Survey Question #3:
In regard to Public Transportation, which of the following communities do you feel has (or have) a definite need for some form of Mass Transit? Please select any of the following options that apply:
Quarryville Parkesburg Lewisville Toughkennamon Chadds Ford West Chester Robert Fulton Oxford West Grove Kennett Square Coatesville West Nottingham East Nottingham Chatham Longwood Modena Cochranville Lincoln University Avondale Markham Pocopson
Results:
FREQUENCIES: QUARRYVILL Quarryville
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 107 80.5 80.5 80.5
Marked 1 26 19.5 19.5 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .195 Std Err .035 Kurtosis .358 Median .000 Std Dev .398 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .158 Skewness 1.553 Minimum .000 Sum 26.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .1272 to .2638]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: PARKESBURG Parkesburg
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 95 71.4 71.4 71.4
Marked 1 38 28.6 28.6 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .286 Std Err .039 Kurtosis -1.100 Median .000 Std Dev .453 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .206 Skewness .960 Minimum .000 Sum 38.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .2079 to .3635]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: LEWISVILLE Lewisville
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 122 91.7 91.7 91.7
Marked 1 11 8.3 8.3 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .083 Std Err .024 Kurtosis 7.181 Median .000 Std Dev .276 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .076 Skewness 3.065 Minimum .000 Sum 11.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .0353 to .1301]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: TOUGHKENNA Toughkennamon
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 110 82.7 82.7 82.7
Marked 1 23 17.3 17.3 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .173 Std Err .033 Kurtosis .992 Median .000 Std Dev .380 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .144 Skewness 1.749 Minimum .000 Sum 23.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .1078 to .2380]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: CHADDSFORD Chadds Ford
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 91 68.4 68.4 68.4
Marked 1 42 31.6 31.6 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .316 Std Err .040 Kurtosis -1.372 Median .000 Std Dev .467 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .218 Skewness .802 Minimum .000 Sum 42.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .2358 to .3958]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: WESTCHESTE West Chester
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 63 47.4 47.4 47.4
Marked 1 70 52.6 52.6 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .526 Std Err .043 Kurtosis -1.989 Median 1.000 Std Dev .501 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode 1.000 Variance .251 Skewness -.107 Minimum .000 Sum 70.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .4403 to .6123]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: RBTFULTON Robert Fulton
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 126 94.7 94.7 94.7
Marked 1 7 5.3 5.3 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .053 Std Err .019 Kurtosis 14.056 Median .000 Std Dev .224 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .050 Skewness 4.053 Minimum .000 Sum 7.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .0142 to .0911]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: OXFORD Oxford
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 20 15.0 15.0 15.0
Marked 1 113 85.0 85.0 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .850 Std Err .031 Kurtosis 1.827 Median 1.000 Std Dev .359 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode 1.000 Variance .129 Skewness -1.979 Minimum .000 Sum 113.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .7881 to .9112]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: WESTGROVE West Grove
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 78 58.6 58.6 58.6
Marked 1 55 41.4 41.4 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .414 Std Err .043 Kurtosis -1.877 Median .000 Std Dev .494 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .244 Skewness .355 Minimum .000 Sum 55.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .3287 to .4983]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: KENNETT Kennett Square
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 40 30.1 30.1 30.1
Marked 1 93 69.9 69.9 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .699 Std Err .040 Kurtosis -1.245 Median 1.000 Std Dev .460 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode 1.000 Variance .212 Skewness -.879 Minimum .000 Sum 93.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .6203 to .7782]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: COATESVILL Coatesville
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 102 76.7 76.7 76.7
Marked 1 31 23.3 23.3 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .233 Std Err .037 Kurtosis -.406 Median .000 Std Dev .424 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .180 Skewness 1.277 Minimum .000 Sum 31.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .1603 to .3059]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: WESTNOTT West Nottingham
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 92 69.2 69.2 69.2
Marked 1 41 30.8 30.8 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .308 Std Err .040 Kurtosis -1.310 Median .000 Std Dev .464 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .215 Skewness .840 Minimum .000 Sum 41.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .2288 to .3878]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: EASTNOTT East Nottingham
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 97 72.9 72.9 72.9
Marked 1 36 27.1 27.1 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .271 Std Err .039 Kurtosis -.934 Median .000 Std Dev .446 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .199 Skewness 1.044 Minimum .000 Sum 36.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .1942 to .3472]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: CHATHAM Chatham
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 119 89.5 89.5 89.5
Marked 1 14 10.5 10.5 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .105 Std Err .027 Kurtosis 4.618 Median .000 Std Dev .308 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .095 Skewness 2.602 Minimum .000 Sum 14.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .0524 to .1581]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: LONGWOOD Longwood
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 79 59.4 59.4 59.4
Marked 1 54 40.6 40.6 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .406 Std Err .043 Kurtosis -1.853 Median .000 Std Dev .493 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .243 Skewness .387 Minimum .000 Sum 54.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .3215 to .4906]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: MODENA Modena
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 125 94.0 94.0 94.0
Marked 1 8 6.0 6.0 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .060 Std Err .021 Kurtosis 11.689 Median .000 Std Dev .239 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .057 Skewness 3.742 Minimum .000 Sum 8.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .0192 to .1011]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: COCHRANVIL Cochranville
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 109 82.0 82.0 82.0
Marked 1 24 18.0 18.0 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .180 Std Err .033 Kurtosis .762 Median .000 Std Dev .386 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .149 Skewness 1.681 Minimum .000 Sum 24.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .1142 to .2467]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: LINCOLN Lincoln University
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 55 41.4 41.4 41.4
Marked 1 78 58.6 58.6 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .586 Std Err .043 Kurtosis -1.877 Median 1.000 Std Dev .494 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode 1.000 Variance .244 Skewness -.355 Minimum .000 Sum 78.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .5017 to .6713]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: AVONDALE Avondale
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 84 63.2 63.2 63.2
Marked 1 49 36.8 36.8 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .368 Std Err .042 Kurtosis -1.702 Median .000 Std Dev .484 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .234 Skewness .552 Minimum .000 Sum 49.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .2854 to .4515]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: MARKHAM Markham
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 129 97.0 97.0 97.0
Marked 1 4 3.0 3.0 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .030 Std Err .015 Kurtosis 28.281 Median .000 Std Dev .171 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .029 Skewness 5.566 Minimum .000 Sum 4.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .0007 to .0595]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0
FREQUENCIES: POCOPSON Pocopson
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Unmarked 0 116 87.2 87.2 87.2
Marked 1 17 12.8 12.8 100.0
–––––––– ––––––– –––––––
TOTAL 133 100.0 100.0
Mean .128 Std Err .029 Kurtosis 2.970 Median .000 Std Dev .335 S.E. Kurt. .425 Mode .000 Variance .112 Skewness 2.255 Minimum .000 Sum 17.000 S.E. Skew. .212 Maximum 1.000 Range 1.000 Valid 133.000
95% Confidence Interval for the mean = [ .0703 to .1853]
VALID CASES: 133 MISSING CASES: 0