various sample sizes. 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 in 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 in parentheses indicate rectangular measures, all other distances are straight airline distances. ^ Wolforth's study was conducted in 1965. He used the 1963 Vancouver City Director as the source of data. g Hickman's study was conducted later on in 1968 and he used the same source as Wolforth. 9 The VATS data base was collected in the spring of 1972. The average work trip length to the major employment centers is, however, 5.8 miles, (rectangular distance) 46. the rate of growth in the labour force should be matched with the rate of growth in the number of jobs. Another possible explanation for this difference could be because of the differences in sample size 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 attributes of the workers and their workplaces. Unlike these studies the VATS took a 1% sample of all the resident population within the Greater Vancouver Region in 1972 (3,562 households) and examined the attributes of the trip makers, their house holds, modal choice characteristics and trip record. It therefore forms a much wider and less biased data source than the Directory. SECTION B - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACTORS (i) Work Trip Length and Labour Force:Job Ratios Figure 3 shows the 1971 labour force:job ratios for sub-areas of the region. This ratio indicates the number of workers in relation to the number of jobs available in the various areas. A ratio of 1.0 implies that there are equal number of workers and jobs within an area. If all the jobs within such an area match the labour force skills then all the workers can work within that area and hence work trip lengths may be short. However, since the jobs in an area rarely fully match labour force skills this ratio is only a crude measure of local job opportunities for an area's workers. Whether or not it is possible to conclude that within the Vancouver Region the higher the ratio, the longer the work trip lengths is an important question because a major regional planning policy, balancing the number of jobs and workers in sub-areas, is based in large measure on the belief that it is . This hypothesis is tested for the Vancouver Region by performing a regression analysis on both the mean and median work trip lengths and the labour force:job ratios for the geographical sub-areas of the region identified in Figure 2. Figures 18 and 19 are plots of these ratios in relation to length as measure by the "mean times and distances". From the various statistical measures it appears as if travel time is more related to the labour force:job ratio than travel distance. This relationship has the highest coefficient of correlation (0.3098)"'""'", which is a measure of the extent or degree to which these two variables are related. It also has the highest coefficient of determination (0.09598) which is the variation in mean work trip lengths accounted for by the variations in the labour force:job ratio. Only 9.6% of the variations in mean work trip lengths is accounted for by variations in the labour force: job ratios. This clearly indicates the importance of factors other than the labour force:job ratios in determining work trip lengths. These factors may include skills of the labour force in relation to the jobs available, the time the jobs are available on the market and the preference of the labour force for the jobs available. Distance is not much related to the labour force:job ratios. This is exhibited by the wide scatter of data points and the low correlation This is highest only in terms of the relationships between the variables. 48. FIGURE 18: A SCATTERGRAM OF TRAVEL TIME AND THE LABOUR FORCE:JOB RATIOS' TRIP LEA'CTH RECRCSSIO» AHALTSIS flLE THESIS (CREATIOR HT! • 05/11/7*) scATTtRORAn 3J.:o 25.28 2). 30 (Dow*) Tirtc 0.60 1.07 (ACROSS) LrjRATIO 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 STATISTICS.. COBkEI.ATIOH ("»-STO ERR Of 1ST -0.30980 «. 311»7 B S3UIHED IHTEPCEPT (A) THE RIGBESSIOI! LINE 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. ajjas SIGBI rlCAHCE SLOPE (B) HISSK6 VALUES 0.0b176 1.38910 ls 1>B IU TED If A OErrlCIEa? CAL HOT UE COrt?UTED. 49. FIGURE 19: SCATTERGRAM OF TRAVEL DISTANCE AND THE LABOUR FORCE:JOB RATIOS TRIP lEHGTH REGRESSION ARALJSIS • PHI THESIS (CHEATIOR DATE - 05/19/78) SCATTERG RAH Of (0OWH| T LENGTH 0.60 1.07 1.5» 2.00 2.17 05/19/73 (ACROSS) LfJRATIO 2.9H 3.HI 3.87 la.«» 13. 31 9.92 7.67 A.28 3. IS • o.37 5.8A «.10 L-7' 77 2.21* 2.70 3.17 3.6H 0. 11 "•i7 I I I • I I I 8. 79 TBI? IE5GTS BETIUSSial J.HAITSIS 05/19/78 STATISTICS.. CCtREHTIOII <P|-S1D El- B Of EST -0. 102« 3.06CGO R S3U»l!E3 UTERCEPT (A) -THE PEGPESSI05 LIKE CUTS TI! K RAKUIKS OP T.l6 PLOT »T . ,,,,)t or 6.'.22'.'. THE L El T r.ACIS A l/LUK 07 7. ISC]/ OI THE RiGIIT f!«1<:!U PLOTTED »AL!IE3 - 26 EXCLUDED VAL!IfS-0.01057 6. H0I.70 5I5NIPICAKCE SLOPE (U) HISSING VALUE! IS PUUTiO IP A COE.-flClEHT CAUKOT HE COHPUTE0. 0. JOl'.O 0.311«3 50. coefficient (0.10283) and the extremely low coefficient of determination (0.015057). Thus, time seems to be more correlated with the labour force:job ratio than travel distance. It mildly supports the claim that the higher the ratio the longer the mean work trip length for work trips leaving a particular area. It gives slight support to the contention that one way of reducing mean work trip lengths is to achieve a balance between the labour force and jobs within sub-areas of the region. (ii) Work Trip Length and Income The literature review in Chapter 2 presented the view that income influences work trip length. It appears that the well to do have longer work trip lengths than the other workers in most cities, at least in the United States, and that the low income workers have the shortest work trip lengths. Is this the case in the Greater Vancouver Region? This question was investigated by analyzing work trip lengths from VATS of 1972 and average household incomes from the 1971 Census. Figure 20 indicates the average household incomes for the various sub-areas of the region. A regression analysis was done using these data on income and data on mean work trip lengths for home to .work trips for each sub-area. Figures 21 and 22 are the plots of income with time and distance. The analysis reveals that income is not significantly related to work trip length in terms of either time or distance. This is indicated by the 2 -5 R 's of 4.0 x 10 for the relationship between distance and income, and -3 2.13 x 10 for that between time and income. Their coefficients of -3 -2 correlation 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. TBIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PICS 8 MLE THESIS (CREATION DATE • 05/19/78) SCATTERGRAII Or (DOWN) TI.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 REGRESSION AM ALTSIS 05/19/78 PACE 9 STATISTICS.. COllRELATION (*)-STD tut or 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 nillGINS Or THE PLOT AT A VALUE Or 23. 20779 OH Tilt LErT ."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 REGRESSION ASALTS1S 05/19/73 PAGE ( rut THLSIS (cnexTio.i D«TE • os/i9/;8) SC» tTEUli B»n or (Ddil.l) TLENUTH • (1CROG5) 1.1CCME 7050.25 827H.75 1507. 25 10735. 71 11964.25 13192.75 14421.25 15649.75 16.173.2S 18106.75 14.44 8.79 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 THE pLOT AT A »ALUL Or 6.Y7656 ON THt LETT HA PC IN A IALUE Cr 7.05506 ON THE BIGHT nARGIN PLOTTED tALUES 26 EXCLUDED tiLUES-0. 00004 6. 93543 SIGNlflCANCE SLOPE |0) HISSINS TALUES 0.43717 0.6J915Z-0S .......... Is PRINTED If A COEPrlCIENT CANNOT HE CilnpOTED. 54. respectively. However, a visual analysis of the plots indicates that the low income workers generally undertake short work trip lengths. On the other hand the middle income workers undertake the highest work trip lengths and the high income workers undertake modest work trip lengths. As a conclusion, it can be said that even though certain studies indicate that as income increases work trip lengths increase, this does not appear to be the case in the Greater Vancouver Region. CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 56. INTRODUCTION This chapter is in two parts. The first states the findings of this study and the second discusses these findings and relates them to the "Living Close to Work" policy to indicate the benefits to be expected from such a policy. The specific aspects of the policy being discussed are: 1. whether a balance between the labour force and jobs on a local area basis will have the effect of reducing work trip lengths, and 2. whether the above strategy will lead to an easing of downtown traffic congestion. SECTION A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The major findings of the study could be summarized as follows: 1. Mean and median work trip distances to all the suburban centers together are somewhat shorter than the corresponding figures to the downtown employment center. This seems to suggest that in general terms if employment centers are located outside the downtown work trip distances will be shorter than those to the downtown area. This supports the proposition that one way of reducing work trip lengths will be to decentralize jobs from the downtown area to suburban centers. 2. Mean and median work trip .travel times to the suburban centers are substantially shorter than the corresponding travel times to the down town employment center. One implication of this to the study is the fact that even though a job location outside the downtown might not lead to a substantial reduction in travel distances, there may be significant time savings. 3. Areas with high labour force:job ratios tend to have the longest work trip lengths. This is the case with Delta and White Rock, Surrey and Port Coquitlam. However, a balance of labour force and jobs in a particular area (i.e. a ratio of 1.0) does not necessarily imply short work trip lengths. The case of North Burnaby illustrates this. (This area has a ratio of 0.99 and a mean work trip length of 29.54 minutes or 7.481 miles.) This suggests that a balance between labour force and jobs in an area may not necessarily lead to short work trip lengths in comparison with other areas. The fact that the labour force balances the number of jobs may have little influence on work trip lengths because many other conditions are required if the jobs are to be filled by candidates who live locally. The right man must be available from the local area when a job is vacant, must want the job, and must be preferred over all others applying for it. 4. Between 1965 and 1972 mean work trip lengths to all the employment centers outside the downtown increased faster than the mean work trip 12 ' length to the downtown. (see Table 6). This may be attributed in part to the increase in residential development on the periphery of the region. One implication of this is that as the population of the areas outside the downtown increases, the mean work trip length also This conclusion was arrived at by comparing work trip lengths derived by Wolforth (1965), Hickman (1968) and VATS (1972). However, the VATS surveys were carried out in a different way from the two other studies. See page 46 for a discussion of the survey methodology used in each study. 58. increases. Thus, to reduce the mean work trip length outside the downtown, jobs can be located in such areas. The comparison of travel modes to the suburban centers and the downtown revealed the importance of transit to the downtown and auto to the non-downtown employment centers. Women were also found to be heavily dependent on transit as compared to men. This suggests that if jobs are deflected from the downtown and located in the suburban areas, there may be a change in the mode of travel to work. Most workers will shift to the use of auto because of its advantages and higher quality of travel as compared to the bus transit. The analysis of work trip lengths in relation to the average household incomes of the various geographical areas of the region revealed that people who live in high income sub-areas of the Lower Mainland travel no less and no more than the population as a whole to and from work. This is at variance with the general conclusion from empirical and theoretical studies that the rich do make longer journeys than the population as a whole. The study attributes this to the fact that high income workers can find high quality residential areas of substantial size adjacent to the CBD, in the inner suburbs and in the outer suburbs. Low income workers live in low-cost residential areas and there is a preponder ance of these in the inner city and the journey to work from these areas is relatively short. Middle income sub-areas produce the longest work trips overall and this appears to reflect the development of new, mid-priced single family subdivisions on the urban fringe. 59. 7. The comparison and analysis of the various populations and mean work trip lengths for ten SMSA's and Greater Vancouver show that average work trip length in Vancouver and the trip length frequency distribu tion for Vancouver appear to be quite typical of those for moderate and large cities. 8. The study was able to confirm the findings of some earlier studies that mean work trip lengths to suburban employment centers are shorter than the mean work trip to the downtown. However, it did not show that suburban employment centers draw their labour from a smaller catchment area as compared to the CBD. This was because there was no clear pattern in the origin of work trips to these two centers. They all seemed to have had origins over the whole region. In general the trip length frequency distribution for suburban centers has a very similar profile to that for trips to the CBD. The key differences are that more trips to suburban centers start close to these centers and the distribution is more compact for short and medium length trips. SECTION B - CONCLUSION One conclusion from the analysis was the fact that between 1965 and 1972, the increase in work trip lengths to employment centers outside the CBD was primarily the result of a greater increase in residential develop ment on the region's periphery. The analysis also established "the fact that mean and median work trip 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 trip lengths: (i) maintaining a balance between the population (labour force) and jobs for both downtown and non-downtown employment centers; (ii) deflecting jobs to non-downtown locations. These seem to be the legitimate bases of the GVRD's "Living Close to Work" policy which seeks to deflect jobs from the CBD to the suburbs and also seeks to maintain a balance between the labour force and jobs on a local area basis. The comparison of work trip lengths from the three studies between 1965 and 1972 also suggests that one way of reducing work trip lengths is 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 significant correlation between work trip length and the ratio of sub-area labour force and sub-area jobs. A long work trip length was not necessarily the result of an imbalance between the sub-area labour force and sub-area jobs. Apart from this ratio, other factors related to employee skills, availability of jobs and preference of the workers in an area will determine whether people will travel less to work. There was a very slight correlation between work trip time and the ratio of sub-area labour force to sub-area jobs. This in relation to the shorter travel times to the suburban centers as compared to corresponding figures to the downtown has an important implication for the study. Even though the matching of jobs to the labour force in the sub-areas might not lead to significant reductions in work trip distances, there will still be substantial time savings. The VATS data on work trip travel mode indicated the overall 61. importance of transit and auto to the downtown and suburban centers respectively. The "Living Close to Work" policy by deflecting jobs from the downtown to the suburban centers may lead to a change in the workers' mode usage. There will be a significant and for the individual traveller a beneficial shift to the use of the auto because of its advantages and the higher quality of travel as compared to the bus transit. One other benefit the policy has is the advantage it will have in diverting traffic from the CBD oriented peak hour flows. The policy can therefore lead to an easing of the traffic congestion within the downtown area and the city as a whole. To some degree these conclusions must be regarded as tentative because of limitations of available data. As and when data on, say, decentralized firms and offices from the downtown become available, the issue should be further examined because it would be valuable to ascertain the effects of the policy in terms of the reaction of firms to moves over time. Such a study will not only be an indicator of the effectiveness of the policy but it will also indicate its effect on work trip lengths. Finally, since it is clear that home selection depends to a high degree on the suitability of the dwelling in terms of size and neighbourhood amenities, research on exactly how important these factors are in Vancouver is called for. This research should be coupled with policy recommendations that will encourage the creation of housing and amenities that fit the desires of local area employees and is within their price range. BIBLIOGRAPHY 63. American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO). Information Report #26, 1951. Aucott, J.W. "Dispersal of Offices from London," Town Planning Review, 31 (1960): 37-51. Burtenshaw, D. and A. Duffet. "Office Decentralization - Ten Years Experience," The Surveyor, 143 (1974): 22-5, 21-3. Cherry, C. "Electronic Communication: A Force for Dispersal," Official  Architecture and Planning, 33 (1970): 773-6. Daniels, P.W. "Office Decentralization from London: Policy and Practice," Regional Studies, 3 (1969): 171-8. . "Transport Changes Generated by Decentralized Offices," Regional Studies, 6 (1972): 273-89. . "Some Changes in the Journey to Work of Decentralized Office Workers," Town Planning Review, 44 (1973): 167-88. . Office Decentralization: An Urban and Regional Study. G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., London, 1975. Evans, A.W. "Myths About Employment in Central London," Journal of  Transport Economics and Policy, 1 (1967): 214-25. Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Livable Region, 1976/1986. Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver, 1971. . Regional Town Centers Programme. August, 1974. . "The Traffic Problem," We've talked about it for too long, it's time we do something (pamphlet). 1975. Goddard, J.B. "Changing Office Location Patterns within Central London," Urban Studies, 4 (1967): 276-84. Goodman, William I. and Eric C. Freund. Principles and Practice of  Urban Planning. International City Managers' Association, Washington, 1968. Hall, R.K. "The Movement of Offices from Central London," Regional  Studies, 6 (1972): 385-92. . "The Movement of Offices from London," Regional Studies, 6 (1972): 387-391. 64. Hammond, E. "Dispersal of Government Offices: A Survey," Urban Studies, 3 (1967): 258-75. Hickman, Richard Michael. The Peripheral Journey to Work in Vancouver. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in 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 in the VATS  Data Base, Report and Appendix, n.d. Jones, D.E. and R.K. Hall. "Office Suburbanization in the United States," Town and Country Planning, 40 (1972): 470-3. Kain, J.F. The Journey to Work as a Determinant of Residential Location. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, December 1961. Koike, Hirotaka and Paul 0. Roer. VATS, Vancouver Activity Travel Study Preliminary Report. School of Community and Regional Planning, and Centre for.JTransportation Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May, 1974. Koike, Hirotaka. VATS, Vancouver Activity Travel Study User's Manual. School of Community and Regional Planning, Centre for Transportation Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May, 1974. Lawton, R. "The Journey to Work in Britain; Some Trends and Problems," Regional'Science, 2:1 (September 1968): 27-40. Lind, H.G. "Location by Guesswork," Journal of Transport Economics and  Policy, 1 (1967): 154-63. Manners, G. "Decentralization in Metropolitan Boston," Geography, 45 (1960): 276-85. . "On the Mezzanine Floor: Some Reflections on Contemporary Office Location Policy," Town and Country Planning, 40 (1972): 210-15. Pappas, P. "Trip Lengths in Relation to Facilities and Journey to Work," Ekistics, 30:177 (August 1970): 87-89. Reeder, L.G. "Social Differentials in Modes of Travel, Time and Cost in the Journey to Work," American Sociological 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. Virirakis, J. "Place of Residence and Place of Work," Ekistics, 26:152 (July 1968): 123-141. Wabe, J.S. "Office 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 Policy, 1 (1967): 345-361. Westergaard, Jotin. "Journeys to Work in the London Region," Town  Planning Review, 28 (April 1957): 37-62. Wilbur, Smith and Associates. Living Close to Work, A Policy Study for  the Vancouver Region. November, 1973 ( D. Spaeth). Wolforth, John Raymond. Work-residence Relations in Vancouver. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of a Master of Arts in Geography, 1965. . "The Journey to Work," Ch. 2 of Residential 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 in Appendix 1  Code Meaning 0 Blank Records 1 UEL and Point Grey 2 Kitsilano 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 Victoria - Fraserview and Killarney 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 Unofficial Census Tract (Rural Fringe) PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/15/761 05/19/78 PAGE ****************** CROSSTABULATION OF ****************** PLRESID BY PLWORK *m*****m******m************4******#*#**#*^****M** PAGE 10F12 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) ****************** CROSSTABULATION 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 ROSS 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 [01 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 ROSSTABU 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 ****************** CR0SSTA8ULATI 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» ****************** CROSSTABULATION 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) ****************** CROSS TABULATION 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) ****************** CROSSTABULATION' 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> ****************** ***************** CROSSTABULATION 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) ****************** CROSSTABULATICN 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) ****************** CROSSTABULATION 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) *«************<<*«* CROSSTABULATION' 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 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 C'TRACT-TRIP 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 M0°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 M00E 20.000 STD DEV 11.748 RANGE 58.00MINIMUM 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 MISSING DATA 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 (All 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. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE 4 TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA DISTSU8R (All Suburban Areas) ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ C UM CODE FREO PC T PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT 31 .COO 1 0 94 35.200 3 0 97 40.000 1 0 99 31 .200 1 0 94 35.4CC 2 0 97 40.400 I 0 99 31.400 2 0 95 35.600 5 0 97 41.600 I »J 99 31.600 2 0 95 36.000 4 0 97 41 .800 2 0 99 31.aco 2 0 95 36.2C0 I 0 98 42.000 2 0 99 32.000 1 0 95 36.400 2 0 98 43.000 1 0 99 32.200 1 0 95 36.600 3 0 98 43.600 1 0 99 32.600 3 0 95 36.800 I 0 98 44.200 2 0 99 32.800 1 0 95 37.000 1 0 98 44.400 2 0 99 33.000 5 C 96 37.600 2 0 98 45.200 1 0 100 33.200 6 0 96 37.800 2 0 98 45.80C I c 100 33.400 5 C 96 38.000 1 0 98 46.000 1 0 100 34.000 2 0 96 38.600 1 0 98 47.000 I 0 100 34.200 1 0 97 39.400 2 0 99 47.800 2 G 100 34.6C0 1 0 97 39. 800 1 0 99 49.000 2 0 100 CODE 0.0 FREO 1085 I S S I CODE N G DA FREO r A CODE FREO MEAN MODE MINIMUM 8. 104 1.000 0.200 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.237 9.253 49.000 MEO IAN RANGE 4.862 48.800 VALID CASES 1520 MISSING CASES 1085 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 MISSING DATA 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 MISSING DATA 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 MEAN 14.439 STD ERR 0.213 MEDIAN 14.045 M00E 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 DAT 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 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS PAGE T IMESUB (Suburban Areas) MEAN MODE MINIMUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM - ACJ CUM :ODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREO PCT PCT CODE . FREO PCT PCT 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 :ODE FREO CODE FREO CODE FREO 0. 427 23.218 STD ERR 0.458 MEDIAN 19.675 15. 000 STD DEV 21 .383 RANGE 419. 000 1.000 MAXIMUM 42C.OO0 VALID CASES 2178 MISSING CASES 427 108. 05/19/78 FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78 PAGE TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS T IMEC8D (Downtown) ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ;ODE FREO PCT PCT CODE FREG PCT PCT CODE FREG PCT PCT 3. 2 0 0 21. 1 0 44 55. 6 1 93 5. 13 3 3 22. 1 0 44 60. 23 5 97 7. 2 0 3 25. 46 9 53 65. 4 1 98 10. 38 7 11 30. .95 19 72 70. 3 1 98 11. 1 0 11 35. 25 5 77 75. 5 1 99 12. 1 0 11 38. 1 0 77 80. 1 C 100 13. 1 0 11 40. 16 3 80 90. I C 100 15. 60 16 27 45. 46 9 89 25 5. 1 0 100 18. 1 0 27 50. 9 2 91 20. 83 16 44 52. 1 0 91 CODE 0. FREO 2098 ISSING DATA CODE FREO CODE FREQ MEAN MODE MINIMUM 28.653 30.000 3.000 STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 0.817 18.402 255.000 MEDIAN RANGE 25.141 252.000 VALID CASES 507 MISSING CASES 2098 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 MEAN 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 Area) i i i i 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. 33 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 31.22 29.24 27.26 25.28 23. 30 21.32 19. 34 17.36 15.38 13.40 ICREATION DATE (DQSN) TIME 0.60 1.07 = 05/19/78) 1.54 2.00 2.47 (ACROSS) LFJ RATIO 2. 94 3. 41 3.87 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, CO TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE 6 PILE THESIS (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) 14. 44 13.31 12. 18 11. 05 9.92 8.79 7.67 6.54 5.41 4.28 3. 15 OF (DOWN) T LENGTH (ACROSS) INCOME 7050.25 8278.75 9507.25 10735.75 11964.25 13192.75 14421. 25 15649.75 16878. 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 ** 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 TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS 05/19/78 PAGE STATISTICS.. CORRELATION (R)- 0.00663 R SQUARED STD ERR OF EST - 3.08231 INTERCEPT |A) THE REGRESSION LINE 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 ********** IS PRINTED IF 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 7ALTJE 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:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 19 23
United States 9 0
Ukraine 1 0
Russia 1 0
France 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Shenzhen 10 23
Beijing 9 0
Ashburn 8 0
Roubaix 1 0
Saint Petersburg 1 0
Wilmington 1 0
Unknown 1 22
Southampton 1 0
Tokyo 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094265/manifest

Comment

Related Items