UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

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

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A6_7 A33.pdf [ 7.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094265.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094265-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094265-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094265-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094265-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094265-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094265-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094265-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094265.ris

Full Text

WORK TRIP LENGTHS WITHIN THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGION  by  KWASI KWAFO ADARKWA B.Sc.  (Hons.) U n i v e r s i t y o f S c i e n c e 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 o f Community and R e g i o n a l  We a c c e p t t h i s  Planning)  t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1978  ©  Kwasi Kwafo Adarkwa, 1978  In  presenting  an  advanced degree  the I  Library  further  for  this  shall  agree  scholarly  by  his  of  this  thesis  in  at  University  the  make  that  it  freely  permission  thesis  for  It  financial  is  fulfilment  of  of  Columbia,  British  available for  by  the  understood  gain  shall  School of Community & Regional Planning  of  British  2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date  2  4  M a  y  1  9  7  8  Columbia  the  requirements  reference copying  Head o f  that  not  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y  for  extensive  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d  representatives.  written  partial  of  I  agree  and this  be a l l o w e d  or  that  study. thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  w i t h o u t my  ii  ABSTRACT  The study examines the " L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work" p o l i c y w i t h i n G r e a t e r Vancouver  Region.  Specifically i t investigates  p o l i c y would have on work t r i p  the  the e f f e c t s  this  l e n g t h s w i t h i n the r e g i o n .  A review o f r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h r e v e a l s which  c o u l d i n f l u e n c e work t r i p  Region.  l e n g t h s w i t h i n the G r e a t e r  factors  Vancouver  Among these f a c t o r s are c i t y s i z e , l o c a t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e s and  workplaces, and income. Data f o r the study were taken from the Vancouver and the 1971 the  Vancouver  Canada Census.  Data on work t r i p  l e n g t h s were o b t a i n e d from  Census.  l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s and work t r i p  l e n g t h s and average  A d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s o f work t r i p  ratios  Regression analysis  used to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between work t r i p  incomes.  Study  A r e a T r a v e l Study f i l e s and d a t a on l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b  and average household incomes from the 1971 was  Area T r a v e l  l e n g t h s and household  length c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r  downtown and non-downtown employment c e n t e r s was  used to study  how  t r a v e l and j o b l o c a t i o n are r e l a t e d . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e s a) people who  that:  l i v e i n h i g h income subareas of the Lower Mainland  travel  no l e s s and no more than the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole i n g o i n g t o and from work; b) mean and median t r a v e l times to the suburban  c e n t e r s are s h o r t e r  than the c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i g u r e s to the downtown workplaces; c) between 1965  and 1972 mean work t r i p  d i s t a n c e s to non-downtown  l o c a t i o n s i n c r e a s e d f a s t e r than the mean work t r i p  d i s t a n c e t o the  iii  downtown; d) areas with high labour force:job ratios tend to have long work t r i p lengths; e) average work t r i p length i n Greater Vancouver and the t r i p length frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Greater Vancouver appear quite t y p i c a l of those for moderate and large c i t i e s . The implications of these conclusions f o r the "Living Close to Work" policy f o r the region are worked out. The study suggests that this policy w i l l not result i n a substantial reduction i n work t r i p t r a v e l distance.  However, there are indications  that i t w i l l result i n worthwhile work t r i p t r a v e l time savings as well as other benefits.  An area f o r further research i s suggested and  observations made on data requirements  f o r such a study.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES  .  v  LIST OF FIGURES  vi  CHAPTER 1  2  3  INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY  1  Introduction  2  Approach and Methodology  3  Organization  4  o f the Study  REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH  6  Introduction  7  City Size  7  P l a c e o f Residence  12  Job S t a t u s o r Income  13  S ummary  15  ANALYSIS OF VATS AND THE CENSUS DATA  17  Introduction  18  Methodology  18  S e c t i o n A - Work T r i p Lengths W i t h i n  4  the GVRD  21  S e c t i o n B - R e l a t i o n s h i p between F a c t o r s  46  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  55  Introduction  56  S e c t i o n A - Summary o f F i n d i n g s  56  Section B - Conclusion  59  BIBLIOGRAPHY  62  APPENDICES 1  P l a c e o f R e s i d e n c e / P l a c e o f Work M a t r i x  2  Summary o f Work T r i p Length Measures f o r the G e o g r a p h i c a l Areas  3 4  T r a v e l D i s t a n c e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Major Employment Centers T r a v e l Time Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Major Employment Centers  67 . . . .  81 93 105  V  LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1  Comparison o f Work T r i p Length D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Vancouver and Chicago  2  Average Work T r i p Length Data, S e l e c t e d SMSAs  3  A Comparison o f Home Based and Non-home Based Work T r i p Lengths A Summary of S t a t i s t i c a l Measures f o r the V a r i o u s Work T r i p s  4  9 10  25 .  28  5  Mode o f T r a v e l t o Employment C e n t r e s  38  6  A Comparison o f Average Work T r i p Lengths f o r t h e Vancouver Region from Three S t u d i e s  45  vi  LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1  S c a t t e r g r a m o f Average Work T r i p Length and C i t y S i z e  2  Sub-areas Used f o r S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s  19  3  Labour Force:Job R a t i o s f o r the G e o g r a p h i c a l Areas of the Region  22  4  .  11  Mean Work T r i p Lengths f o r G e o g r a p h i c a l Areas o f the  Region  23  5  Work T r i p D i s t a n c e P r o f i l e s f o r the GVRD  27  6  Work T r i p T r a v e l Time P r o f i l e  29  7  Cumulative Frequency P l o t f o r Home Based Work T r i p T r a v e l Time  30  8  Time P r o f i l e  9  Mode o f T r a v e l f o r a l l Home Based Work T r i p s  33  10  Modal Choice o f T r a v e l by Sex  34  11  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s o f Work T r i p s by T r i p Length  12  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Work T r i p T r a v e l Times  13  O r i g i n o f Work T r i p s t o Downtown  40  14  O r i g i n o f Work T r i p s to S u r r e y  41  15  O r i g i n o f Work T r i p s t o Burnaby  42  16  O r i g i n o f Work T r i p s t o C o q u i t l a m  43  17  O r i g i n o f Work T r i p s  44  18  S c a t t e r g r a m o f T r a v e l Time and the Labour Force:Job Ratios S c a t t e r g r a m of T r a v e l D i s t a n c e and.the Labour ',. Force:Job R a t i o s  49  Average Household Income by Sub-area  51  19 20  f o r Male and Female Workers  31  .  36  . . .  37  to P o r t C o q u i t l a m  48  vii Figure 21 22  Page A S c a t t e r g r a m o f Mean T r a v e l D i s t a n c e w i t h Mean Household Income  52  A S c a t t e r g r a m o f Mean T r a v e l Time w i t h Average Household Income  53  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I w i s h t o thank my a d v i s o r s , Dr. M i c h a e l P o u l t o n and Doug for their constructive criticisms.  Spaeth  I am a l s o g r a t e f u l t o Mike P a t t e r s o n  of t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Center f o r h i s i n i t i a l s u g g e s t i o n s and h e l p i n " c l e a n i n g up" t h e Vancouver Area T r a v e l Study data  files. My s i n c e r e thanks a l s o go t o t h e numerous o f f i c i a l s o f t h e G r e a t e r  Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t who h e l p e d me w i t h t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n by making them r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o me. F i n a l l y , I am g r a t e f u l t o t h e Government o f Ghana f o r s p o n s o r i n g my s t u d i e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  Columbia.  1.  CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY  2.  INTRODUCTION Of a l l t h e t r i p purposes w i t h i n N o r t h American m e t r o p o l i i , work t r i p s t e n d t o be t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of volume, l e n g t h , time spent t r a v e l l i n g and o b l i g a t i o n .  I n the Vancouver Region f o r example,  the j o u r n e y t o work i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t o f a l l t r i p purposes.  Data  i n the Vancouver A r e a T r a v e l Study (VATS) show t h a t t h i s was 30.3% o f a l l t r i p s by purpose (VATS:  P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t , 1974: 37, 3 8 ) ^ and was the  t h i r d l a r g e s t c a t e g o r y o f t r i p s f o l l o w i n g " t o home" and r e c r e a t i o n  trips.  J o u r n e y s t o and from work t e n d t o be l o n g , c o n c e n t r a t e d i n time and c o n c e n t r a t e d i n space.  Hence any attempt t o t a c k l e the t r a f f i c problems  i n Vancouver must n e c e s s a r i l y d e a l w i t h work t r i p s . T h i s argument becomes even more e v i d e n t when the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f work t r i p s a r e examined i n d e t a i l .  Out o f the 3,354 VATS sample  total  of work t r i p s g e n e r a t e d w i t h i n the r e g i o n , 2,605 o r 77% were home based and o u t o f t h e s e home based t r i p s , about 90% took p l a c e d u r i n g the peak h o u r s , t h a t i s 7-9 a.m.  and 4-6 p.m.  A f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f the peak  hour t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d i c a t e s t h a t out o f the t o t a l sample  trips  w i t h i n t h e s e p e r i o d s , 80% were work t r i p s . S i n c e t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n i n c i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g Vancouver, i s most s e v e r e i n peak hour t r a v e l c o n d i t i o n s , one can e a s i l y i n f e r t h a t a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e volume o f work t r i p s d u r i n g the peak hours w i l l mean a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n t o the c o n g e s t i o n problem.  also  So f a r , e f f o r t s  w h i c h have been made i n t r y i n g t o s o l v e t h e problem i n c l u d e :  increasing  v e h i c l e occupancy r a t e s by c a r p o o l i n g ; s t a g g e r e d work h o u r s ; f l e x i b l e  T h i s f i g u r e i s made up o f b o t h "home to work," "work t o home" t r i p s and "on t h e j o b " work t r i p s .  -3.  work h o u r s , and the d i v e r s i o n o r r e l o c a t i o n o f j o b s t o t h e suburbs. Job r e l o c a t i o n t o t h e suburbs i s an e f f o r t t o c r e a t e a b a l a n c e between the number o f workers and number o f j o b s i n the v a r i o u s areas o f the region.  local  I t i s hoped t h a t t h i s w i l l l e a d t o l e s s t r a v e l .  I f these work t r i p l e n g t h s can be reduced then c e r t a i n advantages w i l l accrue t o s o c i e t y .  These w i l l be i n t h e form o f s a v i n g s i n energy  consumption because o f s h o r t e r t r i p s and l e s s use o f congested  facilities.  Another b e n e f i t w i l l be the e f f e c t the p o l i c y would have on m i n i m i z i n g t h e expenditures  required to provide a d d i t i o n a l capacity for r e g i o n a l trans-  portation f a c i l i t i e s  f o r peak hour use.  The R e g i o n a l Town Centers  Programme and t h e d e f l e c t i o n o f j o b s t o  suburban c e n t e r s w i l l , i t i s hoped, e n a b l e workers t o l i v e c l o s e t o where t h e y work w i t h major advantages t o t h e r e g i o n as d e s c r i b e d above.  The  programme w i l l a l s o g i v e the workers t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o l i v e c l o s e t o t h e i r work, even i f they do n o t use t h e o p p o r t u n i t y .  APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY In o r d e r t o examine t h e " L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work" p o l i c y f o r Vancouver, t h i s study uses the VATS d a t a and t h e 1971 Census.  VATS i n c l u d e d a  v a r i e t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f b o t h t r i p ends which t h e t o t a l work t r i p l e n g t h s c o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d ) and the t r a v e l times.  (from  total  These two v a r i a b l e s were c o r r e l a t e d i n the a n a l y s i s w i t h  average h o u s e h o l d incomes and l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s f o r groups o f census t r a c t s o b t a i n e d from the 1971 Census o f Canada. Although  VATS has s e v e r a l o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n i t was n o t  well suited to this analysis.  T h i s i s because t h e VATS i s an  4.  o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t i o n s u r v e y conducted a t one p o i n t i n time i n t h e G r e a t e r Vancouver Region w i t h a one p e r c e n t sample.  VATS' s h o r t c o m i n g s  include  the f a c t t h a t i t g i v e s a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l p i c t u r e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n a t one p o i n t i n time and s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g i t cannot be used i n a n a l y z i n g ;the dynamic a s p e c t s o f p o l i c y i s s u e s t h a t t h e t h e s i s a t t e m p t s t o a d d r e s s . T h i s makes i t l e s s than i d e a l f o r t h e purposes o f t h i s  study.  VATS was t h e second comprehensive t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s u r v e y o f t h e r e g i o n . The  f i r s t was conducted d u r i n g  the e a r l y f i f t i e s and p r i o r t o VATS i t was  the o n l y d a t a base f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g w i t h i n the r e g i o n . Accordingly,  VATS i s the b e s t d a t a a v a i l a b l e , d e s c r i b i n g f o r t h e 26,700  sample t o t a l o f a l l t r i p s w i t h i n the r e g i o n , t h e t r i p maker and h i s t r a v e l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These i n c l u d e o r i g i n and d e s t i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i p , t r i p p u r p o s e , t o t a l t r a v e l time and mode o f t r a v e l as w e l l as s o c i o economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the t r a v e l l e r . The  s t u d y attempts t o overcome t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s  r e l y i n g on VATS by a n a l y z i n g  associated  with  the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and t h e VATS d a t a  base t o g e t h e r t o address the q u e s t i o n  i n s t e a d o f j u s t depending on t h e  VATS d a t a a l o n e .  ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY A b r i e f and g e n e r a l o v e r v i e w o f p a s t r e l e v a n t t h e o r y and e m p i r i c a l research  i s the s u b j e c t o f Chapter 2.  w h i c h i n f l u e n c e work t r i p l e n g t h .  T h i s i s an o v e r v i e w o f the f a c t o r s  I t a l s o attempts to r e l a t e the r e l e -  vant f a c t o r s t o t h e Vancouver Region.  T h i s w i l l h e l p i d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s  which c o u l d i n f l u e n c e work t r i p l e n g t h s w i t h i n the Vancouver Region. Chapter 3 i s d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s .  The f i r s t s e c t i o n a n a l y z e s  5,  the general t r i p length d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r various geographical areas within the Vancouver Region.  This information w i l l help establish the  general t r i p making patterns within the region.  The second section  investigates the relationship between work t r i p length and the labour force:job r a t i o s for small areas within the region.  This w i l l indicate  whether or not any relationship exists between work t r i p length and the labour force:job r a t i o s . Chapter 4 i s also divided into two sections. summarizes the findings of the study.  The f i r s t section  The second section combines the  findings of Chapter 3 with the l i t e r a t u r e and empirical research reviewed in Chapter 2.to assess the e f f e c t s the "Living Close to Work" policy w i l l have on work t r i p lengths within the Vancouver Region.  CHAPTER 2  REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH  7.  INTRODUCTION The  l i t e r a t u r e review i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e are s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which  c o u l d be  s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to work t r i p l e n g t h .  include c i t y  s i z e , p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e  job s t a t u s or income. Vancouver  The  i n r e l a t i o n to p l a c e of work  situation. c o n c l u s i v e so f a r as Vancouver  i s concerned because they r e l a t e t o l a r g e c i t i e s . study w i l l review r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and conclusions  assess  T h i s s e c t i o n of  the  the s i g n i f i c a n c e of  drawn from t h i s body o f work f o r the G r e a t e r  Vancouver Region.  CITY-SIZE C i t y s i z e o f t e n appears i n the l i t e r a t u r e as a f a c t o r t h a t  i n f l u e n c e work t r i p small c i t i e s  to l i v e  people l i v i n g to a n a l y z e  length.  I t would seem r e a s o n a b l e  may  t o expect people i n  c l o s e r to work and have s h o r t e r work t r i p s  in big cities.  I f t h i s i s the case,  data on work t r i p  length v i s - a - v i s c i t y  mine whether t h i s i s i n f a c t  than  then i t i s p l a u s i b l e s i z e i n order  presents  c o n f l i c t i n g views.  In 1951,  a marked c o r r e l a t i o n was  between the s i z e of a c i t y and work t r i p Report #26,  1951).  l o n g e r work t r i p  The  length  (A.S.P.O.,  c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s study was  lengths.  significant  However, i n 1968,  size  found  Information  a f t e r the a r e a l expansion  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the average work t r i p  f o u r types o f s e t t l e m e n t s ,  deter-  that b i g c i t i e s have  development of many c i t i e s , Lawton (1968: 22-40) claimed  were no  to  true.  A v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e on work t r i p l e n g t h i n r e l a t i o n to c i t y  and  and  l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s h e l p f u l i n s i g h t s f o r the  However, most of the s t u d i e s are not  1.  These f a c t o r s  namely: c o n u r b a t i o n s ,  that  lengths  there for  l a r g e boroughs, s m a l l  8.  towns and r u r a l areas. minutes d u r a t i o n . different  A l l f o u r had an average work t r i p  S u r p r i s i n g l y , an a n a l y s i s and comparison o f c i t i e s o f  s i z e s c o n f i r m Lawton's c l a i m .  T h i s i s t r u e when one uses  d i s t a n c e i n the measurement o f work t r i p  lengths.  F o r example, i f one  uses d i s t a n c e i n the comparison o f work t r i p l e n g t h s Vancouver, t h e r e i s no great  l e n g t h o f 6.72 m i l e s  f o r Chicago and  d i f f e r e n c e between the work t r i p  frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s (see T a b l e  centers outside  l e n g t h o f 35  1).  Chicago had an average work t r i p  to the downtown a r e a and 5.23 m i l e s  downtown  length  ( T a a f f e , et a l . ; 1963: 1 6 ) .  to the j o b  The  f i g u r e s f o r Vancouver from the VATS data were 6.11 and 5.8  corresponding miles  respectively. T a b l e 2 i s the average work t r i p Metropolitan  Statistical  Areas  l e n g t h data f o r t e n s e l e c t e d Standard  (SMSAs).  F i g u r e 1 shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the s i z e s of these SMSAs and t h e i r average work t r i p The  summary s t a t i s t i c s  and the p l o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s v i r t u a l l y  l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between average work t r i p  l e n g t h and c i t y  supports Lawton's c l a i m t h a t t h e r e i s no c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n average work t r i p  lengths.  l e n g t h and town o r c i t y  Vancouver's work t r i p  size.  no This  connecting  size.  l e n g t h d i s t r i b u t i o n and average work  l e n g t h f a l l w i t h i n the range t h a t i s t y p i c a l f o r c i t i e s  trip  of s u b s t a n t i a l  population. T h i s a n a l y s i s o f work t r i p t h e r e i s q u i t e a wide spread  trips  l e s s compact.  s i z e has i n d i c a t e d t h a t  i n the average work t r i p  i s not c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o c i t y have l o n g e r  l e n g t h and c i t y  size.  l e n g t h s but t h i s  The newer western c i t i e s  than o l d e r , e a s t e r n c c i t i e s and i n g e n e r a l  seem to  they a r e a l s o  9.  TABLE 1:  COMPARISON OF WORK TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VANCOUVER AND CHICAGO  m . ^ • T r i p Length m Mxles  (  1  9  ?  2  I  :  Chicago  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 l o n g e r  4  1.7  Source:  100%  VATS  2~  )  0 -  TOTAL  1.  Vancouver  1.00.0%  (1972) - Data Tapes  2. 'Goodman, W.I. and E.C. Freund, P r i n c i p l e s and P r a c t i c e o f Urban P l a n n i n g . International City Managers' A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, 1968, p. 142. 3.  They a r e a l l s t r a i g h t  d i s t a n c e measures.  TABLE 2:  AVERAGE WORK TRIP LENGTH DATA SELECTED SMSAs  SMSA  Miles  Year o f Study  2  Los Angeles ( i n c l u d e s Orange and Venture Counties)  8.89  N/A  3  Chicago  6.62  N/A  4  Philadelphia  4.40  1960  6  San F r a n c i s c o (Nine-county Area)  7  Washington  7.20  1968  16  Dallas  6.20  1964  17  Seattle  8.55  19  Milwaukee  5.11  1963  24  Buffalo  3.70  1962  26  Kansas C i t y  8.07  1970  Source:  15.80  1965  1970-71  American I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s . Motor V e h i c l e Manufacturers A s s o c i a t i o n o f the U.S., I n c . , Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Factbook P a r t 1, Where People L i v e , Where People Work, How People Travel. March, 1974, p. 1-19.  11.  FIGURE 1:  TRIP  SCATTERGRAM OF AVERAGE WORK TRIP LENGTH AND  LENGTH  FILE  CUT  F I CUR  SCAITEkGRt*  l l a . 9 5  05/19/791 IACPSSI  ID52.85  SIZE  05/19/7H  SIZE RE L AT IQN.H I PS  (CREATION BATE ICGWNI TLCNGTH  CITY  2J66.7S  2883.65  1)9*.55  CIT  '.Ml.  1908.-.5  S U E 5  *«  PAGE  • t i l t . 2 5  5 * 5 . 1 . 15  ]f  2  596<..0S  SAN FRANCISCO ^Nine County Area)  LOS ANGELES  •SEATTLE •KANSAS CITY GREATER VANCOUVER  WASHINGTON CKCAGO  DALLAS • MILWAUKEE • PHILADELPHIA 3.70  .  • BUFFALO _  1032.03  T*1P  LENGTH  1 5 9 5 . 9 0  AND CITY  SIZE  2 1 J 9 . S 0  .  3 1 3 7 . 6 0  2 6 2 3 . 7 0  1 6 5 1 . 5 0  A165.40  4 6 7 9 . 1 J  5 1 9 1 . 2 J  5737.13  6 2 2 1 . 0 0  RELATIONSHIPS  STATISTICS.. C0RPEIAT1CN OF  ( R l -  STO  tKR  EST  -  THE  REGRESSION L I N E  CJTS  0.11627  R  3.14TA1  INTERCEPT  THE  MARGINS  OF  THC  A  VALUF.  OF  7.06450  UN  THE  LEFT  A  VALUE  OF  8.002 8 9 ON  |K'.  RIGHT  PL01IEO  VALUES  •  SOUAiiED  PLOT  (Al  . . . . . . . . . . |s  SIJNIFICA'.CE  0.16676  SLOPE  0.00020  IBI  AT  MARGIN MA* G I N EICLUOEO  11  0.01152 6 . C J 0 0 9  PRI^TE'U  H I S SIN".  VALUtS-  If  •  COEFFICIENT  CANNOT  BE  COMPUTED.  VALUES  12.  2.  PLACE OF RESIDENCE The  importance  o f work t r i p l e n g t h i n r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n o f house-  h o l d s has been s t u d i e d over and over a g a i n i n v a r i o u s m e t r o p o l i i o f the world. Alonso  T h i s l i t e r a t u r e i n c l u d e s works o f V i r i r a k i s (1971) and Richardson  Alonso  (1971) argued  (1968), K a i n  (1961),  (1971).  t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n s can be e x p l a i n e d i n  terms of the r e l a t i v e v a l u e p l a c e d on space by the household c o s t o f the j o u r n e y to work a t the CBD. l o c a t i o n i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t manner.  Virirakis  and t h e  (1968) e x p l a i n e d home  A f t e r a study o f the Athens  B a s i n he concluded t h a t t h e r e was a marked r e l a t i o n s h i p between workplace and r e s i d e n c e . tendency  He e x p l a i n e d t h i s i n terms o f an e q u i l i b r i u m between the  to s e a r c h f o r a more advantageous p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e i n terms o f  c o s t , amenity and environment, and t h e c o s t o f the j o u r n e y t o work.  Kain  (1961) on the o t h e r hand e x p l a i n e d the r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n f o r each worker s o l e l y i n terms o f the worker's a b i l i t y  t o meet the c o s t o f  travel. Richardson hypotheses  (1971) d i s m i s s e d t h e extreme t r a v e l c o s t m i n i m i z a t i o n  ( i . e . t h e t r a d e - o f f model) as advanced by Alonso  He s t r e s s e d t h e importance choice.  He argued  of environmental  and V i r i r a k i s .  p r e f e r e n c e s i n home l o c a t i o n  t h a t i f t h e pure r e n t / t r a v e l c o s t t r a d e - o f f i d e a i s  v a l i d then the r i c h who can o u t b i d lower income groups f o r any s i t e would l i k e t o l i v e near the c i t y c e n t e r , c l o s e t o t h e i r p l a c e o f work and undertake  s h o r t work t r i p s .  However, t h i s i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  e m p i r i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e there must be o t h e r f a c t o r s  accounting  f o r t h i s phenomenon. In the G r e a t e r Vancouver Region', the t r a d e - o f f between t r a v e l and  l o c a t i o n c o s t s may  be a f a c t o r i n l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s of households,  but  t h e r e i s evidence t h a t the primary e x p l a n a t i o n i s to be found more i n terms o f house p r i c e , amenity importance  and l o c a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s .  o f these f a c t o r s i S w h i g h l i g h t e d by the VATS data  Report, 1974:  18) which i n d i c a t e  that  that changed r e s i d e n c e , house s i z e was another 10% q u a l i t y of d w e l l i n g was  The  (Preliminary  f o r 16% of the sampled  households  an important f a c t o r and f o r  important.  Other l e s s important f a c t o r s i n terms o f the number o f r e s i d e n t s g i v i n g t h e s e as reasons f o r moving from one home to another i n c l u d e d p r i c e s , good views and nearness parks.  Only 9% c i t e d the f a c t  to c e r t a i n uses l i k e  shops, s c h o o l s and  t h a t they wanted to be n e a r e r t h e i r p l a c e  of work as an important r e a s o n f o r moving.  Work t r i p  l e n g t h was  f o u r t h most s i g n i f i c a n t ' f a c t o r o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n household location  households work t r i p  to  the  residential  decisions.  I f work t r i p  areas.  lower  l e n g t h s are important i n the l o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s of  then one would expect a marked p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e n g t h s and the r a t i o o f workers to j o b s a v a i l a b l e i n the  sub-  T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s examined l a t e r on i n Chapter 3 o f the t h e s i s  see i f t h e r e i s f u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n o f these i n d i c a t i o n s  that  r e d u c i n g j o u r n e y to work i s a f a i r l y l l o w p e r s o n a l p r i o r i t y .  3.  JOB  STATUS OR  INCOME  Job s t a t u s or income i s another f a c t o r which may length.  i n f l u e n c e work t r i p  The b a s i s of t h i s argument i s the f a c t t h a t one's income w i l l  determine one's a b i l i t y  to overcome d i s t a n c e .  A high job status i s  u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a h i g h income and t h e r e f o r e the l i k e l i h o o d of such  14.  a worker h a v i n g a wider c h o i c e i n the l o c a t i o n of h i s r e s i d e n c e .  In  a d d i t i o n to t h i s c h o i c e , such people n o r m a l l y have s h o r t e r working hours and t h e r e f o r e they can a f f o r d a l o n g e r d r i v i n g Vernon, 1962:  time to work (Hoover and  155).  Much of the work done i n t h i s r e s p e c t has been r e l a t e d t o l a r g e (Hoover and Vernon, 1962; D a n i e l s , 1973). out  F o r example,  cities.  i n a study c a r r i e d  i n South West Chicago ( D a n i e l s , 1973: 167-88) the h i g h income  occupa-  t i o n groups behaved as expected i n t h a t they had l o n g e r work t r i p  lengths  than low income o c c u p a t i o n groups.  Reasons  t h a t h i g h income workers c o u l d a f f o r d two to  f o r t h i s i n c l u d e d the f a c t ,  cars and were thus b e t t e r a b l e  l i v e i n s e c t i o n s o f the c i t y f a r from c e n t e r s of a c t i v i t y ,  and p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s The h i g h income compared  groups are l i t t l e  (Hoover and Vernon, 1962:  employment 155).  concerned w i t h t r a n s p o r t c o s t as  to the low income/status workers.  The l o n g work t r i p  l e n g t h s o f the h i g h income groups can a l s o be  e x p l a i n e d by t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r s p a c i o u s l i v i n g which i s u s u a l l y to be found i n new In i t was  suburbs w i t h a l o t o f space per house.  a s t u d y c a r r i e d out by Hoover and Vernon found t h a t commuting time to Manhattan  h i g h e r income l e v e l ,  (1962: 159) i n New  York  tended to i n c r e a s e w i t h  though not a t a l l s h a r p l y .  There was  o n l y seven or  e i g h t minutes d i f f e r e n c e i n commuting time between the h i g h e s t - i n c o m e f i f t h and t h e lowest-income f i f t h of the w o r k f o r c e . So f a r as Vancouver i s concerned t h e s e s t u d i e s are i n c o n c l u s i v e because they r e l a t e t o v e r y l a r g e c i t i e s .  In Vancouver, t h e r e may  not be  such a c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between j o b s t a t u s o r income work t r i p  and  l e n g t h s . T h i s i s p r i m a r i l y because t h e r e a r e s u b s t a n t i a l h i g h  15.  income neighbourhoods c l o s e t o the CBD and a t moderate and l o n g d i s t a n c e s from the CBD.  High income workers l i v e i n West Vancouver, Shaughnessy  or South West Marine D r i v e a r e a s .  Likewise,  low income workers who  i n the West End, Downtown E a s t s i d e , R i l e y Park, F a i r v i e w o r Cedar  live  Cottage  l i v e at a range o f d i s t a n c e s from the dominant downtown Vancouver employment c e n t e r . work t r i p  Thus, income o r s t a t u s may not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o  l e n g t h s i n the Vancouver Region.  b u t i o n f i g u r e s and work t r i p  Using  the 1970 income  distri-  l e n g t h s from VATS, t h i s i s a n a l y z e d i n  Chapter 3 of the t h e s i s .  SUMMARY T h i s overview has d i s c u s s e d the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e work l e n g t h i n m e t r o p o l i t a n areas  i n s o f a r as these can h e l p  trip  i n determining  whether t h e " L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work" p o l i c y proposed f o r Vancouver w i l l produce major b e n e f i t s . From the p u b l i s h e d m a t e r i a l i t appears t h a t c i t y and  income a r e not l i k e l y t o be f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g work t r i p  G r e a t e r Vancouver: cant  length i n  t h e l o c a t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e and j o b s may be a s i g n i f i -  factor. Of these  f a c t o r s , those  f o r which data a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r G r e a t e r  Vancouver from VATS and the Census a r e : to  s i z e , job status  income o r j o b s t a t u s i n r e l a t i o n  the work t r i p l e n g t h ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p between work t r i p  t r i p s with  lengths f o r  the home end i n a sub-area and the l a b o u r f o r c e ( p l a c e o f  residence):job  (place o f work) r a t i o s i n that sub-area.  marked p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p  I f there i s a  l e n g t h and t h e number o f  j o b s i n r e l a t i o n t o the r e s i d e n t workers i n the l o c a l a r e a , then i t means  16.  that more workers i n r e l a t i o n to j o b s you have i n an a r e a , the l o n g e r the work t r i p The  l e n g t h s tend t o be. r e l a t i o n s h i p between such a r e s u l t and the i s s u e s b e i n g  i s a l s o simple.  I f such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s found  Region, then i t supports  will  t o h o l d i n the Vancouver  the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the l o c a t i o n o f j o b s w i t h i n  the suburbs w i l l i n f a c t reduce work t r i p remain the same.  addressed  l e n g t h s , assuming o t h e r  factors  A s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s w i l l be the s o c i a l b e n e f i t s which  accrue t o s o c i e t y as a whole i n the form o f a l l e v i a t i o n o f downtown  traffic  c o n g e s t i o n d u r i n g the peak hours.  CHAPTER 3  ANALYSIS OF VATS AND THE CENSUS DATA  18.  INTRODUCTION T h i s chapter discussed  i n Chapter 2 and how they may i n f l u e n c e work t r i p  w i t h i n the r e g i o n . lengths  examines t h e importance o f t h e v a r i o u s f a c t o r s lengths  T h i s i s done by r e l a t i n g an a n a l y s i s o f work t r i p  from t h e VATS f i l e s  to income, l a b o u r  f o r c e and j o b r a t i o s  derived  from the 1970 Census. The  a n a l y s i s s t a r t s with  a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e methodology used.  i s f o l l o w e d by a d i s c u s s i o n o f work t r i p  l e n g t h s w i t h i n the r e g i o n .  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f a c t o r s i s next d i s c u s s e d .  The chapter  This The  ends w i t h  a summary o f the a n a l y s i s and t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s .  METHODOLOGY (i) Basis of S t a t i s t i c a l The  Analysis  Vancouver Region was d i v i d e d i n t o a number o f sub-areas that a r e  manageable i n terms of data  collection.  The s u b d i v i s i o n was n e c e s s a r y  because, f o r example, the c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p f o r c e : j o b r a t i o depends on a r e a s o n a b l e the s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s needed.  geographical  l e n g t h and l a b o u r  d i s t r i b u t i o n to g i v e  F i g u r e 2 i s an i n d e x map showing the sub-  areas which were used f o r t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s .  ( i i ) Method o f A n a l y s i s Work t r i p  l e n g t h s were c a l c u l a t e d from VATS f o r a l l the home based  work t r i p s from these sub-areas. various  The average h o u s e h o l d income and t h e  l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s f o r each o f these areas were c a l c u l a t e d  from t h e 1971 Census data.  A v i s u a l a n a l y s i s supported by a r e g r e s s i o n  a n a l y s i s was then performed on the two s e t s o f v a r i a b l e s ; work t r i p  length  VD  20.  and  income, work t r i p The  1971  Census data had  because i t was VATS  l e n g t h and  l a b o u r force:.job r a t i o s .  to be used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h  the VATS data  not p o s s i b l e to cross-match p i e c e s of data on  different  files.  ( i i i ) Measuring Work T r i p Length The  l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t time and  measures of work t r i p  l e n g t h when the matter of concern i s f u l l  They are r e l a t i v e l y easy i n d i c e s to c o l l e c t a l l o w comparison o f r e l a t i v e c o s t s . s t u d i e s used  'as the  d i s t a n c e are the two  crow f l i e s '  and  are t o g e t h e r  study.  Reported work t r i p  the f i l e and had  o r i g i n and  rectangular route  to be  Distance  computed from the c o - o r d i n a t e s  d i s t a n c e or a : d i r e c t d i s t a n c e measure. tends to be a good estimate  by VATS.  The  of a c t u a l t r i p  and  travel.  7"-  and  was  the  As mentioned rectangular  r e c t a n g u l a r d i s t a n c e measure d i s t a n c e f o r s h o r t work t r i p s distances.  d i s t a n c e are used at d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n the study  t r a v e l time i s s e n s i t i v e to c o n g e s t i o n c o s t s of  the  distance  of  done both i n terms of a  the d i r e c t d i s t a n c e measure i s b e t t e r f o r l o n g e r  other  to  i s , however, not an a c t u a l  d e s t i n a t i o n of the work t r i p s surveyed  Time and  s t u d i e s and  t r a v e l time i s an item on the VATS f i l e  above, the measurement of d i s t a n c e was  but  sufficient  d i s t a n c e measure.  t h e r e f o r e read o f f from the f i l e . item on  cost.  d i s t a n c e as a u n i t of measurement, i t  Thus, i n a d d i t i o n to time and  the study a l s o used the d i r e c t  trip  In view of the f a c t t h a t some e a r l i e r  would be i n t e r e s t i n g to compare the r e s u l t s of these present  most u s e f u l  d i s t a n c e may  better  because  reflect  21.  SECTION A - WORK TRIP LENGTHS WITHIN THE  GVRD  ( i ) Work T r i p Lengths w i t h i n the Sube.areas Out  of the 3,354 sample work t r i p s generated,  t r i p s s t a r t e d at home.  The  remaining  22.3%  11 .TL  of  these  were on the job or  business  trips. Appendix 1 i s a p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e (jobs) m a t r i x . trips.  I t g i v e s the o r i g i n s  ( l a b o u r f o r c e ) - p l a c e of work  and  d e s t i n a t i o n s of the sample work  In terms o f work t r i p o r i g i n s , N o r t h Vancouver, S u r r e y ,  Richmond,  Sunset and the Hastings-Grandview Woodlands are the most s i g n i f i c a n t . terms o f work t r i p  d e s t i n a t i o n s or concentrations of jobs,  Surrey,  Richmond, the downtown and N o r t h Vancouver are the most s i g n i f i c a n t (see column t o t a l s i n Appendix 1 ) .  In  This job d i s t r i b u t i o n r e f l e c t s  areas the  populationL.size of some a r e a s , which markedly i n f l u e n c e s r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n s e r v i n g employment, and  i n d u s t r i a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n the r e g i o n .  F i g u r e 3 shows the l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s region.  f o r v a r i o u s areas o f  Areas w i t h l a r g e r a t i o s i n c l u d e Coquitlam,  Port  the  Coquitlam,  Surrey, D e l t a and White Rock and West Vancouver, a l l bedroom suburbs. F i g u r e 4 shows the mean work t r i p  l e n g t h s f o r the sub-areas of  region.  These v a r y between 21.63  minutes  and  minutes ( 1 2 . 9 6 ^ m i l e s ) f o r  D e l t a and White Rock.  33.2  (3.15 m i l e s )  f o r the West A cursory  the End look  at F i g u r e s 3 and 4 i n d i c a t e s that work t r i p l e n g t h s are l o n g e r f o r areas with l a r g e r labour force:job r a t i o s . Surrey and Coquitlam  illustrate  this.  The  examples of D e l t a and White Rock,  In these areas most workers have to  t r a v e l t o work o u t s i d e t h e i r v a r i o u s p l a c e s of r e s i d e n c e and t h u s , h i g h mean work t r i p work t r i p  length  lengths  the  (see Appendix 2 f o r a . ; s t a t i s t i c a l summary o f  characteristics).  ho to  29-3 mins or  24.  I f areas w i t h l a r g e l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s trip  tend t o have l o n g work  l e n g t h s , then i n crude terms i t appears t h a t a r e d u c t i o n i n the r a t i o  by say i n c r e a s i n g the number o f j o b s i n the v a r i o u s areas effect  o f r e d u c i n g work t r i p  For the same work t r i p  s h o u l d have t h e  lengths. l e n g t h s , t h e r e tends  to be a d e c l i n e i n t r a v e l  time as the d i s t a n c e o f t h e home and from the CBD i n c r e a s e s . the s h o r t work t r i p travelled trip  For example,  l e n g t h o f 3.152 m i l e s f o r West End workers was  i n 21.63 minutes on average.  On the o t h e r hand t h e mean work  l e n g t h o f 3.251 m i l e s f o r Shaughnessy and South Cambie r e s i d e n t s was  travelled  i n 13.4 minutes.  T h i s c o u l d r e f l e c t the d i f f e r e n t  a c c e s s i b i l i t y by the a l t e r n a t i v e  l e v e l s of  modes o f t r a v e l i n d i f f e r e n t  p a r t s o f the  city.  ( i i ) Work T r i p Lengths W i t h i n The work t r i p  the Whole Region  l e n g t h s w i t h i n the r e g i o n were broken down i n t o home  based and non-home based.  T a b l e 3 i s a summary  t r i p s and how they v a r y w i t h d i s t a n c e .  o f the v a r i o u s types o f  Home based work t r i p s  comprise  about 77.7% o f the t o t a l work t r i p s and the non-home based work t r i p s make up  the remaining  22.3% o f the t r i p s .  the r e c o r d e d range o f one minute  Home based work t r i p s v a r y between  (0.1 mile); and 420 minutes  (48.9 m i l e s ) .  About 60% o f the l a b o u r f o r c e l i v e d w i t h i n 24 minutes o f t h e i r p l a c e s o f work.  T h i s together with  the median t r i p l e n g t h o f 4.285 m i l e s goes to  s u b s t a n t i a t e what the GVRD e s t i m a t e d t o be t h e average work t r i p w i t h i n the r e g i o n .  "... Today, most people  length  i n the r e g i o n l i v e w i t h i n 4  or 5 m i l e s of t h e i r work ..." (GVRD, 1975: 1 5 ) . The mean work t r i p  l e n g t h o f 24 minutes o r 6.81 m i l e s f o r the whole  TABLE 3:  A COMPARISON OF HOME BASED AND NON-HOME BASED WORK TRIP LENGTHS  T r i p Length In M i l e s  A l l Work Trips  Home Based Work T r i p s  Non-Home Based Work T r i p s  2  27%  24%  62%  2 -  4  21  21  12  4 -  6  16  17  11  6 -  8  10  11  6  8 - 10  8  8  2  10 - 12  3  4  2  12 - 14  3  3  1  14 - 16  2  3  1  16 - 18  2  1  1  18 - 20  1  2  1  20 - 22  1  0  0  22 - 24  0  1  1  24 - 26  0  0  -  26 - 28  1  1  -  28 - 30  1  0  -  30 - 32  1  1  -  32 - 34  1  1  -  34 - 36  0  1  -  36 - 38  1  0  -  38 - 40  0  0  -  40  1  1  -  Total  Source:  100%  100%  VATS (1972) - Data Tapes  100%  26.  r e g i o n i n 1972 i s s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than the mean work t r i p l e n g t h s f o r P h i l a d e l p h i a , D a l l a s , Milwaukee and B u f f a l o Even though  (see T a b l e 2 i n Chapter 2 ) .  Vancouver cannot be compared t o most of these c i t i e s i n terms  of s i z e , t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the mean work lengths.  F i g u r e 1 i n Chapter  weak r e l a t i o n s h i p fits  between work t r i p  2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s .at b e s t a v e r y  between c i t y s i z e and mean work t r i p  i n w i t h Lawton's f i n d i n g  length.  t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  lengths i n d i f f e r e n t  F i g u r e 5 shows the work t r i p and non-home based work t r i p s .  trip  I t also  difference  types o f c i t i e s and towns.  l e n g t h d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r both home based  The " a l l work t r i p s " d i s t r i b u t i o n  follows  the same p a t t e r n as the home based work t r i p s but these two a r e d i f f e r e n t from the hon-home based work t r i p s . generally less miles.  Non-home based work t r i p s a r e  than two m i l e s , w i t h a s m a l l e r number o f t r i p s beyond 24  On the o t h e r hand home based work t r i p s tend t o be l o n g e r than  non-home based work t r i p s .  In p a r t i c u l a r  d i s t r i b u t i o n has a l o n g t a i l .  the home based work t r i p l e n g t h  T a b l e 4 i s a summary o f the v a r i o u s  s t a t i s t i c a l measures o f the t h r e e . . d i s t r i b u t i o n s . F i g u r e 6 shows the work t r i p  travel  time p r o f i l e .  cumulative frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n curve f o r these t r i p s . per cent o f the workers l i v e d w i t h i n 15 minutes  of t h e i r  F i g u r e 7 i s the Forty-six workplaces.  Eighty-two p e r cent of these workers undertook work t r i p s o f l e s s 30 minutes  and i n f a c t 60% of these home based work t r i p s had a t r a v e l  time o f l e s s 45 minutes  than  than 25 minutes.  Only 7% o f the work f o r c e spent more than  i n t r a v e l l i n g t o work.  F i g u r e 8 i s the time p r o f i l e f o r male and female workers. few d i f f e r e n c e s between the two d i s t r i b u t i o n s .  There a r e  There a r e r e l a t i v e l y more  Fig 5- Work trip distance profiles for the GVRD-  •<—Non-home  based work trips  Trip length (miles) Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes  TABLE 4: A SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL MEASURES FOR THE VARIOUS WORK TRIPS  Statistical Measure  A l l Work Home Based Trips Work T r i p s  Non-home Based Work T r i p s  Mean  6.81  7.06  3.23  Median  4.29  4.67  1.80  Standard Deviation  8.15  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  0  20  40  1  60  1  1  1  i  1  1  r  Y^*  80 100 120 Reported commuting time (minutes)  Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes  Fig 8 - Time profile for male and female workers  Source: VATS(1972) - Data Tapes  120 Time (mins)  32.  women than men who spent l e s s than 17 minutes the men g e n e r a l l y spent s l i g h t l y  i n t r a v e l l i n g t o work and  l o n g e r times i n t r a v e l l i n g than women.  F i g u r e s 9 and 10 i l l u s t r a t e t h e modes of t r a v e l to work and a breakdown o f the modal c h o i c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by sex. are the importance  The s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s  o f the automobile as a mode o f t r a v e l t o work, and the  s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n o f females who use bus t r a n s i t , walked to work as auto passengers  or t r a v e l l e d  as compared t o male workers.  T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t r a v e l times and mode i n d i c a t e s t h a t most work t r i p s a r e q u i t e s h o r t and that t h e r e i s n o t much d i f f e r e n c e i n t r a v e l between men and women.  time  There were a l s o t i e s i n t r a v e l time as r e p o r t e d  and hence the " z i g zag" i n the p r o f i l e as people tend t o r e p o r t q u a r t e r hour  intervals. The  use o f t r a n s i t as a mode' of t r a v e l to work i n v a r i a b l y means  w a i t i n g time and hence i t i s h a r d t o reduce these t r i p s less.  Thus, i t i s n o t going to be easy t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y  t o 15 minutes o r reduce t h e t r a v e l  time f o r the b u l k o f workers who use t r a n s i t .  (iii) : .v;  D i f f e r e n c e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h Work T r i p Lengths Other Employment Centers The downtown i s the c e n t e r o f a l l commercial  t o the CBD and  and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n the r e g i o n and t h e r e f o r e employs a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f people from a l l over t h e r e g i o n .  I n 1971 the downtown employed 73,000  people"'' o r 35% of the r e g i o n ' s l a b o u r f o r c e .  Out o f t h i s , 62% l i v e d  w i t h i n the C i t y b o u n d a r i e s , the o t h e r 38% commuted from the o t h e r m u n i c i palities.  I n comparison w i t h t h i s  the suburban  areas i n c l u d i n g the  ^ E x t r a c t e d from a S p e c i a l Computer Cross T a b u l a t i o n Run commissioned the GVRD P l a n n i n g Department u s i n g the 1971 P o p u l a t i o n Census.  by  33.  Fig 9- Mode of travel for all home based work trips-  £70-1 <D or  66%  a  +->  §60 50  40-  30  <D  CD C  0) CO  20+  8 O +->  00  c  o c  o  00  a  101  0  11% 1Q&  a u  2%  10%  0  ii  U  0)  u  u  J_ O  y .t: .a  o  o o o.  0) o  0%i-^ i0%0°/o 0°/Q  Source: VATS (1972) -  a  Data Tapes  Fig 10  Modal choice of travel by sex  7Ci  male female so,  .1-7  86-  !! i l l  ill i  -  IN in ii  I!  A U T O  ,  AoTo  DRIVER  Source:  60S  T * U C «  TAXI  VATS - Data Tapes  WALK OKuY  WlTCHHIK£  f  I  6lCTtl£  H-OfCuE  CAR FOOL  OTwew  Mode of travel  35.  North  Shore employed 135,660 people F i g u r e 11 i s the work t r i p  or 65% o f the r e g i o n ' s l a b o u r  length d i s t r i b u t i o n  suburban" and "major suburban employment c e n t e r s " .  force.  f o r "downtown," " a l l The mean work  trip  l e n g t h f o r the downtown workers was 6.11 m i l e s and the d i s t r i b u t i o n had a median o f 5.16 m i l e s . 18%  The frequency  distribution  curve shows t h a t about  of the workers l i v e d w i t h i n two m i l e s o f the downtown a r e a which i s  essentially  the a r e a b o r d e r i n g the downtown and i n c l u d i n g the very  densely p o p u l a t e d West End. The mean t r a v e l time  t o a l l employment c e n t e r s o u t s i d e the downtown  was 23.2 minutes (8.1 m i l e s ) and the d i s t r i b u t i o n had a median o f 19.67 3  minutes  (4.86 m i l e s ) .  However the mean and median t r a v e l times  major suburban employment c e n t e r s i n Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam  and P o r t Coquitlam were 20.9 minutes  minutes  (4.96 m i l e s ) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  profile  f o r the t h r e e  The  t o the  Surrey,  (5.8 m i l e s ) and 16.68  F i g u r e 12 i s the work t r i p  travel  time  distributions.  above seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t e i t h e r workers i n the suburban  c e n t e r s l i v e d c l o s e r t o t h e i r workplaces than the downtown workers or t r a v e l i s q u i c k e r o u t s i d e the congested ant reason suggested  by an examination  r e v e a l s the r e l a t i v e importance o f auto and  t r a n s i t t o the downtown a r e a  CBD.  The l a t t e r i s the predomin-  of the mode of t r a v e l . travel  This •  to the suburban c e n t e r s  (see T a b l e 5 ) .  Auto i s g e n e r a l l y f a s t e r  than t r a n s i t and t h e r e f o r e t r a v e l t o the suburban c e n t e r s i s l i k e l y faster  than  to be  to the downtown.  2 E x t r a c t e d from a S p e c i a l Computer Cross T a b u l a t i o n Run commissioned by the GVRD P l a n n i n g Department u s i n g the 1971 P o p u l a t i o n Census. 3  See Appendices 3 and 4 f o r work t r i p the v a r i o u s employment c e n t e r s .  l e n g t h frequency  distribution to  36.  Fig 11  0  5  Frequency distributions of work trips by trip length  10  15  20  25  Source: VATS (1972) - Data Tapes  30 35 40 Trip length (miles)  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:  Employment Center  Mode X  MODE OF TRAVEL TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Downtown Vancouver  48.6  10.5  27.5  0.4  0.4  -  11.0  0.6  -  -  0.4  O u t s i d e Downtown  72.8  9.5  4.8  3.5  0.1  -  6.0  0.4  1.7  0.1  0.3  Modes:  Note:  Source:  1 2 3 4 5 6  Auto D r i v e r Auto Passenger Bus T r a n s i t Truck Taxi School Bus  7 8 9 10 11 12  12  Walk Only Hitchhike. Bicycle Motorcycle. Car P o o l Other  P e r c e n t a g e t o t a l s do n o t add up to e x a c t l y 100% because of r o u n d i n g - o f f .  VATS (1972) - Data Tapes  0.1  39.  Both t h e downtown and the o t h e r employment centers have catchment areas  extending  a l l over  the r e g i o n  (see F i g u r e s 13-17).  The downtown work  t r i p s have o r i g i n s i n v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s .  Work  trips  to the suburban c e n t e r s on the o t h e r hand d i d not have o r i g i n s from a l l over the r e g i o n .  T h i s can be a t t r i b u t e d to the s m a l l e r sample s i z e s  employment c e n t e r s as compared t o the sample o f t r i p s ( i v ) Comparison w i t h Other  to the major  to the downtown a r e a .  Studies  Table 6 i s a summary and comparison o f the v a r i o u s work t r i p w i t h i n the r e g i o n as p r e s e n t e d VATS data  (1972).  by W o l f o r t h  (1965), Hickman (1968) and the  While Hickman's study endorses W o l f o r t h ' s  a n a l y s i s u s i n g the VATS d a t a suggests  lengths  study, the  t r i p s a r e l o n g e r and more time  consuming than i s i n d i c a t e d i n these e a r l i e r s t u d i e s .  Mean work t r i p  l e n g t h s f o r downtown workers have i n c r e a s e d l e s s than work t r i p f o r employment areas o u t s i d e the downtown a r e a .  lengths  T h i s t r e n d c o u l d be  e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f the p a t t e r n o f j o b l o c a t i o n and the a r e a l growth o f the r e g i o n .  Between 1965 and 1972 there was a l o t of p e r i p h e r a l suburban  r e s i d e n t i a l development i n areas  like  Surrey and D e l t a whose p o p u l a t i o n s  grew by 3.75% p e r annum and 17.28% p e r annum r e s p e c t i v e l y . ^ " " The h i g h e r r a t e o f i n c r e a s e i n the suburban work t r i p  l e n g t h s may be  e x p l a i n e d by the f a s t e r p o p u l a t i o n growth i n r e l a t i o n to the i n c r e a s e i n the number o f j o b s w i t h i n the suburban areas. t h i s t h a t i f work t r i p  4  I t can a l s o be i n f e r r e d  from  l e n g t h s w i t h i n the sub-areas a r e t o be reduced,  then  See Appendix 3 f o r the v a r i o u s sample  sizes.  Computed from the Census f i g u r e s o f 1966 and 1971 f o r Surrey and Delta.  4  4^ ho  4>-  TABLE 6: A COMPARISON OF AVERAGE WORK TRIP LENGTHS FOR THE VANCOUVER REGION FROM THREE STUDIES 6  Place of Employment Employed i n Downtown Employed Outside Downtown  Wolforth's Study7  Hickman's Study8  VATS Data  4.0 m i l e s  4.1 m i l e s  4.74 (6.11) miles  3.4 m i l e s  3.6 m i l e s  6.20 (8.1) miles-'0  Sample S i z e  825  709  2,605  Notes: F i g u r e s i n parentheses i n d i c a t e r e c t a n g u l a r measures, a l l o t h e r d i s t a n c e s are s t r a i g h t a i r l i n e d i s t a n c e s . ^ W o l f o r t h ' s study was conducted i n 1965. He used the 1963 Vancouver C i t y D i r e c t o r as the source o f d a t a . g Hickman's study was conducted l a t e r on i n 1968 and he used t h e same source as W o l f o r t h . 9  The VATS data base was c o l l e c t e d i n the s p r i n g o f 1972.  The average work t r i p l e n g t h t o the major employment c e n t e r s i s , however, 5.8 m i l e s , ( r e c t a n g u l a r d i s t a n c e )  46.  the r a t e of growth i n the l a b o u r f o r c e s h o u l d be matched w i t h  the r a t e of  growth i n the number of j o b s . Another p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d be because of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n sample s i z e and s t u d i e s used the 1963  C i t y D i r e c t o r y which covered  N o r t h and West Vancouver and respondents.  the sources o f d a t a .  Wolforth,  The  other  o n l y Vancouver, Burnaby,  c o n t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  f o r example, took 0.78%  two  from v o l u n t a r y  of the r e s i d e n t l a b o u r  f o r c e of these areas and examined the a t t r i b u t e s of the workers and workplaces.  their  U n l i k e these s t u d i e s the VATS took a 1% sample of a l l the  r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n w i t h i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver Region i n 1972  (3,562  households) and examined the a t t r i b u t e s of the t r i p makers, t h e i r househ o l d s , modal choice c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a much wider and  trip  l e s s b i a s e d data source  record.  than  I t t h e r e f o r e forms  the D i r e c t o r y .  SECTION B - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACTORS ( i ) Work T r i p Length and Labour Force:Job F i g u r e 3 shows the 1971 region.  Ratios  l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s f o r sub-areas o f  T h i s r a t i o i n d i c a t e s the number of workers i n r e l a t i o n  number of j o b s a v a i l a b l e i n the v a r i o u s a r e a s .  A r a t i o of 1.0  to the implies  t h a t there are e q u a l number o f workers and j o b s w i t h i n an a r e a . the j o b s w i t h i n such an a r e a match the l a b o u r f o r c e s k i l l s workers can work w i t h i n that area and hence work t r i p short. skills  the  If a l l  then a l l the  l e n g t h s may  be  However, s i n c e the j o b s i n an a r e a r a r e l y f u l l y match l a b o u r f o r c e t h i s r a t i o i s o n l y a crude measure of l o c a l job o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  an area's workers.  Whether or not i t i s p o s s i b l e to conclude  the Vancouver Region the h i g h e r the r a t i o ,  that within  the l o n g e r the work t r i p  lengths  i s an important  q u e s t i o n because a major r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g p o l i c y ,  b a l a n c i n g the number of j o b s and workers i n sub-areas,  i s based i n l a r g e  measure on the b e l i e f t h a t i t i s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t e s t e d f o r the Vancouver Region by p e r f o r m i n g r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s on both  the mean and median work t r i p  l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s f o r the g e o g r a p h i c a l sub-areas i d e n t i f i e d i n F i g u r e 2. relation  F i g u r e s 18 and  l e n g t h s and  19 are p l o t s of these r a t i o s i n  to l e n g t h as measure by the "mean times and d i s t a n c e s " . time  i s more r e l a t e d to the l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o than t r a v e l d i s t a n c e . r e l a t i o n s h i p has  the h i g h e s t c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n  i s a measure of the e x t e n t or degree t o which these two I t a l s o has  mean work t r i p ratios.  l e n g t h s i s accounted  Only 9.6%  (0.09598)  f o r by  the  of the v a r i a t i o n s i n  f o r by v a r i a t i o n s i n the l a b o u r  force:  T h i s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s the importance of f a c t o r s o t h e r  the l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s i n d e t e r m i n i n g work t r i p f a c t o r s may  v a r i a b l e s are  l e n g t h s accounted  v a r i a t i o n s i n the l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o .  This  (0.3098)"'""'", which  the h i g h e s t c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n  which i s the v a r i a t i o n i n mean work t r i p  job  the  of the r e g i o n  From the v a r i o u s s t a t i s t i c a l measures i t appears as i f t r a v e l  related.  a  lengths.  than  These  i n c l u d e s k i l l s of the l a b o u r f o r c e i n r e l a t i o n to the j o b s  a v a i l a b l e , the time the j o b s are a v a i l a b l e on the market and the p r e f e r e n c e of  the l a b o u r f o r c e f o r the j o b s  available.  D i s t a n c e i s not much r e l a t e d to the l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s . i s e x h i b i t e d by  the wide s c a t t e r of data p o i n t s and  the low  This  correlation  T h i s i s h i g h e s t o n l y i n terms o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the variables.  48.  A SCATTERGRAM OF TRAVEL TIME AND THE LABOUR FORCE:JOB RATIOS'  FIGURE 18:  TRIP  LEA'CTH R E C R C S S I O »  flLE THESIS scATTtRORAn  AHALTSIS  (CREATIOR H T ! • (Dow*) T i r t c 0.60 1.07  05/11/7*)  (ACROSS) 2.»7  2.01  LrjRATIO 3. HI  u.jci  1.87  ».ai  3J.:o  25.28  2). 30  0.37  1. 3 0  0.81  T B I P LESCTH B E C S E S S I d l l  1.7T  2.2K  2.70  3  17  J.6«  5.01  AHALTSIS  STATISTICS.. COBkEI.ATIOH STO ERR Of  ("»1ST  -  0.30980  B S3UIHED  «. 311»7  IHTEPCEPT  0. 09518 (A)  20. a j j a s  SIGBI r l C A H C E  0.0b176  SLOPE  1.38910  (B)  THE RIGBESSIOI! L I N E CUT= THE 1A3GIXS Or THE PLOT IT A VALUE or 21.3M7HS OH THE LEET nAJGIH 1 V/.l'Ji: Or 2 7 . 0 1 0 1 3 OH THE RIGHT (lARttlH PLOTTED VALUES  EICLUUED  2t  l  s  VALOES-  1>B IU TED I f A O E r r l C I E a ?  HISSK6  CAL HOT UE COrt?UTED.  VALUES  49.  FIGURE 19:  SCATTERGRAM OF TRAVEL DISTANCE AND THE LABOUR FORCE:JOB RATIOS  05/19/73 TRIP  lEHGTH  REGRESSION  • P H I THESIS S C A T T E R G RAH O f  ARALJSIS  (CHEATIOR DATE T LENGTH 0.60 1.07  (0OWH|  05/19/78)  (ACROSS)  2.00  1.5»  2.9H  2.17  LfJRATIO  3.HI  3.87  la.«»  13. 31  9 . 9 2  8. 79  7.67  I I I • I I I  A . 2 8  3.  IS  •  77  o.37  5 . 8 A  « . 1 0  L  -  2.2 *  2 . 7 0  1  3.6H  3.17  0 . 11  " •  i  7  '  7  05/19/78 TBI?  IE5GTS  BETIUSSial  J.HAITSIS  STATISTICS.. CCtREHTIOII S1D  Of  El- B  THE  EST  PEGPESSI05  .  , , , ,  A  l/LUK  PLOTTED  )  t  o  LIKE  CUTS  TI! K  RAKUIKS  6.'.22'.'.  r  7. I S C ] / -  OI  S3U»l!E3  UTERCEPT  3.06CGO  -  07  »AL!IE3  R  0. 1 0 2 «  <P|-  OP  T.l6  THE  L El T  THE  RiGIIT  PLOT  (A)  IS  5I5NIPICAKCE  0.  6.  SLOPE  0.311«3  H0I.70  (U)  » T  r.ACIS f!«1<:!U EXCLUDED  26  -  0.01057  PUUTiO  HISSING  VAL!IfS-  IP  A  COE.-flClEHT  CAUKOT  HE  COHPUTE0.  VALUE!  JOl'.O  50.  coefficient  (0.10283) and the extremely low c o e f f i c i e n t o f  determination  (0.015057). Thus, time seems to be more c o r r e l a t e d w i t h r a t i o than t r a v e l distance. the r a t i o t h e l o n g e r p a r t i c u l a r area.  labour  (ii)  force:job  I t m i l d l y supports the c l a i m t h a t the h i g h e r  the mean work t r i p  l e n g t h f o r work t r i p s l e a v i n g a  I t g i v e s s l i g h t support  o f r e d u c i n g mean work t r i p  the labour  lengths  to the c o n t e n t i o n  i s to a c h i e v e  t h a t one way  a b a l a n c e between the  f o r c e and j o b s w i t h i n sub-areas o f the r e g i o n .  Work T r i p Length and Income The  l i t e r a t u r e review i n Chapter 2 presented  i n f l u e n c e s work t r i p work t r i p United  lengths  length.  the view that income  I t appears t h a t the w e l l to do have  than the o t h e r workers i n most c i t i e s ,  a t l e a s t i n the  S t a t e s , and t h a t the low income workers have the s h o r t e s t work  lengths.  I s t h i s the case i n the G r e a t e r  lengths  VATS of 1972 and average household incomes from the 1971 Census. i n d i c a t e s the average household incomes f o r the v a r i o u s region.  from F i g u r e 20  sub-areas o f the  A r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was done u s i n g these data on income and data  on mean work t r i p  lengths  f o r home t o .work t r i p s f o r each sub-area.  F i g u r e s 21 and 22 a r e the p l o t s o f income w i t h The  trip  Vancouver Region?  T h i s q u e s t i o n was i n v e s t i g a t e d by a n a l y z i n g work t r i p  trip  longer  time and d i s t a n c e .  a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s t h a t income i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to work  l e n g t h i n terms o f e i t h e r time o r d i s t a n c e .  2 R 's o f 4.0 x 10  T h i s i s i n d i c a t e d by the  -5 f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e and income, and  -3 2.13 x 10 f o r that between time and income. T h e i r c o e f f i c i e n t s o f -3 -2 c o r r e l a t i o n are a l s o extremely low: 6.63 x 10 and 4.616 x 10  Ul  52.  FIGURE 21:  TBIP  LENGTH  REGRESSION  MLE THESIS SCATTERGRAII O r  ANALYSIS  (CREATION DATE (DOWN) T I . 1 E  7050.25 33.20  SCATTERGRAM OF MEAN TRAVEL DISTANCE WITH MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME  8278.75  05/19/78  PICS  8  • 05/19/78) (ACROSS)  9507. 25  107)5.75  11961.25  13192.75  INCO.IE  10121.25  15609. 75  168H.25  1810*.75  »  27. 26  23. 30  15.38  13.10  •  .  6136.00  TBIP LEKCTB  7661.50  8893.00  • 10121.50  I  . , 11350.00  . • 12578.50  . 13807.00  R E G R E S S I O N AM ALTSIS  I , 15035.50  16261.00  , , 17192.50  05/19/78  PACE  *. . 18721.00  9  STATISTICS.. COllRELATION ( * ) -  0.01616  B SQUARED  STD t u t o r 1ST -  1.52973  INTERCEPT (A)  0.00213 22. 78658  StCSlriCAHCL  0.11 HO  SLOPE ( b |  0.00007  THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE n i l l G I N S Or THE P L O T AT A VALUE Or 23. 20779 OH Tilt L E r T ."IARG1N A VA1UE Or 29.01183 ON THE BIGHT MARGIN PLOTTED VALOES  26  EXCLUDED IALUES-  M S S I H G VALUES -  IS PRINTED I f 1 COtrriCIEHT CANBOT DE COMPUTED.  13.90  53. FIGURE 22:  TRIP  A SCATTERGRAM OF MEAN TRAVEL TIME WITH AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME  L ENliTH R E G R E S S I O N  ASALTS1S  05/19/73  (cnexTio.i D«TE • os/i9/;8) (Ddil.l) T L E N U T H • 7050.25 827H.75 1507. 25  rut THLSIS SC» tTEUli B»n o r  10735. 71  11964.25  PAGE  ( 1 C R O G 5 ) 1.1CCME 13192.75 14421.25 15649.75  16.173.2S  (  18106.75  14.44  8 . 7 9  3.15  •  •  ••  • •  6436.00  •  7664.50  TBIP L i t e m REGRESSION  8893.00  —•  10121.50  I  I  11350.00  • • • • • . .  12578.50  13907.00  15035.50  16260.00  .  17492.50  ••  •.  13721.00  ANALYSIS  STATISTICS.. CORRELATION STD  ER  R Of  [S|-  0.00663  I  EST -  3.08231  INTEBCEPT  THE R E G R E S S l m A » A L U L Or A I A L U E Cr PLOTTED  tALUES  SOUAPED (A)  0. 00004  S I G N l f l C A N C E  6. 93543  S L O P E |0)  L I N E CUTS THE H A H G U S Or T H E p L O T A T 6.Y7656 ON T H t LETT HA PC IN 7.05506 ON THE B I G H T nARGIN  26  EXCLUDED  ..........  I  s  PRINTED  tiLUES-  HISSINS  I f A C O E P r l C I E N T CANNOT HE CilnpOTED.  TALUES  0.43717 0.6J915Z-0S  3. 15  54.  respectively.  However, a v i s u a l a n a l y s i s o f the p l o t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the  low income workers g e n e r a l l y undertake s h o r t work t r i p  lengths.  On the  o t h e r hand the m i d d l e income workers undertake the h i g h e s t work t r i p l e n g t h s and the h i g h income workers undertake modest work t r i p  lengths.  As a c o n c l u s i o n , i t can be s a i d t h a t even though c e r t a i n s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t as income i n c r e a s e s work t r i p  lengths  i n c r e a s e , t h i s does not  appear to be the case i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver Region.  CHAPTER 4  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND  CONCLUSIONS  56.  INTRODUCTION T h i s c h a p t e r i s i n two p a r t s .  The  first  s t a t e s the f i n d i n g s o f  this  study and the second d i s c u s s e s these f i n d i n g s and r e l a t e s them to the " L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work" p o l i c y to i n d i c a t e the b e n e f i t s to be expected such a p o l i c y . 1.  The  s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of the p o l i c y b e i n g d i s c u s s e d a r e :  whether a b a l a n c e between the l a b o u r f o r c e and j o b s on a l o c a l b a s i s w i l l have the e f f e c t  2.  from  of r e d u c i n g work t r i p  whether the above s t r a t e g y w i l l  lengths,  area  and  l e a d to an e a s i n g of downtown  traffic  congestion.  SECTION A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The major f i n d i n g s of the study 1.  Mean and median work t r i p  c o u l d be summarized as f o l l o w s :  d i s t a n c e s to a l l the suburban c e n t e r s  t o g e t h e r are somewhat s h o r t e r than the c o r r e s p o n d i n g downtown employment c e n t e r .  T h i s seems to suggest  f i g u r e s to the  that i n general  terms i f employment c e n t e r s are l o c a t e d o u t s i d e the downtown work trip  d i s t a n c e s w i l l be s h o r t e r than  supports  those t o the downtown a r e a .  the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t one way  of r e d u c i n g work t r i p  This  lengths  w i l l be to d e c e n t r a l i z e j o b s from the downtown a r e a to suburban centers. 2.  Mean and median work t r i p  .travel  times  to the suburban c e n t e r s  s u b s t a n t i a l l y s h o r t e r than the c o r r e s p o n d i n g  t r a v e l times  are  to the down-  town employment c e n t e r . One  i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s to the study i s the f a c t  t h a t even though  a j o b l o c a t i o n o u t s i d e the downtown might not l e a d to a s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n t r a v e l d i s t a n c e s , t h e r e may  be s i g n i f i c a n t time  savings.  3.  Areas w i t h h i g h l a b o u r f o r c e : j o b r a t i o s trip  lengths.  T h i s i s the case w i t h D e l t a and White Rock, Surrey  P o r t Coquitlam. p a r t i c u l a r area work t r i p  However, a b a l a n c e  lengths.  The  case o f North  short  Burnaby i l l u s t r a t e s  (This  a mean work t r i p  this.  l e n g t h of 29.54 minutes  t h a t a b a l a n c e between l a b o u r f o r c e and j o b s i n an  not n e c e s s a r i l y l e a d to s h o r t work t r i p  w i t h other areas. of  does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply  miles.)  T h i s suggests a r e a may  and  j o b s may  The  fact  have l i t t l e  l e n g t h s i n comparison  t h a t the l a b o u r f o r c e b a l a n c e s  i n f l u e n c e on work t r i p  the number  l e n g t h s because many  o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s are r e q u i r e d i f the j o b s are to be f i l l e d by who  live  and  of l a b o u r f o r c e and j o b s i n a  ( i . e . a r a t i o of 1.0)  area has a r a t i o of 0.99 o r 7.481  tend t o have the l o n g e s t work  locally.  The  r i g h t man  must be a v a i l a b l e  candidates  from the l o c a l  area  when a j o b i s v a c a n t , must want the j o b , and must be p r e f e r r e d over a l l others applying f o r i t . 4.  Between 1965  and 1972  mean work t r i p  l e n g t h s to a l l the employment  c e n t e r s o u t s i d e the downtown i n c r e a s e d f a s t e r than  the mean work  trip  12 ' l e n g t h to the downtown.  (see T a b l e 6 ) .  T h i s may  be a t t r i b u t e d i n  p a r t to the i n c r e a s e i n r e s i d e n t i a l development on the p e r i p h e r y of the r e g i o n . One  i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s i s that as the p o p u l a t i o n of the  o u t s i d e the downtown i n c r e a s e s , the mean work t r i p  areas  length also  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n was a r r i v e d a t by comparing work t r i p l e n g t h s d e r i v e d by W o l f o r t h (1965), Hickman (1968) and VATS (1972). However, the VATS surveys were c a r r i e d out i n a d i f f e r e n t way from the two o t h e r s t u d i e s . See page 46 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f the survey methodology used i n each study.  58.  increases.  Thus, to reduce the mean work t r i p  downtown, j o b s can be l o c a t e d i n such The  l e n g t h o u t s i d e the  areas.  comparison of t r a v e l modes to the suburban c e n t e r s and  the downtown  r e v e a l e d the importance of t r a n s i t to the downtown and auto non-downtown employment c e n t e r s . dependent on t r a n s i t T h i s suggests  Women were a l s o found  as compared to  to the  to be h e a v i l y  men.  t h a t i f j o b s are d e f l e c t e d from the downtown and  l o c a t e d i n the suburban a r e a s , t h e r e may  be a change i n the mode of  t r a v e l to work.  to the use of auto because of  Most workers w i l l  shift  i t s advantages and h i g h e r q u a l i t y o f t r a v e l as compared to the  bus  transit. The  a n a l y s i s of work t r i p  lengths i n r e l a t i o n  to the average  household  incomes of the v a r i o u s g e o g r a p h i c a l areas of the r e g i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t people who no  l i v e i n h i g h income sub-areas  of the Lower Mainland  l e s s and no more than the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole t o and  travel  from work.  T h i s i s at v a r i a n c e w i t h the g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n from e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l s t u d i e s t h a t the r i c h do make l o n g e r j o u r n e y s  than  the  p o p u l a t i o n as a whole. The  study a t t r i b u t e s t h i s to the f a c t  t h a t h i g h income workers  f i n d h i g h q u a l i t y r e s i d e n t i a l areas of s u b s t a n t i a l s i z e a d j a c e n t the CBD,  i n the i n n e r suburbs and i n the o u t e r suburbs.  workers l i v e i n low-cost  r e s i d e n t i a l areas and  ance of these i n the i n n e r c i t y and areas i s r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t .  Middle  the j o u r n e y  to  income  t h e r e i s a preponderto work from  income sub-areas  work t r i p s o v e r a l l and t h i s appears to r e f l e c t  Low  can  these  produce the l o n g e s t  the development of  m i d - p r i c e d s i n g l e f a m i l y s u b d i v i s i o n s on the urban  fringe.  new,  59.  7.  The comparison and a n a l y s i s o f the v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n s and mean work trip  l e n g t h s f o r t e n SMSA's and G r e a t e r Vancouver show t h a t average  work t r i p  l e n g t h i n Vancouver and the t r i p  l e n g t h frequency  t i o n f o r Vancouver appear t o be q u i t e t y p i c a l o f those and 8.  large  distribu-  f o r moderate  cities.  The study was a b l e t o c o n f i r m the f i n d i n g s o f some e a r l i e r s t u d i e s that mean work t r i p  lengths  than the mean work t r i p  to suburban employment c e n t e r s are s h o r t e r  to the downtown.  However, i t d i d n o t show that  suburban employment c e n t e r s draw t h e i r l a b o u r from a s m a l l e r catchment a r e a as compared t o the CBD.  T h i s was because t h e r e was no c l e a r  p a t t e r n i n the o r i g i n o f work t r i p s  to these two c e n t e r s .  They a l l  seemed t o have had o r i g i n s over the whole r e g i o n . In g e n e r a l t h e t r i p  l e n g t h frequency  c e n t e r s has a v e r y s i m i l a r p r o f i l e The  d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r suburban  t o t h a t f o r t r i p s t o the CBD.  key d i f f e r e n c e s a r e that more t r i p s t o suburban c e n t e r s  c l o s e t o these  start  c e n t e r s and the d i s t r i b u t i o n i s more compact f o r s h o r t  and medium l e n g t h  trips.  SECTION B - CONCLUSION One c o n c l u s i o n from the a n a l y s i s was the f a c t 1972,  the i n c r e a s e i n work t r i p  CBD was p r i m a r i l y t h e r e s u l t  t h a t mean and median work t r i p  The  l e n g t h s to employment c e n t e r s o u t s i d e the  of a greater i n c r e a s e i n r e s i d e n t i a l  ment on the r e g i o n ' s p e r i p h e r y .  than the c o r r e s p o n d i n g  t h a t between 1965 and  develop-  The a n a l y s i s a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d "the f a c t l e n g t h s to suburban c e n t e r s were s h o r t e r  f i g u r e s t o the downtown.  above c o n c l u s i o n s seem to suggest t h a t t h e r e are two ways o f  60.  r e d u c i n g work t r i p (i)  lengths:  m a i n t a i n i n g a balance between the p o p u l a t i o n ( l a b o u r f o r c e ) and j o b s f o r both downtown and non-downtown employment c e n t e r s ;  ( i i ) d e f l e c t i n g j o b s to non-downtown  locations.  These seem to be the l e g i t i m a t e bases o f the GVRD's " L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work" p o l i c y which seeks to d e f l e c t j o b s from the CBD t o t h e suburbs and a l s o seeks t o m a i n t a i n a balance between the l a b o u r f o r c e and j o b s on a l o c a l area b a s i s . The 1965  comparison o f work t r i p  and 1972 a l s o suggests  l e n g t h s from the three s t u d i e s between  t h a t one way o f r e d u c i n g work t r i p  to m a i n t a i n a balance between sub-area  lengths i s  l a b o u r f o r c e and sub-area  jobs.  However, the a n a l y s i s o f the VATS and the 1970 Census data i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p r a t i o o f sub-area  l a b o u r f o r c e and sub-area  jobs.  l e n g t h and the  A l o n g work t r i p  length  was not n e c e s s a r i l y the r e s u l t o f an imbalance between the sub-area l a b o u r f o r c e and sub-area  jobs.  r e l a t e d to employee s k i l l s ,  Apart  from t h i s r a t i o , o t h e r  factors  a v a i l a b i l i t y o f j o b s and p r e f e r e n c e o f the  workers i n an a r e a w i l l determine whether people w i l l t r a v e l l e s s to work. There was a v e r y s l i g h t c o r r e l a t i o n between work t r i p r a t i o of sub-area  l a b o u r f o r c e t o sub-area  s h o r t e r t r a v e l times  jobs.  time  T h i s i n r e l a t i o n to the  t o the suburban c e n t e r s as compared t o c o r r e s p o n d i n g  f i g u r e s to the downtown has an important  i m p l i c a t i o n f o r the study.  though the matching o f j o b s t o the l a b o u r f o r c e i n the sub-areas l e a d to s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s i n work t r i p s u b s t a n t i a l time The  and the  might n o t  d i s t a n c e s , there w i l l s t i l l be  savings.  VATS data on work t r i p  Even  t r a v e l mode i n d i c a t e d the o v e r a l l  61.  importance o f t r a n s i t and auto t o the downtown and suburban c e n t e r s respectively. the  The " L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work" p o l i c y by d e f l e c t i n g j o b s from  downtown to t h e suburban c e n t e r s may l e a d  mode usage.  t o a change i n the workers'  There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t and f o r the i n d i v i d u a l t r a v e l l e r  a beneficial shift  to the use o f the auto because o f i t s advantages and  the h i g h e r q u a l i t y o f t r a v e l as compared to the bus t r a n s i t . One o t h e r b e n e f i t diverting  t r a f f i c from the CBD o r i e n t e d  therefore lead  of  peak hour flows.  some degree these c o n c l u s i o n s must be regarded as t e n t a t i v e data.  the i s s u e  examined because i t would be v a l u a b l e t o a s c e r t a i n  the p o l i c y i n terms o f the r e a c t i o n  indicate  F i n a l l y , since  i t s e f f e c t on work t r i p  Such a  o f the p o l i c y b u t  lengths.  o f the d w e l l i n g i n terms o f s i z e and neighbourhood  a m e n i t i e s , r e s e a r c h on e x a c t l y  that w i l l  the e f f e c t s o f  i t i s c l e a r t h a t home s e l e c t i o n depends to a h i g h  degree on the s u i t a b i l i t y  is called for.  s h o u l d be  of f i r m s t o moves over time.  study w i l l not o n l y be an i n d i c a t o r o f the e f f e c t i v e n e s s i t w i l l also  because  As and when d a t a on, s a y , d e c e n t r a l i z e d  f i r m s and o f f i c e s from the downtown become a v a i l a b l e ,  desires  the downtown  as a whole.  l i m i t a t i o n s of available  further  The p o l i c y can  t o an e a s i n g o f the t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n w i t h i n  a r e a and t h e c i t y To  the p o l i c y has i s the advantage i t w i l l have i n  how important these f a c t o r s  a r e i n Vancouver  T h i s r e s e a r c h should be coupled w i t h p o l i c y  encourage the c r e a t i o n  recommendations  o f h o u s i n g and a m e n i t i e s that  of l o c a l a r e a employees and i s w i t h i n  their price  f i t the  range.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  63.  American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s #26, 1951.  (ASPO).  I n f o r m a t i o n Report  A u c o t t , J.W. " D i s p e r s a l o f O f f i c e s from London," Town P l a n n i n g Review, 31 (1960): 37-51. Burtenshaw, D. and A. D u f f e t . " O f f i c e D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n - Ten Years E x p e r i e n c e , " The Surveyor, 143 (1974): 22-5, 21-3. Cherry, C. " E l e c t r o n i c Communication: A Force f o r D i s p e r s a l , " O f f i c i a l A r c h i t e c t u r e and P l a n n i n g , 33 (1970): 773-6. D a n i e l s , P.W. " O f f i c e D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n from London: R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , 3 (1969): 171-8.  P o l i c y and P r a c t i c e , "  . " T r a n s p o r t Changes Generated by D e c e n t r a l i z e d R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , 6 (1972): 273-89.  Offices,"  . "Some Changes i n the Journey to Work of D e c e n t r a l i z e d O f f i c e Workers," Town P l a n n i n g Review, 44 (1973): 167-88. . Office Decentralization: An Urban and R e g i o n a l Study. G. B e l l and Sons, L t d . , London, 1975. Evans, A.W. "Myths About Employment i n C e n t r a l London," J o u r n a l of T r a n s p o r t Economics and P o l i c y , 1 (1967): 214-25. G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . The L i v a b l e Region, 1976/1986. P r o p o s a l s t o Manage the Growth o f G r e a t e r Vancouver, 1971. . August,  R e g i o n a l Town Centers Programme.  1974.  . "The T r a f f i c Problem," We've t a l k e d about i t f o r too l o n g , i t ' s time we do something (pamphlet). 1975. Goddard, J.B. "Changing O f f i c e L o c a t i o n P a t t e r n s w i t h i n C e n t r a l London," Urban S t u d i e s , 4 (1967): 276-84. Goodman, W i l l i a m I . and E r i c C. Freund. P r i n c i p l e s and P r a c t i c e of Urban P l a n n i n g . I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i t y Managers' A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, 1968. Hall,  R.K. "The Movement of O f f i c e s from C e n t r a l London," R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , 6 (1972): 385-92. . "The Movement of O f f i c e s from London," R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , 6 (1972): 387-391.  64.  Hammond, E . " D i s p e r s a l o f Government O f f i c e s : 3 (1967): 258-75.  A Survey," Urban  Studies,  Hickman, R i c h a r d M i c h a e l . The P e r i p h e r a l Journey to Work i n Vancouver. A t h e s i s s u b m i t t e d i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r the degree o f Master o f A r t s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , 1968. Hoover, E.M. and R. Vernon. Anatomy o f a M e t r o p o l i s . Company, I n c . , New York, 1962.  Doubleday  and  Johnston A s s o c i a t e s Management L i m i t e d . Assessment of E r r o r s i n the VATS Data Base, Report and Appendix, n.d. Jones, D.E. and R.K. H a l l . " O f f i c e S u b u r b a n i z a t i o n i n the U n i t e d Town and Country P l a n n i n g , 40 (1972): 470-3.  States,"  K a i n , J . F . The Journey to Work as a Determinant o f R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n . The RAND C o r p o r a t i o n , Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , December 1961. K o i k e , H i r o t a k a and P a u l 0. Roer. VATS, Vancouver A c t i v i t y T r a v e l Study P r e l i m i n a r y Report. S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , and C e n t r e f o r . J T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, May, 1974. Koike, Hirotaka. VATS, Vancouver A c t i v i t y T r a v e l Study User's Manual. School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , Centre f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, May, 1974. Lawton, R. "The Journey to Work i n B r i t a i n ; Some Trends and Problems," R e g i o n a l ' S c i e n c e , 2:1 (September 1968): 27-40. L i n d , H.G. " L o c a t i o n by Guesswork," J o u r n a l of T r a n s p o r t Economics P o l i c y , 1 (1967): 154-63. Manners, G. " D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Boston," Geography, (1960): 276-85.  and  45  . "On the Mezzanine F l o o r : Some R e f l e c t i o n s on Contemporary O f f i c e L o c a t i o n P o l i c y , " Town and Country P l a n n i n g , 40 (1972): 210-15. Pappas, P. " T r i p Lengths i n R e l a t i o n to F a c i l i t i e s E k i s t i c s , 30:177 (August 1970): 87-89.  and Journey to Work,"  Reeder, L.G. " S o c i a l D i f f e r e n t i a l s i n Modes of T r a v e l , Time and Cost i n the Journey to Work," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 21 (February 1956): 56-63. Rhodes, K.T.L. 68-71.  "Moving out of London," Town and Country P l a n n i n g ,  R i c h a r d s o n , Harry W.  Urban Economics.  Penguin E d u c a t i o n ,  1971.  37:  65.  T a a f e , Edward J . , Barry J . Garner, Maurice H. Y e a t e s . The P e r i p h e r a l Journey t o Work. A G e o g r a p h i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n , Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. V i r i r a k i s , J . " P l a c e of Residence and P l a c e o f Work," E k i s t i c s , 26:152 ( J u l y 1968): 123-141. Wabe, J.S. " O f f i c e D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n : 3 (1966): 33-55.  An E m p i r i c a l Study," Urban  Studies,  . " D i s p e r s a l o f Employment and the Journey to Work," A Case Study, J o u r n a l o f T r a n s p o r t Economics and P o l i c y , 1 (1967): 345-361. Westergaard, J o t i n . "Journeys to Work i n the London Region," Town P l a n n i n g Review, 28 ( A p r i l 1957): 37-62. W i l b u r , Smith and A s s o c i a t e s . L i v i n g C l o s e t o Work, A P o l i c y Study f o r the Vancouver Region. November, 1973 ( D. S p a e t h ) . W o l f o r t h , John Raymond. Work-residence R e l a t i o n s i n Vancouver. A t h e s i s submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t f o r the award o f a Master o f A r t s i n Geography, 1965. . "The Journey to Work," Ch. 2 o f R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n and P l a c e o f Work, B.C. G e o g r a p h i c a l S e r i e s , No. 4, 1965.  66.  APPENDICES  APPENDIX 1 PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK CROSSTABULATIONS  68.  Meaning of Codes Used i n Appendix 1 Code  Meaning  0  Blank Records  1  UEL and P o i n t Grey  2  Kitsilano  3  Dunbar-Southlands  4  K e r r i s d a l e and S.W.  5  West End  6  Fairview  7  Shaughnessy  8  Oakridge and Marpole  9  S t r a t h c o n a and Mt.  Marine  and South Cambie  Pleasant  10  R i l e y Park  11  Sunset  12  H a s t i n g s , S u n r i s e and Grandview Woodlands  13  K e n s i n g t o n , Cedar Cottage and Renfrew C o l l i n g w o o d  14  V i c t o r i a - F r a s e r v i e w and K i l l a r n e y  15  N o r t h Burnaby  16  Central  17  South  18  New  19  Richmond  20  D e l t a and White Rock  21  Surrey  22  Coquitlam  23  P o r t Moody  24  Port Coquitlam  25  West Vancouver  26  N o r t h Vancouver  27  Downtown  Burnaby  Burnaby  Westminster  250  Subdivision  'A'  (Census Met. Area R u r a l F r i n g e )  610  U n o f f i c i a l Census T r a c t  (Rural Fringe)  PLACE  OF R E S I D E N C E / P L A C E  FILE  APPENDIX  OF WORK  MATRIX  05/19/78  PAGE  ( C R E A T I O N DATE = 05/15/761  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * m * * * * * m * * * * * * m * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * # * # * * # * ^ * * * * M * * PAGE 1 0 F 1 2 PLWORK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT  I  -0. [  1.  2.  3. [  PLRESID 1.  2.  3.  5.  6.  7.  8.  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  I I I I  3 5.8 2. 1 0.1  I I I I  1 0.9 0.7 0.0  I I I I  4 4.4 2.8 0.2  I I I I  4 3.5 2.8 0.2  I I I 1 I— I I I I I I I I  6 1 5.3 1 4 . 1 ] 0.2 1  5 4.4 7. 5 0.2  4 1 3.5 6.5 I 0.2 1  1 0.9 5.0 0. 0  145  67 2.6  62 2.4  20 0. 8  15 28.3 22 .4 0.6  I [ 1 t  7 6.6 10.4 0.3  I I I [  9 10.0 13.4 0.3  [ [ [ [  1 1 12.2 17.7 0.4  3 2.6 4.5 0.1  [ [ [ [  3 2.6 4.8 0.1  2 2.5 1 1.4 1 0.1  3 3.8 4.5 0.1  [ [  3 1 3.8 1 4. 8 ] 0.1 [  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 7.0 4.5 0.1  [  5.6  I [  [ ! t  [  [ ] ]  ]  I  1  2 3.8 3.2 0. 1 13 17. 0 29.0 0.7  t t  1 1. 9 5.0 0. 0  5.1 [  I 1 t 1.9 I 1.8 [ 0.0  1  2 1. 9 10.0 0.1  I [ [ I  3 [ 2.8 5.3 1 0.1  [ 1 I ]  3 3. 3 15. 0 0. 1  I t  3 3. 3 5.3 0.1  I 1  1 0.9 5. 0 0.0  [ [  [  0 ] 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 ]  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  [  1  5 1 11.6 25. 0 1 0. 2  1 [  13 11.3 22.8 0. 5  [ [ 1 [  1 I  6. 6 11.5 3.3 0.2  I  11 10.4 6. 1 0.4  [  13 14.'* 7.2 0.5  [ [  26 32.9 14.4 1.0  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  9 20.9 5 .0 0.3  1  [  I  7 1 6.1 t 3.9 1 0.3  1 1.3 1.8 1 0.0 1 1  7.  3 1 2.7 1 5.3 0.1 1  7 6.2 3.'i 0.3  57 2.2  181 6.9  1 I  0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0  1  [ [ I  4 3.8 8. 5 0.2  [ [  9.  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  [ [  1 0 .9 2. 7 0.0  I [  [  [  3 [ 3.3 I 6.4 1 0. 1  3 I 3.3 8.1 1 0.1  2 1.7 4.3 0. 1  3 2.6 a .1 0.1  1 [  1  6 11.5 . 2. 6 0.2 6 5.7 2.3 0.2  10.1 [ [  t  3 1 3.3 [ 1.3 0. 1  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  52 2.0  2 1.9 4.2 0.1  I I I I  106 4. 1  3 3.3 6.3 0. 1  I I I I  90 3.5  3 2.6 6.3 0. 1  I I I I  115 4. 4  I  1 4 12.2 6.1 0. 5  0 1 0.0 I 0 .0 1 0. 0 I  3 3. 8 1.3 0. 1  ? 2. 5 4.2 0.1  I I I I  79 3.0  3 7.0 1 1.3 0.1  2 4. 7 4.2 0.1  I I I 1  43 I .7  1  1 1 2.3 I 2 .7 O.J 1  4 1 3. 5 1 8. 5 0. 2  12 1 10.6 32 .4 0 .5  4 3.5 8.3 0.2  I I I I  113 4.3  2 1 2.5 4.3 0. 1 1 6 14. 0 12.8 0.2  1  8.1  ROW TOTAL  47 1.3  1 [  37 I .4  7 6.2 3.0 0.3 230 8.8  [  «. _ _r  [  ' 48 1.8  2605 100.0  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE  05/19/78  PAGE  4  APPENDIX I CREATION DATE = C5/19/78)  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID  CROSSTABULATION OF BY PLWORK  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  PLRESIC  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT I  PAGE  t * * * * * * * * * * * , * , , , , ! ; , , , , , * * * , , ^ , , , , , ^  2  OF 12  PLKORK RDM  11.1  13.1  14.  15. I  16.1  17. 1  18 . I  19.1  TOTAL  20.1  2 1.1  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I  52 2.0 i  I I I I  2 3.8 3.0 0.1  I I I I  2 3.8 4.3 0.1  I I I I  1 1.9 4.8 0. 0  I [ I  3 5.8 2.4 0. 1  I 1 I I  1 1.9 0.8 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  I I I I  4 3.8 6.0 0.2  I 1 I I  1 0.9 2.1 0.0  I I I I  0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0  I [ [ [  4 3. 8 3.2 0.2  I I 1 I  2 1.9 1.6 0.1  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  3 I 2 .3 I 1.7 I o.i i  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  I 0.9 0.7 0.0  I I I I  106 4.1  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  5 5.6 10.6 0.2  I I I I  2 2.2 9.5 0.1  1  I I 2.2 I 1.6 I 0.1 I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  1 1.1 2.9 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  2 2.2 1.1 0. 1  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  1 1. 1 0.7 0.0  I I I I  90 3.5  I I I I  1 0.9 1.5 0.0  I I I I  1 0.9 2.1 0.0  I I I I  1 0. 9 4.8 0.0  0 I 5 I 0.0 • I 4.3 I 0. 0 I 3.9 I 0.0 I 0.2 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  7 6.1 3 .9 0.3  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I • I  115 4. 4  6.  I I I I  2 2.5 3.0 0. 1  I 1 I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 [ 0.0 ] 0.0 [  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 I. 3 0.3 0.0  I I I I  4 5.1 2.2 0.2  I I I I  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 1.3 0.7 0.0  I I I I  79 3.0  7.  [ I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  I 2.3 [ 4.8 I 0.0 ]  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  1 2.3 0 .6 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  2 4.7 1.4 0.1  I I I I  43 1.7  8.  I I [ I  5 4.4 7.5 0.2  I 1 I I  1 0.9 2.1 0.0  I I I I  0 1 0.0 [ 0.0 0.0 1  2 1.8 1.6 0. 1  I I I I  3 2.7 2.4 0. 1  I I I • I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  2 1.8 1.6 0.1  I I I I  10 I 8.8 I 5.5 I 0 .4 I  1 0.9 1.9 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  I1 3 4.3  21 0.8  125 4. 8  181 6.9  52 2.0  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  67 2.6  47 1.8  [ 1 [  127 4.9  34 1.3  123 4.7  I I I I  139 5.3  2605 100.0  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE  05/19/78  PAGE  5  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) PLRESID  PLRESID  (CONTINUED)  * * ** * * * ** * * *  c R O S S T ABU  * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * L A T I Oli Or BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * «* * * PAGE 3  PLWORK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT ] TOT PCT 1 22. I 1.  ROW  23.  24. I  25.  26 .1  27. I  71. I  TOTAL  250. t  610.1  I I I  0 0 .0 [ 0.0 0.0  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  52 2.0  I  0 0.0 J .0 0.0  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  1 06 4. 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  1 1.9 2. 2 0.0  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I 8 I 15.4 I 1.6 I 0.3  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  2.  2 1.9 3.5 0.1  I I I I  1 C.9 4.8 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  2 1.9 1.5 0. 1  I 31 I 29.2 I 6.0 I 1.2  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3.  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  2 2.2 1.5 0. 1  I 20 I 22.2 I 3.9 I 0.8  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  0 [ 0 1 0.0 [ 0.0 I 0 .0 [ 0.0 I 0. 0 0.0 I  90 3. 5  5.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I 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  1 0.9 0.8 0. 0  I 46 I 40.0 I 9.0 I 1.8  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 [ 0.0 0 .0 [ 0.0  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  115 4.4  6.  2 I 2.5 I 3. 5 I 0.1 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  2 2.5 4.3 0. 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I 25 I 31.6 I 4.9 I 1.0  I I I I  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  79 3.0  [  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  7.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  1 2. 3 2.2 0. 0  1 I 8 2. 3 I 18.6 O.U I 1.6 0.0 I 0.3  I I I I  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0 [ 0.0 ] 0.0 I 0 .0  0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I  43 1 .7  a.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  .I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 0. 9 2. 2 0. 0  1 0. 9 0.8 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 I 0 .0 [  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  113 4.3  57 2.2  21 0.8  22 0. 8  46 1. 8  133 5.1  1 0 .0  I 0.0  COLUMN TOTAL  I I I I  I I I I  I 34 I 30.1 I 6.6 I 1 .3 513 19.7  1 0.0  I  I I I  I I I I  I I I I  0  O.J  [ I [  [  2605 100.0  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE  05/ 19/78  PAGE  6  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) PLRESID  PLRESID  * * ** * * ** * * * *  C ROSSTABU  * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  PLWCRK COUNT 1 ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT 1 -0. 9.  10.  11.  13.  14.  15.  16.  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  1.  2.1  L A T I0 N OF BY PLWORK  * * * *.* * * * * * * * * *  3. I  5  6.  \  12 5. 8 8.3 0. 5  2 1.0 3.0 0.1  2 I 1. 0 I 3.2 I 0.1 I  0 t. 4 0. 0 I 1.9 I 0. 0 7.0 I 0.0 I 0.2  7 9. 1 4.8 0.3  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 3.9 4.8 0.1  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  [ . 3 I I 3.9 I [ 5. 3 I I 0. 1  8 1 10.4 4.4 1 0.3  5 5.7 3.4 0.2  4 4.6 6.0 0.2  3 I 3.4 -I 4. 8 I 0.1 I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I [ I  2 I 2.3 I 3.5 I 0. 1  9 1 10 .3 5.0 1 0.3 1  3 2.7 2.1 0.1  1 0.9 1.5 0.0  4 3.5 6.5 0.2  1 [ 0.9 t 5.0 I 0. 0  2 I 1.8 I 3.5 I 0. 1  10 1 8.8 5.5 1 0.4 I  2 2.6 1. 4 0.1  1 1.3 1.5 0.0  3 I 3.8 I 4.8 I 0. 1 I  1 1.3 5.0 0. 0  [ I I [  1 I 1.3 I 1 .8 I 0.0  11 1 14. 1 ] 6.1 0.4 ]  5 5.2 3.4 0.2  2 2.1 3.0 0. 1  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0  [ [ I [  2 I 2. 1 I 3.5 I 0. 1  1 0.8 0.7 0.0  2 1.7 3.0 0.1  I I 0.8 I 1.6 I 0. 0 I  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  I [ [ [  145 5.6  67 2.6  62 2. 4  20 0. 8  I I I I  * * ** * * **  18 8.7 [ 9.9 I 0.7  7.1  *  if  *  *  * * * * * * *  8.I  *  «  PAGE  9.1  * * *  4 OF 12  10.  i  ROW TOTAL  1 0.5 2.1 0.0  I I I I  0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0  I 52 1 1 25.2 I I 22.6 I I 2.0 I  6 7.8 12.8 0.2  I I I I  2 2 .6 5 .4 0.1  I I I I  I I. 1 2 .7 0.0  I I I I  2 1.8 5 .4 0.1  I I I I  24 21.2 10.4 0.9  3 I 3. 8 I 6.4 I 0.1 I  0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0  I I I I  8 10.3 3.5 0.3  4 4.2 1 2.2 ] 0.2 ]  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  2 I 2.1 I 5.4 I 0.1 I  14 1 14.6 I 6. 1 I 0.5 I  0 0.0 0. 0 1 0.0  96 3.7  1 I C. 8 I 1.8 I 0.0  9 7.6 ] 5.0 0.3 [  1 0.8 2.1 0.0  I I I I  1 I 0.3 I 2.7 I 0 .0 I  6 I 5.1 I 2. 6 I 0.2 I  1 1 0.8 2. 1 0. 0  118 4.5  57 2.2  181 6.9  47 1.8  37 1 .4  230 8.8  48 l.a  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 I 1.1 I 2.1 I 0. 0 I 5 4.4 10.6 0.2  I I I I  10 13.0 4.3 0.4  1 I I 1  5 I 5. 7 I 2.2 I 0.2 I  3 1.5 [ 6.3 0. 1 8 10.4 16.7 0.3  2 06 7.9  77 3. 0  4 4.6 ] 8.3 0.2  87 3.3  I I I 1  4 3.5 i 8. 3 0.2  113 4.3  I I 1 I  5 6.4 10.4 1 0.2  76 3.0  2605 100.0  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF V.URK MATRIX FILE  05/ 19/78  7  PAGE  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/781  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  PLRESID  M  PLWCRK COUNT ROW PCT CCL PCT TOT PCT [ 11.1  (CONTINUED)  C R 0 S S T A 8 U L A T I ON OF BY PL WORK  M  * M  13.1  * M  M  14.1  'M  M  15.1  M  * * * * M  16.1  17.1  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M  * M  *****  13.1  19.1  PAGE  20.1  5 OF 12  21.1  TOTAL  I I I [  6 2.9 9.0 0.2  I I 1 I  9 4.4 19.1 0.3  [ [ [  2 1 I. 0 I 9.5 1 0. 1 I  7 1 3. 4 ] 5. 6 1 0.3  6 I 2.9 I 4. 7 I 0.2 I  1 0.5 2.9 0.0  I I I I  3 I 1.5 I 2.4 I 0. 1 I  13 I 6.3 I 7.2 I 0.5 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  2 I 1.0 1 1.4 0. 1 II  2 06 7.9  10.  I I I [  4 5.2 6.0 0.2  I I 1 1  2 2.6 4.3 0.1  I [ [ I  1 1.3 4.8 0.0  I 1 1 1  1 1.3 ! 0. 8 I 0.0  4 I 5.2 I 3. 1 I 0.2 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 1.3 0.3 0.0  3 I 3.9 I 1 .7 I 0. 1 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  77 3.0  11.  I I I I  11 12.6 16.4 0.4  I I I I  3 3.4 6.4 0.1  I [ [ I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  3 1 3.4 [ 2. 4 0. 1  4 4.6 3.1 0.2  I 4 I 1 4.6 I I 11.8 I I 0.2 I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  2 I 2.3 I 1 .1 I 0. 1 I  1 I 1. 1 I 1.9 I 0.0 I  3 i 3.4 II 2.2 0.1 I  3.3  13.  [ I I I  6 5.3 9.0 0.2  1 7 I 6.2 I 14.9 I 0.3  I I  4 3.5 I 19.0 [ 0.2  I I I I  5 1 4.4 4. 0 0. 2  4 3.5 3.1 C.2  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 0.9 0.8 0.0  3 2.7 1.7 0.1  3 I 2. 7 I 5.8 I 0.1 I  2 I 1.8 I  I 13 4.3  1.4 II 0.1  14.  1 I I 1  4 I 5.11 6.0 I 0.2 I  4 5.1 [ 8. 5 [ 0.2 [  5 6.4 I 4.0 [ 0. 2  1 1.3 0.8 0.0  I I 1 I  4 5.1 11.8 0.2  I I I 1  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  4 I 5. 1 I 2.2 I 0.2 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  2 I 2.6 I 1.4 I I 0.1  78 3.0  15.  [ I I I  4 4.2 6.0 0.2  I 1 1 I  1 1.0 2.1 0.0  [ I [ I  0 I 22 [ 0.0 I 22. 9 0.0 I 17.6 1 0. 0 I 0. 8 1  8 I 8. 3 I 6.3 I 0.3 I  1 1.0 2.9 0.0  I I I I  5 I 5.2 I 4. 1 I 0.2 I  2 2.1 1.1 0 .1  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I  2 I 2.1 I 1.4 I I 0.1  96 3.7  16.  I I I I  3 I 2.5 I 4.5 1 0. 1 I  2 1.7 4.3 0.1  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  32 27.1 25.2 1.2  3 2.5 8.8 0.1  I I I 1  11 9.3 8.9 0.4  3 2.5 1.7 0.1  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 I 2.5 I 2.2 I 0. 1 I  67 2.6  47 1.8  COLUMN TOTAL  3 I 3.8 1 14.3 I 0. 1 I  21 0. 8  I I I I  9 7. 6 7.2 0. 3 125 4. 8  I [ [ I  127 4.9  I I I 1  34 1.3  123 4.7  I J I I  I I I I  I I I I  181 6.9  I I I I  52 2.0  I I I I  139 5.3  87  118  4.5 2605 100.0  FILE  PAGE  05/ 19/78  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX  8  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78»  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF BY P L W Q R K * * PLRESID ** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE * OF  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT PLRESID  PLWCRK  22. I  23.1  24.1  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I _j 1 I 1.1 I 2.2 I 0. 0 I  1 1 13 I 0 1.3 I 16.9 I 0.0 0.8 [ 2.5 I 0.0 0. 0 0.5 I 0. 0 - I; 1 19 I 1 I 1.1 1. 1 [ 21.8 I 0.8 I 3.7 I 100.0 0.0 0. 0 I 0.7 I  I I I I  0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  3 2. 7 2.3 0.1  I 19 I 16.8 I 3.7 I 0.7  I I I I  0 0.0' 0.0 0.0  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  1 I. 3 2.2 0. 0  I I I I  -1 1.3 0. 8 0.0  I 14 I 17.9 I 2.7 I 0.5  1 I 1. 0 I 4.5 I 0.0 I  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 1.0 0. 8 0.0  1 I 0.8 I 4. 5 I 0.0 I  1 0. 8 2.2 0.0  I I I I  5 4.2 3. B 0.2  22 0. 8  46 1.8  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  14.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  15.  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  16.  5 4.2 8.8 0.2  11.  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 I I . I 0.0 I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I •I•I21 57 0. 8 2.2  0 I 47 I ' 22.8 I 0.0 I 9.2 1 0.0 I 1.8 I 0. 0 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  13.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  8 I 3.9 6.0 I 0.3 1  71. I  4 1 .9 8. 7 0. 2  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  10.  I I I I  27. I  I I I I  I I I I  1 0.5 1.8 0.0  26. !  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 I 1.5 I I 14.3 I 0.1 1I 0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.0 10 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  9.  25. I  133 5.1  250.1 J 0. 0 0 .0 0.0  ROW TOTAL  610.1  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  206 7.9  I I I I I— I I 1 I  0 0.0 0 .0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  113 4.3  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0  I I 1 I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  78 3.0  I 20 I 20.8 I 3.9 I 0.8  I I I 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  96 3.7  I I I I  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I' 0.0 I  0 0 .0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  118 4.5  1 0.0  1 0.0  17 14 .4 3.3 0.7 513 19.7  I I I I  I • 0 I 77 I 0.0 I . 3.0 I 0.0 I I 0.0 I -I — -I 0 I 0 I 87 0. 0 I 0.0 I 3.3 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I  I I I I  1 0.0  I I I I  2605 100.0  05/ 19/78  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE  PAGE  9  APPENOIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78)  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CROSS TABULATION OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 7 OF 12  PLRESID  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT  PLWORK  -0.  1.  2.I  17.  5 7.4 3.4 0.2  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  18.  5 6. 1 3.4 0.2  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  3. I 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  19.  16 9.0 11.0 0.6  3 1.7 4.5 0.1  1 0.6 1.6 0.0  I I I I  20.  14 11.2 9.7 0.5  1 0.8 1.5 0.0  0 0.0. 0.0 0.0  I I I I  21.  13 5.6 9.0 0.5  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  22.  4 4.7 2.8 0.2  23.  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 4.4 1.7 0.1  -0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  0 0 .0. 0.0 0.0  6 8.8 2.6 0. 2  10.1 [ 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  3 3.7 1.7 0.1  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  1 1.2 2 .7 0.0  2 2.4 0.9 0. 1  0 0.0 0 .0 0. 0  3 1.7 1.7 0. 1  3 1.7 8 .1 0. 1  4. 5 3.5 0.3  0. 6 2. 1 0.0  1  177 6. 8  0 0.0 0 .0 O.J  11 8.3 4.8 0.4  1 0. 8 2.1 0.0  125 4.8  5.1 3 4.4 5.3 0.1  0 I I 0.0 I I ' I 0.0 I I 0.0 I  7 I 2 I 4.0 I 1.1 I 10. 0 I 12.3 I 0. 1 I 0.3 I  ROW TOTAL  7.  a  68 2.6  82 3. 1  1 0.8 5.0 0. 0  0 ' I 4 0.0 I 3.2 0.0 I 2 .2 0. 0 I 0.2  2 l.l 4.3 0. 1 1 0.8 2.1 0. 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0. 6  2 I 0.9 I 3.5 I 0. 1 I  5 2.2 2.8 0.2  2 0. 9 4.3 0. I  1 0.4 2.7 0.0  5 2.2 2.2 0.2  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  232 8.9  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  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  2 2. 3 4.3 0.1  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  4 4.7 1. 7 0.2  1 1 .2 2. 1 0.0  86 3.3  7 21.9 4.8 0.3  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 C.C 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0-  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  2 6.3 0.9 0.1  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  32 1.2  145 5.6  67 2.6  62 2.4  181 6.9  47 1.8  37 1 .4  230 8.8  48 1.8  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0. 6  I I I I  57 2.2  2605 10J.0  05/19/78  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE  PAGE  10  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE - 05/19/78)  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N ' OF PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  PLRESID  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  PAGE  8 OF 12  PLWCRK  11.I  13.  14.1  17.  I I 1. 5 I 1.5 0.0  1 1. 5 2.1 0.0  1 I 1.5 4.8 0.0  18.  3 3.7 4.5 0. I  I I I I  1 1.2 2.1 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  19.  4 2.3 6.0 0.2  I I I I  1 0.6 2.1 0.0  20.  1 0.8 1.5 0.0  I I I I  21.  4 1.7 6.0 0.2  22.  2 2.3 3.0 0.1  23.  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  15.1 10 14. 7 8. 0 0.4  16 , 13 19.1 10. 2 0.5  17. 5 7.4 14.7 0.2  18.  19.  20.  21. 1  5 7.4 4. I 0.2  2 2 .9 1 .1 0. 1  I 1.5 1 .9 0. 0  3 4.4 2 .? 0. 1  34 41.5 27.6 1.3  1 1.2 0.6 0..0  2 2.4 3.8 0. 1  3 3. 7 2.? 0. 1  5 I 6. 1 I 4.0 I 0.2 I  6 7.3 4. 7 0.2  3 3.7 8. 8 0.1  1 I 0.6 I 4. 8 I 0.0 I  I 0.6 0.8 0.0  2 1.1 1.6 0. 1  2 1.1 5.9 0. 1  1 0.6 0.8 0. 0  91 51.4 50 .3 3.5  1 0. 6 1.9 0.0  1 0.6 0.7 0.0  2 1 .6 4.3 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 1.6 5.9 0.1  9 7.2 7.3 0.3  11 8.8 6.1 0.4  21.6 5 1.9 1 .0  21  13 10.4 9.4 0.5  I I I I  1 0.4 2.1 0.0  2 0.9 9. 5 0. I  7 I 3.0 I 5.6 I 0. 3 I  12 5.2 9.4 0.5  3 1.3 8.8 0. 1  23 9. 9 18.7 0.9  14 6.0 7.7 0 .5  13 5.6 25.0 0.5  94 40.5 67. 6 3.6  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  6 I 10 7. C 1 11.6 7.9 4.8 I 0.4 0.2 I  3 3.5 8.8 0.1  16 18.6 13.0 0.6  3 3.5 1.7 0 .1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 1 .? 0.7 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I 3.1 2.1 0. 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  3 I 9. 4 I 2.4 I 0. 1 I  2 6.3 1.6 0.1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 3.1 0. 8 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  1 3.1 1.9 0.0  0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0  67 2.6  47 1.8  21 o.a  125 4. 8  127 4.9  34 1.3  123 4.7  181 6 .9  52 2.0  139 5.3  I I I I  I I I I  I I 1 I  ROW TOTAL  2605 1G0.0  FILE  PAGE  05/ 19/78  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX  1J  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78>  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 9 OF  PLRESID  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT 17.  18.  PLWGRK 22. I 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  —  4 4.9 7.0 0.2  24. I  23.1  I I I I I— I I I I I— I I I I I— I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 I 0.4 I 4.8 I 0.0 I  1  1  ;  1 i 1 .2 [ 4.8 [ 0.0 I  25. I  26.  27.1  2 1 2.9 [ 1.5 1 0. 1 ]  6 ] 8.8 1 1.2 0.2  2 1.1 4.3 0. 1  I I I I I— I I I I I— I I I I  1 I 1.5 I 4. 5 I 0.0 I -I — 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I —j— 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I -I— 1 I 0.8 I 4.5 I 0.0 I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  1 0. 8 2.2 0. 0  1 0.4 4.5 0.0  I I I I  .—• ,  r  2 1.1 I .5 C. 1  [ 22 I 12.4 I 4.3 [ 0.3  [ I I  I I I I  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  16 12. 8 3.1 0.6  I I I I  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 -I 0.0 I  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  I 1 I 0.3 I 100. 0 I 0.0  I 0. 4 2.2 0. 0  I I I I  2 I 0. 9 I 1. 5 I 0.1 I  17 7.3 3.3 0.7  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  6 7.0 1.2 0.2  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  3  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  1 I I I 3.1 I I 100 .0 I I 0.0 I  —  I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  21.  9 3.9 15. 8 0.3  I I I I  22.  20 23.3 35. 1 0. 8  6 I 7.0 1 I 28 .6 1 0.2  I I I I  1 1. 2 4.5 0. 0  I I I I  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 I 1.2 I 0.8 I 0.0 I  23.  4 12.5 7.0 0.2  I I I I  5 15.6 23.8 0.2  I I I I  1 3. 1 4.5 0.0  I I I I  1 3. 1 2. 2 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  57 2.2  I I I I  21 0.8  22 0.3  46 1.6  133 5.1  8  I 9.8 1 .6 I 0. 3 [  [__——_——— I  20.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  610. I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  —  0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I  250.1  I 0 I 0 I I 0.0 I 0. 0 I I 0 .0 I 0.0 I I 0. 0 I . 0.0 I -1-1-1 0 I 0 I 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 -1-I-I 0 I 0 I 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  19.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  71 .1  I I I I  9.4  0.6 0.1 513 '19.7  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  — — — — — ------  I 0.0  ROW TOTAL 68 2.6  82 3. 1  . 177 6.8  I I I I  125 4.8  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  232  0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  86 3.3  1  0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1 0.0  I I I I  8.9  32  1.2  2605 100.0  05/19/78  PLACE DF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX FILE  PAGE  12  APPENDIX (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78)  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I C N OF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLRESID BY PLWORK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 10 OF 12  PLRESID  PLWORK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT I -0. [ 24.  8 11.9 5.5 0.3  3. I  1.  2.1  [  0 [ 0.0 0.0 1 0.0  11 1.5 1 1.6 1 0.0  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  5. I 1 1.5 1.8 0.0  I I I I  6. I  7.1  8. I  1 I 1.5 I 2.1 I 0. 0 I  0 0.0 0 .0 0.0  I I I I  6 I 9. 0 I 2.6 I 0.2 I  1 1.5 2.1 0.0  0 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I  1 1.2 2.7 0.0  I I I I  4 4.9 1.7 0.2  I I I I  1 I 1.2 I 2. 1 I 0.0 I  82 3.1  15 6.6 6.5 0.6  I I I I  2 0.9 4.2 0.1  226 8.7  6 7.3 4. 1 0.2  I I [ I  3 3.7 4.5 0.1  I 1 [ I  1 1.2 [ 1.6 1 0.0 1  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  26.  10 4.4 6.9 0.4  I I [ I  2 0.9 3.0 0.1  [ I [ [  2 0.9 I 3.2 [ 0. 1 [  2 I 0.9 I 10.0 I 0. 1 I  2 I 0.9 I 3.5 I C. 1 I  8 I 3. 5 I 4.4 I 0.3 I  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  3 1.3 3.1 0.1  I I I I  1 1.9 0.7 0.0  I [ [ I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  [ [ [ [  0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0  0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  3 5.8 5.3 0.1  I I I I  4 7.7 2.2 0.2  I I I I  1 I 1.9 I 2. 1 I 0.0 I  0 0.0 0.3 0.0  I I I I  [ 1 I 33.3 I 1 .5 I 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  250.  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  [  1 33.3 0.7 0. 0 145 5.6  67 2.6  62 2.4  [ I [  20 0. 8  57 2.2  10.1  3 I 4.5 I 1.7 I 0. 1 I  25.  27.  9.1  ROW TOTAL  181 6.9  I I I I  47 1.8  I 0 I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I . I 0 .0 I 37 1.4  6 I 11.5 I 2. 6 I 0.2 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 230 8.8  I I I I  I I I I  I I I I  67 2.6  0 I 0.0 'I 0. 0 I 0.0 I  52 2.0  0 I CO I 0. 0 I 0.0 I  3 0. 1  48 1.8  2 605 100.0  PLACE OF RESIOENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX  PAGE  05/19/78  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  24.  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  14.1 15. — I13 0 I 0.0 I 19. 4 10.4 0.0 0. 5 0.0  25.  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 1.2 4.8 0.0  I I I I  26. I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 0.4 4. 8 0.0  I I I I  27.  0 C. 0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  250.  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  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  COLUMN TOTAL (CONTINUED)  67 2.6  47 1.8  21 0.8  125 4.8  127 4.9  34 1.3  PLRESID  11.  I I I I  13.  2 0.9 4.3 0.1  I I I I  16.  17.1  18.  1 1.5 0. 8 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 1.2 0. 8 0.0  3 3.7 2.4 0.1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  1 1.2 0. 8 0.0  10 I 4.4 I 8. 0 I 0.4 I  4 I 1.8 I 3. 1 I 0.2 I  2 0.9 5.9 0.1  4 1.8 3.3 0.2  1 1.9 0. 8 0.0  1 1.9 0. 8 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I 1I I I I I I I I  4 6.0 3. 3 0.2  19.  20.  21.  0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0  1 1.5 1.9 0.0  2 3.0 1.4 0. 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  2 I 0.9 I 1.1 I 0. 1 I  1 0.4 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  1 33.3 0.8 0. 0  0 0.0 0 .0 0. 0  0 0. 0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  123 4.7  181 6.9  52 2.0  139 5.3  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  I I ! I  ROW TOTAL  3 1.3 2.2 0. 1  2605 100.0  FILE  PAGE  05/19/78  PLACE OF RESIDENCE/PLACE OF WORK MATRIX  14  APPENDIX ICREAT ION DAT E = 05/19/78)  * « * * * * * * * * * * * * < < * « * PLRESID  C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N ' OF BY PLWORK  * * *'* f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  PLRESID  PLWORK COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT 22. [ OT PCT I 24. ]  23.1  24. I  1 1.5 0.2 0.0  I I I 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  67 2 .6  23 0 I 0.0 I 28. C 0.0 I 50.0 0. 0 I 0. 9  I I I I  11 13.4 8.3 0.4  I I I I  26 31.7 5.1 1.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 I 0.j I 0.0 I 0 .0 I  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  I I I I  82 3.1  86 5 I 2. 2 I 38. 1 10.9 I 64.7 0. 2 I 3.3  I I I I  55 24.3 10.7 2.1  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0 .0  I I t I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  226 8.7  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  52 2.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  26. I  2 0.9 3.5 0. 1  [ I I I  I I 0.4 1 4.8 I 0.0 I  2 0.9 9. 1 0. 1  I I I I  27. 1  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  250. 1  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  1 I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  21 0.8  610.1  I I I I  [ [ [ I  57 2.2  250. I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0. 0 0.0  -  71.1  27. I  ROW TOTAL  I I I I  I I I I  25. 1  COLUMN TOTAL  26. I  PAGE 12 OF  0 0.0 0.0 0. 0  13 3 I 8 I 11.9 I 4.5 1 19.4 14.0 ] 14.3 I 59. 1 0.3 .[ 0.1 I 0. 5 I I I I  25. I  •***.**********«****  22 0.8  1 I. 9 2.2 0.0  I I I I  2 3.8 1.5 0.1  I I I I  32 61.5 6.2 1.2  I I I I  0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0. 0 -0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  I I I I  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 .0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I  0.0 0.0  1 0.0  1 0.0  46 1.8  CHI SOUARE = 5338.37891 WITH 700 DEGREES OF FREEDOM  133 5.1  513 19.7  SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000  1 0.0  I I I I  0 I  0 I I I 0. 0 I  3 0. 1  2605 100.0  APPENDIX 2 SUMMARY OF WORK TRIP LENGTH MEASURES FOR THE SUB-AREAS  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  0ISTA  MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  6.060 C.258 0.258 52  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.818 5.895 26.820  MEDIAN RANGE  4.298 26.562  MEDIAN RANGE  20.500 55.0C0  MEDIAN RANGE  2.942 18.803  MEDIAN RANGE  15.684 40.000  MEDIAN RANGE  4.556 27.786  2553  T I ME A MEAN MODE MIN I MUM VALID CASES  23.750 20.000 5.C0C 48  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1.921 13.309 6C.000 2557  DISTB MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  3.785 2.930 0.290 85  STD ERR STO OEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.356 3.280 19.093 2520  T IMEB MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  18.250 15.000 5.000 84  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1.129 1C.350 45.00C 2 521  DISTC MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  5.654 4.411 C. 258 90  STO ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.581 5.516 28.044 2515  83. .05/19/78 C'TRACT-TRIP  FILE LENGTH  APPENDIX  -  CREATED  05/19/78  PAGE  ANAL,  TIMEC MEAN MODE MINI HUM VALID  CASES  27.443 15.000 1 .000  STD ERR STO OEV MAX I MUM  88  MISSING  5.798 C.902 0.064  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  56  MISSING  21.818 15.000 5.000  STD ERR STD DEV MA XI MUM  55  MISSING  3.152 1.159 C.193  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  3.357 31.490 220 .000 CASES  MEDIAN RANGE  19.900 219.000  MEDIAN RANGE  5. 135 26.723  MEDIAN RANGE  18.250 85.000  MEDIAN RANGE  1.513 30.362  MEDIAN RANGE  15.500 193.000  2517  DISTD MEAN MOOE MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.751 5.622 26.788 CASES  2549  TIMED MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID  CASES  2.282 16.925 9C.000 CASES  2550  DISTE MEAN MODE MINIMUM V A L I D CASES  77  0i,472 4.142 30.555  MISSING CASES  2 52 8  T IMEE MEAN MODE MINIMUM V A L I D CASES  21.628 15.000 2.000 78  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM  2.600 22.966 195.000  MISSING CASES  2527  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  DISTF MEAN MODE M IN I MUM VALID CASES  3.29 8 0. 129 0. 097 79  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  0. 596 5.300 29.686  MISSING CASES  MEDIAN RANGE  1.935 29.589  MEDIAN RANGE  14.950 53.000  MEDIAN RANGE  2.061 16.581  MEDIAN RANGE  14.545 44.000  MEDIAN RANGE  4.765 27.335  2526  TIMEF MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  17.392 5.000 2.000 79  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1.330 11.817 55.000  MISSING CASES  2526  DISTG MEAN MODE MIN I MU M VALID CASES  3.251 0.419 0.419 43  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.563 3.691 17.000 2562  TIMEG MEAN MODE M IN I MUM VALID CASES  13 .395 15.000 1...CC0 43  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1. 614 10.586 45.00C 2562  DISTH MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  6.141 3.574 0.161 57  STD ERR STO DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  C. 747 5.641 27.496 2548  85.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  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  MEDIAN RANGE  20.357 175.000  MEDIAN RANGE  2.334 32.905  MEDIAN RANGE  18 .000 85.000  MEDIAN RA NGE  3.4 37 30.453  MEDIAN RANGE  15.389 185.000  2549  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  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  DISTJ MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  5.692 0.773 0.708 77  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM  0.91 1 7.99 3 2 1.167  MISSING CASES  2528  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  86.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - C R EAT ED 05/19/78  PAGE  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  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  MEDIAN RANGE  4.830 29.423  MEDIAN RANGE  19.714 40.000  MEDIAN RANGE  3.131 34.258  MEDIAN RANGE  '19.717 252.000  MEDIAN RANGE  4.991 33.742  2554  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  DI STL MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  4.965 0.161 0.161 142  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  0.533 6.349 34.419  MISSING CASES  2463  TIMEL MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  24.113 15.000 3. 000 142  STD ERR STD DEV NAXINUM  2. 098 25.001 255.000  MISSING CASES  2463  DISTM MEAN °E MINIMUM  M 0  VALID CASES  6.279 5.023 0.129 113  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  »  MISSING CASES  0.596 6.331 33.871 2492  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  6  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  TIMEM MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALIO CASES  24.309 15.COO 5.000 110  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1.792 18.796 120.000  MISSING CASES  MEDIAN RANGE  15.867 115^000  MEDIAN RANGE  5.377 29.814  ME D IA N RANGE  20.000 56.000  MEDIAN RANGE  6.488 39.151  MEDIAN RANGE  29.516 78.000  2495  DISTN MEAN MODE MIN I MUM VALID CASES  5.857 0.676 .0.322 78  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.53 8 4. 749 30. 136 2527  TIMEN MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  23.385 15.000 4. 000 78  STD ERR STD OEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1.486 13.124 60.000 2527  DISTO MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  7 . 48 1 1.288 0.064 96  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.730 7. 149 39.216 2509  TIMEO MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  29.538 30.000 2.000 93  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1.551 14.960 80.000 2512  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  DISTP MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  5.877 1.771 0. 161 115  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  0.414 4.441 33.163  MISSING CASES  MEDIAN RA NGE  5.892 33.002  MEDIAN RANGE  19.783 88 .000  MEDIAN RANGE  6.214 34.805  MEDIAN RANGE  21 .875 115. 000  MEDIAN RANGE  3.300 36.061  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  DI STO MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  8.151 1.964 0.419 68  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  C. 970 7.998 35.223  MISSING CASES  2537  TIMEQ MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  29.844 20.000 5. OOC 64  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  2.965 23.721 120.000  MISSING CASES . 2541  DISTR MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  6.779 0.676 0.129 82  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  0.938 8.495 36.189 2523  0 5/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX  CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  8  O TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  TIMER MEAN 0E MINIMUM  M 0  VALID CASES  19.139 20.000 2.COO 79  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1.322 11.748 6C.000  MISSING CASES  MEDIAN RANGE  16.200 58.000  MEDIAN RANGE  4.347 22.023  MEDIAN RANGE  15.870 109.000  MEDIAN RANGE  12.975 33.710  MEDIAN RANGE  30.179 100.000  2526  DISTS MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  6.545 2.833 C.129 176  STD ERR STD OEV MAXIMUM  C.426 5.647 22.152  MISSING CASES  ,c  2429  TIMES MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  22.763 5.0CC 1.000 173  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM  1.334 17.545 110.000  MISSING CASES  2432  DISTT MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  12.963 I .578 0. 161 119  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  0.751 8. 194 33.87 1  MISSING CASES  2486  TIMET MEAN MO°E MINIMUM VALID CASES  33.198 30.000 5.COO 121  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1.765 19.419 105.000  MISSING CASES  2484  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  9  C•TRACT— TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  DISTU MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  10.440 2.962 0.225 231  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  0.612 9.309 39.989  MISSING CASES  MEDIAN RANGE  7.759 39.763  MEDIAN RANGE  25.000 358.000  MEDIAN RANGE  6.069 45.398  MEDIAN RANGE  17.237 70.000  MEOIAN RANGE  6.420 43.691  2374  TI ME U MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  28.900 30.000 2.COO 229  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1.901 28.768 36C.000  MISSING CASES  2376  DISTV MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  8.354 0.451 0.451 86  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  0.972 9.013 45.848  MISSING CASES  2519  TIMEV MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  21.628 15.COO 5.000 86  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM  1.624 15.058 75.OOC  MISSING CASES  2519  DISTW MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  14.433 41.695 0.6 12 32  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  ' 2.803 15.859 44.30 3  MISSING CASES  2573  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  10  C'TRACT-TR IP LENGTH ANAL.  TIMEW MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  22.517 10.000 3.CCO 29  STD ERR STD OEV MAXIMUM  2.532 13.635 60.000  MISSING CASES  MEDIAN RANGE  20.400 57.000  MEDIAN RANGE  10.255 43.778  MEDIAN RANGE  2 1.000 57.000  MEDIAN RANGE  5.634 33.195  MEDIAN RANGE  22.500 416.000  2576  DISTX MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  14.263 1.320 0.193 66  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1.788 14.523 48.972  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  DI STY MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  7.880 2.608 0. 129 81  0.907 8.165 33.324  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  2524  TIMEY MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  29.300 30.CCO 4.000 80  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  5.258 47.025 420.000  MISSING CASES  2525  92.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE 11  C'TRACT-TRIP LENGTH ANAL.  DISTZ MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  6.564 0.419 0.032 134  STD ERR STD DEV MA X I MUM MISSING CASES  0.715 3.280 39.66 7 247 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) CODE 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1 .200 1.400 1. 600 1.800 2 .000 2.200 2.400 2. 600 2.800 3.000 3. 200 3 .400 3.600 3.8 00 4.000 4. 200 4.400 4.600 4. 800 5.000 5.200 5.40C 5.600 5. 80 0 6.000 6.200 6.400  CODE 0.0  ADJ CUM ERE Q PCT PCT 2 12 12 13 12 13 12 7 5 8 10 12 9 3 8 5 9 8 11 5 9 6 13 20 13 17 13 14 16 10 14 8  FREQ 2121  0 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 2  CODE  0 6.600 6.8 00 3 7. OCC 5 7.200 8 7.400 11 7.60C 13 7.800 16 8. 000 17 8.200 18 8.400 20 8. 6CC 22 8. 800 24 9. 000 26 9.2C0 27 9.400 29 9.600 30 9.800 31 33 10.000 35 LO. 2 CO 36 10.400 38 1 0. 600 39 10.800 42 11.000 46 11.400 49 11.600 52 12.000 55 12.200 58 12.600 61 12.800 63 13.000 66 ;13.200 68 13.400  ADJ CUM FREQ PCT PCT 5 1 69 I 1 2 71 7 1 73 8 2 74 1 0 75 7 1 76 3 I 77 4 1 77 2 0 78 2 0 78 4 1 79 9 2 8I 3 1 82 1 0 82 3 1 82 4 I 83 6 1 85 I '85 3 2 0 86 1 0 86 2 0 86 5 1 . 87 4 1 88 1 ' 0 88 3 1 89 1 0 89 2 0 89 1 0 90 0 90 2 2 0 90 2 0 91 1 0 91  M I S S I N G CODE FREO  CD DE  ADJ CUM F RE 0 PCT PCT  13.600 14.000 14.400 14.800 1 5.000 15.400 16.000 16.400 1 7.000 17.200 I 7.400 L 7.600 17.800 18.000 18.200 1 8.400 18.800 19.000 19.200 19.400 19.600 19.800 20.400 20.800 22.600 22.800 24.400 26.400 29.400 31.400  2 3 3 1 1 1 I I 1 4 I I 1  CODE  FREO  I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 L I 1 I  DATA  0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  92 92 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 97 97 97 98 93 93 99 99 99 99 99 100 LOO 100  95.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRIP CCNCENT RAT IONS IN STUDY AREA  MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  6. 112 4.8 00 0.200 434  STD ERR STO DEV MAX I MUM MISSING CASES  0.226 4. 964 31.400 2121  MEDIAN RANGE  5. 159 31.2 00  96.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA  DISTSUBR ( A l l Suburban Areas)  CODE 0,200 0.400 0.600 0.800 l.CCO 1.200 1.4C0 1.600 1 .800 2.000 2.200 2.400 2.60C 2.800 3.000 3.200 3 .400 3.600 3 .800 4.000 4.200 4.400 4.600 4. 800 5 .000 5.200 5.4CC 5.600 5.800 6.000 6.200 6. 400 6.600 6.800 7.000 7.200 7.400 7.600 7.800 8.000 8.200 8.400 8.600  ADJ CUM FREQ PCT PCT 24 28 46 35 47 35 30 37 40 43 29 24 23 30 39 35 35 30 30 31 21 27 20 26 17 21 27 16 20 17 18 15 16 21 19 12 16 18 8 19 12 12 14  2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 .2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1  2 3 6 9 12 14 16 19 21 24 26 27 29 31 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 67 69 70 70 71  CODE 8. 300 9.000 9. 200 9.400 9. 600 9. 800 10.000 1 0.200 10.4 00 10.600 IC.800 11.000 11.200 11.400 11.600 11.8 00 12.000 12.200 12.400 12.600 12.800 13.CCO 13.200 13.4C0 13.600 13.800 14. COC 14.200 14.400 14.600 14.800 15.000 15.200 15.400 15.6CC 15.800 16.000 16.2C0 16.600 16.800 17.000 17.200 17.600  ADJ CUM <.EQ PCT PCT 15 19 14 5 7 13 14 7 5 9 5 7 5 8 6 5 9 3 2 7 6 3 "'3 8 5 1 5 3 8 7 6 1 2 6 4 8 3 1 3 2 2 4 2  1 72 1 73 1 74 0 75 0 75 1 76 1 77 0 0 78 1 78 0 79 0 79 79 1 80 0 80 0 81 1 8I 1 32 0 82 0 82 0 83 0 83 0 33 1 84 0 84 0 84 0 84 0 85 1 85 0 86 0 86 0 86 0 86 0 87 0 87 1 87 0 88 0 88 0 88 0 88 0 88 0 88 0 89  V  fc°  CODE 17.800 18.000 18.400 18.600 18.800 1 9. 000 1 9.200 19.400 19.600 19.800 20.000 20.600 20.800 21.000 21.200 21.600 21.800 22.000 22.200 22.400 23.200 24.000 24.200 25.000 25.600 26.000 26.2 00 26.600 26.800 27.000 27.600 27.800 28.200 28.400 28.800 29.200 29.600 29.800 3 0.000 30.2 00 30.400 30.600 30.800  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 2 3 3 2 2 6 4 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 I 1  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  4  0 0 0  1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 3 I 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 2 1  \J  0  J  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 G  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  89 89 89 39 89 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 9I 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94  97. 05/19/78 TRIP  FILE  CONCENTRATIONS  IN  -  APPENDIX  STUDY  -  CREATED  05/19/78  PAGE  4  AREA  DISTSU8R  ( A l l Suburban Areas) CODE  FREO  31 .COO 31 . 2 0 0 31.400 31.600  32.200 32.600 32.800 33.000 33.200 33.400 34.000 34.200 34.6C0  1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 5 6 5 2 1 1  CODE  FREO  31.aco 32.000  A D J CUM PC T P C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 0  94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 97 97  CODE  FREO  ADJ PCT  CUM PCT  CODE  FREO  35.200 35.4CC 35.600 36.000 36.2C0 36.400 36.600 36.800 37.000 37.600 37.800 38.000 38.600 39.400 39. 800  3 2 5 4 I 2 3 I 1 2 2 1 1 2 1  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  97 97 97 97 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 99 99  40.000 40.400 41.600 41 . 8 0 0 42.000 43.000 43.600 44.200 44.400 45.200 45.80C 46.000 47.000 47.800 49.000  1 I I 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 I 1 I 2 2  CODE  FREO  I  0.0  D A r  0 0  »J  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  c  0 0 G 0  99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100  A  1085  MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID  S S I N G CODE FREO  A D J C UM PCT PCT  CASES  8. 104 1.000 0.200  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  1520  MISSING  0.237 9.253 49.000 CASES  1085  MEO I A N RANGE  4.862 48.800  98.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA  DISTSUR (Surrey) CODE 0.400 0.600 0.800 1 .000 1.200 1 .400 1 .600 1.800 2 .000 2 .200 2.400 2.800 3.000 3. 200 3 .600 3.800. 4 .000 4.400 4.600  CODE 0.0 MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 4 3 2 7 2 2 1 5 5 2 3 4 2 2 1 5 3 1 5  3 2 2 5 2 2 1 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 1 4 2 1 4  3 5 7 12 14 15 16 20 24 25 28 31 32 34 35 38 41 42 45  CODE 4. 800 5.200 5.400 5. 800 6.200 6. 400 6. 800 7.000 7. 4C0 7.6G0 7. 800 8. CCO 8.200 8.400 8.600 9.000 9.2C0 9.400 9.600  ADJ FREO PCT PCT 5 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 I 2 2 2 1  4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1  49 52 55 58 60 62 64 66 67 69 71 73 75 75 76 78 79 31 82  M I S SI N G D A T A CODE FREO  FREO  CODE  ADJ- CUM FREO PCT PCT  9.800 10.000 10.200 10.600 11.6C0 11.800 12.200 12.600 12.800 13.000 13.800 14.000 14.600 16.600 19.600 19.800 21.800 33.400 35.400  CODE  2  83 84 85 85 86 87 88 88 91 92 92 94 95 95 96 97 98 2 99 1 100  FREO  2475 6.512 1.000 0.400 130  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  PAGE  TRIP CCNCENTRAT IONS IN STUDY AREA  DISTPCR (Port  Coquitlam)  CATEGORY LABEL  CODE  ABSOLUTE FREQ  VALID CASES  15  CUM FREQ (PCT)  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  0.0  6.7  46. 7  5. 800  1  0. 0  6.7  53.3  6.600  1  0. 0  6.7  60.0  CO  6.7  6o.7  6.800  6.467 0. 800 0.800  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  0.800  4.000  MEAN MODE MINI MUM  RELAT IVE FREQ (PCT)  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  TOTAL  2605  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM MISSING CASES  1.442 5.583 18.800 2590  99.4 100.0  MISSING  100 .0  100.0 MEDIAN RANGE  5. 800 18 .000  100.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  TRIP CONCENTRATIONS  PAGE  IN STUDY AREA  DISTCOR (Coqultlam) CODE 0.400 0.6C0 0.800 1.2C0 1 .400 1.600 2. 200 2.400  CODE 0.0 MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1  3 7 10 3 3 7 3 3  3 10 20 23 27 33 37 40  CODE 2.600 3. OOC 3.200 3.400 3. 800 4.000 4.600 6.000  ADJ CUM : G PCT PCT 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1  M I S S I N G CODE FREO  FREO  3 3 3 10 3 3 3 3  43 47 50 60 63 67 70 73  CODE  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT  7.4CC 8.800 9.000 10.000 1 0.800 11.40C 19.000  2 1 1 1 1 1 1  CODE  FREO  7 80 3 83 3 87 3 90 3 93 3 97 3 100  DATA  2575 4.520 0.800 C.400 30  STD ERR STD DEV MAXI MUM MISSING CASES  0. 783. 4.236 19.000 2575  MEDIAN RANGE  3.300 13.600  101.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  8  TRIP CONCENTRATIONS IN STUDY AREA  DISTNWR (New Westminster)  CATEGORY LABEL  MEAN •MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  CODE  5.709 6. 000 C.400 11  ABSOLUTE FREO  RELATIVE FREO ( PCTt  ADJUSTED FREO ( PCT )  CUM FREO (PCT I 9. 1  0.400  0.0  9.1  0.800  0.0  9. 1  18.2  1.000  0. 0  9.1  27.3  1 .200  0. 0  9. 1  36.4  1 .600  0.0  9.1  45.5  5 .400  0. 0  9.1  54 .5  6.000  0.1  18.2  72.7  10.COO  0.0  9.1  81.8  11.400  0. 0  9. 1  90.9  19.000  0.0  9.1  100. 0  0.0  2 59  TOTAL  2605  STO ERR STO DEV MAX IMUM MISSING CASES  99.6  1.757 5.326 19.000 2594  100.0  MISSING  100.0  100 .0 MEDIAN RANGE  5. 400 18.600  102.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  TRIP CONCENTRATIONS  PAGE  9  IN STUDY AREA  D 1ST BUR (Burnaby) CODE 0.200 0.4C0 0 .600 C.800 1 .000 1.200 1. 4 00 1.600 1 .800 2.000 2 .200 2.400 2.600 2.800 3.000 3.200 3.400 3. 600 3.800 4.COO 4.200 4.400 4.60C 4.800 5.000 5. 2C0 5.4C0  CODE 0.0 MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALIC CASES  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 5 7 5 6 9 6 9 6 10 10 5 5 4 6 6 4 6 4 6 8 3 5 10 9 1 8 8  2 2 2 4 2 5 2 7 3 10 2 12 3 14 2 16 3 19 3 22 2 24 2 25 . 1 26 2 28 2 30 1 31 2 33 I 34 2 36 2 38 1 39 2 41 3 44 3 47 0 47 2 49 2 52  CODE 5.600 5. 8C0 6.000 6.200 6. 400 6.600 6.800 7. CCO 7.200 7.400 7.60 0 7.800 8. COO 8.200 8.400 8.600 8.8 00 9. 000 9.200 9.400 9. 6C0 9. 800 10.000 1C.200 10.400 1 0.600 11 .000  ADJ CUM FREQ PCT PCT 5 8 2 7 8 5 4 4 5 2 7 3 10 5 5 4 3 4 '5 2 1 6 5 2 3 3 1  M I S S I N G CODE FREO  FREQ  2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 I 3 2 2 1 1 1 i.  2 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 0  53 56 56 58 61 62 64 65 66 67 69 70 73 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 82 84 85 86 87 88 88  COOE 11 .2GC 1 1 .400 1 1.600 11.800 12.000 12.200 12.600 12.800 13.000 13.400 13.800 14.000 14.400 14.800 15.600 15. 300 16.OOC 18.400 1 8. 600 19.000 19.200 19.600 19.800 33.400 35.4C0  ADJ C UM FREO PCT PCT 1 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I  I 2 2 1  0 83 1 89 1 90 I 90 1 91 1 92 0 92 1 93 0 94 0 94 0 94 1 95 0 95 0 95 0 96 0 96 1 97 0 97 0 97 I 98 0 98 0 98 1 99 1 100 C 100  DATA CODE  FREO  2275 6.177 1 .80C 0.200 330  STD ERR STD DEV MAX I MUM MISSING CASES  0.273 4.965 35.400 2275  ME DI AN RANGE  5.350 35.200  103.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  NCN HOME EASEC WORK TRIP ANALYSIS  DISTNHBT (Non-home Based Work T r i p s )  CODE 0.200 0.600 1. 400 1 .800 2.000 2.400 2.600 2.800 3.000 3.200 3.40 0 4.200 4.400 5.C0C 5.400 5.600 5.800 6.000 6. 200 6.400 6.600 6.8C0 7.COO 7.200 7.4C0 7.600 7.800 8.000 8.200 8.40C 8.6 00 8.800 9.000 9.200 9. 400 9.600 9.800 10.000 10.200 10.400 10.600 10.800 11.000  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT  CODE  14 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 4 1 3 2 0 3 2 0 3 1 0 3 2 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 5 I 0 5 3 0 5 1 , 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 6 1 0 6 7 1 7 2 0 7 3 0 7 I 0 8 3 0 8 4 1 9 4 1 9 4 1 10 5 1 10 4 1 11 1 0 11 2 0 11 7 1 12 4 1 13 4 1 13. 1 0 13 7 1 14 4 1 15 5 1 15 15 2 17 7 1 18 5 1 19  11.200 11 .400 11.600 11.8C0 12.000 12.200 12.400 12.600 12.8G0 13.000 13.200 13.400 13.600 13.800 14.000 14.200 14.4CC 14.600 14.800 15.CCC 15.200 15.400 15.600 15.800 16.CCO 16.200 16.400 16.6C0 16.800 17.000 17.200 17.400 17.600 17.800 18.000 18.2CC 18.40C 18.600 18. 800 19.000 19.2CC 19.400 19.600  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 6 14 9 20 14 17 15 20 10 6 16 12 24 26 31 35 34 16 10 11 16 11 9 12 10 8 4 10 5 8 11 4 8 12 14 6 4 3 3 2 7 5 2  I 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 I 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 2 2 I I 0 0 0 1 1 0  20 22 23 26 28 30 32 34 36 37 39 40 44 47 51 56 60 62 64 65 67 69 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 86 86 87 88 88 89  CODE 19.800 20.0C0 20.200 20.400 2C.6CC 2 C.8C0 21.000 2 1 .200 21.400 21.600 21 .800 22.400 22.60C 22.800 23.000 23.400 24.200 24.400 24.600 24.800 25.200 26.000 26.200 28.000 29.000 30.0CO 30.200 30.400 31.200 31 .600 31.800 32.200 33.000 33.8CC 34.600 34.800 35.200 35.600 35.800 37.000 38.200 39.400  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 6 3 2 3 3 3 5 4 1 3 1 3 4 4 2 I 1 I 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1  .) 1 89 C 90 C 90 0 90 C 91 0 91 1 92 1 92 0 93 0 93 c 93 0 93 1 94 I 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 C 95 0 95 0 95 0 96 0 96 0 96 0 96 0 96 0 97 0 97 0 97 1 97 0 98 0 98 0 98 0 98 0 99 C 99 0 99 C 99. 0 99 0 99 0 99 1 100 0 100  104.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  NON HOME BASED WORK TRIP ANALYSIS  M  E  A  N  M  0  0  E  MINIMUM VALID CASES  14.439 14.200 C.200 749  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM 'MISSING CASES  0.213 5.823 39.40C 0  MEDIAN RANGE  14.045 ^9.200  APPENDIX 4 TRAVEL TIME FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS  106.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS  TIMEGVRO (The Whole Region)  COOE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 17. 18. 19. 20.  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 8 0 17 1 14 1 4 0 231 9 2 0 16 1 11 0 359 14 2 0 4 0 3 0 461 18 1 0 1 0 1 0 346 14  FREO  -0.  58  VALID CASES  21 . 22. 23. 24. 25. 28. 30. 32. 35. 38. 40. 45. 48. 50. 52. 55. 60.  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 1 4 2 I 173 2 412 1 69 2 73 148 1 28 1 12 75  0 0 0 0 7 0 16 0 3 0 3 6 0 1 0 0 3  58 58 58 58 65 65 82 82 84 84 87 93 93 94 94 95 98  M I S S IN G DAT A CODE FREO  CODE  MEAN MODE MUM  0 1 2 2 11 11 11 12 26 26 26 26 44 44 45 45 58  COOE  24.026 15. 000 1.000 2547  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM  0.418 21.099 42C.000  MISSING CASES  58  CODE 65. 7 0. 75. 80. 85. 90. 105. 110. 120. 180. 19C. 195. 220. 255. 360. 42 0.  COOE  MEDIAN RANGE  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT 5 6 11 8 2 14 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1  C 93 0 98 0 93 0 99 0 99 1 99 0 99 0 99 C 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 C 100  FREO  19.900 419.000  107.  05/19/78 TRAVEL  TIME  FILE  -  APPENDIX  -  05/19/78  CREATED  PAGE  ANALYSIS  T IMESUB  (Suburban Areas) :ODE  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 17. 19. 20..  FREO  8 17 14 4 222 2 14 11 337 1 3 2 402 1 1 286  ADJ PCT  0 1 1 0 10 0 1 1 15 0 0 0 18 0 0 13  CUM PCT  CODE  0 1 2 2 12 12 13 13 29 29 29 29 48 48 48 61 M  :ODE  0. MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID  CASES  FREO  FREO  22. . 23. 24. 25. 28. 30. 32. 35. 38. 40. 45. 48. 50. 52. 55. 60. I  S  S  ADJ PCT  3 2 1 140 2 337 1 52 1 60 no 1 21 1 9 59 I  CODE  N  G FREO  CUM PCT  0 0 0 6 0 15 0 2 0 3 5 0 1 0 0 3 D  A  61 61 61 68 68 83 83 86 86 88 93 93 94 94 95 98 T  - ACJ CODE .  65. 70. 75. 80. 85. 90. 105. 110. 120. 180. 190. 19 5. 220. 36 0. 42 0.  FREO  2 5 9 7 2 14 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1  PCT  0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 C  0 C  0 0 C  0  CUM PCT  98 93 98 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  A CODE  FREO  427 23.218 15.000 1.000  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM  2178  MISSING  0.458 21 .383 42C.OO0 CASES  427  MEDIAN RANGE  19.675 419. 000  108.  05/19/78 TRAVEL  TIME  FILE  -  APPENDIX  -  CREATED  05/19/78  PAGE  ANALYSIS  T IMEC8D  (Downtown) ;ODE  FREO  ADJ PCT  CUM PCT  CODE  FREG  3. 5. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 18. 20.  2 13 2 38 1 1 1 60 1 83  0 3 0 7 0 0 0 16 0 16  0 3 3 11 11 11 11 27 27 44  21. 22. 25. 30. 35. 38. 40. 45. 50. 52.  1 1 46 .95 25 1 16 46 9 1  CODE  FREO  0.  2098  I S S I N G  MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID  CASES  CODE  28.653 30.000 3.000 507  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING  ADJ PCT  CUM PCT  0 0  44 44 53 72 77 77 80 89 91 91  9 19 5 0 3 9 2 0  CODE  FREG  55. 6 0 . 65. 70. 75. 80. 9 0 . 25 5 .  6 23 4 3 5 1 I 1  CODE  FREQ  ADJ PCT  1  5  1  1 1 C C 0  CUM PCT 93 97 98 98 99 100 100 100  D A T A FREO  0.817 18.402 255.000 CASES  2098  MEDIAN RANGE  25.141 252.000  109.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS  TIMESURR (Surrey)  CATEGCRY LABEL  MEAN MODE MINIMUM VALID CASES  CODE  20.390 10.000 3.000 136  A8S0LUTE FREO  RELATIVE FREO (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREO !PCT)  CUM FREO (PCT)  3.  2  0. 1  1.5  1.5  5.  12  0. 5  8.8  10.3  7.  1  0.0  0.7  11.0  10.  39  1- 5  28.7  3 9.7  L5.  21  0.8  15.4  55.1  20.  11  0.4  8.1  63.2  25.  10  0.4  7.4  70.6  30.  25  1.0  18.4  89.0  35.  1  0.0  0.7  89.7  40.  7  0. 3  5. 1  94.9  45.  3  0.1  2 .2  97.1  75.  1  0. 0  0.7  97 .8  80.  2  0.1  1.5  99.3  9C.  1  0.0  0.7  100.0  0.  2469  94. 8  TOTAL  2605  100.0  STD ERR STD DEV MAX IMUM MISSING CASES  1 .292 15.062 90.000 2469  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN RANGE  15.333 87.000  110.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  5  TRAVEL T IME ANALYSIS .  TIMEPC (Port  Coqultlam)  CATEGORY LABEL  MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  CODE  18.857 10.000 3.000 21  ABSOLUTE FREO  RELATIVE FREO ( PCT)  ADJUSTED FREG (PCT)  CUM 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  STD ERR STD DEV MAX I MUM MISSING CASES  3.237 14.833 60.000 2584  MEDIAN RANGE  14.333 57.000  111.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS  T IMECO0 (Coquitlam)  CATEGORY LABEL  MEAN MODE MINIMU M VALID CASES  • CODE  20.789 10.GOO 5.000 57  ABSOLUTE FREO  RELATIVE FREO (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREO (PCT )  CUM FREO (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  0.  2548  97.8  MISSING  TOTAL  2605  100.0  100.0  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1 .876 14.167 60.000 (  2548  MEDIAN RANGE  100.0 1C0.0  17.778 55.000  112.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRAVEL TICE ANALYSIS  TIMENW (New Westminster) CODE CATEGORY LABEL  MEAN MODE MINI MUM VALID CASES  2C.750 15.000 2.000 120  ABSOLUTE FREQ  RELATIVE F RE 0 (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREO (PC T)  CUM FREO (PCT)  2.  2  0. 1  1.7  1.7  5.  11  0. 4  9.2  10.8  10.  19  0. 7  15. 8  26.7  11.  1  0.0  0 .8  27.5  15.  27  1.0  22. 5  50.0  20.  16  0.6  13.3  63. 3  25.  9  0.3  7.5  70.8  30.  20  16.7  87.5  35.  1  0.0  0.8  88.3  40.  4  0. 2  3.3  91.7  45.  8  0.3  6.7  98. 3  50.  1  0.0  0.8 .  99.2  75.  1  0.0  0.8  0.  2485  95.4  MISS ING  TOTAL  2605  100.0  100.0  STD ERR STD DEV MAXIMUM MISSING CASES  1.144 12.531 75 .000 2485  0. 8  MEDIAN RANGE  100.0 100.0  15.500 73.000  113.  05/19/78  FILE - APPENDIX - CREATED 05/19/78  PAGE  TRAVEL TIPE ANALYSIS  TIMEBURN (Burnaby) CODE  ADJ CUM FREO PCT PCT  2. 5. 7. 10. 15. 20.  3 21 I 36 47 45  CODE  FREQ  0.  2323  N MODE • MINIMUM M E A  VALID CASES  1 7 0 13 17 16  24.C71 30.000 2.000 282  AOJ CUM FREQ PCT PCT  CODE  ACJ FREQ PCT  63 84 88 90 95 95  55. 60. 75. 20. 90. 12 0.  2 5 I I 4 1  M I S SI N G DA TA CODE FREO  CODE  I 9 9 22 38 54  CODE 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 50.  STD ERR STD DEV MAX INUM  26 58 10 6 14 I  9 21 4 2 5 0  0.962 16.161 120.000  MISSING CASES  2323  MEDIAN RANGE  1 2 0 0 1 0  FREO  20.467 118.000  8  TRIP LENGTH AND CITY S U E  RELATIONSHIPS  05/19/78  FILE FIGURE! (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78} SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) TLENGTH 1338.95 1852,85 2366.75 15.80  2880.65  + I 1 I I + I I I  14.59  I +  I  I10.96  9. 75  I + I I I I + I  I I I  8.54  * SEATTLE  + I  * KANSAS CITY  I  7.33  6. 12  Ii  +  i * GREATER VANCOUVER  ii i + i  DALLAS  i  4.  9L  3.70  .+— —  1082.00  * BUFFALO ———4.———_4-— 1595.90  2109.80  2623.70  i i i i i i i i  + I I I I + I  i i i i  I + I T I I  i i  i i i i  I I I  i  i i i i  i i i i i i i i  LOS A N G E L E S 1  i i i i i  WASHINGTON  CHICAGO  i  i i i i i  i i .— i i + i i *i i  i  * PHILADELPHIA i i  i 3137.60  3651.50  4165.40  4679.30  5193.20  .+  + 5707.10  05/19/78  +-—  + i i i i i i i i + +m  6221.00  PAGE  CR1-  0.11627  R SQUARED  0.01352  SIGNIFICANCE  0.36676  STO ERR OF EST -  3.38741  INTERCEPT (A)  6.85 0 0 9  SLOPE  0.00020  0  MISSING VALUES -  IB)  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  11  13.38  12. 17  I  STATISTICS..  PLOTTED VALUES -  14.59  1  TRIP LENGTH AND CITY SIZE RELATIONSHIPS  CORRELATION  15.80  I I I  i  i i i i i i i i  * MILWAUKEE  I I I I ^ I  i i  I  i i + i i i i +  5964.05  i i i  i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i  I  5450.15  i i i  i i i i i i i i i i i i i  I  12.17  (ACROSS I CITYSIZE 3908.45 4422.35 4936.25  iSAN FRANCISCO j^Nine County A r e a )  + I I I  13.38  3 394. 55  P4GE  EXCLUDED VALUES-  •********• IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 8E COMPUTED.  1 0. 96  9.75  8.54  7. 3 3  6. 12  4.91  3.70  TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS FILE THESIS SCATTERGRAM OF  05/19/78  {CREATION DATE = 05/19/78} (DOWN) TLENGTH 0,60 1,07 1.54 *  +  13,31  I X I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  •  I I I I  12. 18 + I I I I 11.05 + I  9.92  8.79  I I  I  I I I I I I I I I I  I * I I  I I I I  + T -i.  I I I +  I  *  I 7.67  6.54  5. 41  *  I  *  +  I I I I  *  *  **  *  +  I  I  4.28  3.15  *  *  I I  +  I I I I*  * * 0,84  *  *  *  * *  4.  34  4.81 +  I I I * *I I I I I I I I I I I I  1.77  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I  I I  +  I I I I +  I I I I +  I  •#•  I I I I +  I I I I  I  *  *  *  +  I I  I I  I I I I I I I I I I I  I +  I I I *I 4h  I I I I  I  *  I 1.30  3,87  j.  T J_  +  0.37  (ACROSS) LFJSATIG 2.94 3,41  2.47  2.00  PAGE  2.24  2.70  3,17  TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS  •  I I I I I  I I I I +  3.64  4.11  05/19/78  4.57  PAGE  14. 44  13.31  12. 18  1 1.05  9,92  8,79  7.67  6. 54  5.41  4. 28  3. 15  5,04  3  STATISTICS,. CORRELATION {R)-  O.10283  R SQUARED  0.01057  SIGNIFICANCE  0.30858  STD EES OF EST -  3.06604  INTERCEPT (A)  6,40670  SLOPE {B)  0.31343  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 PLOTTED VALUES -  26  EXCLUDED VALOES-  1ISSING VALUES -  ********** IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CAMNOT BE CQSPUTED. -0  05/19/78  TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS ICREATION DATE = 05/19/78) (DQSN) TIME 1.54 0.60 1.07  FILE THESIS SCATTERGRAH OF 33.20  31.22  2.00  . +--+  I  I I I  I I I I I I  +  I  I  29.24  27.26  25.28  23. 30  21.32  19. 34  17.36  15.38  13.40  I I  I I I I I I *I I  I I I I + I I I  +  *  *  *  +  I I I I + I I  * * * *  I + I I I I •* I I I I + I I I I *  *  *  0.37  0.84  1.30  1.77  4, 34  4.81 +  I  * *  I I I I I * I I I I I I I * I I I  *  *  *  *  I  I  I  +  I  I I I  +  I I I  I  *+ I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  +  I  I I +  I I I I +  I I I +  I  I  I I I I I I I I I I 3.17  TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS  29. 24  27. 26  2 5. 28  23. 30  21. 32  19.34  I I I + I I I  17.36  +  15.38  I  I  2.70  31.22  I  I I I I I  2.24  33.20  I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  *  3.87  I  *  *  +  I I I X  *  I  I  (ACROSS) LFJ RATIO 2. 94 3. 41  2.47  PAGE  I I  I  I  +  3.64  4. 11  4.57  05/19/78  13.40  5,04  PAGE  STATISTICS.. CORRELATION  {R) -  STD ERR OF EST -  0.30980 4.31147  R SQUARED INTERCEPT (A)  -  0. 09598 20. 83388  SIGNIFICANCE SLOPE (B)  -  0.06176 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 -  •********• IS PRINTED I F A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED,  0  C O  TRIP  PILE  LENGTH  REGRESSION  THESIS OF  14. 44  13.31  ANALYSIS  ( C R E A T I O N DATE = (DOWN) T LENGTH 7050.25 8278.75  05/19/78  1 1 . 05  9507.25  +  i I I I  10735.75  *  *  +  I  + I I I I •••  I I I  9.92  *  7.67  *  •  I I I + I I* I I  6.54  5.41  * * *  i *  *  +  4.28  *  +  I I I I +  3 . 15  * * *  6436.00  7664.50  8893.00  10121.50  (ACROSS) INCOME 13192.75 1 4 4 2 1 . 25  15649.75  16878. 25  18106.75  I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  *  * * *  11350.00  12578.50  13807.00  T R I P LENGTH REGRESSION ANALYSIS  +  13.31  I I I •  I I I I + I I I + I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I  *  1 4 . 44  I  I  *  + I I I  I  I I  i I * I I I I I I I I I I I I  *  I I I I  I  11964.25  I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  +  I I I I + I I I I  8.79  6  05/19/78)  I I I 1 2 . 18  PAGE  +  1 2 . 18  11. 05  9. 92  8. 79  I I I I  *'  +  7.67  I I  I I I I* I I I I I I I I I I I I I  I + I I I I + I I I  *  I  <-  I I I I **  15035.50  16264.00  17492.50  05/19/78  6. 54  5. 41  4.28  3. 15  18721.00  PAGE  STATISTICS.. CORRELATION STD  ERR  OF  (R)EST -  0.00663  R SQUARED  3.08231  INTERCEPT  THE R E G R E S S I O N L I N E C U T S T H E MARGINS OF THE P L O T A V A L U E OF 6 . 9 7 6 5 6 ON THE L E F T MARGIN A V A L U E OF 7 . 0 5 5 0 8 ON THE R I G H T MARGIN PLOTTED VALUES -  26  |A)  SIGNIFICANCE  -  0.48717  6.93543  SLOPE  -  0.63915E-05  0  HISSING  (B)  AT  EXCLUDED V A L U E S  ********** I S P R I N T E D  0,00004  VALUES -  0  I F A C O E F F I C I E N T CANNOT BE COMPUTED, LP  TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION FILE  THESIS OF 33,20  31, 22  29. 24  27, 26  ANALYSIS  05/19/78  (CREATION DATE = 05/19/78) (DOWN) TIME 7050.25 8278.75 9507,25 10735.75 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  25.28  23, 30  21.32  I I  *  *  *  I I I I  *  +  I  *  17.36  15.38  13, 40  I I  I I  +  I I I I  *  *  *  I I I I I I I I I I I  * *  *  +  6436.00  7664.50  TRIP LENGTH REGRESSION  8893.00  10121.50  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  +  12578.50  13807.00  ANALYSIS  (R) -  *  STD EES OF EST -  R SQUARED  4.52973  INTERCEPT (A)  0.00213 22. 78658  26  EXCLUDED VALUES-  25. 28  21. 32  I  +  I I I I  +  I I I I  +  19.34  17. 36  15.38  I I I  I  *+  15035.50  16264.00  17492.50  18721.00  PAGE  SIGNIFICANCE  0.41140  SLOPS (B)  0,00007  THE REGRESSION LINE CUTS THE MARGINS OF THE PLOT AT A VALUE OF 23,20779 ON THE LEFT MARGIN A 7 A L T J E OF 24,01183 ON THE RIGHT MARGIN PLOTTED VALUES -  27. 26  +  I I  05/19/78  0.04616  29.24  23. 30  STATISTICS.. CORRELATION  3 1. 22  +  I I I I  I I I I I I I 11350.00  3 3. 20  I I I I  I  I I I I I I I I  +  16873,25  I I I I I I I I I  I  I I I I  15649.75  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I* I  I* * I I  I  +  #  I  *  I  19. 34  *  (ACROSS) INCOME 13192.75 14421 , 25  I I I I I I I  +  I I I* I  11964.25  PAGE  MISSING VALUES -  »********» IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED.  13.40  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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