Orange County NC Website
I?5~ <br />the independent variables. We derived the forms of the equations using the San Francisco data . <br />and then used these forms to derive the equations for the other two regions. <br />Using the data available in all three geographical regions and the same equation forms, the variables which <br />consistently explain the most variance in vehicles/household (Veh/Hh) are net residential density (Hh/RA), per <br />capita income ($/P), household size (P/IT) and transit accessibility (Tr), see Table 1. For vehicle miles <br />traveled/vehicle (VMTNeh) the best variables are total residential density (Hh/TA), P/H, pedestrian bicycle <br />friendliness (Ped) and $/P. These are the equations which when applied in the same form in all three regions give <br />the highest RZ. <br />In both the Veh/I~ and VMT/Veh models, density is raised to a negative power, so doubling <br />density causes a fixed decrease in Veh or VMT. In the Veh/HIi model, transit service is raised to a <br />negative power, so doubling Tr causes a fixed decrease in Veh. Household size acts as expected, <br />each additional person adds a fixed increase in Veh or VMT. Improvements in pedestrian and <br />bicycle friendliness reduce VMT/Veh, but with the square root of Ped. The impact of per capita <br />income is a little less straight-forward. It increases with ownership by declining increments as <br />income increases. But VMT/Veh decreases as income increases. The result is that up to an annual <br />income of $25,000 to 30,000, VMT/Hh increases with income as expected, but levels off and falls <br />slightly at higher incomes up to $100,000 per person. <br />The best San Francisco model for VMT/Veh using variables available in all three regions is the <br />same as in Table 1, but with a function for Zonal Transit Density in place of that for <br />Households/Total Acre. Tr gives an RZ of 44.1%, which is slightly better than the 43.8% in the <br />above table. But in the other two regions, Tr in place of H/RA reduced the RZ to 40.0% for <br />Chicago and 37.6% for LA, substantially poorer than the Hh/Tot Acre fit. So the recommended <br />equations use Hh/Tot Acre. <br />In all three cities, the RZ for VMT/Veh is much lower than the RZ for Veh/Hh, indicating that <br />neighborhood conditions more strongly impact the decisions on how many vehicles to have <br />available than they do each decision to use the vehicles on hand. However, since Veh/Hh varies <br />much more from zone to zone (1 s.d. equals ±25% for San Francisco) than does VMT/Hh (±9%), <br />Veh/HIi is more important, and the RZ for the resulting VMT/Hh is almost the same as for <br />Veh/Hh. <br />Data for center proximity was only available for the San Francisco region, so none of the fits in <br />Table 1 are based on it. The Veh/Hh fit in Table 3 is already highly significant, and center <br />7 <br />