Early Analysis
The first zonal trip generation (and its inverse, attraction) analysis in the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) followed the “decay of activity intensity with distance from the central business district (CBD)” thinking current at the time. Data from extensive surveys were arrayed and interpreted on a-distance-from-CBD scale. For example, a commercial land use in ring 0 (the CBD and vicinity) was found to generate 728 vehicle trips per day in 1956. That same land use in ring 5 (about 17 km (11 mi) from the CBD) generated about 150 trips per day.
The case of trip destinations will illustrate use of the concept of activity decline with intensity (as measured by distance from CBD) worked. Destination data are arrayed:
| Ring | Manufacturing | Commercial | Open Space | etc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | X1m | X1c | etc | |
| . | . | . | . | |
| . | . | . | . | |
| 7 | x7m | x7c | etc. |
The land use analysis provides information on how land uses will change from an initial year (say t = 0) to some forecast year (say t = 20). Suppose we are examining a zone. We take the mix of land uses projected, say, for year t = 20 and apply the trip destination rates for the ring in which the zone is located. That is, there will this many acres of commercial land use, that many acres of public open space, etc., in the zone. The acres of each use type are multiplied by the ring specific destination rates. The result is summed to yield the zone’s trip destinations. It is to be noted that the CATS assumed that trip destination rates would not change over time.
Read more about this topic: Trip Generation
Famous quotes containing the words early and/or analysis:
“I realized how for all of us who came of age in the late sixties and early seventies the war was a defining experience. You went or you didn’t, but the fact of it and the decisions it forced us to make marked us for the rest of our lives, just as the depression and World War II had marked my parents.”
—Linda Grant (b. 1949)
“Whatever else American thinkers do, they psychologize, often brilliantly. The trouble is that psychology only takes us so far. The new interest in families has its merits, but it will have done us all a disservice if it turns us away from public issues to private matters. A vision of things that has no room for the inner life is bankrupt, but a psychology without social analysis or politics is both powerless and very lonely.”
—Joseph Featherstone (20th century)