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 52
52
For each clip, we defined an indicator variable y as follows: icant if the score for that mode was -3 or +3; this meant that
for three of the four common clips for that mode, the differ-
· y = +1 if the mean rating for the test group is higher than ences in ratings between the test and control groups were sig-
the mean rating for the control group, and the difference is nificant and in the same direction. A factor was deemed to be
significant. highly significant if the score for that mode was -4 or +4; this
· y = -1 if the mean rating for the test group is lower than meant that for all four common clips for that mode, the dif-
the mean rating for the control group, and the difference is ferences in ratings between the test and control groups were
significant. significant and in the same direction.
· y = 0 if the mean rating for the test group is not signifi- The tested socioeconomic factors are listed in Exhibit 53.
cantly different from the mean rating for the control
group.
Effects of Demographics
on Auto LOS Ratings
The scores for each of the four control clips for a given
mode were added to form a cumulative score for the individ- Significant differences in auto clip ratings are shown in
ual factor for that mode. Given that there were four common Exhibit 54. Although there were several significant differences
clips for each mode, the score for each factor for a given mode (three of the four clips consistently rated higher or lower),
could range from -4 to +4. A factor was deemed to be signif- none was highly significant.
Exhibit 53. Test and Control Groups for Socioeconomic and Location Factors.
Test group Control group
Metro area is Chicago
Metro area is San Francisco Bay Area
Metro area is New Haven
Metro area is College Station
All other regions
Metro area is San Francisco Bay Area
Metro area is Chicago Metro area is College Station
All other regions
Metro area is College Station
Metro area is San Francisco Bay Area
All other regions
Metro area is College Station All other regions
Metro area population 1 million All other respondents
Age is 18 - 35 All other respondents
Age is 36 - 60 All other respondents
Age is 60+ All other respondents
Sex is male All other respondents
Has a vehicle available All other respondents
Has a bike available All other respondents
Respondent is employed All other respondents
Dwelling unit is single-family home All other respondents
Respondent owns the home All other respondents
Walks non-recreational > 2 blocks more than once a week All other respondents
Cycles non-recreational > 2 blocks more than once a week All other respondents
Uses transit more than once a week All other respondents
Commutes by auto (drive alone or shared ride) All other respondents
Commutes by transit All other respondents
Exhibit 54. Significant Differences in Ratings--Auto.
Group Group Sample Size Mean Rating
Test Control Test Control Differencea
Highly Significant Differences
None
Significant Differences
Metro area is New Haven Metro area is College Station 34 38 -1.02
Metro area is New Haven All other respondents 34 111 -0.85
Metro area is New Haven Metro area is Chicago 34 35 -0.84
Has a vehicle available All other respondents 132 13 0.67
Region is College Station All other respondents 38 107 0.50
a
Mean of test group rating minus control group rating
