Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2015 May 1;51:59–69. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.01.007

Table 6.

Percentage of walking trips (including walking for transit) by income level for the typical scenario, for three intervention strategies and their combinations: A, decrease attitude towards driving; B, increase attitude towards walking; and C, walking-optimized cost (see Table 2), and N is default typical scenario. The percent value in parenthesis is for the relative increase compared with the default typical scenario.

Invention measures
N (default typical
scenario)
A (decrease walking
attitude)
B (increase walking
attitude)
C (walking optimized
cost)
AB BC AC ABC
Income
  level
1 60.8 75.7 (25%) 78.8 (30%) 76.3 (25%) 81.7
(34%)
84.0
(38%)
99.9
(64%)
99.9
(64%)
2 31.6 45.2(43%) 53.4 (69%) 50.3 (59%) 53.3
(69%)
61.2
(94%)
99.7
(216%)
99.8
(216%)
3 17.2 24.2 (41%) 26.9 (56%) 25.2 (47%) 29.6
(72%)
32.6
(90%)
96.3
(460%)
97.2
(465%)
4 8.5 11.6 (36%) 12.7 (49%) 12.0 (41%) 14.3
(68%)
15.5
(82%)
59.9
(605%)
63.2
(644%)
5 4.1 4.9 (20%) 5.3 (29%) 5.1 (24%) 5.9
(44%)
6.3
(54%)
22.4
(446%)
24.1
(488%)