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 53
53 The following are the main findings for auto: For these reasons "metropolitan area" was included as an explanatory variable for the bicycle LOS model development. · Respondents in the New Haven metro area consistently However, analysts would not generally have information on rated the clips lower than did respondents from other met- the sexual split between bicyclists, so sex was excluded from ropolitan areas. the bicycle LOS model development. · Respondents with a vehicle available tended to rate the clips higher than did respondents from other metropolitan areas. · Respondents from the College Station metro area tended Effects of Demographics to rate the clips slightly higher than did other respondents. on Pedestrian LOS Ratings Significant differences in pedestrian clip ratings are shown However, none of these differences were found to be in Exhibit 56. The following factors resulted in highly signif- "highly significant," thus all data from all metropolitan areas icant differences in the pedestrian LOS ratings: and demographic groups were pooled for auto LOS model development. · Respondents who walk more than two blocks for non- recreational purposes more than once a week tended to rate the clips lower than did other respondents. Effects of Demographics on Bicycle LOS Ratings The following factors resulted in significant differences in Significant differences in bicycle clip ratings are shown in the LOS ratings: Exhibit 55. The following factors resulted in highly significant differences in the LOS ratings: · Respondents from the College Station metro area tended to rate the clips higher than did other respondents. · Respondents from the New Haven metro area consistently · Respondents from the Chicago metro area tended to rate rated the clips lower than did respondents from the other the clips lower than did respondents from the College metropolitan areas. Station metro area. · Male respondents tended to rate the clips slightly higher · Respondents who have a bicycle available tended to rate than did female respondents. the clips slightly lower than did other respondents. · Respondents from metro areas with a population of over · Respondents who live in single-family detached dwelling 1 million (Chicago and San Francisco Bay Area) tended to units tended to rate the clips slightly higher than did other rate the clips slightly higher than did respondents from the respondents. other two metro areas. Only the extent of non-recreational walking was a highly The following factor was found to be significant: significant factor affecting pedestrian LOS ratings. However, this a demographic variable unlikely to be known by analysts · Respondents aged over 60 tended to rate the clips slightly using the pedestrian LOS method. Consequently, this vari- higher than did other respondents. able was excluded from the pedestrian LOS model. Exhibit 55. Significant Differences in Ratings--Bicycle. Group Group Sample Size Mean Rating Test Control Test Control Differencea Highly significant differences Metro area is New Haven Metro area is San Francisco 34 38 -0.87 Bay Area Metro area is New Haven All other respondents 34 109 -0.75 Metro area is New Haven Metro area is College Station 34 36 -0.71 Metro area is New Haven Metro area is Chicago 34 35 -0.68 Male All other respondents 65 78 0.47 Metro area population 1 All other respondents 73 70 0.40 million Significant differences Age is 60+ All other respondents 42 101 0.61 a Mean of test group rating minus control group rating