Overall the transit density is as expected with the most significant concentration in Orlando and other significant concentrations in the other urban areas, especially Lakeland. Accessibility and density follow a similar pattern, though they have significantly higher and lower variance respectively. In the maps below orange represents higher values and blue represents lower values.

Maps

Tranist and Land Density and Accessibility.

The correlations between all 3 variables were positive, though the relationship between Accessibility and Capacity was significantly stronger. Given the areas reliance on the street network for travel makes sense. The correlations are described in the matrix below, all were significant at the 0.05 level.

The variables are referred to as the following on plots:

capacity TOT TOTEMP
capacity 1.0000000 0.2626027 0.6130423
TOT 0.2626027 1.0000000 0.2633309
TOTEMP 0.6130423 0.2633309 1.0000000


To aid in the readability of the plot I have removed extreme outliers though these were included in the correlations. The overall trend is positive (0.2626027), though it is apparent there is significant variance with the density varying quite wildly. Which makes sense considering the diversity across the area we are looking at and the differences between Orlando and the surrounding region. I believe one and two way ANOVAs could make for an interesting test of the differences across intensity and place type respectively, though we could also include them in a regression style analysis.

Tranist and Land Density

Overall

By Place Type

By Intensity

Transit and Accessibility

The relationship between capacity and accessibility is significantly stronger (0.6130423), though still shows significant variation along where the trend line would likely fall and an interesting cluster of high capacity and lower access.

Plots

Overall

By Place Type

By Intensity

Your instinct was entirely correct the groups are absolutely caused by Orlando.

Maps

< 200k
> 200k

Transit, Accessibility, and Density

This plot shows the relationship between all three variables, though the significant number of low land density cells makes any interpretation hard.

I’ve also added two tables summarizing all three variables by intensity and place type

Place Type

pt Mean Capacity SD Capacity Median Capacity Mean Density SD Density Median Density Mean Accessibility SD Accessibility Median Accessibility
Commercial 18574.636 11179.926 16400 132.953060 407.831256 38.466670 234768.33 150275.60 157270.12
Developed OS 3530.765 3787.445 2400 10.060390 78.496913 4.537556 66728.27 46479.17 53760.13
High mixed 15530.724 10138.323 13200 82.656529 131.733468 54.150655 211658.10 155017.75 132682.07
Industrial 13920.011 9276.903 11200 95.853321 183.656339 45.930473 220356.36 150085.28 144814.76
Mixed 13290.898 9720.007 11200 71.924518 152.942082 39.280979 199510.86 149577.95 128271.58
Office/Inst 12080.838 9444.258 9050 144.038158 505.118754 30.383578 202092.69 139269.69 134827.31
Residential 8044.390 7258.677 6400 41.755313 60.906171 26.722766 158011.27 121779.08 112387.96
Rural 3121.845 4819.428 1500 0.472834 6.704239 0.000000 77716.20 76253.12 55223.75

Intensity

it Mean Capacity SD Capacity Median Capacity Mean Density SD Density Median Density Mean Accessibility SD Accessibility Median Accessibility
0 3123.890 4814.901 1500 0.5207735 8.716538 0.000000 77661.26 76137.13 55223.75
1 6103.871 6238.257 4400 20.0144875 52.484366 9.106747 114415.58 89817.25 90945.90
2 10375.787 8603.239 7600 72.9311037 211.299805 37.094604 192319.88 133964.66 133483.74
3 9715.192 7770.368 7200 59.2084981 113.850375 40.711925 178852.37 127787.15 124486.21
4 11508.794 8398.575 9200 64.8563758 79.441208 49.078932 200219.11 138218.72 130308.08
5 14380.963 10087.323 12000 84.5934804 147.074856 62.288793 228514.88 155326.69 145378.67

To me the most interesting thing in this table is the decrease in capacity from intensity 2 to 3. It is the only place where the trend of increasing capacity drops off and it seems unrelated to Density and Accessibility as they increase directly linearly. One possible explanation could be a number of residential cells that are intensity 3 as they would still increase in density since it is an overall measure and accessibility while having lower capacity roadways.

Highest Density Cells

Future Year Capacity and Access

2045

The employment map on the right has so many small geometries that it looks a bit odd at low zoom levels, as you zoom closer it will improve in appearence. The overall pattern is similar to current day.

2060

The similarities continue into 2060.

While the overall numbers are higher the pattern is almost identical to the present in 2045 and 2060. Until the painting process is working the place types and intensities are based on present conditions

Plots 2045

Overall

By Place Type

By Intensity

Plots 2060

Overall

By Place Type

By Intensity