1 / 21

Effects of Land Use Patterns on Car Ownership and Travel Behaviour in Great Britain

E  S  R  C E CONOMIC & SOC I AL RE SEARCH C OUN C I L. TSU. Effects of Land Use Patterns on Car Ownership and Travel Behaviour in Great Britain. Joyce Dargay & Mark Hanly ESRC Transport Studies Unit University College London. Paper presented at. Cost WG2 Meeting

rodd
Download Presentation

Effects of Land Use Patterns on Car Ownership and Travel Behaviour in Great Britain

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. E S  R  C E CONOMIC & SOC I AL RE SEARCH C OUN C I L TSU Effects of Land Use Patterns on Car Ownership and Travel Behaviour in Great Britain Joyce Dargay & Mark Hanly ESRC Transport Studies Unit University College London Paper presented at Cost WG2 Meeting INRETS, 1 July 2004

  2. National Travel Survey1 • Stratified multi-stage random probability sample • Unweighted – assumed representative of GB • Socio-economic data • 7-day travel diary • Short walks (<1.6 km) • 1989/91 & 1999/01

  3. Car availability and licence holding

  4. Travel measures incl short walks– mean valueson 7th diary day

  5. Travel by population density of PSUpercent of total distance travelled by mode per day

  6. Travel by population of municipalitypercent of total distance travelled by mode per day

  7. Accessibility measures – walking time to bus stop

  8. Accessibility measures – frequency of bus service

  9. Accessibility measures • Walk time to each of: • Doctor • Chemist • Grocer • High street • Post office • Hospital • Each time band is coded 0 to 4 • Index constructed

  10. Accessibility measures – walk index • Accessibility index - % of individuals in given category

  11. Model • Dependent variables: • Mode share • Sij=f(xjk) i=c, w, p • xjk are k variables of individual‘s characteristics • Multinomial logit • Car ownership – 2 separate stages • Individual in car-owning household? • If yes, single or multicar hh? • Binomial logit

  12. Model • Independent variables (binary vars) • Day of week • Individual‘s characteristics e.g. gender, age, employment status, income • Household characteristics e.g. Income, household composition • Land use – pop density, urban size (location) • Public transport frequency & proximity • Index of access to amenities

  13. Model • Base: • male, non-worker, aged 35-64 • 2nd lowest individual and household income quintiles • 2nd lowest population density quartile • living in town of population 3k to 100k • served by medium bus frequency • at a medium distance from bus stop • medium walking distance to local amenities • travelling on Monday

  14. Marginal effectsreference group – male non-worker 35-64 yrs in hh with 2 adults no kids

  15. Marginal effectsreference group – male non-worker 35-64 yrs in hh with 2 adults no kids

  16. Marginal effectsreference group – male non-worker 35-64 yrs in hh with 2 adults no kids

  17. Marginal effectsreference group – male non-worker 35-64 yrs in hh with 2 adults no kids

  18. Marginal effects for incomereference group – Indiv Inc 2 and Hh Inc 2

  19. Marginal effectsreference group – male non-worker 35-64 yrs in hh with 2 adults no kids

  20. Marginal effects

  21. Conclusions • Land use characteristics and access to public transport play significant role in car ownership and mode use • Car ownership and use increase, and public transport use and walking decline as population density decreases • Municipality size is less important in determining mode share and car use – but lower car ownership and use for London, and higher car ownership and multiple car ownership in towns under 3K • Bus frequency more important than proximity to bus stop • Proximity to local amenities encourages walking and discourages car ownership esp multiple car ownership

More Related