Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 47
47 Exhibit 46. Automobile Clip Sequencing at Testing Locations. Presentation Location of Video Laboratory Auto Clips Shown Order New Haven, CT Chicago, IL Oakland, CA College Station, TX Pilot Clip 25 25 25 25 1 21 20 12 15 2 55 56 56 7 3 52 10 8 52 4 60 51 65 13 5 53 14 59 58 6 56 2 29 56 7 54 62 6 2 8 2 63 15 1 9 15 52 2 61 10 57 15 52 64 Total Clip Time Note: Table shows the sequence of clips shown in each city. Entries are the clip identification numbers. Shaded clips were shown in all four cities. Sequence of clips shown was intentionally randomized in each city to counteract fatigue effects. The next-largest metropolitan areas hold another quarter of an independent review board to ensure that no undue harm the urban area population in the United States: Detroit, Boston, will occur to study participants. George Mason University has Atlanta, San Francisco, Riverside, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapo- its own Internal Review Board (IRB) to oversee research stud- lis, San Diego, St Louis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Denver, ies within the University. The effort to obtain approval to Cleveland, Cincinnati, Portland, Kansas City, Sacramento, San proceed with the study included Jose, San Antonio, Orlando, Columbus, Providence, Virginia Beach. San Francisco was selected to represent this group of · Completing the IRB application for approval of study large metropolitan areas. · Providing the IRB with an overview of the study protocol The other 800+ metropolitan areas constituting the re- · Providing the IRB with sample survey instruments and maining 50% of the U.S. urban area population are too testing material numerous to conveniently list here. The research team se- lected from the Census list of these cities the following two Researchers for this study received approval from the metropolitan areas to represent the lesser populated metro- GMU IRB in June of 2006 to proceed with the study as de- politan areas of the United States: New Haven, Connecticut scribed. Appendix B includes the materials submitted to the (population between 300,000 and 1.5 million), and College IRB including Study Protocol and the Application for Station, Texas (population under 300,000). Human Subjects Research Review. Thus, the four metropolitan areas for the Phase 2 auto, bike, and pedestrian video labs were Chicago, Illinois; San Recruitment Francisco, California; New Haven, Connecticut; and College Station, Texas. Based on input from the team and ultimately the project's Principal Investigator, a decision was made that the minimum number of participants in each location was 30 and a maxi- IRB Review mum of 35 participants was budgeted for each study location. Most research institutions require, when working with Phase I study results revealed that, although age influenced human or animal subjects, that the study undergo a review by participant ratings--which is consistent with studies con- Exhibit 47. Stratification of MSAs Into Equal Population Groups. Population Number of Total Percentage of Group Range SMSAs Population U.S. Population 1 Pop.> 5M 8 65,154,790 24.9 2 1.5M < Pop < 5M 25 64,389,536 24.6 3 300K < Pop < 1.5M 104 66,586,646 25.5 4 13K < Pop < 300K 785 65,404,019 25.0 Total 922 261,534,991 100.0% MSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by U.S. Census
OCR for page 48
48 ducted by Sprinkle Consulting, gender was not found to be To assist in recruiting, posters and flyers, developed for a statistically significant contributor to participant ratings. each location, included all relevant information for the study Based on these findings, the study team determined that (e.g., location, time, date, and participant requirements). recruiting of participants should be based on the following These posters and flyers were sent to the contacts established criteria in order of importance: through the various organizations. Posters also included tear- off contact information to register for the study. Appendix C · Age (seek equal distribution between young, middle, and contains an example flyer used in the Chicago location. older aged participants) Exhibit 48 breaks down the participants by age and gender · Gender (equal distribution between males and females) in each of the four study locations. · Regular users of modes other than private vehicle, in par- From the demographic survey, information was extracted ticular bicyclists on the regularity of participants to use modes other than pri- vate automobile in their travel. Researchers sought to include Dr. Flannery of GMU recruited subjects in each location by participants who regularly take non-recreational bike and establishing contact through the following: pedestrian trips, as well as, regular transit users. Exhibits 49 through 51 show a breakdown of participant · Community senior citizen centers mode use by study location. Chicago had the highest per- · Bicycle clubs centage of daily walkers among the cities surveyed. Oakland · Community/neighborhood associations had the highest percentage of daily bicycle riders. College Exhibit 48. Characteristics of Participants. New Haven, CT Chicago, IL San Francisco, CA College Station, TX Age Group Total (years of age) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Young (18-35) 2 4 4 4 6 12 3 5 40 Middle (36-50) 9 8 9 6 9 8 8 6 63 Older (60+) 2 9 6 6 1 2 6 10 42 Total 13 21 19 16 16 22 17 21 145 Exhibit 49. Non-Recreational Pedestrian Travel By Participants (More than Two Blocks). 100% Never 90% Less than 1 a Month About Once a Week 80% >1 a Week but not Everyday At Least Once a Day Percentage of Participants 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% New Haven, CT Chicago, IL Oakland, CA College Station, TX Study Location
OCR for page 49
49 Exhibit 50. Non-Recreational Bicycle Usage By Participants. 100% Never 90% Less than 1 a Month About Once a Week 80% >1 a Week but not Everyday Percentage of Participants At Least Once a Day 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% New Haven, CT Chicago, IL Oakland, CA College Station, TX Study Location Exhibit 51. Transit Usage By Study Participants. 100% Never 90% Less than 1 a Month About Once a Week 80% >1 a Week but not Everyday At Least Once a Day Percentage of Participants 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% New Haven, CT Chicago, IL Oakland, CA College Station, TX Study Location