TABLE 8. - COMPARISON OF HOME PORT OF II^ISURED VESSELS 

 VJITH PERCENTAGE HIGIffiR OR LO.JER THAN THIC SAMPLE PERCENTAGE 



Hone porte 

 by area 



Ineurtid veasel'e with pgrcantaga 



Higher than 

 in eamplo 



Lower than 

 in sample 



I. New Enfflan d 



Boo 'il and, Maine 

 Portland, Maine 

 Clouoeeter, MaBSOchusettS 

 Boston, Mass achjioetts 

 New Bedford, Massachusetts 

 Plymouth, Massachusetts 

 Ne w London, Co nnocticut 



Percent of Insured vessels 

 in sample^' 



II. Gulf Area 



Tampa, Florida 

 Blloxl, Mississippi 

 New Orleans, louisiana 

 Morgan City, Loilisiana 

 Galveston, Texas 

 Corpus Christ 1, Texas 

 Brownsville, Texas 



Peixjent of insured vessels 

 in sample—' 



9'v.O 



92.0 , 

 ( 11^-17 )±/ 



77.0 



76.0 



53.0 , 

 (lU-26)£/ 

 (21-22):^ 



kS.O 



(8-iu)a/ 



77.0 



(6-l8)Sy 

 6.0 

 23.0 



U6.0 



III, California 



San Blego, California 

 Los Angeles, California 

 San Francisco, California 

 Eu reka, Californ ia 



Percent, of insured vessels 

 in eamplei/ 



81.0 

 70.0 



62.0 



36.0 / 



62.0 



^ Base too small for paroentaging; left-hand side figure represents insured veaeele 

 and right-hand aide figure all sampled vessels from each home port. 



j'^ Percentages coiTeepond to cumulative totals of 195 vessels in New Englnnd, lOl* 

 in tit*} Giilf Area and 177 In California which wore insured for one or mora years 

 during 1950-5/*. 



Source; Table A-20 in Appendix A, 



36 



