Table 3 Average commuting distance for the four urban regions in
the case of a concentrated employment pattern
|
Amsterdam |
Utrecht |
Rotterdam |
The Hague | |
|
- constant C |
49839 |
80971 |
159002 |
216230 |
|
- τ |
-0.28 |
-0.59 |
-0.70 |
-0.95 |
|
- P (x) |
49839 x-0.28 |
80971 x-0.59 |
159002 x-.70 |
216230 x-0.95 |
|
(21.76) (-1.94) |
(29.84) (-4.66) |
(28.70) (-5.21) |
(25.45) (-5.01) | |
|
- R2 |
0.07 |
0.47 |
0.44 |
0.65 |
|
- A |
6.1 |
7.3 |
7.2 |
4.1 |
17
More intriguing information
1. MULTIPLE COMPARISONS WITH THE BEST: BAYESIAN PRECISION MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY RANKINGS2. Multi-Agent System Interaction in Integrated SCM
3. ¿Por qué se privatizan servicios en los municipios (pequeños)? Evidencia empírica sobre residuos sólidos y agua.
4. Cancer-related electronic support groups as navigation-aids: Overcoming geographic barriers
5. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
6. The name is absent
7. The migration of unskilled youth: Is there any wage gain?
8. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme
9. Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues
10. The Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Patterns