The Effect of Transportation on

Affordability in Greater Vancouver

Group 1

April 22, 2013

Prepared for:
Dr. Jinhua Zhao
CIVL 441/PLAN 548J
Transportation Planning Analysis
Prepared by:
Michael Chow (69299089)
Lee Haber (79653127)
Evelyn Mah (41662081)
Caleb Stokkeland (21657119)

ii

Highlights
1. Housing costs alone do not present an adequate measure of affordability
2. An index that combines housing and transportation costs may be a more relevant
tool in measuring affordability in Greater Vancouver
3. The Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index is used in almost 900
areas in the US
4. A comparison is made between the calculated H+T affordability and the
traditional housing affordability in Greater Vancouver
5. More communities in Greater Vancouver become unaffordable than affordable in
the new definition of affordability that includes transportation costs
6. Based on the new index, centrally located urban neighbourhoods are more
affordable than suburban areas.
7. The areas of greatest concern are those that are unaffordable and where the
residents are spending a significant portion of their income on transportation
costs. Most of these areas are located in suburban municipalities with low
densities and poor transit.
8. Transportation costs were found to decrease with increasing neighbourhood
walkability for communities in Greater Vancouver
9. The results of this study significantly changes our view of affordability and
should thus affect how people choose where to live.
10. The results are relevant for all levels of decision-makers (households, community
leaders, housing and transportation professionals, government officials, etc.)

iii

Abstract
In the urban community, household transportation costs are subject to a number of
factors. These factors change across urban regions, and as a result, the percentage of
household income spent on transportation can vary considerably. The measure of location
affordability has traditionally been determined by housing costs alone. However, it is
shown in this study that transportation costs have a considerable impact on the
affordability of living in a given neighbourhood.
In the United States, the Center for Neighbourhood Technology (CNT) has
developed the Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index, which defines
affordability as a household spending less than 45% its income on housing and
transportation costs. Based on this definition of affordability, it has been found that many
urban areas previously considered unaffordable are actually quite affordable as they are
walkable and have good transit service. Similarly, many suburban areas that are viewed
as affordable when looking at housing costs alone are actually quite unaffordable, as they
areas require the ownership of an automobile and its inherent costs. This work by CNT
supports policies where land use and transportation planning are coordinated to ensure
communities are walkable and support a variety of uses.
This study applies a modified H+T index to determine the affordability in Greater
Vancouver, using 2006 Canadian Census and 2011 Translink Trip Diary data. Walkable
communities located in central areas with good transit service were found to be
considerably more affordable than areas with heavy auto-reliance. The most significant
outcome of our study is that Greater Vancouver is significantly less affordable when
transportation costs are included. A considerable number of suburban communities that
have affordable housing (mostly from Surrey, Coquitlam, and Langley) are deemed
unaffordable based in the new index. In addition, the concepts of actual and experienced
affordability are examined, based on median regional income and median local income,
respectively. This analysis shows that many areas in the suburbs are unaffordable and
have people spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and
transportation. Future transportation and planning initiatives should be focused in these
areas in order to produce the greatest improvement in affordability.

iv
While the H+T affordability has not yet been adopted across Canada by policy
makers and the public alike, we expect the results of this study to: 1) enable residents of
the Greater Vancouver area to make wiser choices when looking for a place to live and 2)
aid policy makers in where transit improvements and social housing initiatives are
focused. Furthermore, understanding the relationship between housing and transportation
with respect to affordability will enable local municipalities to prioritize related projects
in specific neighbourhoods, providing more affordable living for their residents.

Key Words
Affordability; Housing Costs; Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index;
Land Use; Transportation Costs; Walkability; Walk Score.

Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
1.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0

Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 3

2.1 The Affordability Index..........................................................................................................3

2.2 Housing + Transportation Affordability in Washington, DC ................................................4
2.3 Coordinating Transportation and Land Use ...........................................................................4
2.4 Transportation Affordability ..................................................................................................5

3.0

Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Data Used ...............................................................................................................................7

3.2 Housing and Transportation (H+T) Index ..............................................................................7
3.2.1 H+T Overview ................................................................................................................7
3.2.2 H+T Methods ..................................................................................................................8
3.3 Transportation Cost and Walkability .....................................................................................9
3.3.1 Walk Score Overview .....................................................................................................9
3.3.2 Comparing Transportation Cost and Walkability .........................................................11

4.0

Data Analysis and Interpretation ............................................................................. 13

4.1 H+T Results..........................................................................................................................13

4.2 Actual and Experienced Affordability .................................................................................21
4.3 Linear Regression Results ....................................................................................................29

5.0

Discussion ............................................................................................................... 32

5.1 H+T Summary ......................................................................................................................32

vi
5.2 Transportation Cost and Walkability Summary ...................................................................33
5.3 Impact and Policy Implications ............................................................................................35

5.4 Further Research ......................................................................................................... 36

6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A: Housing and Transportation Index .............................................................. 38
Appendix B: Linear Regression Analysis ......................................................................... 51

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Point grid used for population density weighted Walk Score ........................... 11
Figure 2: The ten most affordable areas ........................................................................... 14
Figure 3: The ten least affordable areas ............................................................................ 14
Figure 4: Areas that became unaffordable when transportation costs were included....... 15
Figure 5: Areas that became affordable when transportation costs were included........... 16
Figure 6: Neighbourhoods that are affordable based on H+T costs below 45% of the
median household income......................................................................................... 19
Figure 7: Affordability by municipality............................................................................ 20
Figure 8: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Greater Vancouver census tracts ....... 23
Figure 9: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Vancouver census tracts .................... 24
Figure 10: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Burnaby census tracts ...................... 24
Figure 11: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Surrey census tracts ......................... 25
Figure 12: Housing affordability in Greater Vancouver by sub-region ............................ 26
Figure 13: H+T affordability in Greater Vancouver by sub-region.................................. 27
Figure 14: Change in affordability in Greater Vancouver by sub-region ......................... 28
Figure 15: Linear regression results for Greater Vancouver ............................................ 29
Figure 16: Linear regression results for Vancouver ......................................................... 30

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: The most and least affordable areas in Greater Vancouver ................................ 13
Table 2: Neighbourhoods that became unaffordable ........................................................ 16
Table 3: Percentage of affordable areas by municipality.................................................. 18
Table 4: Statistical results from linear regression analyses .............................................. 31

1.0 Introduction
Affordability is an increasingly important issue in Greater Vancouver. In 2013,
Vancouver was rated one of the least affordable cities in the world (Demographia, 2013).
Existing studies of affordability have focused exclusively on housing costs and have
significantly influenced policy, often encouraging development away from the core of a
city.
However, focusing on housing alone provides an incomplete picture of affordability.
There are other necessities that have a significant impact on the cost of living.
Transportation is, on average, the second largest household expenditure and including it
in the definition of affordability has been found to produce a much clearer picture of
which areas are affordable and which ones are not.
In the United States, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) has
developed a Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index. It defines
affordability as spending less than 45% of household income on housing and
transportation costs. Many of the H+T indexs findings contradict the view of
affordability set out in conventional indices. For instance, urban neighbourhoods, where
residents have access to public transportation and are able to walk and cycle, experience
much lower transportation costs. Several neighbourhoods (such as the Upper East Side in
Manhattan) deemed unaffordable with previous methods have been found to be quite
affordable when transportation costs have been factored in. Similarly, locations in
suburban areas, though having lower housing prices, effectively require their residents to
own and drive a car. Many of these communities are therefore no longer deemed
affordable using the new index.
To date, there has been no similar study of location efficiency for Canadian cities.
Our project involves applying a modified H+T index to neighbourhoods in Greater
Vancouver. We also quantify the correlation between Walk Score, a measure of
walkability, and transportation costs. Below is an overview of the steps accomplished in
conducting this study:

Review the H+T Affordability Index developed by CNT and other associated
literature.

Examine the H+T index to determine if it is feasible with available Canadian data
(specifically, data from Greater Vancouver).

Develop an index that incorporates Statistics Canada housing and transportation

data and Translink trip diary data.

Apply the H+T index to census tracts in Greater Vancouver and compare the
results with housing affordability alone.

Analyze the differences between cities actual affordability (based on median

regional income) and experienced affordability (based on median local income)

Compare Walk Score to transportation costs for various neighbourhoods in order

to identify the relationship between the two

Since our study utilized Canadian census data, the H+T index and its associated
analyses can be replicated for any other region in Canada; a housing and transportation
affordability index can be created with the same data.

2.0 Literature Review

In order to fully understand the H+T index in more detail, literature on combined
housing and transportation affordability was reviewed. All of the literature reviewed
originates with CNT and relates to the development and application of the H+T index.

2.1 The Affordability Index

From 2003 to 2008, the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program operated a
special project called the Urban Markets Initiative. The goal of the initiative was to create
more accurate and accessible information for urban areas. The initiative developed the
Affordability Index, an information tool that combines the costs of housing and
transportation in American urban communities. The 2006 Brookings report, The
Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing
Choice, describes the rationale for developing such an index and results from testing the
index in the regional area of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.
In traditional affordability indices, location and transportation costs are either
underestimated or ignored. In the US, transportation is the second largest household
expenditure. Based on the 2003 Consumer Expenditure Survey, the average US
household allocates 19% of its budget to transportation costs (CTOD, CNT, 2006). The
Affordability Index takes into account transportation benefits from living in certain
locations, on both a metropolitan level and neighbourhood level. A comparison is made
between housing costs as a percent of income and H+T costs as a percent of income. As
an example, areas outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul regional core experienced a
significant increase in living costs with the new index. This is due to the heavy reliance
on car ownership and usage. The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have the most
extensive bus system in the region, with daily non-auto commutes ranging from 15% to
23% (CTOD, CNT, 2006). This is reflected in the Affordability Index, which shows the
areas that are well equipped with public transit are indeed the most affordable.

2.2 Housing + Transportation Affordability in Washington, DC

Washington, DC has notoriously high housing costs in its core, as high as $5,200
per month in some areas (CNT, 2011). However, CNT postulates that the core may be
more affordable than what housing costs alone suggest if transportation costs are
considered. They found that there is generally an inverse relationship between housing
and transportation costs. The houses furthest from the citys core have the highest
transportation cost.
Another driver for low transportation costs is high-density development. People
that live in high-density areas are more likely to own fewer or no personal vehicles. Many
people in the core of Washington spent more than 30% of their income on housing, but
less than 45% of their income on housing and transportation combined (CNT, 2011). This
means by the traditional housing-only indicator of affordability, these areas were deemed
unaffordable. However, when the H+T indicator was considered, these areas now are
considered affordable. This shows that in some cases the expensive housing in core areas
is offset by transportation cost savings. It should be noted that CNT does not suggest that
living in the most expensive areas will provide the lowest H+T cost. However, they do
suggest that the best way to look at affordability is to consider H+T, and as a result, the
most affordable locations in an urban region can be found.

2.3 Coordinating Transportation and Land Use

It does not come as a surprise that transportation planning is important in peoples
daily lives. Many people take for granted features that have been put in place to
encourage modes of travel other than driving, and oftentimes do not consider the tradeoff that is being made with respect to location, time spent traveling, or land use.
However, it is important to understand the relationship between transportation and land
use, as these are key factors that can help minimize infrastructure investment needs
while improving safety, mobility and accessibility forthe traveling public (Porter,
2006).

5
When considering the planning of regional transportation and land use strategies,
it is important to keep in mind the context and vision of the transportation corridor.
This vision will set the framework for decisions such as facility design, access
management, and local land use controls. In the past, transportation corridor planning has
focused on a particular roadway and related transportation facilities, but planning
committees are beginning to understand the importance of the link between transportation
and land use. In Lexington, Kentucky, the citys planners focused on coordinating
activities between the engineering and planning departments, resulting in a communitysupported corridor plan. This design included features such as narrower cross-sections,
bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, and extensive streetscaping and landscaping.
These objectives provide safety and mobility for vehicles and pedestrians, and have also
led to significant economic development benefits in certain business districts.

2.4 Transportation Affordability

The impact of transportation costs play a factor on economic development. The
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) has produced a report that discusses the
impacts of affordability and offers strategies to help improve affordability. Living in an
area that is deemed unaffordable has been shown to drive up wages in order to fill
necessary positions in a given industry. For instance, there is a limit to the number of
workers living in a given neighbourhood who are willing to trade-off higher wages for
more affordable housing and transportation. Once this limit is reached by the industries in
the area, companies then need to increase the wage to attract workers from other areas, to
compensate for increased transportation costs due to longer commutes. As well, high cost
of living may reduce the number of professionals moving into a community and as a
result, reduce growth in associated industries.
The VTPI has noted that it is important to understand the difference between
accessibility and mobility, and moving from a mobility-based analysis to an accessibilitybased analysis is essential when conducting transportation planning. Mobility-based
analysis evaluates the transport system quality based only on physical movement, but an
accessibility-based analysis evaluates the transport system based on peoples ability to
reach desired goods, services and activities (Litman, pp 4). When considering

6
accessibility, alternative travel modes are considered rather than only vehicular travel, as
is the case in mobility-based analysis. Planning for transportation based on accessibility
is typically more cost effective and beneficial, as major consequences of mobility-based
analysis include high automobile costs, loss of time as drivers need to chauffeur nondriving family members, and the reduction in physical health associated with extensive
automobile reliance.
In the VTPIs suggestion for evaluating transportation affordability, they note the
fact that peoples transportation needs and abilities vary (Litman, pp 5). In order to
compensate for these differences, several factors should be considered when determining
transportation affordability. These include income and wealth, daily household
responsibilities (e.g. commuting to work), physical and mental abilities, ability to
understand and read the local language, and the ability to drive.
The report also delves into the relationship between land use and transportation
costs, noting that suburban and rural communities have increased transportation costs due
to less accessible land use patterns and more automobile-dependent transportation
networks. In addition, areas that have affordable housing and accessibility to multi-modal
travel generally resulted in increased affordability.
Transportation affordability becomes important when assessing a households
economic resilience, such as being able to respond effectively to unexpected financial
burdens, like an increase in fuel price or a vehicle failure. In areas where transportation
costs are high (likely meaning a resident of that area would be vehicle-dependent), an
event that prohibits vehicle travel would cause a much larger financial strain to local
commuters, due to limited travel alternatives.

3.0 Methodology
This section outlines all of the data sources used to complete the analysis,
including a background of the theories and models in which the information is based. The
methods of analysis and the expected results are also described.

3.1 Data Used

To develop an H+T index for locations in Greater Vancouver, various types of
housing and transportation data were required. Calculated transportation costs were
compared to Walk Score to see if a correlation between transportation expenditures and
walkability for neighbourhoods in Greater Vancouver existed. The data that was required
is as follows:

Transportation cost data for various regions of Greater Vancouver.

Housing cost data for the corresponding regions.

Walk Score data for the corresponding regions.

The data sources we used to collect the required data are as follows:

Transportation trip data collection from Translinks 2011 Trip Diary Analysis
Report and from Statistics Canada 2006 Census Report.

Academic reports to find costs associated with corresponding trip mode types.

Walk Score data for corresponding neighbourhoods from the Walk Score website.

3.2 Housing and Transportation (H+T) Index

3.2.1 H+T Overview
The H+T index provides a holistic approach to evaluating affordability by
considering housing and transportation costs associated with living in a given area. Since
transportation costs are usually the second largest household expenditure, evaluating
affordability on housing alone may be incomplete and unreliable. For example, the cost
of a home in close proximity to rapid transit may be more expensive than a similar

8
suburban home. However, being close to public transit will likely reduce transportation
costs and may offset the increase in housing costs.
CNTs approach to determining transportation costs for a given area is quite
different from the method used in our study. CNT uses indicating factors within a
neighbourhood to predict transportation costs, such as density, household income, access
to transit, etc. They use these factors as inputs to a model to generate the number of trips
by each mode and the associated cost. These resources were not available in order to
build a model for Greater Vancouver. Our study uses a method based on census data.
The H+T index consists of the average housing and transportation cost from
living in a given neighbourhood, normalized by the median household income.
Transportation costs include the costs of auto ownership, auto usage, and public
transportation usage. The formula for the H+T index is as follows:
+ =

CNT has determined that the threshold for H+T index affordability is 45% of total
income (CNT, 2012). By using this index and threshold, instead of using a traditional
housing cost threshold of 30% of total income, some areas previously labeled as
unaffordable may be viewed as more affordable and vice versa.
3.2.2 H+T Methods
From the 2006 census data for Greater Vancouver, the costs of housing and
transportation for households in each census tract were calculated. The data lists the
number of drivers, passengers, and vehicles per household. Also, it reports the number of
people who use public transportation, walking, cycling, motorcycling, and taxi as their
primary mode of transportation. The Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) data was
used to find the average annual cost for auto ownership. However, this cost varies with
the number of Vehicle Kilometers Traveled (VKT) each year. Therefore, Translinks Trip
Diary was used to determine the average VKT per year for each region of Vancouver and
came up with an average annual cost of owning and operating a vehicle. For average
public transportation costs, it was determined how likely people in each census tract were

9
to travel within 1, 2, or 3 zones and the corresponding Translink fares were applied. For
cycling and walking, the cost of transportation was assumed to be zero. As the mode
share for motorcycle and taxi were very low, they were deemed negligible and omitted.
To determine the total transportation cost (T) for each census tract, the transportation
modes and costs of all users within the given census tract were averaged.
=

# + (# )
# + # + # + # + # + #

Using housing and transportation costs for various areas of Greater Vancouver, it
was determined which areas were affordable using the H+T index, based on the definition
of affordability as spending less than 45% of household income on housing and
transportation. These results are presented graphically throughout this report.
The methods used to determine transportation costs provide an estimate of costs
for households in each census tract. However, due to time limitations, the methods used
do have a few simplifying assumptions which could be improved upon in further studies.
For instance, the difference in parking costs between urban and suburban environments
was not accounted for. If this discrepancy was accounted for, it would presumably
increase transportation costs in urban areas. Also, since we do not know actual VKT for
each vehicle, we had to use an average for a fairly large area. By knowing VKT per
vehicle with more accuracy, we would increase the precision and validity of our
calculated transportation costs.

3.3 Transportation Cost and Walkability

3.3.1 Walk Score Overview
Walkability is a key characteristic for urban neighbourhoods. In Greater
Vancouver, the ability to walk to basic amenities significantly adds value to living in a
given neighbourhood. A compact, walkable neighbourhood offers several benefits, such
as encouraging a healthier lifestyle, reducing vehicle carbon dioxide emissions through
less car reliance, and promoting a more social, interactive community. Walk Score is a
measurement of walkability created for Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand. A

10
100-point scale is used to rate walkability, based on typical walking routes to common
destinations (schools, parks, restaurants, retail and grocery stores, etc.). Maximum points
are awarded for amenities that are situated within 0.25 miles of a given location, whereas
no points are awarded for amenities that are further than 1 mile away. The Walk Score
rating can be applied to specific point locations, neighbourhoods, or entire cities. A
walkable neighbourhood requires the following:

A main centre

Housing located near businesses

Parks and public spaces

Nearby schools and workplaces

Streets designed for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit

For neighbourhood or city Walk Scores, point location Walk Scores are taken at

approximately every city block (defined by a predetermined grid system), and combined
with a weighted average based on population density. The steps for calculating a
population density weighted Walk Score are summarized below.
1. Expand each point by 0.00075 decimal degrees to create a grid cell
2. Intersect the grid cell with the census blocks it intersects; for each census block:

Calculate the percentage of the census block the grid cell intersects

Multiply that percentage by the total population of that census block

Sum these partial populations to get the grid cell population

3. Add the grid cell population to a variable called total_population

4. Calculate the Walk Score at the center of the grid cell and multiply it by the grid
cell population to get the weighted Walk Score
5. Add the weighted Walk Score of this grid cell to a variable called
weighted_walk_score
6. To calculate the Walk Score for an entire neighbourhood/city, divide
weighted_walk_score by total_population for the points within the boundary
of the neighbourhood/city.
(Source: Walk Score)

11

Figure 1: Point grid used for population density weighted Walk Score
It should be noted that Walk Score does not take into account street design, safety,
pedestrian friendly design and orientation of streets and buildings, topography, and
weather.
3.3.2 Comparing Transportation Cost and Walkability
Walkability has been shown to have an inverse relationship with transportation
costs. H+T data for individual census tracts in Greater Vancouver can be correlated with
Walk Scores for given neighbourhoods. The transportation cost is reported as a
percentage of household income, based on the median income for residents in each area
of Greater Vancouver. The transportation variable includes the costs and savings
associated with owning a vehicle, as described above.
We use a simple linear regression model to relate Walk Score (independent
variable) to transportation costs (dependent variable). This model can predict or forecast
the values of the dependent variable based on its relation of several given values of the
independent variable. However, a correlation can only be verified the direction of the
causal relationship cannot be confirmed. The regression model is defined below.
y = 0 + 1x +

12
Where:
x = independent variable (Walk Score)
y = dependent variable (transportation cost)
0 = mean value of y when x is zero
1 = change in mean value of y for a 1-unit increase in x

For 1 > 0, x and y have a positive linear relationship

For 1 < 0, x and y have a negative linear relationship

For 1 = 0, x and y have no linear relationship

= error term
The objective of simple linear regression is to minimize the sum of squared errors,
thereby evaluating the equation where the expected value of is zero. The results of the
model yield several statistical values, such as R2, standard error, degrees of freedom, and
0 and 1 with corresponding t-statistics. The R2 value is used to measure how much
variation is found between the inputted data and the linear regression line (i.e. how
accurate the model is in estimating Walk Score). The t-statistics for 0 and 1 verify their
statistical significance, based on the calculated degrees of freedom and standard error.
Microsoft Excel and StatPlus are used for the analysis. It was expected that the
results would show a negative relationship between transportation costs and Walk Score.
The goal is to quantify this relationship by determining the strength of the correlation.
Though our analysis, it is possible to make justified estimations of transportation cost in a
certain area, based on the Walk Score for that neighbourhood. As a result, the effect
walkability has on transportation costs in Greater Vancouver can be confirmed.

13

4.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.1 H+T Results
After conducting the data analysis and applying the H+T index, it was determined
that the ten most affordable areas based on housing and transportation costs were located
solely within the municipalities of Vancouver and Burnaby. In comparison, the ten least
affordable areas based were located in Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey, and West
Vancouver. The top ten rankings for the most and least affordable areas can be found in
Table 1 and the detailed rankings can be found in Appendix A. The most and least
affordable areas lists appear to support the conclusion that areas that are centrally located
with good transit access and a mixture of uses are affordable when considering housing
and transportation costs. Conversely, automobile-oriented areas on the periphery bring
with them very high housing and transportation costs and are quite unaffordable.
Table 1: The most and least affordable areas in Greater Vancouver
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Most Affordable
Mt. Pleasant/ Great Northern Way,
Vancouver
West End, Vancouver
Metrotown, Burnaby
Grandview-Woodlands,
Vancouver
Strathcona, Vancouver
Broadway Commercial,
Vancouver
West End, Vancouver
Metrotown, Burnaby
West End, Vancouver
West End, Vancouver

Least Affordable
Rosemary, South Surrey
West Cloverdale, Surrey
Westwood Plateau, Coquitlam
West Bay, West Vancouver
Cypress Park, West Vancouver
Westwood Plateau, Coquitlam
East Newton North, Surrey
Heritage Mountain, Port Moody
East Fleetwood, Surrey
British Properties, West Vancouver

14

Figure 2: The ten most affordable areas

Figure 3: The ten least affordable areas

15
From the data analysis, it was determined that the majority of people lived in
areas where housing was considered affordable to them. 336 out of the total 406 tracts
had people living where they could afford the housing (with 30% of the median
household income being spent on housing considered as affordable), but only 259 areas
had people living in areas where both housing and transportation costs were affordable
(with 45% of the median household income being spent on housing and transportation
considered as affordable).
After considering both housing and transportation costs, 49 areas that had
previously been deemed affordable based housing costs became unaffordable. In
comparison, only 9 areas that were previously unaffordable became affordable according
to the H+T index. These results are depicted in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4: Areas that became unaffordable when transportation costs were included

16

Figure 5: Areas that became affordable when transportation costs were included
All 9 areas that became affordable are neighbourhoods located in Vancouver:
Cambie, Kitslano, Point Grey, Mount Pleasant, Fairview, Downtown, False Creek North,
Coal Harbour and the West End.
Areas that became unaffordable were found to be far from Skytrain lines and
located towards the periphery of the region. Table 2 lists the different neighbourhoods
within each municipality that became unaffordable when taking into account the H+T
index. It is important to note that some neighbourhoods appeared more than once due to
multiple census tracts, therefore reinforcing the unaffordability of that area.
Table 2: Neighbourhoods that became unaffordable
Municipality
Burnaby
Coquitlam

Neighbourhood
Burnaby South
Buckingham/Lakeview
Cape Horn
Cariboo/Burquitlam
Central Coquitlam
Central Coquitlam
Eagle Ridge
Hockaday/Nestor
Maillardville

17

Delta

Langley
Maple Ridge

North Shore

Pitt Meadows
Port Coquitlam
Richmond

Surrey

Ranch Park
River Heights
Ladner (3x)
North Delta (4x)
Tsawwassen (2x)
All neighbourhoods except
Willoughby/Willowbrook
Albion, Thornhill
East Haney
Haney
Port Haney, Haney
The Ridge
The Ridge
The Ridge
Yennadon
Dundarave
Kirkstone
Norgate
Upper West Lynn
All neighbourhoods
Glenwood (2x)
Lincoln Park
Blundell (3x)
Broadmoor
City Centre (2x)
East Cambie
East Richmond
Gilmore
Sea Island
Seafair (2x)
Steveston (3x)
West Cambie
Cloverdale (3x)
Guildford (9x)
Newton (9x)
South Surrey (4x)
Whalley (8x)

18
Overall, Figure 6 shows the areas that are affordable (depicted in yellow) when
considering both housing and transportation costs as less than 45% of the median
household income. Table 3 below also lists out the number of neighbourhoods that are
affordable in each municipality.
Table 3: Percentage of affordable areas by municipality

Municipality
Burnaby
Coquitlam
Delta
Langley
Maple Ridge
New West
North Shore
Pitt Meadows
Port
Coquitlam
Port Moody
Richmond
Surrey
Vancouver
White Rock

41
22
19
24
13
13
33
3

Affordable
based on
Housing Costs
< 30% of
Income
93%
68%
79%
67%
69%
85%
33%
100%

44%

6
33
78
108
4

17%
82%
55%
78%
50%

Total
Areas by
Census
Tract

Affordable
based on
Transportation
Costs < 15% of
Income
41%
0%
0%
0%
0%
62%
12%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
85%
0%

Affordable based
on Housing &
Transportation
Costs < 45% of
Income
88%
23%
32%
13%
8%
85%
24%
0%
11%
0%
42%
13%
85%
50%

19

Figure 6: Neighbourhoods that are affordable based on H+T costs below 45% of the
median household income.
It is clear from the results, that the suburban nature of most of Greater Vancouver
means that when transportation costs are included, affordability decreases dramatically.
For instance, while Delta, Pitt Meadows, and Richmond have relatively more affordable
housing than other areas (79%, 100%, and 82% of census tracts had households spending
less than 30% on housing costs, respectively), when taking into consideration
transportation costs, the percentage of census tracts in those municipalities that were still
affordable dropped to 32%, 0%, and 42% for Delta, Pitt Meadows and Richmond
respectively. As well, it appears the higher housing costs of urban areas are generally
offset by having lower transportation costs. This is the case for the City of Vancouver
where the number of affordable census tracts increases 21% when including
transportation costs.

20
When considering both housing costs and transportation costs, Vancouver,
Burnaby and New Westminster appear to be exceptions to the general suburban nature of
the region. All three municipalities are quite affordable both when considering housing
costs alone as well as H+T (Vancouver, 64% affordable based on housing only, 85%
affordable based on housing and transportation Burnaby, 80% affordable based on
housing only, 88% affordable based on housing and transportation, and New
Westminster, 85% affordable based on housing only, 85% affordable based on housing
and transportation). Figure 7 shows the relationship between the affordability of housing
in comparison to the affordability of transportation costs and the affordability of housing

Percentage of Aordable Census Tracts

and transportation costs.

120%

Aordability by Municipality

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Municipality
Housing Aordability
Transporta;on Aordability

Figure 7: Affordability by municipality

21

4.2 Actual and Experienced Affordability

In order to determine areas where affordability needs to be improved the most, it
is important to not just know which areas are unaffordable, but in which areas people are
experiencing a lack of affordability.
Actual affordability indicates how affordable an area actually is. It is the
measure of affordability that is used by CNT and this study. It is the housing and
transportation costs divided by the median regional income. A person moving to Greater
Vancouver would use actual affordability to determine an affordable area to live in.
Experienced affordability indicates how people in an area are actually
experiencing affordability i.e. how much of their actual income they are spending on
housing and transportation costs.
There may be areas that are unaffordable to most, but the residents have high
incomes and therefore do not experience high living costs. For instance, the high housing
costs and the requirement of owning a car makes West Vancouver unaffordable for most.
However, for the most part only people with high incomes choose to live in West
Vancouver, meaning that its residents are not spending a significant portion of their
income on housing and transportation.

It could be said in these areas wealth is

compensating for a lack of affordability. These are not areas where affordability
improvements should be focused.
Conversely, there are areas that are very affordable, but their residents have very
low incomes and are spending a significant portion of their income on living costs. The
Downtown East Side and Gastown are good examples of areas where affordability is

22
compensating for a lack of wealth. Besides locating social housing in these areas (which
in most cases is already being done), there are few additional measures that could be
implemented that would improve affordability and reduce the living expense pressures
that residents experience.
The areas where affordability improvements should be focused are areas that are
unaffordable and where residents are spending a disproportionate amount of housing and
transportation costs. Figure 8 illustrates every census tract in the Lower Mainland plotted
based on Actual and Experienced affordability. Forty-five (45) percent is used as the
divide between affordable and unaffordable for both measures. Since incomes vary more
than housing and transportation costs, there is a general trend going diagonally going
from the top-left to the bottom-right. The top-right quadrant indicates areas that are
actually unaffordable and where residents are experiencing a lack of affordability. Census
tracts in this area are of highest concern.

23

Figure 8: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Greater Vancouver census tracts
Centrally-located municipalities with walkable neighbourhoods and good transit
service have few census tracts that are of high-concern. Vancouver and Burnaby
combined have only two census tracts that are unaffordable and where residents
experience high living costs. This is despite a significant range in income and
affordability. This is illustrated in Figures 9 and 10.

24

Figure 9: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Vancouver census tracts

Figure 10: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Burnaby census tracts

25
In contrast, the suburban municipalities have many areas that are unaffordable and
where residents are experiencing a lack of affordability. Figure 11 shows affordability
and how it is experienced in Surrey census tracts. There is only one census tract in Surrey
that is affordable and where people are living within their means (bottom-left quadrant).
Low-income residents appear to be concentrated in the few census tracts that are
affordable, and are living beyond their means. However, what is of greater concern is the
high number of census tracts that are of high concern. It is clear that policies that would
improve affordability (move tracts to the bottom left) such as rapid transit would have
their greatest effect in the suburbs.

Figure 11: Actual vs. experienced affordability for Surrey census tracts

26
The concept of Actual vs. Experienced affordability can be applied at a regional
level. When looking at affordability, people like to compare the situation in different
municipalities or parts of the region, as opposed to by census tract. In Figures 12, 13 and
14, the percentage of affordable dwellings in each sub-region is plotted against the
percentage of residents living within their means. Figure 12 illustrates this when using the
conventional housing-cost-only definition of affordability.

Figure 12: Housing affordability in Greater Vancouver by sub-region

When looking at housing costs alone, most municipalities have the majority of
dwellings at an affordable price, the only exceptions being White Rock, the North Shore
and Port Moody. In all municipalities, the majority of people appear to be living within
their means with Vancouver having the smallest percentage. The region appears quite
affordable.

27
However, when transportation costs are included, most of the region is actually
quite unaffordable. Figure 13 shows that there are now only three municipalities
(Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster) where the majority of dwellings are in
affordable areas and where most people are living within their means. White Rock,
Coquitlam, Surrey and Maple Ridge are where the greatest concern lies as most of the
dwellings are in unaffordable areas and a majority of residents are living beyond their
means. (In White Rock, no one is living within their means.) This in stark contrast to the
housing-only definition where Surrey, Coquitlam and Maple Ridge were considered to be
places that were affordable and people were living within their means.

Figure 13: H+T affordability in Greater Vancouver by sub-region

28
The difference between the common perception of affordability (housing only)
and actual affordability situation is quite significant. This is illustrated in Figure 14. The
most dramatic differences can be seen in White Rock, Pitt Meadows, Surrey Maple Ridge
and Coquitlam. Vancouver is the only sub-region where the affordability situation
improves when including transportation costs.

Figure 14: Change in affordability in Greater Vancouver by sub-region

29

4.3 Linear Regression Results

Two linear regression analyses were conducted using Walk Score and
transportation cost data for 96 neighbourhoods in Greater Vancouver. We used 22
communities in Vancouver, 10 in Burnaby, 10 in Coquitlam, 8 in Richmond, 7 in Surrey,
6 in Maple Ridge, 6 in Langley, 6 in North Vancouver, 5 in West Vancouver, 5 in New
Westminster, 3 in Port Moody, 3 in Pitt Meadows, 2 in Port Coquitlam, 2 in Delta, and 1
in White Rock. Transportation costs were calculated by census tract, whereas Walk
Scores were based on one point location in each associated neighbourhood, except for
Vancouver, which had average Walk Score data for individual neighbourhoods. The
locations for single-point Walk Scores were carefully chosen to take into account the
population density of the communities. Because of the two types of Walk Score data, we
carried out one analysis for all 96 communities, and a second analysis for just the 22
Vancouver neighbourhoods. The inputted data points and the calculated linear regression
lines are depicted in Figure 15 and Figure 16, for Greater Vancouver and Vancouver,
respectively.

Transporta9on Cost (% of regional median

household income)

Greater Vancouver
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Walk Score
Observed

Linear Regression

Figure 15: Linear regression results for Greater Vancouver

100

30

Transporta9on Cost (% of regional median

household income)

Vancouver
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Walk Score
Observed

Linear Regression

Figure 16: Linear regression results for Vancouver

Upon visual inspection, it is clear the correlation between transportation cost and
Walk Score is much more defined when only Vancouver data points are considered. This
is likely due to the density weighted Walk Scores used for each Vancouver
neighbourhood. Average neighbourhood Walk Score data is not available for
municipalities outside of the City of Vancouver. The method of taking point location
Walk Scores for neighbourhoods outside of Vancouver brings about many potential
errors. In communities with mixed urban and rural areas (typical of Delta, Surrey,
Langley, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge) a single point location Walk Score is not
entirely representative of the whole neighbourhood. Nonetheless, a negative relationship
between the two variables is clearly depicted in both analyses.
Table 4 summarizes the calculated statistical terms for each linear regression
analysis. Complete results from the analysis can be found in Appendix B.

31
Table 4: Statistical results from linear regression analyses

Greater Vancouver
Vancouver

Standard
Deviation
4.44966
2.84215

R2

-0.11391
-0.22353

0.38913
0.84003

Standard
Error
3.49621
1.16481

t-statistic
-7.73821
-10.24828

For the Greater Vancouver analysis, 38.9% of the variation of transportation cost
is explained by walkability. The standard error of 3.49 shows that the difference between
the observed data and the predicted outcomes is relatively small. The response of
transportation cost from variations in Walk Score is statistically significant (t-statistic = 7.74). The scale of impact is moderate, one standard deviation difference resulting in a
possible 0.51% change in transportation cost (-0.11391 4.44966 = -0.51).
For the City of Vancouver, the explanatory power of the model is much higher,
with R2 = 84.00%. The accuracy also improves, with a standard error of just 1.16. The
statistical significance of the modal is greater, with t-statistic of -10.25. Finally, the scale
of impact is slightly higher (-0.22353 2.84215 = -0.64).

32

5.0 Discussion
5.1 H+T Summary
The H+T Index research yields interesting results in which affordability across the
region was found to be somewhat worse than expected. Out of 406 census tracts, 278
were deemed affordable by housing costs alone, and only 190 were deemed affordable by
the H+T Index. This drop of 22% in affordable census tracts could have several causes.
People when considering affordable places to live, look only at housing costs and fail to
consider transportation costs and how expensive it is to own a vehicle. A survey could be
performed to see if it is the case the people fail to estimate or underestimate their
transportation costs.
The initial hypothesis that areas close to downtown would become more
affordable, and areas on the outskirts of Greater Vancouver would become less
affordable, when the H+T Index was applied was shown to be correct . This result shows
that the increased housing costs from living close to the downtown core can be offset by
reduced transportation costs. However, even though many areas close to downtown
became more affordable, some were still unaffordable in absolute terms (greater than
45% of income spent on housing and transportation).
Given our time and funding limitations, our method of determining transportation
costs is a rough estimate and could be expanded upon. The implementation of a survey
which records peoples actual transportation costs over an extended period of time would
be the most exact way of determining these costs. However, it would not have been
possible to obtain a sufficient sample size using this technique given our time constraints.
An example question for this type of survey is how much do you spend on
transportation in a week? With more accurate trip diary data, it may be possible to
determine the separate effects of transit and walkability improvements alone on
transportation costs.

33
Another alternative would be to employ a model that accurately predicts peoples
activity patterns and mode choice. Translink is currently updating their transportation
model to make it much more accurate. Once Translink has completed the update, they
could team with researchers to give a complete and accurate picture of transportation
costs in Greater Vancouver.
Our method assigns a cost of zero for cycling. However, this is not completely
true. There are costs associated with owning a bicycle, but since it is so much lower than
costs associated with other modes of transit, we assigned a zero cost given our time
constraints. Furthermore, we neglected taxi and motorcycle trips, as well as a
neighbourhoods built environment. The walkability of a given area is significant in a
persons mode choice, though this factor is not included in our model. Future research on
the H+T Index in Vancouver may address these limitations and increase its accuracy.

5.2 Transportation Cost and Walkability Summary

The results of the linear regression analyses are quite significant. The Vancouver
analysis yields a much more defined relationship between transportation cost and
walkability. This is primarily due to the use of average neighbourhood Walk Scores, as
opposed to single-point location ratings. Both the Vancouver and Greater Vancouver
models show a negative correlation between the two variables. This is expected, as
people who can easily walk to their basic amenities will generally spend less on
transportation than those who require the use of a personal vehicle.
Based on the 1 value calculated in the Vancouver analysis, a 10-point increase in
a neighbourhoods Walk Score corresponds to a 2.24% decrease in transportation
expenditures, while the Greater Vancouver analysis yields a 1.14% decrease. In
perspective, a 10-point increase in Walk Score corresponds to a $1,085 reduction in
annual transportation expenditures, using the Vancouver model (assuming a regional
median household income of $48,527 per year). With the Greater Vancouver model, the
savings would be $553 per year for every 10-point increase in Walk Score. The results
from both of these models support the notion that living in a more walkable, pedestrian
friendly community can be less expensive than living in a car-dependent suburb.

34
There are some limitations and errors associated with the data used in these
models. Census tract boundaries are not exactly in line with neighbourhood boundaries.
In general, the area within a city neighbourhood is much larger than a census tract. Often,
a single neighbourhood will encompass several census tracts, or a single census tract will
include parts of two neighbourhoods. Therefore, the Walk Score neighbourhood ratings
may be taking into account areas that are not within the associated census tract. In
selecting census tracts to characterize each neighbourhood, consideration was taken to
avoid boundary overlaps.
The linear regression graph created for the Greater Vancouver model depicts a
heteroscedastic regression (the variance of residuals increases with increasing Walk
Score). This suggests that higher Walk Scores will predict transportation cost with less
certainty. This characteristic is ignored in linear regression, as the model assumes a
constant variance in the error term, .
One major assumption in our model is that the relationship between transportation
cost and walkability is linear. However, the relationship may in fact be a second-order
power function, where for higher values of Walk Score, a greater change in transportation
cost occurs. This would suggest that the cost of transportation is more sensitive to
changes in communities with high walkability, with the largest incremental cost reduction
occurring in neighbourhoods with the highest Walk Scores.
Finally, these results do not mean that improving walkability alone will reduce
transportation costs. Since walkability and transit access are highly correlated, it is
impossible to say from the Walk Score analysis that walkability has a certain effect. A
more in-depth analysis of Walk Score, transit access and transportation

35

5.3 Impact and Policy Implications

Since the majority of our results suggest that the transportation costs in
Vancouver are high, policy changes could be made to reduce the burden of transportation
cost on residents. The areas with the biggest need for reduction of transportation costs are
municipalities on the outskirts of Greater Vancouver, such as Surrey and Coquitlam that
are largely unaffordable and where the residents are spending a high portion of their
income on housing and transportation costs. Their high costs are likely due to the lack of
rapid transit and infrequent transit in these areas. Some people in these areas may be
interested in taking public transit more often, but they see it as being inefficient so they
choose to drive.
However, building rapid transit carries a large capital cost and Translink cannot
currently provide this to every municipality. A more cost effective solution could be to
consolidate existing bus routes into fewer, more effective routes. Also, including more
express busses to main transit hubs may increase ridership. However, these measures to
increase busses could alienate some existing users. Consolidated bus routes and express
busses are usually put on busy transit corridors. So, existing transit users that do not live
near these corridors would see no benefit to this increase. Great care must be taken to
ensure any policy decisions are equitable.
Transit improvements in suburban should be accompanied with rezoning
measures that make these areas more walkable. It was found that there was a strong
correlation between walkability and reduced transportation costs. To further support this
point, areas along the Millennium Line in North Burnaby that were still walkable did not
have significantly lower transportation costs than surrounding areas. Both transit and
walkability improvements should be a part of any policy to improve affordability.
Finally, policy makers and the public should be educated on this more complete
definition of affordability. Social housing should be placed in areas with low
transportation costs so that the earnings of their residents go further. With a better
knowledge of affordability, people will save money and be able to spend it on more
productive uses.

36

5.4 Further Research

The H+T methodology used in this study could be applied to other metropolitan
areas in Canada. This would serve as a useful comparison and may further cement the
findings that areas that are walkable and with good transit access are affordable. This
could be performed with the similar data sources.
With trip diary data at the census tract level, a more accurate estimate of
transportation costs could be produced. Not only could a more up-to-date affordability
picture be produced (that would account for the implementation of the Canada Line in
2009), the separate effects of walkability and transit could be determined. Thus, the
effects of site-specific improvements on affordability could be estimated.
In conclusion, this study of housing and transportation affordability in Greater
Vancouver should serve as a starting point for a more educated discussion on
affordability in Canada, one that will have serious policy implications.

37

6.0 References
Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD) and Center for Neighborhood
Technology (CNT). 2006. The Affordability Index: New Tool for Measuring the
True Affordability of a Housing Choice. Brookings Institutions Urban Markets
Initiative (January 2006), 1-7.
Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT). 2011. Housing + Transportation
Affordability in Washington, DC, (July 2011), 1-70
Center for Neighbourhood Technology (CNT). 2012, H+T Methods. (February 2012), 110
Porter, C. D. 2006. Coordinating Transportation and Land Use. Institute of
Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal (June 2006), 28-32.
Canadian Automobile Association (CAA). 2012. Driving Costs Beyond the Price Tag:
Understanding your Vehicles Expenses. Retrieved April 3, 2013 from
http://www.caa.ca/docs/eng/CAA_Driving_Costs_English.pdf
Demographia. 2013. 9th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability
Survey: 2013. Retrieved April 3, 2013 from http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Walk Score. 2013. Retrieved April 7, 2013 from http://www.Walk Score.com/
T. Litman. (2011). Transportation Affordability: Evaluation and Improvement Strategies.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

38

Appendix A: Housing and Transportation Index

Average
Housing
Cost

Median
Aftertax
Income

Housing
Index
Local

Housing
Index
Regional

Transport
Index
Local

Transport
Index
Regional

HT
Local

HT
Regional

Vancouver

928

48719

0.229

0.230

0.143

0.144

0.372

0.373

61

70

67

Vancouver

1101

51444

0.257

0.272

0.149

0.158

0.406

0.430

145

157

154

9330002.01

Vancouver

1056

46648

0.272

0.261

0.162

0.156

0.434

0.417

225

139

136

9330002.02

Vancouver

1036

50984

0.244

0.256

0.153

0.160

0.397

0.417

117

138

135

9330003.01

Vancouver

990

48141

0.247

0.245

0.154

0.153

0.401

0.398

134

100

97

9330003.02

Vancouver

1089

46790

0.279

0.269

0.141

0.136

0.420

0.405

190

113

110

9330004.01

Vancouver

1025

49562

0.248

0.253

0.138

0.141

0.386

0.395

90

97

94

9330004.02

Vancouver

1085

49386

0.264

0.268

0.129

0.131

0.392

0.399

106

103

100

9330005.00

Vancouver

772

30488

0.304

0.191

0.190

0.119

0.494

0.310

346

20

17

9330006.01

Vancouver

1089

45506

0.287

0.269

0.148

0.138

0.435

0.408

229

117

114

9330006.02

Vancouver

1174

45533

0.309

0.290

0.157

0.147

0.466

0.438

289

168

165

9330007.01

Vancouver

1215

57086

0.255

0.300

0.136

0.160

0.392

0.461

105

206

203

9330007.02

Vancouver

1717

72361

0.285

0.425

0.112

0.167

0.397

0.592

118

374

371

9330008.01

Vancouver

52497

0.000

0.000

0.145

0.157

0.145

0.157

9330008.02

Vancouver

1571

81527

0.231

0.388

0.100

0.169

0.332

0.557

13

350

347

9330009.00

Vancouver

1204

43113

0.335

0.298

0.159

0.141

0.494

0.439

347

169

166

9330010.01

Vancouver

1137

44195

0.309

0.281

0.157

0.143

0.466

0.424

288

153

150

9330010.02

Vancouver

1403

50803

0.331

0.347

0.148

0.155

0.479

0.502

319

278

275

9330011.00

Vancouver

1001

44512

0.270

0.248

0.144

0.132

0.414

0.380

176

74

71

9330012.00

Vancouver

1129

48687

0.278

0.279

0.130

0.130

0.408

0.409

155

122

119

9330013.01

Vancouver

950

44763

0.255

0.235

0.148

0.136

0.403

0.371

137

68

65

9330013.02

Vancouver

954

45381

0.252

0.236

0.159

0.149

0.412

0.385

170

87

84

9330014.01

Vancouver

852

43455

0.235

0.211

0.146

0.131

0.381

0.342

80

37

34

9330014.02

Vancouver

853

36657

0.279

0.211

0.185

0.140

0.465

0.351

285

46

43

9330015.01

Vancouver

1036

56317

0.221

0.256

0.125

0.145

0.346

0.401

25

109

106

9330015.02

Vancouver

1041

42813

0.292

0.258

0.161

0.142

0.453

0.400

266

105

102

9330016.01

Vancouver

891

39531

0.270

0.220

0.161

0.131

0.431

0.351

218

47

44

9330016.03

Vancouver

983

35811

0.330

0.243

0.152

0.112

0.482

0.355

321

54

51

Geography

Municipality

9330001.01
9330001.02

HT
Local
Rank

HT
Regional
Rank

HT
Afford
Rank

39

9330016.04

Vancouver

970

45031

0.258

0.240

0.133

0.123

0.391

0.363

99

60

57

9330017.01

Vancouver

973

45621

0.256

0.241

0.150

0.141

0.406

0.382

151

84

81

9330017.02

Vancouver

1018

45266

0.270

0.252

0.138

0.128

0.407

0.380

154

75

72

9330018.01

Vancouver

1006

46427

0.260

0.249

0.138

0.132

0.398

0.381

124

80

77

9330018.02

Vancouver

1086

51756

0.252

0.269

0.137

0.146

0.389

0.415

95

133

130

9330019.00

Vancouver

995

45687

0.261

0.246

0.133

0.125

0.394

0.371

110

66

63

9330020.00

Vancouver

1298

54503

0.286

0.321

0.129

0.145

0.415

0.466

177

219

216

9330021.00

Vancouver

1840

117164

0.188

0.455

0.068

0.163

0.256

0.618

390

387

9330022.00

Vancouver

1163

39204

0.356

0.288

0.189

0.153

0.545

0.440

378

171

168

9330023.00

Vancouver

1509

69459

0.261

0.373

0.111

0.158

0.371

0.532

59

329

326

9330024.00

Vancouver

1420

78958

0.216

0.351

0.101

0.164

0.316

0.515

294

291

9330025.00

Vancouver

1465

68804

0.255

0.362

0.101

0.143

0.356

0.505

30

283

280

9330026.00

Vancouver

1326

57661

0.276

0.328

0.127

0.151

0.403

0.478

138

238

235

9330027.00

Vancouver

1312

53549

0.294

0.324

0.142

0.157

0.436

0.482

235

246

243

9330028.00

Vancouver

1709

62935

0.326

0.423

0.111

0.144

0.437

0.566

238

357

354

9330029.00

Vancouver

1267

52636

0.289

0.313

0.098

0.107

0.387

0.420

93

142

139

9330030.00

Vancouver

1144

51592

0.266

0.283

0.118

0.126

0.385

0.409

87

120

117

9330031.01

Vancouver

1191

52989

0.270

0.294

0.111

0.121

0.380

0.415

77

135

132

9330031.02

Vancouver

1118

47087

0.285

0.277

0.114

0.111

0.399

0.387

129

89

86

9330032.00

Vancouver

987

43774

0.271

0.244

0.128

0.115

0.398

0.359

126

57

54

9330033.00

Vancouver

1061

44547

0.286

0.262

0.141

0.130

0.427

0.392

209

95

92

9330034.01

Vancouver

955

45079

0.254

0.236

0.146

0.135

0.400

0.372

132

69

66

9330034.02

Vancouver

1005

45562

0.265

0.248

0.126

0.119

0.391

0.367

100

62

59

9330035.01

Vancouver

964

40648

0.284

0.238

0.153

0.128

0.437

0.366

240

61

58

9330035.02

Vancouver

916

43444

0.253

0.226

0.138

0.124

0.391

0.350

102

43

40

9330036.01

Vancouver

986

49333

0.240

0.244

0.134

0.136

0.374

0.380

67

76

73

9330036.02

Vancouver

1131

55500

0.244

0.280

0.135

0.154

0.379

0.434

72

163

160

9330037.01

Vancouver

1055

38846

0.326

0.261

0.143

0.114

0.468

0.375

293

72

69

9330037.02

Vancouver

938

31222

0.361

0.232

0.151

0.097

0.512

0.329

362

30

27

9330038.00

Vancouver

913

32750

0.335

0.226

0.139

0.094

0.474

0.320

300

24

21

9330039.01

Vancouver

1027

37210

0.331

0.254

0.127

0.097

0.458

0.351

275

50

47

9330039.02

Vancouver

1089

48189

0.271

0.269

0.102

0.101

0.373

0.370

64

65

62

9330040.01

Vancouver

901

37855

0.285

0.223

0.116

0.090

0.401

0.313

135

21

18

9330040.02

Vancouver

907

38323

0.284

0.224

0.133

0.105

0.417

0.329

181

29

26

40

9330041.01

Vancouver

1006

43853

0.275

0.249

0.108

0.097

0.383

0.346

84

40

37

9330041.02

Vancouver

1297

50791

0.306

0.321

0.120

0.125

0.426

0.446

203

183

180

9330042.00

Vancouver

1375

53898

0.306

0.340

0.104

0.115

0.410

0.455

164

197

194

9330043.01

Vancouver

1277

54382

0.282

0.316

0.108

0.121

0.390

0.437

97

167

164

9330043.02

Vancouver

1532

75806

0.243

0.379

0.094

0.146

0.336

0.525

16

314

311

9330044.00

Vancouver

1265

62038

0.245

0.313

0.100

0.128

0.345

0.441

24

175

172

9330045.01

Vancouver

1518

53373

0.341

0.375

0.102

0.113

0.444

0.488

249

256

253

9330045.02

Vancouver

1266

50950

0.298

0.313

0.102

0.107

0.400

0.420

133

143

140

9330046.00

Vancouver

1024

41064

0.299

0.253

0.111

0.094

0.410

0.347

163

41

38

9330047.01

Vancouver

991

42636

0.279

0.245

0.131

0.115

0.409

0.360

162

58

55

9330047.02

Vancouver

995

42528

0.281

0.246

0.126

0.110

0.406

0.356

149

55

52

9330048.00

Vancouver

1110

43049

0.309

0.274

0.127

0.113

0.437

0.387

237

88

85

9330049.01

Vancouver

1219

54667

0.267

0.301

0.104

0.117

0.371

0.418

60

140

137

9330049.02

Vancouver

1108

48295

0.275

0.274

0.116

0.115

0.391

0.390

103

91

88

9330050.02

Vancouver

767

28658

0.321

0.190

0.144

0.085

0.465

0.274

284

9330050.03

Vancouver

806

32236

0.300

0.199

0.149

0.099

0.449

0.298

257

14

11

9330050.04

Vancouver

711

28282

0.302

0.176

0.146

0.085

0.448

0.261

255

9330051.00

Vancouver

992

44519

0.267

0.245

0.137

0.126

0.405

0.371

144

67

64

9330052.01

Vancouver

960

38659

0.298

0.237

0.156

0.124

0.453

0.361

267

59

56

9330052.02

Vancouver

953

50258

0.228

0.236

0.140

0.145

0.367

0.380

51

78

75

9330053.01

Vancouver

1028

48787

0.253

0.254

0.137

0.138

0.390

0.392

96

94

91

9330053.02

Vancouver

1014

44141

0.276

0.251

0.154

0.140

0.429

0.391

214

93

90

9330054.01

Vancouver

1059

47060

0.270

0.262

0.111

0.107

0.381

0.369

78

64

61

9330054.02

Vancouver

1000

51637

0.232

0.247

0.133

0.141

0.365

0.389

48

90

87

9330055.01

Vancouver

820

31207

0.315

0.203

0.175

0.113

0.490

0.315

339

22

19

9330055.02

Vancouver

825

32552

0.304

0.204

0.171

0.115

0.475

0.319

307

23

20

9330056.01

Vancouver

708

28076

0.303

0.175

0.169

0.098

0.472

0.273

298

9330056.02

Vancouver

916

35127

0.313

0.226

0.140

0.101

0.453

0.328

265

28

25

9330057.01

Vancouver

537

16215

0.398

0.133

0.176

0.059

0.574

0.192

397

9330057.02

Vancouver

735

23987

0.367

0.182

0.185

0.091

0.552

0.273

386

9330058.00

Vancouver

437

11350

0.462

0.108

0.221

0.052

0.683

0.160

403

9330059.03

Vancouver

1539

55715

0.331

0.381

0.105

0.121

0.437

0.501

236

277

9330059.04

Vancouver

1101

34175

0.386

0.272

0.104

0.074

0.491

0.346

341

39

36

9330059.05

Vancouver

1314

45241

0.348

0.325

0.095

0.089

0.443

0.413

248

131

128

5
274

41

9330059.06

Vancouver

538

11904

0.542

0.133

0.209

0.051

0.751

0.184

406

9330060.01

Vancouver

949

35953

0.317

0.235

0.090

0.066

0.406

0.301

150

15

12

9330060.02

Vancouver

955

31468

0.364

0.236

0.112

0.073

0.476

0.309

308

19

16

9330061.00

Vancouver

917

34981

0.315

0.227

0.093

0.067

0.408

0.294

156

12

9330062.00

Vancouver

941

38399

0.294

0.233

0.092

0.073

0.386

0.305

89

16

13

9330063.00

Vancouver

891

34145

0.313

0.220

0.107

0.075

0.420

0.295

191

13

10

9330064.00

Vancouver

866

30528

0.340

0.214

0.079

0.050

0.419

0.264

189

9330065.00

Vancouver

922

32207

0.343

0.228

0.088

0.059

0.432

0.286

220

10

9330066.00

Vancouver

1358

46832

0.348

0.336

0.076

0.073

0.424

0.409

198

121

118

9330067.00

Vancouver

1111

35441

0.376

0.275

0.104

0.076

0.480

0.351

320

44

41

9330068.00

Vancouver

962

35741

0.323

0.238

0.094

0.069

0.417

0.307

180

18

15

9330069.00

Vancouver

1211

33406

0.435

0.300

0.119

0.082

0.554

0.382

388

83

80

9330100.01

North Shore

1174

51514

0.273

0.290

0.144

0.153

0.418

0.443

183

176

173

9330100.02

North Shore

1145

48488

0.283

0.283

0.164

0.164

0.447

0.447

253

186

183

9330101.02

North Shore

1036

39746

0.313

0.256

0.184

0.151

0.497

0.407

352

116

113

9330101.03

North Shore

926

38135

0.291

0.229

0.176

0.138

0.467

0.367

290

63

60

9330101.04

North Shore

1024

35179

0.349

0.253

0.201

0.146

0.550

0.399

382

102

99

9330102.00

North Shore

1217

49546

0.295

0.301

0.157

0.160

0.451

0.461

262

207

204

9330103.00

North Shore

1045

39100

0.321

0.258

0.195

0.157

0.516

0.416

366

137

134

9330104.00

North Shore

1331

55060

0.290

0.329

0.153

0.174

0.443

0.503

247

279

276

9330110.01

North Shore

1457

75787

0.231

0.360

0.132

0.207

0.363

0.567

46

358

355

9330110.02

North Shore

1515

75507

0.241

0.375

0.140

0.217

0.380

0.592

73

375

372

9330111.01

North Shore

1328

60378

0.264

0.328

0.159

0.198

0.423

0.526

195

318

315

9330111.02

North Shore

1427

71567

0.239

0.353

0.137

0.202

0.376

0.555

70

348

345

9330111.03

North Shore

1354

57931

0.281

0.335

0.151

0.181

0.432

0.516

224

297

294

9330112.00

North Shore

1219

52580

0.278

0.301

0.169

0.183

0.447

0.484

252

250

247

9330113.00

North Shore

1161

53682

0.260

0.287

0.164

0.182

0.424

0.469

199

224

221

9330114.00

North Shore

1489

74106

0.241

0.368

0.125

0.191

0.366

0.560

50

352

349

9330115.00

North Shore

1330

57534

0.277

0.329

0.151

0.179

0.428

0.508

212

285

282

9330116.00

North Shore

1420

73455

0.232

0.351

0.127

0.192

0.359

0.543

35

337

334

9330117.00

North Shore

1474

77291

0.229

0.364

0.123

0.196

0.352

0.560

27

353

350

9330118.00

North Shore

1142

47021

0.291

0.282

0.177

0.171

0.468

0.454

292

193

190

9330119.00

North Shore

1236

63049

0.235

0.306

0.138

0.179

0.373

0.485

65

252

249

9330120.00

North Shore

1637

75150

0.261

0.405

0.133

0.205

0.394

0.610

109

387

384

42

9330121.00

North Shore

1582

77744

0.244

0.391

0.124

0.199

0.368

0.590

53

372

369

9330122.00

North Shore

1663

81392

0.245

0.411

0.120

0.201

0.365

0.612

47

388

385

9330130.01

North Shore

1187

40090

0.355

0.294

0.208

0.172

0.563

0.465

393

216

213

9330130.03

North Shore

1073

37892

0.340

0.265

0.190

0.148

0.529

0.413

375

130

127

9330130.04

North Shore

27047

0.000

0.000

0.216

0.120

0.216

0.120

9330131.00

North Shore

1500

74247

0.242

0.371

0.119

0.181

0.361

0.552

38

346

343

9330132.00

North Shore

1806

92276

0.235

0.447

0.107

0.204

0.342

0.651

21

403

400

9330133.01

North Shore

1608

76215

0.253

0.398

0.126

0.198

0.379

0.596

71

381

378

9330133.02

North Shore

1804

97029

0.223

0.446

0.102

0.203

0.325

0.649

10

402

399

9330134.00

North Shore

1750

73063

0.287

0.433

0.128

0.193

0.416

0.626

178

394

391

9330135.00

North Shore

1801

85567

0.253

0.445

0.110

0.193

0.362

0.638

41

397

394

9330140.02

Richmond

1160

61718

0.226

0.287

0.146

0.186

0.372

0.473

62

230

227

9330140.03

Richmond

1024

49286

0.249

0.253

0.167

0.170

0.416

0.423

179

150

147

9330140.04

Richmond

1343

62604

0.257

0.332

0.141

0.182

0.398

0.514

127

292

289

9330141.00

Richmond

1146

55593

0.247

0.283

0.146

0.167

0.393

0.451

108

189

186

9330142.01

Richmond

1114

64873

0.206

0.276

0.131

0.175

0.337

0.450

17

188

185

9330142.02

Richmond

1127

66127

0.205

0.279

0.134

0.182

0.338

0.461

19

208

205

9330142.03

Richmond

1012

47115

0.258

0.250

0.166

0.161

0.424

0.411

196

124

121

9330143.01

Richmond

1129

60557

0.224

0.279

0.146

0.183

0.370

0.462

56

209

206

9330143.02

Richmond

963

41672

0.277

0.238

0.204

0.176

0.482

0.414

322

132

129

9330143.03

Richmond

1106

44661

0.297

0.274

0.187

0.172

0.484

0.445

326

181

178

9330143.04

Richmond

1147

56032

0.246

0.284

0.154

0.178

0.400

0.462

131

210

207

9330144.03

Richmond

1373

58617

0.281

0.339

0.146

0.176

0.427

0.515

206

295

292

9330144.04

Richmond

1045

43635

0.287

0.258

0.182

0.164

0.470

0.422

295

149

146

9330144.05

Richmond

1003

48691

0.247

0.248

0.176

0.177

0.424

0.425

197

154

151

9330144.06

Richmond

1219

59208

0.247

0.301

0.149

0.181

0.396

0.483

115

248

245

9330145.00

Richmond

1164

53489

0.261

0.288

0.159

0.176

0.420

0.463

192

212

209

9330146.00

Richmond

1153

56335

0.246

0.285

0.154

0.179

0.400

0.464

130

213

210

9330147.01

Richmond

1177

39579

0.357

0.291

0.206

0.168

0.563

0.459

395

204

201

9330147.04

Richmond

928

38843

0.287

0.229

0.200

0.160

0.487

0.390

333

92

89

9330147.05

Richmond

1024

36235

0.339

0.253

0.204

0.152

0.543

0.405

377

114

111

9330147.06

Richmond

925

38962

0.285

0.229

0.194

0.155

0.479

0.384

316

85

82

9330147.07

Richmond

814

25881

0.377

0.201

0.243

0.130

0.620

0.331

401

32

29

9330147.08

Richmond

866

35939

0.289

0.214

0.185

0.137

0.474

0.351

303

48

45

43

9330148.00

Richmond

841

30386

0.332

0.208

0.228

0.143

0.560

0.351

391

45

42

9330149.02

Richmond

1179

56337

0.251

0.291

0.155

0.180

0.406

0.471

147

227

224

9330149.03

Richmond

1248

54565

0.274

0.309

0.155

0.175

0.430

0.483

215

249

246

9330149.04

Richmond

1019

49043

0.249

0.252

0.159

0.161

0.409

0.413

158

129

126

9330149.05

Richmond

1269

41891

0.364

0.314

0.199

0.172

0.563

0.486

392

254

251

9330150.00

Richmond

1116

71725

0.187

0.276

0.121

0.179

0.308

0.455

196

193

9330151.01

Richmond

1156

43330

0.320

0.286

0.190

0.169

0.510

0.455

360

195

192

9330151.03

Richmond

1252

51214

0.293

0.310

0.160

0.169

0.453

0.479

268

240

237

9330151.05

Richmond

1111

49874

0.267

0.275

0.161

0.165

0.428

0.440

211

172

169

9330151.06

Richmond

1171

47625

0.295

0.290

0.181

0.178

0.477

0.468

309

222

219

9330160.01

Delta

1292

82163

0.189

0.320

0.114

0.193

0.303

0.513

290

287

9330160.02

Delta

1166

58465

0.239

0.288

0.156

0.188

0.395

0.476

112

235

232

9330160.03

Delta

1177

64568

0.219

0.291

0.134

0.179

0.353

0.470

28

226

223

9330160.04

Delta

1081

49937

0.260

0.267

0.171

0.176

0.431

0.444

219

177

174

9330161.01

Delta

1224

60197

0.244

0.303

0.154

0.191

0.398

0.493

121

264

261

9330161.02

Delta

1078

53053

0.244

0.267

0.159

0.174

0.403

0.440

139

173

170

9330161.03

Delta

1138

62327

0.219

0.281

0.142

0.183

0.361

0.464

40

214

211

9330161.05

Delta

1157

61603

0.225

0.286

0.141

0.179

0.366

0.465

49

215

212

9330161.06

Delta

1111

64880

0.206

0.275

0.138

0.185

0.344

0.460

22

205

202

9330162.01

Delta

1162

69620

0.200

0.287

0.125

0.180

0.326

0.467

11

220

217

9330162.02

Delta

1177

68680

0.206

0.291

0.130

0.184

0.336

0.475

15

233

230

9330162.03

Delta

1113

48804

0.274

0.275

0.165

0.166

0.439

0.441

241

174

171

9330162.04

Delta

1236

82252

0.180

0.306

0.111

0.188

0.291

0.494

265

262

9330163.01

Delta

1235

73641

0.201

0.305

0.122

0.185

0.323

0.490

258

255

9330163.04

Delta

1176

68865

0.205

0.291

0.132

0.187

0.337

0.478

18

237

234

9330163.05

Delta

1096

55362

0.238

0.271

0.143

0.163

0.380

0.434

75

162

159

9330163.06

Delta

1048

53704

0.234

0.259

0.170

0.188

0.404

0.447

142

185

182

9330163.07

Delta

1018

56737

0.215

0.252

0.140

0.164

0.356

0.416

29

136

133

9330163.08

Delta

1182

61527

0.231

0.292

0.140

0.177

0.370

0.470

58

225

222

9330170.03

White Rock

752

33491

0.269

0.186

0.284

0.196

0.553

0.382

387

81

78

9330170.04

White Rock

1316

53739

0.294

0.325

0.215

0.238

0.509

0.564

358

356

353

9330170.05

White Rock

775

34753

0.268

0.192

0.291

0.208

0.559

0.400

390

106

103

9330170.06

White Rock

1243

51887

0.287

0.307

0.219

0.234

0.506

0.541

356

334

331

9330180.01

Surrey

1749

95676

0.219

0.433

0.125

0.246

0.344

0.679

23

406

403

44

9330180.02

Surrey

1130

62334

0.218

0.280

0.193

0.247

0.410

0.527

167

321

318

9330181.01

Surrey

901

49013

0.221

0.223

0.215

0.217

0.435

0.440

232

170

167

9330181.03

Surrey

1365

72612

0.226

0.338

0.162

0.242

0.387

0.579

92

366

363

9330181.04

Surrey

1260

62651

0.241

0.312

0.186

0.240

0.427

0.551

208

345

342

9330181.05

Surrey

1064

44885

0.284

0.263

0.237

0.220

0.522

0.483

372

247

244

9330181.06

Surrey

969

50950

0.228

0.240

0.225

0.237

0.454

0.476

269

236

233

9330181.07

Surrey

1250

73229

0.205

0.309

0.158

0.238

0.362

0.547

42

341

338

9330181.08

Surrey

1174

69855

0.202

0.290

0.167

0.240

0.369

0.531

55

328

325

9330181.09

Surrey

1246

73870

0.202

0.308

0.158

0.240

0.360

0.548

37

342

339

9330182.01

Surrey

1456

73911

0.236

0.360

0.161

0.245

0.397

0.605

120

385

382

9330182.02

Surrey

1692

73806

0.275

0.418

0.164

0.249

0.439

0.668

243

405

402

9330182.03

Surrey

1392

69400

0.241

0.344

0.165

0.236

0.406

0.581

146

368

365

9330182.04

Surrey

1560

79799

0.235

0.386

0.148

0.243

0.382

0.628

82

395

392

9330182.05

Surrey

1450

70195

0.248

0.358

0.162

0.234

0.410

0.593

165

378

375

9330182.06

Surrey

1214

61741

0.236

0.300

0.199

0.253

0.435

0.553

230

347

344

9330183.01

Surrey

1232

62703

0.236

0.305

0.187

0.241

0.422

0.546

194

339

336

9330183.03

Surrey

1043

45385

0.276

0.258

0.245

0.229

0.520

0.487

371

255

252

9330183.04

Surrey

1550

64772

0.287

0.383

0.187

0.250

0.475

0.634

305

396

393

9330183.05

Surrey

1494

68102

0.263

0.369

0.168

0.235

0.431

0.605

217

386

383

9330183.06

Surrey

1081

48747

0.266

0.267

0.224

0.225

0.490

0.493

340

263

260

9330183.07

Surrey

1198

71672

0.201

0.296

0.168

0.248

0.369

0.544

54

338

335

9330184.01

Surrey

1443

66496

0.260

0.357

0.174

0.238

0.434

0.595

228

380

377

9330184.02

Surrey

863

43647

0.237

0.213

0.234

0.211

0.471

0.424

297

152

149

9330184.05

Surrey

1267

61615

0.247

0.313

0.180

0.228

0.427

0.542

207

335

332

9330184.06

Surrey

1479

60893

0.291

0.366

0.187

0.235

0.479

0.601

317

383

380

9330184.07

Surrey

968

47631

0.244

0.239

0.216

0.212

0.459

0.451

277

190

187

9330184.08

Surrey

1248

56132

0.267

0.309

0.191

0.221

0.458

0.530

274

325

322

9330184.09

Surrey

1213

66318

0.219

0.300

0.163

0.223

0.383

0.523

83

311

308

9330184.10

Surrey

1337

57630

0.278

0.331

0.201

0.238

0.479

0.569

318

360

357

9330184.11

Surrey

1615

67620

0.287

0.399

0.174

0.243

0.461

0.642

280

400

397

9330185.05

Surrey

1005

43727

0.276

0.249

0.227

0.204

0.503

0.453

354

192

189

9330185.06

Surrey

1303

66461

0.235

0.322

0.174

0.238

0.409

0.561

161

354

351

9330185.07

Surrey

1265

61440

0.247

0.313

0.182

0.230

0.429

0.543

213

336

333

9330185.08

Surrey

1571

80534

0.234

0.389

0.141

0.234

0.375

0.623

69

392

389

45

9330185.09

Surrey

1022

43609

0.281

0.253

0.230

0.206

0.511

0.459

361

203

200

9330185.10

Surrey

1150

49114

0.281

0.284

0.193

0.195

0.474

0.480

301

244

241

9330185.11

Surrey

1022

45306

0.271

0.253

0.220

0.206

0.491

0.459

342

202

199

9330185.12

Surrey

1245

61288

0.244

0.308

0.169

0.214

0.413

0.522

174

310

307

9330185.13

Surrey

1249

52466

0.286

0.309

0.200

0.217

0.486

0.525

331

315

312

9330185.14

Surrey

1035

46522

0.267

0.256

0.211

0.202

0.478

0.458

315

200

197

9330185.15

Surrey

1094

47893

0.274

0.271

0.211

0.208

0.485

0.478

328

239

236

9330185.16

Surrey

1165

49698

0.281

0.288

0.205

0.210

0.487

0.498

332

273

270

9330186.01

Surrey

1214

53560

0.272

0.300

0.197

0.217

0.469

0.518

294

301

298

9330186.02

Surrey

1012

45821

0.265

0.250

0.213

0.201

0.478

0.451

312

191

188

9330186.05

Surrey

994

48533

0.246

0.246

0.212

0.212

0.457

0.458

273

199

196

9330186.06

Surrey

1136

49341

0.276

0.281

0.207

0.210

0.483

0.491

324

260

257

9330186.07

Surrey

1143

55889

0.246

0.283

0.188

0.217

0.434

0.500

226

275

272

9330186.08

Surrey

1144

48720

0.282

0.283

0.196

0.197

0.478

0.480

313

243

240

9330187.03

Surrey

1209

56505

0.257

0.299

0.187

0.218

0.444

0.517

250

299

296

9330187.04

Surrey

1174

45565

0.309

0.290

0.196

0.184

0.505

0.475

355

231

228

9330187.05

Surrey

1137

50826

0.268

0.281

0.205

0.214

0.473

0.495

299

270

267

9330187.06

Surrey

1202

55260

0.261

0.297

0.196

0.223

0.457

0.520

272

306

303

9330187.07

Surrey

1566

75077

0.250

0.387

0.162

0.251

0.413

0.639

173

398

395

9330187.09

Surrey

1223

56099

0.262

0.302

0.187

0.217

0.449

0.519

256

305

302

9330187.10

Surrey

1213

53465

0.272

0.300

0.206

0.227

0.478

0.527

314

319

316

9330187.11

Surrey

1221

52116

0.281

0.302

0.213

0.229

0.494

0.530

348

327

324

9330188.01

Surrey

1413

56625

0.299

0.349

0.210

0.245

0.509

0.594

359

379

376

9330188.02

Surrey

1562

60615

0.309

0.386

0.174

0.218

0.483

0.604

325

384

381

9330188.03

Surrey

1450

71766

0.242

0.358

0.164

0.242

0.406

0.601

148

382

379

9330188.04

Surrey

1419

66945

0.254

0.351

0.170

0.235

0.424

0.586

200

371

368

9330188.05

Surrey

1294

73368

0.212

0.320

0.161

0.243

0.372

0.563

63

355

352

9330188.06

Surrey

1267

70898

0.214

0.313

0.156

0.227

0.370

0.541

57

333

330

9330189.03

Surrey

1086

54288

0.240

0.269

0.194

0.217

0.434

0.485

227

253

250

9330189.05

Surrey

883

37142

0.285

0.218

0.266

0.203

0.551

0.421

383

146

143

9330189.06

Surrey

952

45121

0.253

0.235

0.210

0.195

0.463

0.430

283

158

155

9330189.07

Surrey

1092

45552

0.288

0.270

0.198

0.186

0.486

0.456

330

198

195

9330189.08

Surrey

773

31155

0.298

0.191

0.251

0.161

0.549

0.352

380

51

48

9330189.09

Surrey

1189

53573

0.266

0.294

0.194

0.214

0.460

0.508

278

286

283

46

9330189.10

Surrey

1088

49772

0.262

0.269

0.194

0.198

0.456

0.468

270

221

9330190.01

Surrey

868

38235

0.273

0.215

0.215

0.170

0.488

0.384

335

86

218
83

9330190.03

Surrey

947

40769

0.279

0.234

0.207

0.174

0.485

0.408

329

118

115

9330190.04

Surrey

1089

50211

0.260

0.269

0.214

0.221

0.474

0.491

302

259

256

9330190.05

Surrey

886

41905

0.254

0.219

0.234

0.202

0.488

0.421

334

145

142

9330191.02

Surrey

925

35512

0.313

0.229

0.251

0.184

0.564

0.412

396

127

124

9330191.03

Surrey

1155

53219

0.260

0.286

0.190

0.208

0.450

0.494

260

266

263

9330191.04

Surrey

851

34805

0.293

0.210

0.256

0.184

0.549

0.394

381

96

93

9330192.00

Surrey

1049

44813

0.281

0.259

0.226

0.209

0.507

0.468

357

223

220

9330200.00

New West

1339

58200

0.276

0.331

0.137

0.165

0.413

0.496

175

271

268

9330201.00

New West

1272

60022

0.254

0.314

0.127

0.157

0.381

0.472

79

228

225

9330202.00

New West

973

46147

0.253

0.241

0.146

0.138

0.399

0.379

128

73

70

9330203.00

New West

1179

59716

0.237

0.291

0.124

0.153

0.361

0.444

39

179

176

9330204.01

New West

845

37131

0.273

0.209

0.162

0.124

0.436

0.333

234

33

30

9330204.02

New West

869

34428

0.303

0.215

0.191

0.135

0.494

0.350

345

42

39

9330205.01

New West

815

31445

0.311

0.201

0.208

0.135

0.519

0.336

368

35

32

9330205.02

New West

753

32708

0.276

0.186

0.213

0.144

0.490

0.330

338

31

28

9330206.00

New West

898

40436

0.266

0.222

0.125

0.104

0.392

0.326

104

26

23

9330207.00

New West

840

38758

0.260

0.208

0.157

0.126

0.417

0.333

182

34

31

9330208.00

New West

1085

48598

0.268

0.268

0.154

0.154

0.422

0.422

193

148

145

9330209.00

New West

1115

57462

0.233

0.276

0.135

0.160

0.368

0.436

52

165

162

9330210.00

New West

975

43490

0.269

0.241

0.157

0.141

0.426

0.382

201

82

79

9330220.00

Burnaby

1206

49553

0.292

0.298

0.161

0.164

0.453

0.462

264

211

208

9330221.01

Burnaby

980

66564

0.177

0.242

0.124

0.169

0.300

0.412

126

123

9330221.03

Burnaby

1115

66694

0.201

0.276

0.126

0.173

0.327

0.449

12

187

184

9330221.04

Burnaby

1020

52460

0.233

0.252

0.141

0.152

0.374

0.404

68

112

109

9330222.01

Burnaby

1068

48303

0.265

0.264

0.145

0.144

0.410

0.408

166

119

116

9330222.02

Burnaby

1063

48989

0.260

0.263

0.137

0.139

0.398

0.402

123

110

107

9330223.01

Burnaby

1051

47172

0.267

0.260

0.144

0.140

0.411

0.400

169

104

101

9330223.02

Burnaby

982

37760

0.312

0.243

0.176

0.137

0.488

0.380

337

77

74

9330224.01

Burnaby

909

30794

0.354

0.225

0.202

0.128

0.556

0.353

389

52

49

9330224.02

Burnaby

758

27807

0.327

0.188

0.272

0.156

0.600

0.344

399

38

35

9330225.01

Burnaby

1067

50392

0.254

0.264

0.149

0.155

0.403

0.419

141

141

138

9330225.02

Burnaby

975

40236

0.291

0.241

0.161

0.134

0.452

0.375

263

71

68

47

9330226.02

Burnaby

1042

50871

0.246

0.258

0.134

0.141

0.380

0.399

74

101

98

9330226.03

Burnaby

851

30587

0.334

0.210

0.180

0.114

0.514

0.324

364

25

22

9330226.04

Burnaby

744

32081

0.278

0.184

0.166

0.109

0.444

0.293

251

11

9330227.01

Burnaby

752

27066

0.333

0.186

0.151

0.084

0.485

0.270

327

9330227.02

Burnaby

748

34603

0.259

0.185

0.171

0.122

0.430

0.307

216

17

14

9330228.02

Burnaby

1043

55968

0.224

0.258

0.133

0.154

0.357

0.412

31

125

122

9330228.03

Burnaby

889

32266

0.330

0.220

0.162

0.108

0.492

0.327

344

27

24

9330228.04

Burnaby

844

36629

0.277

0.209

0.173

0.130

0.449

0.339

258

36

33

9330229.00

Burnaby

967

49241

0.236

0.239

0.155

0.158

0.391

0.397

101

99

96

9330230.01

Burnaby

1084

65797

0.198

0.268

0.123

0.167

0.321

0.435

164

161

9330230.02

Burnaby

996

40909

0.292

0.246

0.182

0.154

0.475

0.400

304

107

104

9330231.00

Burnaby

1267

57449

0.265

0.313

0.153

0.181

0.418

0.495

184

269

266

9330232.00

Burnaby

1192

66408

0.215

0.295

0.132

0.180

0.347

0.475

26

232

229

9330233.00

Burnaby

1122

52734

0.255

0.278

0.143

0.155

0.398

0.432

122

160

157

9330234.00

Burnaby

1216

63052

0.231

0.301

0.127

0.165

0.359

0.466

34

218

215

9330235.02

Burnaby

1089

51865

0.252

0.269

0.145

0.155

0.397

0.424

119

151

148

9330235.03

Burnaby

832

33103

0.302

0.206

0.217

0.148

0.518

0.354

367

53

50

9330235.04

Burnaby

936

37644

0.298

0.232

0.164

0.127

0.463

0.359

282

56

53

9330236.00

Burnaby

1343

78485

0.205

0.332

0.114

0.185

0.320

0.517

300

297

9330237.00

Burnaby

969

43436

0.268

0.240

0.180

0.161

0.448

0.401

254

108

105

9330238.01

Burnaby

1149

53630

0.257

0.284

0.134

0.148

0.391

0.432

98

159

156

9330238.02

Burnaby

1021

50427

0.243

0.253

0.152

0.158

0.395

0.410

111

123

120

9330239.00

Burnaby

992

48706

0.245

0.245

0.160

0.160

0.404

0.406

143

115

112

9330240.01

Burnaby

1150

45797

0.301

0.284

0.160

0.151

0.462

0.436

281

166

163

9330240.02

Burnaby

973

45334

0.258

0.241

0.174

0.163

0.432

0.403

222

111

108

9330241.00

Burnaby

1043

47824

0.262

0.258

0.157

0.155

0.419

0.412

186

128

125

9330242.00

Burnaby

1068

49571

0.259

0.264

0.160

0.164

0.419

0.428

187

155

152

9330243.01

Burnaby

1029

49222

0.251

0.254

0.158

0.160

0.409

0.415

159

134

131

9330243.02

Burnaby

1123

52665

0.256

0.278

0.132

0.143

0.388

0.421

94

144

141

9330250.01

Remote

1259

60918

0.248

0.311

0.161

0.202

0.409

0.513

160

291

288

9330250.02

Remote

1567

84220

0.223

0.388

0.136

0.236

0.359

0.623

36

393

390

9330260.02

Port Moody

1218

51909

0.282

0.301

0.194

0.207

0.475

0.508

306

288

285

9330260.04

Port Moody

1221

60483

0.242

0.302

0.176

0.219

0.418

0.521

185

308

305

9330260.05

Port Moody

1051

57991

0.218

0.260

0.178

0.212

0.395

0.472

113

229

226

48

9330260.06

Port Moody

1425

82202

0.208

0.352

0.132

0.223

0.340

0.576

20

364

361

9330260.07

Port Moody

1214

59818

0.244

0.300

0.165

0.203

0.408

0.504

157

280

277

9330260.08

Port Moody

1705

76471

0.268

0.422

0.139

0.220

0.407

0.642

152

399

396

9330280.00

Coquitlam

1122

72704

0.185

0.277

0.148

0.222

0.334

0.500

14

276

273

9330281.01

Coquitlam

1234

67724

0.219

0.305

0.166

0.231

0.384

0.536

85

332

329

9330281.02

Coquitlam

1082

51529

0.252

0.268

0.213

0.226

0.465

0.494

287

267

264

9330282.00

Coquitlam

1009

44975

0.269

0.250

0.225

0.209

0.495

0.458

350

201

198

9330283.00

Coquitlam

952

39968

0.286

0.235

0.240

0.197

0.526

0.433

374

161

158

9330284.01

Coquitlam

974

41328

0.283

0.241

0.212

0.181

0.495

0.421

351

147

144

9330284.02

Coquitlam

1072

49369

0.261

0.265

0.210

0.214

0.471

0.479

296

242

239

9330285.01

Coquitlam

783

30500

0.308

0.194

0.298

0.187

0.606

0.381

400

79

76

9330285.02

Coquitlam

1145

66972

0.205

0.283

0.168

0.232

0.374

0.516

66

296

293

9330286.01

Coquitlam

1166

63695

0.220

0.288

0.174

0.228

0.393

0.516

107

298

295

9330286.02

Coquitlam

1177

63456

0.223

0.291

0.159

0.208

0.382

0.499

81

274

271

9330286.03

Coquitlam

1211

71735

0.203

0.299

0.155

0.228

0.357

0.528

32

323

320

9330287.01

Coquitlam

1202

55277

0.261

0.297

0.181

0.207

0.442

0.504

245

282

279

9330287.02

Coquitlam

1345

71784

0.225

0.333

0.160

0.236

0.385

0.569

86

359

356

9330287.06

Coquitlam

1101

39162

0.338

0.272

0.240

0.193

0.577

0.466

398

217

214

9330287.08

Coquitlam

979

43850

0.268

0.242

0.227

0.205

0.495

0.447

349

184

181

9330287.09

Coquitlam

797

35096

0.273

0.197

0.273

0.198

0.546

0.395

379

98

95

9330287.10

Coquitlam

1689

70393

0.288

0.418

0.155

0.225

0.443

0.643

246

401

398

9330287.11

Coquitlam

1258

61707

0.245

0.311

0.163

0.207

0.407

0.518

153

304

301

9330287.12

Coquitlam

1497

55302

0.325

0.370

0.195

0.222

0.520

0.593

370

377

374

9330287.13

Coquitlam

1580

43397

0.437

0.391

0.255

0.228

0.692

0.618

404

391

388

9330287.14

Coquitlam

1707

63771

0.321

0.422

0.181

0.238

0.502

0.660

353

404

401

9330290.02

Port Coquitlam

956

39213

0.293

0.236

0.259

0.209

0.551

0.446

384

182

179

9330290.03

Port Coquitlam

1245

59376

0.252

0.308

0.184

0.225

0.436

0.533

233

331

328

9330290.04

Port Coquitlam

1360

77540

0.210

0.336

0.152

0.243

0.363

0.580

45

367

364

9330290.05

Port Coquitlam

1236

71176

0.208

0.306

0.150

0.219

0.358

0.525

33

313

310

9330291.01

Port Coquitlam

1023

46340

0.265

0.253

0.212

0.202

0.477

0.455

310

194

191

9330291.02

Port Coquitlam

1128

56627

0.239

0.279

0.187

0.219

0.426

0.498

205

272

269

9330292.01

Port Coquitlam

1181

69296

0.204

0.292

0.158

0.226

0.363

0.518

44

303

300

9330292.03

Port Coquitlam

1267

57178

0.266

0.313

0.184

0.216

0.449

0.530

259

326

323

9330292.04

Port Coquitlam

1252

60470

0.248

0.310

0.190

0.237

0.439

0.547

242

340

337

49

9330400.02

Maple Ridge

1159

55502

0.251

0.287

0.208

0.238

0.459

0.525

276

312

309

9330400.03

Maple Ridge

1441

66921

0.258

0.356

0.170

0.234

0.428

0.590

210

373

370

9330400.04

Maple Ridge

1516

64150

0.284

0.375

0.181

0.240

0.465

0.615

286

389

386

9330401.01

Maple Ridge

1025

44870

0.274

0.253

0.250

0.231

0.524

0.484

373

251

248

9330401.02

Maple Ridge

882

37050

0.286

0.218

0.278

0.212

0.563

0.430

394

156

153

9330402.01

Maple Ridge

1023

45224

0.271

0.253

0.242

0.226

0.514

0.479

363

241

238

9330402.02

Maple Ridge

1126

54227

0.249

0.278

0.211

0.236

0.460

0.514

279

293

290

9330403.01

Maple Ridge

1085

55951

0.233

0.268

0.193

0.223

0.426

0.491

202

261

258

9330403.03

Maple Ridge

1143

50992

0.269

0.283

0.214

0.225

0.483

0.507

323

284

281

9330403.04

Maple Ridge

1160

61258

0.227

0.287

0.175

0.221

0.402

0.508

136

287

284

9330403.05

Maple Ridge

1180

64566

0.219

0.292

0.177

0.236

0.397

0.528

116

322

319

9330404.01

Maple Ridge

1368

64927

0.253

0.338

0.182

0.244

0.435

0.582

231

369

366

9330404.02

Maple Ridge

1378

62027

0.267

0.341

0.184

0.235

0.450

0.576

261

363

360

9330410.02

Pitt Meadows

1025

50586

0.243

0.254

0.213

0.222

0.456

0.475

271

234

231

9330410.03

Pitt Meadows

1167

60372

0.232

0.289

0.187

0.233

0.419

0.522

188

309

306

9330410.04

Pitt Meadows

1000

57844

0.207

0.247

0.195

0.233

0.403

0.480

140

245

242

9330500.00

Langley

1049

50069

0.251

0.259

0.237

0.244

0.488

0.504

336

281

278

9330501.01

Langley

1026

50808

0.242

0.254

0.225

0.236

0.468

0.490

291

257

254

9330501.02

Langley

1192

68370

0.209

0.295

0.186

0.262

0.396

0.557

114

351

348

9330501.03

Langley

1112

64036

0.208

0.275

0.190

0.250

0.398

0.525

125

316

313

9330502.01

Langley

1150

65153

0.212

0.284

0.174

0.233

0.386

0.518

88

302

299

9330502.02

Langley

964

49983

0.231

0.238

0.246

0.253

0.477

0.492

311

262

259

9330502.03

Langley

1255

68911

0.218

0.310

0.168

0.239

0.386

0.549

91

343

340

9330502.05

Langley

1120

57278

0.235

0.277

0.207

0.244

0.441

0.521

244

307

304

9330502.06

Langley

1289

73549

0.210

0.319

0.152

0.231

0.362

0.549

43

344

341

9330502.07

Langley

1137

59828

0.228

0.281

0.198

0.245

0.426

0.526

204

317

314

9330503.01

Langley

1333

73160

0.219

0.330

0.162

0.244

0.380

0.573

76

361

358

9330503.03

Langley

1288

65561

0.236

0.319

0.176

0.238

0.412

0.556

171

349

346

9330503.06

Langley

911

39050

0.280

0.225

0.272

0.219

0.552

0.444

385

178

175

9330503.07

Langley

651

24313

0.321

0.161

0.380

0.190

0.701

0.351

405

49

46

9330503.08

Langley

939

40249

0.280

0.232

0.257

0.213

0.537

0.445

376

180

177

9330503.09

Langley

1097

38309

0.344

0.271

0.282

0.223

0.626

0.494

402

268

265

9330504.01

Langley

1423

58473

0.292

0.352

0.199

0.240

0.491

0.592

343

376

373

9330504.03

Langley

1366

68269

0.240

0.338

0.171

0.240

0.411

0.578

168

365

362

50

9330504.04

Langley

1179

59072

0.239

0.291

0.197

0.240

0.437

0.532

239

330

327

9330504.05

Langley

1320

64692

0.245

0.326

0.187

0.249

0.432

0.575

221

362

359

9330504.06

Langley

1161

62292

0.224

0.287

0.189

0.242

0.412

0.529

172

324

321

9330505.00

Langley

1406

65521

0.257

0.348

0.174

0.235

0.432

0.583

223

370

367

9330506.01

Langley

1147

49233

0.280

0.284

0.240

0.243

0.519

0.527

369

320

317

9330506.02

Langley

1098

48037

0.274

0.272

0.240

0.238

0.514

0.509

365

289

286

51

Appendix B: Linear Regression Analysis

1

Using linear regression model for Greater Vancouver

Using linear regression model for Vancouver

Census
Tract

Municipality

Neighbourhood

Transport Cost
(fraction of
monthly income)

Transportation
Cost (% of
monthly income)

Walk
Score

Predicted
Transportation
1
Cost

Predicted
Transportation
2
Cost

9330059.05

Vancouver

Downtown

0.088554802

8.855480229

96

13.65085

8.118991078

9330063.00

Vancouver

West End

0.075154288

7.515428786

94

13.87867

8.566060465

9330057.02

Vancouver

Strathcona

0.091365043

9.136504325

93

13.99259

8.789595159

9330046.00

Vancouver

Kitslano

0.093555206

9.355520557

89

14.44824

9.683733934

9330041.01

Vancouver

Fairview

0.097412258

9.741225818

89

14.44824

9.683733934

9330038.00

Vancouver

0.093783133

9.378313316

88

14.56216

9.907268627

9330054.01

Vancouver

Mount Pleasant
Grandview-
Woodland

0.1072838

10.72838001

86

14.78999

10.35433801

9330030.00

Vancouver

Riley Park

0.125966772

12.59667721

80

15.47347

11.69554618

9330029.00

Vancouver

0.106639825

10.66398247

77

15.81521

12.36615026

9330033.00

Vancouver

South Cambie
Kensington-Cedar
Cottage

0.12979033

12.979033

76

15.92913

12.58968495

9330044.00

Vancouver

West Point Grey

0.128453916

12.84539162

74

16.15696

13.03675434

9330005.00

Vancouver

0.119112765

11.91127654

72

16.38479

13.48382373

9330036.01

Vancouver

Marpole
Renfrew-
Collingwood

0.136249536

13.6249536

72

16.38479

13.48382373

9330027.00

Vancouver

Arbutus-Ridge

0.157050971

15.70509711

70

16.61261

13.93089311

9330053.01

Vancouver

Hastings-Sunrise

0.137563131

13.75631307

69

16.72653

14.15442781

9330024.00

Vancouver

Dunbar-Southland

0.163721154

16.37211541

68

16.84044

14.3779625

9330021.00

Vancouver

Shaughnessy

0.163153

16.31529995

66

17.06827

14.82503189

9330013.02

Vancouver

Sunset

0.148827979

14.88279794

63

17.41001

15.49563597

9330007.02

Vancouver

Kerrisdale

0.167006276

16.70062755

63

17.41001

15.49563597

9330001.02

Vancouver

0.157788504

15.77885038

62

17.52393

15.71917066

9330014.01

Vancouver

Killarney
Victoria-
Fraserview

0.130917122

13.09171218

62

17.52393

15.71917066

9330010.02

Vancouver

Oakridge

0.154851572

15.48515724

61

17.63784

15.94270536

9330150.00

Richmond

Sea Island

0.179178288

17.9178288

22

22.08049

9330149.03

Richmond

Thompson

0.174576226

17.45762261

57

18.09350

9330142.03

Richmond

West Richmond

0.160820195

16.0820195

48

19.11873

9330141.00

Richmond

Steveston

0.167191017

16.7191017

92

14.10650

9330151.01

Richmond

City Centre

0.169422973

16.94229733

70

16.61261

9330144.04

Richmond

South Arm

0.164056224

16.40562236

27

21.51092

9330151.06

Richmond

East Richmond

0.17806202

17.80620198

82

15.24564

9330140.04

Richmond
North
Vancouver

Hamilton

0.181933296

18.19332956

37

20.37178

Marine-Hamilton

0.159863701

15.98637012

85

14.90390

9330102.00

52

9330135.00

North
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
West
Vancouver
West
Vancouver
West
Vancouver
West
Vancouver
West
Vancouver

9330161.06

Delta

Ladner

0.184944173

18.49441731

90

14.33433

9330160.03

Delta

Tsawwassen

0.178775305

17.87753052

50

18.89090

9330170.03

White Rock

White Rock

0.195718061

19.57180612

72

16.38479

9330186.01

Surrey

Whalley

0.217395779

21.73957795

35

20.59961

9330190.05

Surrey

City Centre

0.201957246

20.19572457

85

14.90390

9330189.03

Surrey

Guildford

0.216760551

21.67605511

82

15.24564

9330187.09

Surrey

Fleetwood

0.216618269

21.66182685

72

16.38479

9330185.16

Surrey

Newton

0.210087971

21.00879709

93

13.99259

9330183.03

Surrey

Cloverdale

0.228722222

22.87222219

78

15.70130

9330181.09

South Surrey

0.240031688

24.00316883

35

20.59961

Queensborough

0.16470362

16.47036197

52

18.66307

Glenbrook North

0.14388669

14.38866903

58

17.97958

Downtown

0.104270961

10.42709608

97

13.53693

Glenbrook South

0.159858005

15.98580048

58

17.97958

9330210.00

Surrey
New
Westminster
New
Westminster
New
Westminster
New
Westminster
New
Westminster

0.140609877

14.06098768

62

17.52393

9330243.02

Burnaby

Brunette Creek
Simon Fraser
University

0.143226205

14.32262046

72

16.38479

9330239.00

Burnaby

Brentwood

0.160246557

16.02465573

55

18.32133

9330242.00

Burnaby

Capitol Hill

0.163721002

16.37210021

50

18.89090

9330229.00

Burnaby

Burnaby Hospital

0.157703305

15.77033052

57

18.09350

9330223.02

Burnaby

Edmonds

0.13717872

13.71787205

77

15.81521

9330224.01

Burnaby

Highgate

0.128156432

12.81564318

78

15.70130

9330226.03

Burnaby

Metrotown

0.113543957

11.35439567

97

13.53693

9330237.00

Burnaby

Montecito

0.161115257

16.11152566

50

18.89090

9330221.03

Burnaby

South Slope

0.17348901

17.34890102

40

20.03004

9330241.00

Burnaby

Burnaby Heights

0.15457724

15.45772402

55

18.32133

9330260.08

Port Moody

Anmore

0.219817298

21.98172982

42

19.80221

9330260.04

Port Moody

College Park

0.219433886

21.94338865

38

20.25787

9330103.00
9330101.04
9330101.02
9330104.00
9330100.02
9330133.01
9330133.02
9330132.00
9330130.03

9330200.00
9330205.02
9330206.00
9330209.00

Mahon

0.157458677

15.74586766

62

17.52393

Central Lonsdale

0.145762131

14.57621309

82

15.24564

Lower Lonsdale

0.15086794

15.08679398

92

14.10650

Grand Boulevard

0.173636979

17.36369786

65

17.18218

Moodyville

0.163874349

16.3874349

67

16.95436

Horseshoe Bay

0.197813091

19.78130906

62

17.52393

Caulfield

0.203318672

20.33186724

63

17.41001

Westmount

0.204331092

20.43310923

18

22.53615

Ambleside

0.147981576

14.79815757

88

14.56216

British Properties

0.193119829

19.31198288

23.78921

53

9330260.02

Port Moody

9330287.02

Coquitlam

9330287.14

Port Moody
Centre

0.206996662

20.69966619

80

15.47347

0.236070765

23.60707652

13

23.10572

Coquitlam

Northeast
Westwood
Plateau

0.237808781

23.78087811

23

21.96658

9330287.01

Coquitlam

Hockaday-Nestor

0.206734288

20.67342878

28

21.39701

9330287.08

Coquitlam

Town Centre

0.204697154

20.46971538

82

15.24564

9330287.11

Coquitlam

Eagle Ridge

0.206712452

20.67124523

77

15.81521

9330286.02

Coquitlam

Ranch Park

0.208056655

20.80566546

18

22.53615

9330286.01

Coquitlam

Central Coquitlam

0.227876767

22.7876767

35

20.59961

9330281.01

Coquitlam

Cape Horn

0.231025888

23.10258876

43

19.68830

9330282.00

Coquitlam

0.208930965

20.89309653

62

17.52393

9330283.00

0.197381137

19.73811367

62

17.52393

0.21862017

21.86201704

62

17.52393

9330290.02

Coquitlam
Port
Coquitlam
Port
Coquitlam

Maillardville
Cariboo-
Burquitlam
North Port
Coquitlam
South Port
Coquitlam

0.209094485

20.9094485

70

16.61261

9330403.04

Maple Ridge

The Ridge

0.221105403

22.11054027

48

19.11873

9330402.02

Maple Ridge

Haney

0.236020503

23.6020503

40

20.03004

9330403.03

Maple Ridge

Hammond

0.224536322

22.45363218

58

17.97958

9330404.01

Maple Ridge

East Haney

0.244096503

24.40965035

15

22.87789

9330404.02

Maple Ridge

Yennadon

0.234988858

23.4988858

10

23.44746

9330400.02

Maple Ridge

Albion

0.238431673

23.84316729

13

23.10572

9330410.03

Pitt Meadows

0.23293165

23.29316504

65

17.18218

9330410.02

Pitt Meadows

0.221753722

22.17537222

12

23.21963

9330410.04

Pitt Meadows

0.23302172

23.30217196

24.01703

9330504.03

Langley

0.239949668

23.99496676

45

19.46047

9330504.01

Langley

0.240225808

24.02258084

57

18.09350

9330503.03

Langley

City Centre
West Pitt
Meadows
North Pitt
Meadows
Walnut Grove-
Fort Langley
Willowbrook-Tall
Timbers
Langley City-
Murrayville

0.23761258

23.76125796

63

17.41001

9330502.05

Langley

Campbell Valley

0.243963437

24.39634372

12

23.21963

9330505.00

Langley

Glen Valley

0.235123312

23.51233124

18

22.53615

9330506.02

Langley

Aldergrove

0.237690675

23.76906749

62

17.52393

9330291.02

54
Linear Regression Results: Greater Vancouver
Linear Regression
Regression Statistics
R

0.62381

R Square

0.38913

Adjusted R Square

0.38264

Standard Error

3.49621

Total Number Of Cases

96
Transportation Cost (% of monthly income) = 24.5866 - 0.1139 * Walk Score

ANOVA
d.f.
Regression

SS

MS

F
59.8799

1.

731.94013

731.94013

Residual

94.

1,149.00623

12.22347

Total

95.

1,880.94636

Coefficients

Standard
Error

LCL

UCL

Intercept

24.5866

0.94466

22.35091

Walk Score

-0.11391

0.01472

-0.14875

26.8223
0.07907

T (2%)

p-level
1.12667E11

t Stat
26.02698
-7.73821

p-level

H0 (2%) rejected?

0.E+0
1.12667E11

Yes
Yes

2.36667

Linear Regression Results: Vancouver

Linear Regression
Regression Statistics
R

0.91653

R Square

0.84003

Adjusted R Square

0.83204

Standard Error

1.16481

Total Number Of Cases

22
Transportation Cost (% of monthly income) = 29.5783 - 0.2235 * Walk Score

ANOVA
d.f.

MS

1.

142.49896

142.49896

105.0272

Residual

20.

27.13563

1.35678

Total

21.

169.6346

Regression

SS

Coefficients

Standard
Error

UCL

t Stat
17.66667
10.24828

29.57832

1.67424

25.34587

33.81077

Walk Score

-0.22353

0.02181

-0.27867

-0.16839

2.52798

0.

LCL

Intercept

T (2%)

p-level

p-level
1.13687E13
0.

H0 (2%) rejected?
Yes
Yes