Push for Alternative Transportation at Ohio State

PUSH FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION

1

Abstract

An effective transportation network, which emphasizes both safety and efficiency, is imperative

for any large university in the United States, as well as worldwide. The purpose of this survey

research project is to discover the reasons behind students' transportation mode choices at The

Ohio State University. The focus of this project is to find whether parking permit ownership or

household income have any effect on students' transportation mode choices at The Ohio State

University, and use these findings for the betterment of the university's transportation network.

Through the distribution of online and hard-copy surveys to students, the research can show that

parking permit ownership does have an effect on transportation mode choice, while household

income does not.


2

Effects of the Push for Public and Alternative Transportation at the Ohio State University

Introduction

Transportation planning for universities is important because students, professors, and

other workers are constantly on the move, and a single delay for one mode of transportation can

spell disaster for the entire network. This is especially true for the Ohio State University, where

automobiles, bikes, and pedestrians come in close proximity to one another on the campus'

streets, sidewalks, and parking lots. Ohio State has attempted to create a transportation network

in which all forms of transportation can coexist. This leads to a push towards a reduction of

automobiles on campus. I believe this conscious effort to promote coexistence of differing

transportation modes does in fact have an effect on students' transportation mode choices. Also

affecting transportation mode choices, I believe, is students' household income. Through

exploring transportation mode choices of students from differing economic backgrounds, I hope

to better understand how to create more transportation equality for all students.

Literature Review

In "Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode

choices among university students," Jiangping Zhou explains that "few existing studies have

examined the relationship between mode choice of university student commuters and its

influencing factors." For this reason, I would like to gain a better understanding of what does in

fact influence students' choices. In Zhou's study of UCLA students, it was found that a student

holding a parking permit was less likely to choose modes of transportation other than an

automobile. Zhou also finds that having a lower income increases the likelihood of students


3

choosing public transportation, biking, or walking over driving. Since this is the case, I believe

the same would be true for Ohio State students as well.

Eduardo Barata, Luis Cruz, and João-Pedro Ferreira also study university transportation

mode choices in "Parking at the UC campus: Problems and solutions." Their study finds that

universities continue to subsidize parking even though "existing parking places are largely

insufficient to meet current demand." They argue for more parking regulation (in the form of

higher prices), and push toward sustainable, non-automobile modes of transportation in order to

combat the parking and congestion problems found at the University of Coimbra's campus, much

like what Ohio State is trying to achieve. Barata, Cruz, and Ferreira also find that students with

lower incomes are less likely to pay for reserved parking on campus, and are willing to spend

less on transportation overall. Thus, without a permit, they will be forced to choose public

transportation, biking, or walking over automobile transportation.

In "Exploring spatio-temporal commuting patterns in a university environment," Eric M.

Delmelle and Elizabeth Cahill Delmelle focus on student transportation choice influences much

like the above two studies. Unlike the UCLA study by Zhou, which focused on Los Angeles, this

study focused on the University of Idaho, which is located in a small town. Delmelle and

Delmelle state that "holding a parking permit was found to be the greatest predictor of

commuting by car." They also state, much like the Barata, Cruz, and Ferreira study, that

disincentives, such as raising parking permit cost, would be one of the best ways to decrease

automobile use on campus.

KeriLee Horan states in, "Go With the Flow: Campus Traffic and Parking Solutions,"

that raising parking rates is one of the most effective ways to "discourage freshmen from


4

bringing cars to campus." For example, The University of New England raised parking permits

from $90 to $300. The Ohio State University goes even further than that, stating that freshman

cannot buy campus parking permits. Horan also explains that universities must "cater to

alternative transportation users," through the creation of carpool incentives. This fact would

definitely help students from low income backgrounds, in that alternative transportation would

be put on an almost equal level as automobile transportation.

In "Transportation Inequity in the United States," Marc Brenman explains that

"transportation receives the least attention by those interested in social justice." He also states

that since African Americans "have far less family wealth and discretionary income than whites,"

car ownership in that demographic is the lowest out of any racial or ethnic group in the U.S. In

cities (or universities) that are built for cars, those with lower incomes will automatically feel

transportation inequality: "In Hurricane Katrina in 2005, many African Americans could not

evacuate using plans based on cars."

Saleh Abdulaziz Al-Fouzan finds in "Using car parking requirements to promote

sustainable transport development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" that officials in the United

States have begun to switch from using minimum parking requirements to maximum parking

requirements. This lessens the amount of private car trips while promoting sustainable

development and transportation. Al-Fouzan stresses that although minimum parking

requirements work for developing countries such as Saudi Arabia, countries like the United

States and the UK should use maximum and take advantage of pedestrian transportation systems

that are already in place. These findings coincide with Ohio State's attempts to reduce campus

automobile dependence by switching to maximum parking standards.


5

Research Questions

1. How does Ohio State University's conscious effort to push students toward alternative modes

of transportation affect the students' transportation mode choices?

2. What effect does an Ohio State student's family's income have on his/her transportation mode

choices?

Hypotheses

1. I believe that more students are choosing COTA buses and other alternate modes of

transportation as their primary transport because of the expensive price of parking permits.

2. I believe that students coming from low income households will be more likely to choose

public transportation as their primary mode of transport because the family will lack the

resources needed to buy and maintain an automobile while paying for college.

X Y

Students' availability to buy a parking permit Students' transport choice

Students' household income

Methods

The first independent variable in this survey is Ohio State students’ parking permit

ownership. Since there are multiple types of off campus parking permits available in addition to

those on campus, I will make sure to include both on and off campus permits in the survey. I will

operationalize this by asking a simple yes/no question: Do you own either an on or off campus

parking permit at this time? I believe this question is the easiest way to operationalize the


6

variable (the only way that makes sense). If the student answers yes to this question, I will

further ask them to specify which type of permit (whether it is on or off campus). Since freshman

at OSU do not have the ability to purchase a parking permit, these questions should already be

answered for freshman who would have indicated their class rank in the demographic questions

section. This corresponds with hypothesis 1.

The second independent variable in my survey will be students’ household income. In

this project, “income” will mean the income of the household in which the student grew up,

derived from paid employment in the last year. I will operationalize this by asking the question:

In the household in which you grew up, what was the income from paid employment in the last

year? I will not make this a multiple choice question with a set of income ranges because I

believe that could lead to large biases in response. I will instead let the respondent fill in the

answer on a blank, which relieves the pressure of the respondent choosing an answer in a set of

ranges, which could be perceived as different social class levels. This corresponds with

hypothesis 2.

The dependent variable in my survey is Ohio State students’ primary transportation

choice. In this case “primary transportation choice” will mean primary mode of transportation

when traveling to/from and around the Ohio State campus. I will operationalize this by asking

three questions: What was your primary mode of transportation when traveling to/from and

around the Ohio State campus? Has this changed in the past six months? If so, what was your

previous mode of transportation? These questions are meant to show the current transportation

choice by students, as well as finding out if and how that mode has changed over time. This

question will have multiple choice answers corresponding to the predominant modes of


7

transportation on campus: A. Automobile B. Bike C. bus service (representing public

transportation) D. Walking E. Other (the “other” category is meant to make the answers

exhaustive). In addition to these three questions, I will also start off the survey by asking the

question: Are you a commuter student living at least one mile from the Ohio State campus? This

will be answered in a yes or no fashion. I will ask this question in order to go further and find

whether commuter and non-commuter students chose predominantly different modes of

transportation.

The study population for this experiment will be all Ohio State students, and the sampling

approach will be non probability. I handed out physical copies of the surveys to students on

campus, as well as distributing surveys online. Survey research with non probability sampling

will be the easiest method because the study population is Ohio State students, which we have

easy access to (mailed questionnaires and group administered questionnaires would contain

much unnecessary work in this case when surveys can just be handed out in person). Two

possible disadvantages of this technique could be that answers to questions may not be entirely

truthful, and that it may take a lot of time to find enough respondents. Also, I believe that Ohio

State enrollment will be the only variable I will control for in this survey. I do not think that any

other variables, such as class rank, major, sex, political affiliations, or religious affiliations, are

relevant in being controlled in this survey.

Variable IV/DV Level of MeasurementOhio State students’ parking permit ownsership

Independent Nominal

Students’ household income Independent IntervalStudents’ primary transportation mode choice

Dependent Nominal


8

Results

For my project, I obtained respondents in two ways: by sending an online survey via

Facebook and handing out physical copies of the survey to students on campus. Interestingly,

more people refused to take the online version of the survey (I sent it to 43 people and only 22

responded), while everybody I handed the physical survey to filled it out (22 people). This came

to a total of 44 respondents, with equal numbers coming from both survey types. More than any

other question, students refused to answer the question about parental income, either stating

“N/A” or “I don’t know.” I believe that this is probably the most “sensitive” question on the

survey, and only 21, or 47.73% of respondents answered the question. All other questions were

answered by at least 36 students, with 9 questions being answered by all respondents. The only

question that I believe was difficult to understand was class rank. I think several students simply

did not know what to put for an answer, and left it blank.

With this project, I used Stata and Excel as my statistical programs. For missing data, I

entered it as a “.” on Excel, counting it as a non-response. Before doing analysis, I recoded the

variable “pincome” or “parents’ income” from a continuous variable into categories of ranges in

$20,000 increments: <$20,000 up to >$140,000. This process was done in Stata.

The total final sample size of the survey was n=44. My first independent variable was

Ohio State students’ parking permit ownership, and its mode was found to be “No permit,”

meaning that most students who responded do not own any parking permit. The second

independent variable, students’ household income, had a mean of $112,142.90, and a median of

$100,000. “Walking” was found to be the mode for the dependent variable in the study, students’


9

primary transportation mode choice. The central tendencies of all variables can be seen in Table

1 in Appendix B.

To my knowledge, I did not find any coding mistakes, but did find one possible

respondent error. On the question about personal weekly income, a respondent answered $2,700,

which is extremely high for a week’s paycheck. I believe the student thought it was yearly

income. This entry of $2,700 in the data could skew some of the results. I did have several

variables that did not vary in their responses: the range of ages was 18-24, all students were

either single or dating, 93.18% of respondents were US citizens, and 83.72% of respondents

were Caucasian. As mentioned before, the only variable with significant missing data was

parental income, which was my second independent variable. Since I could not specifically push

respondents to answer the parental income question due to ethical problems that could arise, this

missing data can obviously make the project’s findings hard to generalize to the entire OSU

student population (at least for data involved with that variable). I found it interesting that such a

large amount of students (28 out of 44) choose walking as their primary mode of transportation,

while only 4 out of 44 drive. In addition, it is interesting to note that 31 out of 44 respondents, or

70.45%, do not own any parking permit, either on or off campus. I simply did not think this

would be the case. Also, I found that only 15.91% of respondents had a change in transportation

in the past six months, and out of those, all changed from walking to biking.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1: I believe that more students are choosing COTA buses and other alternate

modes of transportation as their primary transport because of the expensive price of parking

permits.


10

There is a marginally significant small negative correlation (-.2498 with p=.102) between

the students' type of parking permit and the primary mode of transportation. According to the

survey responses, only 4 out of 44 respondents (9.09%) use a car to get to and around the Ohio

State campus. This means that 90.91% of the students surveyed use alternate modes of

transportation (bike, bus service, walking, or other). This data seems to back up my hypothesis

that more students are choosing these alternate methods of the automobile. However, 13

respondents, or 29.55%, own some form of parking permit, most likely suggesting that this

29.55% of students also own a car. Of those who own a permit, only 2 said they use a car to get

to campus while the other 11 use alternate modes of transportation. This suggests that these 11

respondents do not use their cars on a daily basis; the automobiles are only used for other trips.

However, since the majority of students do not own a parking permit (70.45%) and do not

choose automobiles as their primary transportation mode, I believe my hypothesis is supported

by the data. The full data can be seen in Table 2 in Appendix B and the full correlation table can

be seen in Table 4 in Appendix B.

Hypothesis 2: I believe that students coming from low income households will be more

likely to choose public transportation as their primary mode of transport because the family will

lack the resources to buy and maintain an automobile while paying for college.

There is an insignificant small positive correlation (.1811 with p=.432) between parental

income and transportation mode choice. As mentioned before, only 21 out of the 44 respondents

answered the question about parents’ yearly income, severely limiting the generalizability of this

data, and hurting the results. 8 respondents stated that their parents income was $60,000 or less,

with the lowest being $20,000. 13 students stated that their parents’ income was greater than


11

$60,000, with the highest being $250,000. Out of the 8 respondents in the lower income

category, none chose the automobile as their primary transportation mode, while 25% chose

biking, 12.5% chose taking the bus, 12.5% chose “other,” and the majority, 50%, chose walking.

Of the 13 respondents in the higher income category, 15.38% stated they use an automobile as

their primary transportation, 7.69% chose biking, 7.69% chose taking the bus, while 69.23%

chose walking, and none chose “other.” While this data shows that the higher income category

contains a larger percent of drivers, I believe the number of responses to the parental income

question is too small to say that my hypothesis is completely supported. This is further evidenced

by the fact that only two people chose bus service as their primary transportation, one from the

lower income category, and one from the higher. Also, those who did choose the automobile

were in the $80,001-$100,000 income range, while the highest income group (>$140,000) all

stated that their transportation preference was walking. The full data can be seen in Table 3 in

Appendix B and the full correlation table can be seen in Table 4 in Appendix B.

Discussion

As mentioned before, I believe my first hypothesis to be supported by the data, which can

be seen in Table 2. Most students surveyed used forms of transportation other than automobiles,

and most do not have a parking permit, suggesting they do not have a car around campus. I also

believe that my second hypothesis was not supported due to insufficient data from respondents

(which can be seen in Table 3). As only 21 out of 44 respondents answered the parental income

question, I did not get enough variation in responses to claim my hypothesis to be right or wrong.


12

Other Notes

It is interesting to note that I found a strong positive correlation (.5523 with p=.0142)

between parental income and GPA. It seems as though students with higher GPAs come from

backgrounds with higher socioeconomic statuses. There was also a strong positive correlation

(.589 with p=.005) between parental income and religious attendance; the higher the income, the

more often the respondent attends to the religion. All correlations can be seen in Table 4 in

Appendix B.

Summary

In my project on the effects of the push for public and alternative transportation at The

Ohio State University, I wanted to ask two questions: 1) How does Ohio State University's

conscious effort to push toward alternative modes of transportation affect the students'

transportation mode choices? and 2) What effect does an Ohio State student's family's income

have on his/her transportation mode choices? I then hypothesized that 1) more students are

choosing alternative modes of transportation because of the expensive price of parking permits,

and 2) students coming from low income households will be more likely to choose public

transportation because the family will lack the resources to buy and maintain an automobile

while paying for college. I then created and distributed a survey to Ohio State students (using

non probability sampling), and received a total of 44 responses. To analyze the data, I utilized

Stata and Excel. The p-value for my first hypothesis was .102, showing marginal significance.

Also, the hypothesis was supported by the data because the great majority of students use

transportation other than a car to get to campus, as well as not owning a parking permit.

However, I do not believe my second hypothesis was supported by the data because of a lack of


13

proper significance (p-value= .432). Also, there were simply too few respondents answering the

question about parental income (21), and too little variation in responses to say whether or not

my hypothesis was supported.

Conclusion

Large university or college campuses across the country face many transportation issues

including congestion, accessibility, and safety. I believe that the best way to create a more

harmonious transportation network in a university setting is to adapt to changes in students'

transportation mode choices, as well as the nation's transportation system at-large. In my study I

found that students are choosing alternative modes of transportation (bus, biking, walking) to

reach campus over the use of an automobile. Also, the majority of students do not own a parking

permit, whether living on or off campus, and even those that do own a permit do not necessarily

indicate that their primary mode of transportation as being an automobile. All of this suggests

that when designing university transportation networks, focus should be moved away from the

automobile and towards alternative modes of transportation. This shift would probably not come

easy, especially in the United States, because transportation networks are deeply rooted in

automobile use. Changes in the transportation network would have to be gradually implemented,

and some already have been including "share the road" signs seen around Ohio State's campus.

However, because of recent worldwide environmental movements such as "going green," a

switch to alternative transportation could be accelerated. The alternative of now may be the norm

of the future.

If researchers were to follow up on this study, I would first suggest obtaining a much

larger sample size to ensure that all questions are answered by a sufficient number of


14

respondents. This would allow my second hypothesis to be thoroughly tested and verified to be

correct or incorrect. Also, in addition to the questions I asked on the survey, I would include the

following questions:

1. Do you own an automobile?

2. What is your primary mode of transportation when running errands?

I believe that these questions would better gauge students' transportation choices. When I was

handing out surveys, one respondent even said to me, "At Ohio State we really don't have a

choice in what transportation we choose. It's really either walk or ride your bike." This leads me

to believe that in order to get a more accurate picture of the students' choices, I would have to

inquire about other times students would use transportation, such as when running errands.

Inquiring deeper into all transportation habits of students allows for a greater understanding of

not only the university's transportation network, but those of the surrounding communities who

directly connect to the university. A study of the big picture is greatly needed.


15

References

Al-Fouzan, S. A. (2012). Using car parking requirements to promote sustainable transport

development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cities, 29(3), 201-211.

Barata, E., Cruz, L., , & Ferreira, J. P. (2011). Parking at the UC campus: Problems and

solutions. Cities, 28(5), 406-413.

Brenman, M. (2007). Transportation Inequity in the United States. Human Rights, 34(3), 7-25.

Delmelle, E. M., , & Delmelle, E. C. (2012). Exploring spatio-temporal commuting patterns in a

university environment. Transport Policy, 21, 1-9.

Horan, K. (2010). GO WITH THE FLOW: Campus Traffic and Parking Solutions. University

Business, 13(5), 50-54.

Zhou, J. (2012). Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode

choices among university students. Transportation Research Part A, 46(7), 1013-1029.


16

Appendix A

Sociology 3487 - Research MethodsSurvey Research Project

Professor Lynette Martin - Department of SociologyMy Name is: Bryan Townley

Age:

Sex:

M or F

GPA:

Class Rank:

Income: /wk

Employment Status:

Full-Time Part-Time None

Parent's Income: /yr

Relationship Status: Married Cohabiting

Dating Single

US Citizen:

Y or N

Religious Affiliation:

Athiest Protestant Catholic

Evangelical

Jewish

Muslim

Buddhist

Hindu

Other

Religious Attendance: Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never

Ethnicity: Caucasian Black Hispanic

Native Asian Other

Are you a commuter student living at least one mile from the Ohio State campus? Yes No

What type of parking permit do you own? None

On campus

Off campus

What is your primary mode of transportation to campus? Car

Bike

Bus service

Walking

Other

Has this changed in the last six months? Yes No

If yes, what was your previous mode of transportation? Car

Bike

Bus service

Walking

Other


17

Thank you for completing the survey, your time is greatly appreciated.

Appendix B

Table 1- Univariate Results

Variable

# of Observations

Mean or Mode

Median

Standard Deviation Max Min

Age 4420.18 (mean) 20 1.32 24 18

Sex 43 Male (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/AGPA 40 3.43 (mean) 3.5 0.36 3.93 2.59

Rank 36Junior (mode) Junior N/A N/A N/A

Income 38174.53 (mean) 124 425.93 2700 0

Employment Status 44Part time (mode)

Part time N/A N/A N/A

Parents' Income 21112142.9 (mean)

100000 70401.2

250000

20000

Relationship Status 44Single (mode) Single N/A N/A N/A

US Citizen 44 Yes (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Religious Affiliation 43Other (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Religious Attendance 42Never (mode) Yearly N/A N/A N/A

Ethnicity 43Caucasian (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Commuter student? 44 No (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Type of parking permit 44No permit (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Primary mode of transportation 44

Walking (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Change in transportation in past 6 months? 44 No (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/APrevious mode of transportation 44

No change (mode) N/A N/A N/A N/A


18

Table 2- Hypothesis 1 Cross Tab

Car BikeBus service Walking Other Total

No permit 2 3 3 22 1 31% 6.45 9.68 9.68 70.97 3.23 100On campus 2 0 0 2 0 4% 50 0 0 50 0 100Off campus 0 4 1 4 0 9% 0 44.44 11.11 44.44 0 100Total 4 7 4 28 1 44% 9.09 15.91 9.09 63.64 2.27 100

p-value= .102

Table 3- Hypothesis 2 Cross Tab

Car BikeBus service Walking Other Total

<=$20000 0 0 0 0 1 1% 0 0 0 0 100 100$20001-$40000 0 0 1 0 0 1% 0 0 100 0 0 100$40001-$60000 0 2 0 4 0 6% 0 33.33 0 66.67 0 100$60001-$80000 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 100$80001-$100000 2 0 1 1 0 4% 50 0 25 25 0 100$100001-$120000 0 1 0 2 0 3% 0 33.33 0 66.67 0 100$120001-$140000 0 0 0 1 0 1% 0 0 0 100 0 100>$140000 0 0 0 5 0 5% 0 0 0 100 0 100


19

Total 2 3 2 13 1 21% 9.52 14.29 9.52 61.9 4.76 100

p-value= .432

(Table 4- Correlation Table on following two pages in landscape layout)


20

Variable Age Sex GPA Rank Income Employment status

Parents' Income

Relationship status

US Citizen?

Religious affiliation

Religious Attendance

Ethnicity

Commuter student?

Type of parking permit

Primary mode of transportation

Change in transportation mode

Previous mode of transportation

Age 1

Sex -0.1626

1

P= 0.2977

GPA -0.2892

0.0223

1

P= 0.0703+

0.8916

Rank 0.7076 -0.181

1

-0.0473

1

P= 0** 0.2977

0.7906

Income 0.0235 -0.152

6

0.1689 0.2381 1

P= 0.8886 0.3603

0.3321 0.1821

Employment status

0.22 0.0747

-0.2637

0.0746 0.1595 1

P= 0.1513 0.634 0.1002+

0.6655 0.3389

Parent's Income

-0.1206

0.2559

0.5523 -0.1076

-0.4917 -0.2055 1

P= 0.6024 0.2629

0.0142*

0.6811 0.0325*

0.3715

Relationship status

0.0685 -0.103

6

0.052 -0.3101

-0.1163 0.1523 0.0255 1

P= 0.6588 0.5084

0.7501 0.0657+

0.4867 0.3237 0.9127

US citizen? -0.3779

0.0598

-0.0534

-0.2514

0.0171 -0.0913 . 0.0295 1

P= 0.0114*

0.703 0.7436 0.1391 0.9189 0.5556 . 0.8494

Religious affiliation

0.1855 -0.177

-0.0164

0.0735 0.181 0.0097 -0.1806

0.079 -0.1601

1

P= 0.2337 0.2623

0.921 0.6701 0.2767 0.9505 0.4333 0.6145 0.3051

Religious attendance

0.0198 -0.115

8

0.0643 0.1528 0.0578 -0.0754 0.589 -0.0466 -0.0604

-0.1231 1


21

P= 0.9011 0.4711

0.6973 0.3808 0.7341 0.635 0.005**

0.7696 0.7041 0.4374

Ethnicity 0.0934 -0.086

0.1409 0.1885 0.5299 0.1338 0.4621 -0.1164 -0.2853

0 0.2529 1

P= 0.5515 0.5883

0.3921 0.2781 0.0007**

0.3922 0.0349 0.4574 0.0636+

1 0.1107

Commuter student?

0.0806 0.2296

-0.0126

0.0193 -0.0761 -0.065 -0.4232

-0.2425 -0.2603

-0.1801 -0.2604 -0.1228

1

P= 0.6028 0.1385

0.9385 0.9112 0.6497 0.6753 0.0559+

0.1127 0.0879+

0.2478 0.0958+ 0.4326

Type of parking permit

0.1936 0.0733

0.1819 0.216 -0.1063 -0.0693 -0.2058

0.2012 -0.1666

-0.1914 -0.012 -0.0295

-0.097 1

P= 0.208 0.6406

0.2612 0.2057 0.5254 0.6549 0.3707 0.1903 0.2798 0.2188 0.9398 0.851 0.5312

Primary mode of transportation

-0.1759

0.0162

-0.2185

0.0723 0.0427 -0.2618 0.1811 -0.2102 0.3406 -0.0485 0.1113 0.0732 -0.2834 -0.249

8

1

P= 0.2534 0.9179

0.1755 0.6751 0.7992 0.0861+ 0.432 0.1708 0.0237 0.7572 0.483 0.6409 0.0623+ 0.102+

Change in transportation mode

0.1302 -0.138

6

0.0606 -0.0679

-0.0229 0.1468 -0.377 0.4205 0.1177 -0.0512 -0.1328 -0.1726

0.1794 0.1913

-0.431 1

P= 0.3996 0.3753

0.7101 0.694 0.8915 0.3416 0.0921+

0.0045** 0.4469 0.7444 0.4019 0.2683 0.244 0.2134

0.0035**

Previous mode of transportation

0.1302 -0.138

6

0.0606 -0.0679

-0.0229 0.1468 -0.377 0.4205 0.1177 -0.0512 -0.1328 -0.1726

0.1794 0.1913

-0.431 1 1

P= 0.3996 0.3753

0.7101 0.694 0.8915 0.3416 0.0921+

0.0045** 0.4469 0.7444 0.4019 0.2683 0.244 0.2134

0.0035** 0

* = p<= .05 ** = p<= .01 + = p<= .10


22

Effects of the Push for Public and Alternative Transportation at the Ohio State University

Bryan Townley

Sociology 3487 The Ohio State University

11/27/12

Push for Alternative Transportation at Ohio State

Documents

Transcript of Push for Alternative Transportation at Ohio State