M.E. Beesley and J.F. Kain, 'Urban Form, Car Ownership, and Public Policy: An Appraisal of Traffic in Towns,' UrbanStudies , Vol. i, No. 2, November 1964, pp. 174-203.
2.
For a discussion of this question see John R. Meyer, John F. Kain and Martin Wohl, The Urban Transportation Problem (Harvard University Press, 1965 ), Ch. 6, 'The Interrelationship of Housing and Urban Transportation '.
3.
J.C. Tanner, 'Forecasts of Future Numbers of Vehicles in Great Britain', Roads and Road Construction, September 1962 .
4.
'Transit' as used here is equivalent to the term 'public transportation' as used in the U.S. Census. There it 'is applied to a combination of schedule entries on means of transportation and is comprised of "railroad", "subway or elevator", and "bus or streetcar" '. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Final Report PC (2)-6B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1963, p. ix. Bus is by far the dominant mode of the 45 cities. In all but Chicago, Boston and New York, non-bus public transport represents a trivial number.
5.
Computed from Fig. III, p. 86, Traffic in Towns.
6.
The reduced form of the transit use equation incorporating income (Equation 4A is also of some interest. Equation 7A gives the reduced form of the transit use equation including income corresponding to Equation 7. Equation 7A: T = 21.6+0.0021D-0.0033 Y. As can be seen, the net effect of including income in the transit use structural equation is to increase the size of the density variable in the reduced form equation very slightly, to reduce the size of the income coefficient by about one-seventh, and to reduce the intercept by nearly one-fifth.
