TABLE 6 A Sample Conditional Probability Table (Version 3)
Excel | CSV
| 10 |
10 |
20 |
60 |
90 |
5 |
5 |
| 10 |
10 |
40 |
10 |
52 |
16 |
33 |
| 10 |
40 |
30 |
20 |
69 |
18 |
13 |
| 10 |
80 |
10 |
0 |
62 |
8 |
30 |
| 20 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
78 |
11 |
11 |
| 30 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
78 |
11 |
11 |
| 10 |
20 |
50 |
10 |
53 |
14 |
33 |
| 10 |
30 |
20 |
10 |
53 |
14 |
33 |
| 10 |
40 |
20 |
10 |
63 |
7 |
30 |
| 20 |
60 |
10 |
10 |
78 |
10 |
12 |
| 10 |
30 |
30 |
10 |
52 |
15 |
33 |
Notes: Notice how a small mix of uses has high probabilities of transit and nonmotorized trips. The same happens with extremely high percentages of residential densities. Could this be the quantitative proof about land-use mixes?
|
