Page 219
THE JOURNEY TO WORK GAME
Howard S. Biel
Program in Urban and Environmental Studies
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
ABSTRACT
The Journey to Work game is a board game concerned
with the daily movement of workers from their resdences to workplaces within a metropolitan area.
Players (workers) attempt to get to work on time,
selecting a particular mode of urban transportation and a specific route from their homes to
pl&ces of work. Points are accumulated based upon
deviations from punctuality and travel times
spent getting to work, and players compiling the
fewest points during a simulated one-week or twoweek playing period are declared winners of the
game. The game may be used as a classroom exercise in high school or college level courses, and
is capable of accommodating 2-25 students on a
single game board. Two particularly worthwhile
objectives of the game are (1) revealing the
clearly disadvantageous commuting situation of
inner-city residents, and (2) estimating modal
split consequences of manipulating policy variables such as bus fare, travel time, parking
cost, transit accessibility, and surface congestion. In addition, an important behavioral component of the game is noteworthy: players are asked
to iteratively identify and discuss the learning
process which occurred as they (typically)
converged to an habitual mode and route choice
pattern.
board.
Journey 1£ Work is decidedly academic in nature,
and focus is directed toward several key issues
in urban transportation geography and planning.
Of particular interest are the following
considerations: (1) the spatial mismatch of
low income central city residences with peripheral metropolitan employment districts, and
the reverse commuter transit problem, (2) tradeoffs among various attributes of urban transportation modes influencing journey-to-work
vehicular selection, (3) the learning process
concerning mode choice, route selection, and
human spatial behavior, and (4) characteristics
and sensitivities of work trip mass transit
demand. The extent to which each of these
issues is examined is clearly a function of the
expertise of the players and game director
(instructor), as well as the amount of time
spent playing and analyzing the game.
INTRODUCTION
The reverse commuter transit problem refers to
the journey to work of car-less central city
residents to decentralized workplace locations
in the metropolitan area. Since urban public
transportation systems have tended to remain
focused upon the Central Business District (CBD) ,
resulting in generally effective "outside-in"
transit service, mass transportation from the
inner city out to the suburbs as well as between
urban districts not located in the downtown city
core has usually been inadequate. Increased
attention to this problem followed the publication of the McCone Commission Report regarding
the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles. This
report highlighted the relationship existing
between transportation and poverty in general,
and more particularly, the difficulty and
inability of south central Los Angeles residents
to fulfill basic needs (getting to employment,
educational,shopping, and recreational
opportunities) because of costly and inefficient
public transport service.
The Journey to Work game l is a board game concerned with the daily movement of workers from
their residences to workplaces within a metropolitan area. Players (workers) attempt to get
to work on time, selecting a particular mode of
urban transportation and a specific route from
their homes to places of work. Points are
accumulated based upon deviations from
punctuality and travel times spent getting to
work, and players compiling the fewest points
during a simulated one-week or two-week playing
period are declared winners of the game. The
game may be used as a classroom exercise in high
school or college level courses, and is capable
of accomodating 2-25 students on a single game
In the Journey to Work game this problem is
simulated through the usage of a hypothetical
metropolitan area with constituent advantaged
and disadvantaged worker residents. Given an
existing distribution of employment districts
and public transit system, certain players find
themselves in a highly desirable position;
having access to a private auto, and either being
located "in close proximity to their workplace or
nearby a convenient transport artery which
connects their residence to place of work. Other
players may be less fortunate; perhaps residing
in the central city and working in the urban
periphery, without having the opportunity to use
private transportation in their journey to work.
lSpecial thanks are due Paul King, Jack Jakubs,
and Larry Brown, Departments of Geography,
Columbia University, Indiana University, and
Ohio State University, respectively, for their
numerous and helpful suggestions. The remaining
errors are my own.
Realistic biases have been incorporated within
the game structure and disadvantaged players may
quickly realize their inability to win or even
to do reasonably well against the privileged set
of work trippers. To encourage their persistence
in playing, therefore, the game permits
evaluation of players from several different
Page 1
Page 220
perspectives. Players who consistently reduce
their time-in-transit through the simulated game
period, or who reduce their total points
accumulated per game day, are recognized along
with the officially designated winners of the
game (those who minimize total points compiled).
Other key issues receiving attention in the game
are explicitly related to modal split, or the
division of work trips among the available means
of transportation: private auto, rail transit,
bus transit, car pool, taxicab, and walk.
Consideration of trade-offs among mod?l
attributes influencing journey-to-work vehicular
choice, includes the fundamental question of the
worker's value of time. Implied in the selection
of a particular mode is the player's preference
for work trip speed versus the cost of using
different means of transport. For example, a
player choosing between his private automobile
and one of several forms of mass transit, must in
some manner weigh the advantages of convenience
and speed against such alternative factors as
cost, safety, and reliability. Players select
modes based upon a considerable amount of
information presented before the game begins, in
addition to experience gained through game play,
regarding performance characteristics of each
journey-to-work mode.
The learning process relating to mode and route
choice is simply the summation and extension of
the previously mentioned trade-off consideration.
Players developing a successful strategy early in
the game may rapidly fall into distinctively
routinized behavior, both with respect to their
consistent selection of a means of transport and
specific departure time from home, and also in
terms of a particular route leading from
residence to workplace. Alternatively,
disadvantaged players and players encountering
difficulties during preliminary work trips
generally require many more game "trials" before
any discernible stereo-typical behavior emerges.
Furthermore, some players may experiment quite
extensively with various mode, departure time,
and routing combinations, whereas more conservative players may make only slight alterations in
their successive journey-to-work decisions.
Finally, the fourth issue incorporated within the
Journey to Work game concerns the characteristics
and sensitivities of work trip mass transit
demand. As the game is played, the spatial
pattern of transit usage and reliance changes
to reflect workers' independent decisions of
mode and route choice. Often, these decisions
translate to an expected and relatively stable
profile of mass transit patrons, including a
large proportion of the so-called captive riders
of public transportation -- namely the car-less
players in this simulation -- and a small
percentage of the so-called choice riders of
public transit -- perhaps represented by some
suburban car-owning game players journeying by
bus or rail to workplaces in the CBD.
An increasing imbalance between private and
Page 2
public transportation system patronage in most
metropolitan areas has resulted from continuous
additions of urban travellers to the "choice
rider" classification, and simultaneously,
fewer choice riders choosing the public transit
option. Conceivably, more choice riders would
utilize some form of mass transit if one or more
critical service variables were changed in a
favorable direction. For example, if buses were
cheaper and faster more patronage might be
realized. Thus, in the Journey to ~ game,
sensitivities of travel demand are simulated by
altering certain designated attributes of
particular work trip modes, and identifying
subsequent changes in vehicular usage.
DIRECTOR'S (INSTRUCTOR'S) GUIDELINES
There are two objectives of the Journey to Work
game. The first is to identify and analyze one
major dimension of the urban transportation
problem, namely the reverse commuter transit
problem. The second is to demonstrate the
nature of modal split and route selection in
journey-to-work travel as determined by the
players' cognitive processes of perception,
attitude, and learning.
At the outset of game play, a game director is
selected from among the players, or is external
to the game (class instructor). The director's
purpose concerns the coordination of game play,
the supervision of game rules, and the discussion of worthwhile concepts and problems
generating from the operation of the game. The
individual chosen as director should be qualified
to settle procedural disputes aired by game
participants, and also to incisively direct
examination of key issues and related underlying
processes with which the game is fundamentally
concerned.
Journey to Work proceeds in simulated daily
periods. Focus is directed toward the morning
rush hours, beginning at 7:45 A.M. and
progressing by simulated (game time) 5 minute
intervals until all player workers have arrived
at their proper places of employment. Players
attempt: (1) to get to work by 9:00 A.M. each
morning of a one-week (5 iteration) or two-week
(10 iteration) playing period; (2) to minimize
their expenditures of time and cost in getting
to work; and (3) to leave their residences as
late as possible, so as to minimize opportunity
costs associated with premature departures from
home (for example, the "costs" of not being able
to sleep later, or of having a hurried breakfast).
Though all players would like to reach their
workplaces at exactly 9:00 A.M., circumstances
which occur during the journey to work often
prevent achieving the ideal arrival time.
Whether sub-optimality in arrival time is due
to poor planning on the part of the worker or
unforeseen situations during the work trip,
the player must be assigned a number of arrival
points. A 9:00 arrival time earns (costs)
Page 221
the player zero points.
Departure points are likewise easily explained
and derived. The earlier a player decides to
leave his residence, the more departure time
points he is assessed. Players departing from
home just before 9:00 A.M. will minimize the
opportunity costs of a premature start, however
increase the chances of arriving late at the
workplace, and consequently, of receiving more
severe delinquent arrival points.
Minimization of journey-to-work time and cost
expenditures is slightly more complicated, with
respect to an operational explanation. Optimal
(minimum) travel times via the best available
mode, or combination of modes, between all
residences and all workplaces have been
calculated. Players are hence able to compare
their efforts concerning travel time with some
computed standard. All players are not expected
to duplicate their corresponding optimal time -in fact it may be. impossible to do so in some
cases where private automobiles are not available.
Still, the difference between actual work trip
time and hypothetically best time gives an
efficiency score upon which travel time point
assignment is based. Because of substantial
cost differences of alternative means of urban
transportation, the efficiency score is then
weighted (multiplied by) a cost factor; 1.0,
2.0, or 3.0, depending upon which primary mode
of transport was used in getting to work. The
resulting product is defined as travel time
points.
By summing the three point scores (arrival time,
departure time, and travel time) for each player,
a daily total point score is directly determined.
After the 5 or 10 iteration playing period has
terminated, daily total points are summed per
player, and the player having the fewest total
points is declared the winner.
PLAYERS' INSTRUCTIONS
The following iterative approach (which has
deliberately been segmented into discrete steps
for discussion purposes) describes the procedure
utilized in game play. First, each player
selects 1 of 5 residence cards to determine his
residential location -- cards are returned to
the deck, thus permitting a completely random
selection for every participant.
Next,each player selects 1 of 5 workplace cards to
determine his workplace location -- and again,
cards are returned to the deck. Alternatively,
players may be assigned both residential and
workplace locations by the game director. In
any case, there are 25 possible players on the
board at one time (in one game) unless 2 or
more players "double-up" (i.e. 2 or more players
independently journey to work from the same
urban residence to the same workplace). It is
suggested that no more than 25 players participate on one board in one game, as the board
becomes excessively cluttered, the time required
to play the game increases proportionately, and
some players may lose interest if action is too
slow. In fact, based upon past experience
playing the Journey to Work game, an ideal
number of participants ranges between 5 and 15.
Depending upon their residential selection or
assignment, players roll the die to determine
auto ownership. The chances of having access
to a private car correspond to spatially
variant percentages of car-less families
throughout the metropolitan region.
Players then carefully study the game board and
independently evaluate possible routings to
their designated workplaces. Obviously, those
work trippers owning automobiles have the most
flexibility in their routing decisions,
however each of the available transport modes
and their respective routings, travel times,
and costs should be thoroughly investigated.
Players with private cars do not have to drive
to work. Mode and route selections are quite
modifiable, subject to change on succeeding days
if found unsatisfactory, while subject to
retention if found acceptable.
As mentioned earlier, circumstances encountered
during the work trip may negate careful planning
with respect to arrival time, departure time,
and travel time and cost. These circumstances
(both fortunate and unfortunate to the tripper)
are governed by the selection of Traffic
Condition Cards and Time Adjustment Cards,
which will be discussed more fully below.
Although the extent of the "fortune" or
"misfortune" is not revealed to players
before the game begins, probabilities of
misfortune have been calculated per mode of
travel and per geographic section of the
region. The game director may choose to
experiment with this information, to see
whether advance knowledge of misfortune
probabilities (involving journey-to-work time
delays) influences modal choice and/or the
learning process of players.
Each player decides when to leave his residence
every morning (7:45, 7:50, ••• , 8:00, ••• ,
etc. -- simulated time) and which of the
following modes or combination of modes of
urban transportation to use in journeying from
residence to workplace: (a) private automobile
can be used only if the player owns an auto,
(b) rail transit ••• can be used by any player,
(c) bus transit ••• can be used by any player,
(d) carpool ••• can be used by any player
owning an auto, as well as any car-less player
who rolls a 1, 2, 3, or 4, before play begins
(car-less players have only one chance per game
to gain the opportunity to use this mode),
(e) taxicab ••• can be used by any player, or
(f) walking ••• can be used by any player; but
players can only walk within and not between
game board zones.
-----The game director begins actual play by asking
Page 3
Page 222
which players are prepared to start their
respective work trips at designated time intervals, starting with 7:45 A.M. each day
(iteration). Intervals are 5 simulated
minutes apart, so the director adjusts the game
clock uninterruptedly until at lease one player
has started his commuting trip. That is; the
game director informs players that it is 7:45 -if no players wish to depart from their homes
until later, the director "moves" the clock to
7:50, ••• ; and so the process continues until 1
or more players decide to begin their morning
journeys.
At each 5 minute interval (again, referring to
game minutes and not actual time), each player
who has left or who is leaving for his workplace,
rolls the die. A roll of 1, 2, 3, or 4
signifies normal journey to work conditions and
permits the player to move in a horizontal or
vertical fashion toward his proper workplace.
The Journey to Work game board represents a
major metropolitan area of the United States,
and is marked off in a concentric pattern of
circles. These circles are spaced farther
apart with increasing distance from the center,
and are transected by a series of sectors
radiating from the middle point. The circles
and sectors define individually-labelled urban
zones which are much smaller at the center than
at the periphery.
Players move their tokens according to a movement schedule which is designed with respect to
the relative speeds of the different transportation modes. All movements are made with respect
to the underlying grid pattern of the game board.
This means that regardless of the mode in
question, moving "n" number of zones refers to
the zones of the board (labelled with letters and
numbers, from A-FF and from 1-21).2
After every player who has started, or who is
starting his journey to work rolls the die, 5
game minutes elapse on the Journey to Work clock,
and the director signals the beginning of a "new"
5 minute interval. For instance, if the director
informs players that it is 8:00 (simulated time),
all players wanting to start their work trip and
all workers in-transit systematically roll the
die. FolloWing their corresponding board moves,
the director announces the correct time, 8:05,
and so on proceeds through the game.
If a player rolls a 5 or a 6 on the die, he must
pick a Traffic Condition Card (if 5) or a Time
Adjustment Card (if 6). The Traffic Condition
Cards apply to the entire playing board, and do
not necessarily affect the player drawing the
card. Therefore, those players rolling a 5 must
move their tokens the same distance which they
would normally move, unless they are specifically
affected by the traffic condition. "Active"
2The Journey to Work game board and other special
equipment necessary for the gaming/simulation are
available upon request from the author.
Page 4
Traffic Condition Cards (those cards which impose
favorable or unfavorable consequences for a
designated, continued period of time) should be
placed face-up in the lower left hand corner of
the game board for the duration of their
effectiveness. In addition, accidents,
congestion, and other abnormal traffic
conditions should be marked in appropriate
zones, where possible, using markers or pins.
The Time Adjustment Cards affect only the player
who rolls the 6. Due to unusual circumstances,
the player rolling a 6 realizes either an
acceleration in or impediment to his normal
movement behavior. The player must then select
from the proper Time Adjustment Cards deck,
according to the particular mode of transport
being used when the 6 is rolled. Cards are
thereupon returned to the bottom of the same
stack.
Players thus proceed to their respective
workplaces, attempting to consume as little
time as possible in their commutation, yet
trying to reach their destination very close to
the optimal arrival time (9:00). The game
director coordinates play throughout the
iteration, and after all players have
successfully arrived at their places of work,
points are totalled for the completed round.
The exact same steps outlined above are
followed for each iteration (day) of game play,
and total points are summed over all iterations
to determine the winner(s) of the Journey to
Work game.
DISCUSSION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GAME
The Journey to Work game is fundamentally
designed to be a learning tool, and its merits
rest on its ability to stimulate questions,
discussion, and learning. Thus, although
participants are encouraged to discuss
strategies and decision making problems with
each other and with the game director
throughout the playing period, without postgame review of "what went on," much of the
learning purpose of the game is sacrificed.
Subsequent analysis of the game should be
supervised by the director, and all players
are encouraged to actively participate in the
session. Several noteworthy points which will
presumably be considered frequently in review
periods are now listed and discussed.
Perhaps most obviously, players will notice that
the cards have been stacked against workers
commuting from central city residential
locations. It is nearly impossible to be
victorious from the inner-city residence in
terms of absolute winners of the game (summing
daily total point scores). Additionally, the
other residential sites located reasonably close
to the Central Business District are not as
favorable as the more remote locations with
higher probabilities of car ownership. The game
board and ''hypothetical'' city are actually
Page 223
modelled after Columbus, Ohio, and with the
exception of the rail transit line addition, the
board fairly represents the metropolitan situation. Players commuting from the most central
residence are therefore, correspondingly, black
ghetto work trippers.
Employment centers on the board coincide with the
5 major regional shopping districts of the
Columbus, Ohio urban area, and given the wellestablished process of metropolitan decentralization of employment opportunities, central city
residential locations are at a decided journeyto-work disadvantage with respect to problems of
rewerse commutation to peripheral work sites.
Probabilities of car ownership per residential
location are derived from 1970 census data
regarding the matching real world locations,
and car-less families are immediately placed in
a highly undesirable, negatively biased position.
Because however, the game has several options
for winning, (including some which have not
previously been mentioned -- such as players
voting for the "worker" who performed most
admirably given his residence/workplace combination, or players evaluating the performance of
each game player based upon some other designated
criterion), participants drawing or being
assigned disadvantaged residence/workplace
locations should still be interested in playing.
The spatial mismatch of urban workplaces and
residences, and related inequities in commuting
patterns are fundamental concerns of the
Journey to Work game.
A second central topic involves the question of
modal split in journey-to-work flows. Players
should be asked to reveal (as accurately as
possible) their subjective utilities for each of
the available transport modes, respective of
their particular residence/workplace combination.
An attempt may then be made to determine the
trade-off between various modal attributes (cost,
time, convenience, etc.) so as to shed some
light upon the nature and sensitivity of transit
demand for work trips in metropolitan areas.
Furthermore, if possible, participants should
discuss their own specific decision-making
processes which were operative in their
corresponding play throughout the completed
game. By integrating some or all of these
considerations, meaningful insight may be
gained concerning an entire battery of human
spatial behavioral decisions. Recently, urban
geographers and transport planners immediately
interested in the spatial and temporal dimensions
of journey-to-work flows, have increasingly been
turning to disaggregate, stochastic, behavioral
models of choice (route, mode, and time) to
explain movement behavior. Therefore, this
second topic appears to have substantial
practical significance in addition to
contemporary research attention and support, and
an extensive amount of participant interaction
and discourse is suggested here.
A third noteworthy issue which should repeatedly
emerge in post-game discussions is closely
related to the previous set of questions
regarding the players' decision-making processes.
This issue concerns the more specific learning
component of the choice process. The Journey to
Work game is intended to be a dynamic game, in
which choice strategies are learned and relearned
via an explicit, multiple feedback mechanism
(the daily total point score; arrival time,
departure time, and travel time and cost).
Players are expected to use a trial-and-error
strategy at the beginning of play, and then
presumably converge toward some habitual
behavioral pattern in terms of modal choice,
route choice, and departure time. Certainly
the extent and speed of convergence are
functions of the length of the game and ability
of participants. Hence, an interesting series
of considerations regards the variability of
convergence (learning) with respect to players,
residences, workplaces, modal choices, winners,
and number of iterations of game play. Also,
do players having prior knowledge of modal time
adjustment and traffic condition probabilities
develop a stereotyped work trip pattern more
rapidly than players not having access to the
information? Since Journey to Work is an
academic game, focus is upon learning;
consequently, learning about the learning
process (as it was evidenced during the game)
seems to be a very important subject for
discussion.
Lastly, there is a wealth of opportunity to
experiment with mass transit demand considerations and related elasticities using modifications of the Journey to Work game. Problems
of bus transit systems, in particular,
throughout metropolitan areas in America have
been well-specified and analyzed in recent
years by a host of urban students, planners,
and policy-makers. Increased car ownership
resulting in decreased transit ridership, has
led to increased fares and reduced service
characteristics, which in turn have been
responsible for continued patronage declines.
In the Journey to Work game, the director may
investigate transit demand sensitivities with
respect to alternative determinants of work
trip modal choice. For instance, the director
may choose to reduce the bus transit cost factor
to .50 or .25 from 1.00, while holding all otHer
"variables" (game conditions) constant.
Discussion should then concern changed spatial
behavioral patterns and resulting point totals.
Additionally, the director may consider travel
time improvements in bus transit. A decision
may be made to combine both improvements (cost
and time) together and record demand adjustments,
or to regard each effect separately. A third,
but certainly not final possibility would be to
permit more complete coverage of the urban area
by bus transit. The game director could
announce that buses had the same mobility range
(in terms of areal extent) as automobiles,
thereby again enhancing the desirability of
bus transit as a work trip modal option.
Careful consideration of play revisions and
Page 5
Page 224
outcomes under these new modal attribute
provisions, should follow the extended operation
of the game.
The above mentioned, broad issues are clearly
not an exhaustive set of discussion topics.
Nevertheless, they should be useful in directing
the review session which follows game play.
Many additional arguments and questions may be
brought forward during the review, and each one
should be given proper time and attention.
Originality and interaction in the discussion
period are heartily encouraged.
references
BIEL, H., 1972. "Journey-to-Work Flows from the
Black Ghetto of Columbus, Ohio,"
Discussion Paper 30, Ohio State
University, Department of Geography.
CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON THE LOS
ANGELES RIOTS, 1965. Violence in the City:
An End or a Beginning? (McCone Commission
Report).
CURTIN, J., 1968. "Effects of Fares on Transit
Riding," Highway Research Record, Number 213,
8-20.
DAVIES, S., 1970. The Reverse Commuter Transit
Problem in Indianapolis, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Indiana University, Department
of Geography.
FERRERI, M. and W. CHERWONY, 1971. "Choice and
Captive Modal Split Models," Highway
Research Record, Number 360, 80-90.
GREYTAK, D., 1970. "Residential Segregation,
Metropolitan Decentralization, and the
Journey to Work," Occasional Paper 3,
Syracuse University, Urban Transportation
Institute.
GOLOB, T., et. al., 1972. "An Analysis of
Consumer Preferences for a Public Transportation System," Transportation Research,
May, 80-102.
KASOFF, M., 1970. "Socioeconomic Factors
Underlying Public Transit Use in the
Journey to Work," Occasional Paper 1,
Syracuse University, Urban Transportation
Institute.
KEEFER, L., 1962. "Characteristics of Captive
and Choice Transit Riders in the Pittsburgh
Metropolitan Area," Highway Research Board
Bulletin, Number 347, 24-33.
KIBEL, B., 1972. "Simulation of the Urban
Environment," Technical Paper 5,
Association of American Geographers,
Commission on College Geography.
Page 6
LANSING, J. and G. HENDRICKS, 1967. "How
People Perceive the Cost of the Journey
to Work," Highway Research Record,
Number 197, 44-55.
LAVE, C., 1969. "A Behavioral Approach to
Modal Split Forecasting,"
Transportation Research, V. 3, N.4.
LISCO, T., 1967. The Value of Commuters'
Travel Time: A Study in Urban
Transportation, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Economics,
University of Chicago.
LOWENSTEIN, L., 1971. "An Annotated Bibliography on Urban Games," Exchange
Bibliography Number 204, Monticello,
Illinois: Council of Planning
Librarians.
McGILLIVRAY, R., 1970. "Demand and Choice
Models of Modal Split," Journal of
Transport Economics and Politics,
192-207.
MEYER, J., 1967. "Urban Transportation," in
J. Wilson (ed.), The Metropolitan
~, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, 34-55.
MOSES, L., 1963. "Economics of Consumer Choice
in Urban Transportation," Traffic
Engineering, V. 33, July, 26-38.
PAINE, F., A. NASH, and S. HILLE, 1969.
"Consumer Attitudes Toward Auto vs.
Public Transport Alternatives,"
Journal of Applied Psychology,
December, 472-480.
QUARMBY, D., 1967. "Choice of Travel Mode for
the Journey to Work: Some Findings,"
Journey of Transport Economics and
Policy, V. 1, 1-42.
STOPHER, P., 1968. "Predicting Travel Mode
Choice for the Work Journey," Traffic
Engineering and Control, January,
436-439.
TAAFFE, E.,B. GARNER, and M. YEATES, 1965. The
Peripheral Journey to Work: A GeograPhic
ConSideration, Evanston: Northwestern
University Transportation Center.
WABE, J., 1967. "Dispersal of Employment and the
Journey to Work: A Case Study," Journal
of Transport Economics and Policy,
September, 345-361.
WACHS, M. and J. SCHOFER, 1972. "Public Transit
and Job Access in Chicago," Transportation Engineering Journal, May, 351-366.
WOHL, M., 1970. "Users of Urban Transportation
Services and Their Income Circumstances,"
Traffic Quarterly, V. 24, N. 1.