City Centres: Understanding the Travel Behaviour of Residents and the Implications for Sustainable Travel Firas H.A. Asad Ph.D. Student – CSE School - University of Salford PhD Thesis – Viva presentation

2 CH. 1 Importance, aim and research questions CH. 2 TB – importance and determinants CH. 3 CCs – living, relocation and regeneration CH. 4 Data and research methodology CH. 5 TB analysis & modelling – UK Trics 2012a CH. 6 TB analysis & modelling – SHS CH. 7 TB analysis & modelling – Man. CC Survey CH. 8 Conclusions and recommendations

CH.1 Importance and Research Purpose 3 CC Regeneration & Relocation CBD – Urban form TB findings are mixed Understanding CC living from sustainable TB perspective

CH.2&3 Reviewing existing knowledge 4 Travel behaviour City centre Policy vision

Modelling strategy - Hierarchical approach & mediation analysis CH. 4 Data and Methodology -UK TRICS 2012a -SHS 2007/2008 -Man CC Survey The general conceptual framework of the study. Socio- economic Urban form TB Attitude TB Externality Travel cost Utility–based travel demand models with behavioural theory -Consumer choice theory

6 Progress of travel analysis and modelling Does site location affect people’s TB? Who lives in CCs? What is their TB? TB determinants? Original survey Attitude Regional CC

CH. 5 Modelling and Analysis - TRICS 2012a 7 (a) Direct effect Land Use Parking PT Site Loc. Urban Des. Car Own. Modal Split Trip Rate Spatial features Housing density Flats (1&2 bedrooms). Public transport Parking Mobility HHs generally travel less. More walking and less driving journeys. Walking is the most common mode. A- Descriptive analyses Central locations (in contrast to outer locations):

8 Land Use Public Trans. Site Loc. Urban Design Trip Rate Parking Car Own. (b) Direct & indirect effects B- Mediation analyses -Site location is a TB determinant. -Mediation effect is found. -Mediators: ratio of flats, availability of parking or transit provision. -BE only partially accounts for the differences in trip frequency. Findings from TRICS2012 analyses; cont.....

9 Socio- economics Demographics Urban form Car/bike ownership Attitudes Income Modal choice Travel frequency Distance travelled TB The conceptual framework of the travel analysis using the SHS & Man CC datasets. CH. 6&7 Modelling & analysis– SHS and Man. CC

10 Figure ‎5 ‑ 1: Manchester city centre (study area) boundary map with triangular shape dots representing the locations of the approached 67 buildings. (Source: Manchester City Centre (2010c)) Invitation letters= 2000 HH (67 buildings), Final response rate= 6.3% (125 HH, 203 person, 685 main journey). Data collected= Questionnaire (HC & Online) + Interviews. Manchester CC household travel survey

11 Findings from SHS & Man CC survey travel analyses A- Descriptive analyses Who lives in UK city centres? -Young and well-qualified, -economically active and with management type jobs. - HHs are single persons or childless couples Adequacy of parking is important. Man CC residents may be grouped by their travel attitudes into: - pro-active transport - pro-car - pro-virtual mobility - pro- sustainability.

12 Findings from SHS & Man CC survey travel analyses What are the key travel characteristics of the city centre residents? - (50 – 55)% of CC HHs have no car. - HH weekday trip rate is (5 - 6). -Walking is the prevailing mode. (50-60)% of trips are on foot. -Trip lengths: about (54 – 57)% of Trips are within 1 mile. B- Modelling analysis -Trip frequency - PT use - Vehicle distance travelled - HH car ownership - Mode choice -Attitude is influential

Perception CH.8 Conclusions and recommendations 13 Urban revival Public transport Parking Policy implications TRICS Survey design HH surveys needed Selef- selection Choice models

THANK YOU ! Happy to answer questions ! 14