Analysis of 2010 AUB Student and Employee Travel Surveys

Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies:

Final Report

Prepared by:

Mai Khattab

Maya Abou‐Zeid

Isam Kaysi

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

American University of Beirut

February 6, 2012

Summary

Congestion in the neighborhood of AUB is seriously affecting the quality of life of AUB students and employees. As part of the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies, a travel survey was conducted in 2010 to understand the travel patterns of students and employees, including the commute (daily travel) to AUB and the daytime walking patterns in the neighborhood of AUB. This report presents an analysis of the survey. Fifty‐one percent of students and 53% of employees are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the commute to/from AUB. Moreover, around 33% of students and 50% of employees drive to AUB using their private cars. Students and employees spend significant time on the road and searching for a parking space. On average, students and employees spend 35 and 32.5 minutes commuting to AUB, respectively, and 42 and 46 minutes commuting from AUB, respectively. The report also examines the current location of students’ and employees’ parking and their likelihood of using and willingness to pay for parking if a new parking facility located within one block from AUB became available. Sixty‐seven percent of students park in an off‐street parking facility and 68% of employees park on campus. Employees are not too likely to park at the new parking facility whereas students are more inclined to use it. The report also analyzes the pedestrian activity of students and employees. In general, both students and employees are somewhat satisfied with their walking experience on Bliss Street and in AUB’s neighborhood. Among different streets visited in the neighborhood of AUB on foot, Bliss Street (between Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street and Jeanne d’Arc Street) is the most visited by students and Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street is the most visited by employees. Both students and employees recommended that Bliss Street and its neighboring streets become cleaner, wider, and more lit. They also suggested constructing wider

sidewalks and crosswalks and improving the availability of parking and public transportation services to campus.

Table of Contents Summary...... 2 List of Figures ...... 5 List of Tables ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Student Survey ...... 8 2.1. Attributes Surveyed ...... 8 2.2. Sample Description ...... 9 2.3. Commute to AUB Travel Patterns ...... 20 2.3.1. Modes of Commute ...... 20 2.3.2. Parking ...... 28 2.4. Contrast between 2007 and 2010 Surveys ...... 31 2.5. Pedestrian Activity in the Neighborhood of AUB ...... 36 2.6. Students’ Concerns ...... 39 3. Employee Survey ...... 40 3.1. Attributes Surveyed ...... 40 3.2. Sample Description ...... 40 3.3. Commute to AUB Travel Patterns ...... 44 3.3.1. Modes of Commute ...... 44 3.3.2. Parking ...... 47 3.4. Pedestrian Activity in the Neighborhood of AUB ...... 51 3.5. Employees’ Concerns ...... 53 4. Conclusion and Implications ...... 54 Acknowledgments ...... 55 Appendix ...... 56

List of Figures Figure 1: Student Sample Distribution per Zone of Residence in Percentage ...... 10 Figure 2: Students' Grade Level ...... 11 Figure 3: Students’ Family Size ...... 13 Figure 4: Students’ Car Ownership and Licensed Drivers per Family ...... 13 Figure 5: Students’ Average Family Size per Zone of Residence ...... 14 Figure 6: Students’ Average Car Ownership per Family per Zone of Residence ...... 15 Figure 7: Students’ Average Licensed Drivers per Family per Zone of Residence ...... 16 Figure 8: Students’ Average Ratio of Cars to Licensed Drivers per Family per Zone of Residence 17 Figure 9: Students’ Family Income Distribution ...... 18 Figure 10: Students’ Average Monthly Family Income per Zone of Residence ...... 19 Figure 11: Commute Mode Distribution for Students ...... 20 Figure 12: Distribution (in Percent) of Commute Mode per Zone of Residence for Students; NM= Non‐Motorized and PT= Public Transportation ...... 21 Figure 13: Students’ Distribution of Satisfaction Level with the Commute ...... 23 Figure 14: Students’ Average Travel Time to and from AUB for Each Mode of Commute ...... 24 Figure 15: Distribution of Travel Time to AUB for Students ...... 24 Figure 16: Distribution of Travel Time from AUB for Students ...... 25 Figure 17: Students’ Average Travel Time to AUB per Zone of Residence ...... 26 Figure 18: Students’ Average Travel Time from AUB per Zone of Residence ...... 27 Figure 19: Amount Willing to Pay versus Current Payment for Students Who Currently Drive a Private Car to AUB ...... 30 Figure 20: Students’ Commute Mode Distribution in 2007 ...... 32 Figure 21: Students’ Commute Mode Distribution in 2010 ...... 32 Figure 22: Students’ Sample Distribution per Ring in the Greater Beirut Area in Percentage in 2007 ...... 34 Figure 23: Students’ Sample Distribution per Ring in the Greater Beirut Area in Percentage in 2010 ...... 35 Figure 24: Distribution of Students by Satisfaction Level with Walking in the AUB Neighborhood ...... 36 Figure 25: Street Names and Zones ...... 38 Figure 26: Distribution of Employees Based on Age ...... 41 Figure 27: Employees’ Job Type ...... 42 Figure 28: Employees’ Family Size ...... 43 Figure 29: Car Ownership and Licensed Drivers per Family for Employees ...... 43 Figure 30: Employees’ Average Monthly Family Income Distribution ...... 44 Figure 31: Mode of Commute Distribution for Employees ...... 45 Figure 32: Employees’ Distribution of Satisfaction Level by Commute Mode ...... 46 Figure 33: Employees’ Travel Time to AUB for Each Mode of Commute ...... 46 Figure 34: Employees’ On‐Campus Parking Lot Distribution ...... 47 Figure 35: Employees’ Willingness to Pay versus Current Payment ...... 50

List of Tables Table 1: Percentage of Students per Faculty for Those Surveyed versus Total AUB Population .. 11 Table 2: Students’ Car Ownership per Family by Categorized Mode of Commute ...... 18 Table 3: Students’ Average Family Monthly Income (in Lebanese Liras) per Categorized Mode of Commute ...... 22 Table 4: Students’ Parking Payment Type Distribution ...... 28 Table 5: Likelihood to Park vs. Willingness to Pay for Students Who Currently Don’t Drive a Private Car to AUB ...... 29 Table 6: Average Willingness to be Pay by Family Monthly Income Range for Students ...... 29 Table 7: Willingness to Pay by Students’ Attributes ...... 31 Table 8: Zones in each Ring ...... 33 Table 9: Percentage of Visits across Zones ...... 37 Table 10: Percentage of Visits by Time Period to Each Zone for Students ...... 39 Table 11: Percentage by Grade Level for Those Surveyed versus Total AUB Employee Population ...... 42 Table 12: Average Monthly Family Income by Mode of Commute for Employees ...... 45 Table 13: Employees’ Likelihood to Park vs. Willingness to Pay ...... 48 Table 14: Average Willingness to Pay by Monthly Family Income for Employees ...... 49 Table 15: Willingness to Pay by Employees’ Attributes ...... 51 Table 16: Percentage of Visits across Zones ...... 52 Table 17: Percentage of Visits by Time Period to Each Zone for Employees ...... 53

1. Introduction

The American University of Beirut (AUB) is at the heart of Ras Beirut, Lebanon. Catering to 7577 students and 1938 employees, AUB creates traffic in its neighborhood, particularly in the area from Bliss Street to Hamra Street. Students at AUB continuously express their dissatisfaction towards driving private cars or using public transportation. The dissatisfaction is a result of the long travel times, congestion, and shortage of parking spaces. This report analyzes a travel survey conducted on AUB students and employees in 2010 as part of the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies. The survey was anonymous and web‐based. It was conducted at the end of October 2010 by sending an email to all students and employees1 (including employees of the AUB Medical Center) with a link to the survey. Over the following two weeks, one reminder was sent to employees and two reminders were sent to students by email. The survey collected data on students’ and employees’ commuting (daily travel) patterns, their daytime walking trips in the neighborhood of AUB, and their demographic and socio‐ economic characteristics.

The analysis of the survey has several contributions to the overall research of the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies. The survey prioritizes AUB students’ and employees’ concerns about walking and driving in the AUB neighborhood. It also highlights information on the current parking conditions and students’ and employees’ willingness to use and pay for a new parking facility. This information is helpful for estimating the demand for a new parking facility that could help mitigate the shortage of parking spaces in AUB’s neighborhood. The data collected on the pedestrian activity in the neighborhood of AUB can be useful in developing urban design solutions to mitigate the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.

The remainder of the report is divided into three sections. Section 2 includes the analysis of the student survey and Section 3 the employee survey. Section 2.1 outlines

1 A fraction of AUB employees who don’t have access to computers did not receive an invitation to take part in the survey.

the students’ attributes surveyed, and Section 2.2 describes the sample collected and compares it to the overall AUB student population. Section 2.3 analyzes the travel patterns of commuting to AUB. Section 2.4 discusses the contrast between the 2007 and 2010 student travel surveys. Section 2.5 analyzes pedestrian activity of students in the AUB neighborhood. Finally, Section 2.6 includes the students’ concerns. The section on employee travel patterns consists of the same divisions (except that it does not contain a comparison of 2007 and 2010 data as no survey was conducted with employees in 2007). Finally, Section 4 concludes the report and describes the implications of the analysis.

2. Student Survey

This section of the report involves the analysis of the survey conducted on AUB students. It includes the attributes surveyed, description of the survey sample and a comparison to the overall AUB population, students’ commuting patterns, the contrast between 2007 and 2010 student surveys, and students’ pedestrian travel patterns.

2.1. Attributes Surveyed

The analysis of the survey examines in detail several attributes of AUB students’ daily travel to AUB and their interrelationships. These attributes include travel time to and from AUB, satisfaction with the commute to AUB, mode of transportation, AUB gates used, current location and payment of parking, willingness to pay for parking in a new parking facility, and satisfaction with and the extent of walking activity in the neighborhood of AUB. In addition, the survey includes socio‐economic and demographic data of students. These data include area of residence, gender, age range, family size, number of licensed drivers in the family, car ownership, and income. Moreover, data on

faculty, school year, and major of students have been collected.

2.2. Sample Description

A total of 1463 out of 7577 students took the survey (response rate of 19.3%), but only 1275 students completed the survey till the end. Since not all questions were mandatory, some respondents left some questions blank even if they completed the survey. Of those who answered the survey, 52.9% are females and 47.1% are males. The corresponding percentages in the AUB student community are 49.5% and 50.5%, respectively. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey sample is significantly different from the AUB population in terms of the gender distribution at the 95% level of confidence. Moreover, the survey indicated that 79.3% of the students in the sample live in Greater Beirut and 20.7% live outside Greater Beirut. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the student sample per zone of residence in percentage in the Greater Beirut Area. AUB falls in zone 17 and 38% of students live in zones around AUB including zones 14 to 22 shown in Figure 1. A list of the zones in Greater Beirut is given in the Appendix.

Figure 1: Student Sample Distribution per Zone of Residence in Percentage

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the students’ grade level. The majority of students (76%) are undergraduates. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey

sample is significantly different from the AUB population in terms of distribution by grade level at the 95% level of confidence. Fifth year undergraduate students and special students constituted only 1% of the sample that answered the survey; hence, they were not shown in the pie chart of Figure 2. Table 1 compares the percentage of students in each faculty who answered the survey to the percentage of students enrolled at AUB by faculty. The Faculty of Engineering and Architecture is over represented, while the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is under represented. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey sample is significantly different from the AUB population in terms of distribution by faculty at the 95% level of confidence.

Students' Grade Level 1st Year Undergraduate 4% 2nd Year Undergraduate 16% 23% 3rd Year Undergraduate

19% 4th Year Undergraduate 16% Graduate 22% Freshman

Figure 2: Students' Grade Level

Table 1: Percentage of Students per Faculty for Those Surveyed versus Total AUB Population

Faculty Survey Data AUB Data

Agricultural and Food Sciences 7.5% 8.1%

Arts and Sciences 29.6% 40.9%

Engineering and Architecture 39.8% 28.3%

Health Sciences 7.5% 6.5%

Medicine 2.2% 1.9%

Suliman Olayan School of Business 13.4% 14.4%

Despite the differences between the survey sample and population of students in terms of distribution by gender, grade level, and faculty, and given a relatively good sample size, we believe that these differences do not materially affect the representativeness of the travel patterns described below.

We next analyze the socio‐economic characteristics of the students based on the sample. Most students, 52%, have a family consisting of 4 or 5 members in their house. The average household size is 4.13. As to car ownership, 35% of students have 2 cars per family and 35% of students have more than 3 cars for family use. The average car ownership per family is 2 cars. Twenty‐one percent and 64% of students have 2 and 3 or more licensed drivers in their family, respectively. The survey showed that on average there are more licensed drivers than number of cars per family. The average ratio of licensed drivers per car in a family is 1.72. Hence, there is almost 1 car for each 2 licensed drivers. Figures 3 and 4 show the distributions of family size and the number of cars per family and licensed drivers per family, respectively. Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 are thematic maps that demonstrate the average values of the above attributes per zone of residence. Excluding a few exceptions, the family size increases in zones that are further away from Ras Beirut. Car ownership and licensed drivers are highest in the North of the Greater Beirut Area. Ratio of licensed drivers to car ownership does not exhibit much variation over the Greater Beirut Area. Table 2 shows the distribution of car ownership per family by categorized mode of commute. As expected, those who commute by auto have a larger number of cars than those who commute by public transportation or non‐ motorized modes. It is interesting to note that those who commute by public transportation are not necessarily captive riders; only around 17% of students commuting by public transportation have no cars available to their families. However, the survey did not measure whether a student has a car available for his/her use.

Family Size

6% 19% 10% 1 2 13% 3

27% 4 5 25% 6 or more

Figure 3: Students’ Family Size

Car Ownership and Licensed Drivers per Family 40% 35% 30% 25%

20% Car Ownership 15% Licensed Drivers 10% 5%

Percentage of Respondents 0% 012345 or more

Figure 4: Students’ Car Ownership and Licensed Drivers per Family

Figure 5: Students’ Average Family Size per Zone of Residence

Figure 6: Students’ Average Car Ownership per Family per Zone of Residence

Figure 7: Students’ Average Licensed Drivers per Family per Zone of Residence

Figure 8: Students’ Average Ratio of Cars to Licensed Drivers per Family per Zone of Residence

Table 2: Students’ Car Ownership per Family by Categorized Mode of Commute

Car Public Auto Non- Motorized Ownership Transportation 0 0.9% 16.8% 35.2% 1 12.8% 40.8% 25.1% 2 37.0% 33.6% 25.1% 3+ 49.3% 8.9% 14.5% Total 100% 100% 100%

Based on the survey, the monthly family income is 7.5 Million Lebanese Liras on average. Thirty‐seven percent of students did not report their family income, while 16% of students stated their family income to be within the range of 2 and 4 Million Lebanese Liras. Figure 9 shows the income distribution for the students’ families. Figure 10 is a thematic map showing the average monthly family income per zone of residence.

Monthly Income Range per Family (in Million L.L.)

11% 0 -2 2-4 37% 16% 4-6 6-8

12% 8-10 >10 11% 8% No response 5%

Figure 9: Students’ Family Income Distribution

Figure 10: Students’ Average Monthly Family Income per Zone of Residence

2.3. Commute to AUB Travel Patterns

The survey examined various attributes of the students’ patterns of commuting to AUB. This section includes a summary of the results of the modes of commute (including satisfaction and travel time) and the current and future parking situation (in terms of AUB students’ parking patterns) in the neighborhood of AUB.

2.3.1. Modes of Commute

Students commute to AUB utilizing various modes of transportation. Thirty‐three percent of students drive their private car alone or with other passengers in the car. These students expressed their concerns about the large amount of time spent on the road and while searching for a parking space. Thirty percent of students including those who live on campus walk to AUB whereas 24% of students use public transportation (bus or service/taxi). Figure 11 shows the distribution (in percent) of students by commuting mode and Figure 12 shows the percentage of auto, public transportation, and non‐motorized modes per zone of residence. Students who live in AUB’s neighborhood (Hamra, Clemenceau, Ain El Mraisseh, Manara) tend to use non‐ motorized commute modes most of the time.

Driving Private Car Commute Mode

1%2% Dropped off by a person Walking 15% 33% 7% Bus

Service/Taxi 30% 12% Motorcycle/Bicycle

Other (mix of bus, service & walk)

Figure 11: Commute Mode Distribution for Students

Figure 12: Distribution (in Percent) of Commute Mode per Zone of Residence for Students; NM= Non-Motorized and PT= Public Transportation

Also, the average family monthly income was calculated per categorized mode of commute: auto, public transportation, and non‐motorized. As shown in Table 3 and as

expected, students who commute by auto or by non‐motorized modes (who mostly live in Ras Beirut) come from more affluent families as compared to students who commute by public transportation.

Table 3: Students’ Average Family Monthly Income (in Lebanese Liras) per Categorized Mode of Commute

Mode of Commute Auto Public Transportation Non-Motorized Average Monthly Income 8,050,000 4,940,000 8,340,000 (L.L.)

Students are generally somewhat dissatisfied with the commute to AUB. The average satisfaction level is 3.66 using a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 7 being very satisfied (and 4 representing neither satisfied not dissatisfied). Satisfaction varies by commute mode. Students who commute by non‐motorized modes such as bicycle and walking have the highest levels of satisfaction equal to 5.1 on average, whereas those who commute by car or motorcycle have the lowest level of satisfaction equal to 3 on average. Perhaps the dissatisfaction with commuting by car is due to congestion and parking problems and the resulting stress they create. Students commuting by public transportation have a level of satisfaction of 3.5 on average which is between the other two modes of commuting; the dissatisfaction may be the result of large commuting travel times as well. Figure 13 indicates the distribution of the satisfaction level with the commute to AUB for those who commute by auto, public transportation, and non‐motorized modes.

Satisfaction with Commute 35% 30% 25% Auto 20% Public 15% Transportation 10% Non-Motorized 5% 0% 1234567 Percentage of (%) Respondants Satisfaction Level

Figure 13: Students’ Distribution of Satisfaction Level with the Commute On average, students spend 35 minutes on their way to AUB and 42 minutes on their way back home. Figures 14, 15, and 16 show the average and distribution of commute travel time to and from AUB for each mode of commute. The average commute times to AUB for motorized and non‐motorized modes of commute are 40 minutes and 10.43 minutes, respectively. The average commute times from AUB for motorized and non‐ motorized modes of commute are 49.5 minutes and 11 minutes, respectively. Figures 17 and 18 show the average travel time in minutes to and from AUB for all modes of commute combined, respectively, for each zone of residence.

Average Travel Time by Commute Mode 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 To AUB

Travel Time (Minutes) 10 From AUB 0

Figure 14: Students’ Average Travel Time to and from AUB for Each Mode of Commute

Travel Time to AUB

100% 90% Auto 80% 70% 60% 50% Public 40% Transportation 30% 20% Non-Motorized 10% 0%

Percentage of Respondents (%) 0-15 15-30 30-45 45-60 >60 Travel Time Range (minutes)

Figure 15: Distribution of Travel Time to AUB for Students

Travel Time from AUB

100% 90% Auto 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Public Transportation 30% 20% 10% 0% Non-Motorized

Percentage of Respondants(%) 0-15 15-30 30-45 45-60 60-75 >75 Travel Time Range (minutes)

Figure 16: Distribution of Travel Time from AUB for Students

Figure 17: Students’ Average Travel Time to AUB per Zone of Residence

Figure 18: Students’ Average Travel Time from AUB per Zone of Residence

A large proportion of students, 75%, use the gates on Bliss Street to enter AUB, out of whom 38.3% use the Main gate to enter AUB; however, the Medical gate is a common entrance as well with 21.6% of students using it.

2.3.2. Parking

Students complain about the current parking situation in AUB’s neighborhood. Great amount of time is wasted searching for a parking place and large sums of money are spent paying for parking whether on‐street or in an off‐street parking facility. Sixty‐ seven percent of students park in an off‐street parking facility, whereas 33% park on‐ street. The most common parking places on‐street are Ain El Mraisseh, Bliss Street, and Jeanne d’Arc Street. The common parking facilities are the Tahseen Khayat parking facility near Zaatar W Zeit, the parking lot at the intersection of Jeanne d’Arc Street with Makhoul Street, and the parking lot near the AUB School of Business. Students on average pay 78,000 L.L.2 each month for parking. Table 4 summarizes the percentage of students who pay nothing, daily, and monthly.

Table 4: Students’ Parking Payment Type Distribution

Free Parking 25.20% Pay Daily 53.80% Pay Monthly 21.00%

As one potential measure for addressing the parking deficit in the area, the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies program is investigating the impact of a hypothetical new parking facility located in proximity to AUB. The survey collected data on the students’ likelihood to park at the new parking facility and their willingness to pay. For those who currently drive their private cars, they are willing to pay an average

2 The average amount of money paid for parking is a weighted average of those who pay daily and monthly. The average daily parking fee was converted to a monthly parking fee by multiplying it by 12 taking into consideration that students come to AUB 3 days a week. The numbers of students who pay daily and monthly were multiplied by the respective average parking fees and then divided by the total number of students.

of 80,000 L.L.3 per month to park at the proposed parking facility; however, for those who use other modes of transportation, they are willing to pay on average 70,000 L.L. each month if they were to switch to driving once the parking lot becomes operational. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very unlikely to use the new parking facility and 5 very likely, students who currently don’t drive to AUB recorded an average of 3.23, and 53.7% of them indicated that they are likely or very likely to use the new parking facility. This indicates that a new parking facility could induce a significant number of students to switch to driving their private cars to AUB. Table 5 compares likelihood to park versus average willingness to pay. Those that are likely or very likely to park have the highest average willingness to pay as expected.

Table 5: Likelihood to Park vs. Willingness to Pay for Students Who Currently Don’t Drive a Private Car to AUB

% of Likelihood to Park L.L. Students Likely or Very Likely to Park (Rating 4 & 5) 53.6% 74,750 Unlikely or Very Unlikely to Park (Rating 1 & 2) 29.7% 63,400 Indifferent / Not Sure (Rating 3) 16.7% 66,500

Moreover, willingness to pay varies as a function of the students’ family income, with higher income generally associated with higher willingness to pay, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Average Willingness to be Pay by Family Monthly Income Range for Students

Family Monthly Income Range (L.L.) Average Amount Willing to Pay (L.L.) 0 - 2,000,000 L.L. 68,000 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 L.L. 74,500 4,000,000 - 6,000,000 L.L. 69,500 6,000,000 - 8,000,000 L.L. 82,000 8,000,000 - 10,000,000 L.L. 76,500 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 L.L. 96,250 15,000,000 - 30,000,000 L.L. 83,500 More than 30,000,000 L.L. 93,000

3 While calculating the average monthly amount willing to be paid, the zero values were kept. Values such as 10, 20, and other 3 digit numbers were removed.

Current monthly payments (for students who currently drive) versus amounts students are willing to pay are plotted in Figure 19. The majority of students (58.5%) who currently drive are willing to pay more than they currently pay in order to ensure a parking spot at the new proposed parking facility, which is an indicator of how critical the parking situation is. Students are frustrated with the shortage of parking places in AUB’s neighborhood; therefore, they are willing to pay larger amounts of money to ensure their comfort and satisfy their needs.

Willingness to Pay vs Current Payment 300000

250000

200000

150000 Willingnes to Pay (L.L.) 100000

50000

0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Current Payment (L.L.)

Figure 19: Amount Willing to Pay versus Current Payment for Students Who Currently Drive a Private Car to AUB

In order to better understand differences in the willingness to pay values, several attributes have been compared between those who are willing to pay to park at the new parking facility more than they currently pay and those who are willing to pay less. Such attributes include travel time to and from AUB, commute satisfaction, average monthly income, and parking location. Table 7 summarizes the attributes for both those who are willing to pay more and those who are willing to pay less than what they currently pay. Surprisingly, those who are willing to pay more to use the new proposed parking facility than what they currently pay have shorter travel times to/from AUB and are more satisfied with their commutes on average. As expected, average family income is higher among those with a higher willingness to pay than current payment. Among those who are willing to pay more, there is a higher percentage of students who currently park on‐street compared to the other group which is reasonable since a student parking on‐street may not be able to find an on‐street spot easily every day.

Table 7: Willingness to Pay by Students’ Attributes

Attribute Willing to Pay More Willing to Pay Less than than Current Payment Current Payment Travel Time to AUB (minutes) 41.0 45.5 Travel Time from AUB (minutes) 50.4 57.9 Commute Satisfaction 3.0 2.6 Monthly Family Income (L.L.) 10,672,000 8,675,000 % Parking in an off-Street 88% 93% Parking Facility % Parking on Street 12% 7%

2.4. Contrast between 2007 and 2010 Surveys

A web‐based commuting survey was also conducted in 2007 to collect data about AUB students’ travel patterns and socio‐economic and demographic characteristics. The 2007 survey included fewer attributes though than the 2010 survey did. It collected data on the mode of commute, area of residence, gender, degree level, faculty, nationality, and age range. The response rate in 2007 was much higher than in 2010, with 4949 students filling out the survey in 2007.

Both sets of data indicated similar results for the mode of commute and gender, but there were discrepancies in the residence area and degree level. The mode of commute and gender distributions of 2010 are in accordance with those of 2007 based on the Chi‐ squared goodness‐of‐fit test at the 95% confidence level (treating the 2007 sample as the population due to the large sample size). Figures 20 and 21 show the distribution of mode of transportation in 2007 and 2010, respectively.

Commute Mode Distribution in 2007

0% Bicycle/ Motorcycle

25% Bus/ Service/ Taxi 31% Driving private car

Dropped off by a person

Walking 14% 30%

Figure 20: Students’ Commute Mode Distribution in 2007

Commute Mode Distribution in 2010 1%

Bicycle/ Motorcycle 30% 24% Bus/ Service/ Taxi

Driving private car

12% Dropped off by a person 33%

Walking

Figure 21: Students’ Commute Mode Distribution in 2010

Out of all students who answered the survey, the percentage of undergraduates decreased from 85.6% in 2007 to 76.1% in 2010. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐ fit test, the 2010 survey sample (graduate‐undergraduate) is significantly different from the AUB population (based on 2007 data) at the 95% level of confidence. On the other hand, the ratio of males and females who answered the survey in 2007 is similar to the ratio in 2010 as mentioned earlier. The distribution of students among the faculties in 2007 is very similar to the 2010 distribution. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the 2010 survey sample is in accordance to the AUB population (based on 2007 data) at the 95% level of confidence.

The percentage of students living in the Greater Beirut area (GBA) decreased from 88.5% in 2007 to 79.3% in 2010. The 2010 distribution of students per aggregated ring of residence is compared to the 2007 distribution of the sample of students. Table 8 summarizes the zones included in each ring. Figures 22 and 23 are thematic maps of the distribution of the student sample in the rings of Greater Beirut Area in 2007 and 2010, respectively. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey sample of 2010 is in accordance with the survey sample of 2007.

Table 8: Zones in each Ring

Ring Name Zones Ring 1 Municipal Beirut 1 -24 Ring 2 Beirut Inner Suburbs 25- 45 Ring 3 Beirut Outer Suburbs 46-63 Ring 4 Outside GBA > 63

Figure 22: Students’ Sample Distribution per Ring in the Greater Beirut Area in Percentage in 2007

Figure 23: Students’ Sample Distribution per Ring in the Greater Beirut Area in Percentage in 2010

2.5. Pedestrian Activity in the Neighborhood of AUB

The survey also gathered data on pedestrian activity in the neighborhood of AUB, as the first phase of the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion studies is evaluating the conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in the neighborhood. Data included satisfaction with walking in AUB’s neighborhood, places visited in the neighborhood on foot, the time of day of the visits, and qualitative comments about changes to Bliss Street and other streets in the neighborhood that would make the walking experience more pleasant. Students are on average somewhat satisfied with walking in the neighborhood. On a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being very dissatisfied and 7 being very satisfied, their satisfaction on average is 4.56. Figure 24 shows the distribution of students by satisfaction level.

Satisfaction with Walking in the AUB Neighborhood 30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Percentage of Respondents(%) 1234567 Satisfaction Level

Figure 24: Distribution of Students by Satisfaction Level with Walking in the AUB Neighborhood Around 62% of students make visits to places around the AUB neighborhood on foot when they are on campus. In order to determine the most visited locations, the neighborhood was divided into 9 zones, and the frequency of visits to each zone was calculated in percentage as shown in Table 9. Figure 25 is a map showing the street names around AUB and the zone numbers. Clearly, Zone 3 (Bliss Street between Omar

Bin Abdul Aziz and Jeanne d’Arc Streets) is the most congested area with students. Bliss Street contains most of the restaurants in the area and Malik’s Bookshop which is visited very frequently by students. The second most visited zone is Zone 2 which is Jeanne d’Arc Street. This is due to the abundance of copy centers such as Ghali, Digital Horizon, and Books & Pens and the presence of Universal Snack in that zone.

Table 9: Percentage of Visits across Zones

Percentage Zone of Visits Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street; Zone 1 between Bliss Street and Hamra 5.9% Street Jeanne d’Arc Street; between Zone 2 21.0% Bliss Street and Hamra Street Bliss Street; between Omar Bin Zone 3 Abdul Aziz Street and Jeanne 47.0%

d’Arc Street Bliss Street; between Jeanne Zone 4 9.0% d’Arc Street and Gandhi Street Gandhi Street; between Bliss Zone 5 2.3% Street and Hamra Street Zone 6 Makhoul Street 1.1% Zone 7 Sidani Street 1.6% Bliss Street; between Gandhi Zone 8 2.4% Street and Sadat Street Zone 9 Sadat Street 0.2% Zone 10 Makdisi Street 2.6% Zone 11 Hamra Street 6.9%

3 4

8 6

9 5 2 1 7

Figure 25: Street Names and Zones

Moreover, the frequency of visits to each zone has been divided to three time slots: morning, noon, and afternoon or evening. Morning is from 6 am to 12 pm excluding 12 pm, noon is from 12 pm to 4 pm excluding 4 pm, and afternoon/evening is from 4 pm till midnight. Table 10 summarizes the distribution (in percent) of visits per time period to each zone. There is some variation in the time of day at which different zones become congested with pedestrians. Zones 2 and 3, which are the most congested zones, witness peak pedestrian activity in the morning and in the afternoon/evening, respectively.

Table 10: Percentage of Visits by Time Period to Each Zone for Students

Zone Morning Noon Afternoon Zone 1 24.1% 33.7% 42.2% Zone 2 45.0% 27.5% 27.5% Zone 3 32.5% 26.5% 41.0% Zone 4 18.0% 38.3% 43.8% Zone 5 6.0% 27.3% 66.7% Zone 6 12.5% 12.5% 75.0% Zone 7 4.6% 27.3% 68.2% Zone 8 11.8% 32.4% 55.9% Zone 9 0.00% 33.3% 66.7% Zone 10 13.5% 13.5% 73.0% Zone 11 13.3% 20.4% 66.3%

2.6. Students’ Concerns

In the survey, students were asked to write any comment or message they would like to be conveyed. All students encouraged the implementation of the survey and hoped for witnessing some results. Most students stated they would like to have a parking lot available to all AUB students at an affordable price. Other students suggested the parking should be free of charge and inclusive in the tuition fees since the tuition is expensive. On the other hand, some students proposed launching a shuttle bus system dedicated to AUB students that would circulate in and outside Greater Beirut. Students were also asked about changes that could be implemented to enhance their walking experience in the streets near Ras Beirut/Hamra. Some students suggested turning Bliss Street to a pedestrian only street or providing proper pedestrian crossing areas. Other students recommended prohibiting parking on Bliss Street and Jeanne d’Arc Street. On another note, many students would like the streets to be cleaner.

3. Employee Survey

Similar to the student survey section, this part of the report includes the analysis of the survey conducted on AUB employees. It includes the attributes surveyed, description of the survey sample and a comparison to the overall AUB population, and employees’ commute and pedestrian travel patterns.

3.1. Attributes Surveyed

The attributes surveyed in the employee travel survey include travel time to and from AUB, satisfaction with the commute to AUB, mode of transportation, AUB gates used, current location and payment of parking, willingness to pay for parking in a new parking facility, satisfaction with walking in the neighborhood of AUB, and the extent of walking activity. In addition, the survey includes socio‐economic and demographic data of employees. These data include job type, employment grade, AUB building, area of residence, gender, family size, car ownership, number of licensed drivers in the family, and income.

3.2. Sample Description

A total of 603 out of around 3933 employees to whom the survey link was sent (including employees of the AUB Medical Center) took the survey (response rate of 15.3%), but only 488 employees completed the survey till the end. Since not all questions were mandatory, some respondents left some questions blank even if they completed the survey. Of those who answered the survey, 59.7% are females and 40.3% are males. Females are overrepresented and males are underrepresented in the survey since the percentages of females and males in the AUB employee community are 52.5% and 47.5%, respectively. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey sample is significantly different from the AUB population in terms of distribution by gender at the 95% level of confidence. Figure 26 shows the distribution of employees

based on age. The majority of employees are within the age of 18 to 39 years old. Moreover, the survey indicated that 79.9% of the sample lives in Greater Beirut and 20.1% lives outside Greater Beirut. Figure 27 shows the distribution of employees by job type. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey sample is significantly different from the AUB population in terms of distribution by job type at the 95% level of confidence. The percentage of employees in the overall AUB population in academic, management, non‐academic and non‐management positions is 24%, 11%, and 66%, respectively. Table 10 compares the percentage of employees at AUB and percentage of those who answered the survey based on the grade level. Based on the Chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit test, the survey sample is significantly different from the AUB population in terms of distribution by grade level. Similarly to the student survey, and despite the differences between the survey sample and population of employees in terms of distribution by gender, job type, and grade level, we believe that these differences do not materially affect the representativeness of the travel patterns described below.

Age Distribution of Employees

4% 18 - 29 13% 28% 30 -39

40 - 49

50 - 59 24% 60 - 69

30% Above 70

Figure 26: Distribution of Employees Based on Age

Employees' Job Type

Academic 32% 40% Management

Non- 28% academic, non- management

Figure 27: Employees’ Job Type

Table 11: Percentage by Grade Level for Those Surveyed versus Total AUB Employee Population

Survey AUB Employment Grade Sample Population

Grade 4 0.73% 12.25%

Grade 5 4.01% 4.79%

Grade 6 1.46% 7.46%

Grade 7 2.55% 5.35%

Grade 8 9.85% 10.36%

Grade 9 10.58% 4.34%

Grade 10 9.85% 8.35%

Grade 11 10.58% 10.13%

Grade 12 10.95% 7.91%

Grade 13 and above 39.42% 29.06%

We next analyze the socio‐economic characteristics of the employees based on the sample. A quarter of employees have a family consisting of 4 members in their household. Twenty percent of the families have 3 members, and another 20% of families have 5 members. The average family size is 3.65. A significant percentage of employees (48%) have 1 car for the entire family members. A large portion as well, 28%, have 2 cars in the family. The average car ownership is 1.21.The survey showed that on

42 average there are more licensed drivers than number of cars per family. Forty‐eight percent and 18% of employees have 2 and 3 licensed drivers in their family, respectively. The average ratio of licensed drivers per car in a family is 1.5. Hence, there are 2 cars for each 3 licensed drivers. Figures 28 and 29 show the distributions of family size and number of cars per family and licensed drivers per family, respectively.

Family Size

11% 8% 1

16% 2 20% 3 4 20% 5 25% 6 or more

Figure 28: Employees’ Family Size

Car Ownership and Licensed Drivers per Family 60%

50%

40%

30% Car Ownership

20% Licensed Drivers

10% Percentage of Repondents 0% 012345 or more

Figure 29: Car Ownership and Licensed Drivers per Family for Employees

The monthly family income is 6.35 Million Lebanese Liras on average. Twenty‐six percent of employees have monthly family incomes within the range of 2 and 4 Million Lebanese Liras monthly, with the rest of employees distributed almost equally among all

other income categories. Figure 30 shows the income distribution for the employees’ families.

Monthly Income Range per Family (in Million L.L.)

5% 0 -2 14% 13% 2-4 4-6 10% 6-8 26% 8-10 14% > 10 18% No response

Figure 30: Employees’ Average Monthly Family Income Distribution

3.3. Commute to AUB Travel Patterns The survey examined various attributes of the employees’ patterns of commuting to AUB. This section includes a summary of the results.

3.3.1. Modes of Commute

Employees commute to AUB utilizing various modes of transportation. Figure 31 shows the percentage of employees using each commuting mode. The majority of employees, 50%, drive their private car alone or with other passengers in the car. These employees expressed their concerns about the large amounts of time spent on the road due to congestion. A quarter of the employees depend on walking as a mode of commute. These employees live on campus or in areas close to AUB, such as Hamra, Koreytem, Ain El Mraisseh, and Rouche. The average monthly income for the modes of commute, auto, public transportation, and non‐motorized, are presented in Table 12. Those who commute by non‐motorized modes have the highest income (perhaps indicating that those who afford to live within walking distance of AUB have the highest

incomes on average), followed by those who commute by auto and then by those who commute by public transportation.

Commute Mode Driving Private Car

2% 2% Dropped off by a person

9% Walking 6% Bus

50% Service/Taxi 25%

Motorcycle/Bicycle 6% Other (mix of bus, service & walk)

Figure 31: Mode of Commute Distribution for Employees

Table 12: Average Monthly Family Income by Mode of Commute for Employees

Mode of Commute Auto Public Transportation Non-Motorized Average Monthly Income (L.L.) 6,248,000 4,240,000 8,238,000

Employees are somewhat dissatisfied with the commute to AUB. The average satisfaction level is 3.54 using a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 7 being very satisfied. Employees who commute by non‐motorized modes such as bicycle and walking have the highest levels of satisfaction equal to 4.9 on average, whereas those who commute by car have the lowest level of satisfaction equal to 2.85 on average. Perhaps the dissatisfaction with commuting by car is due to congestion and parking problems and the resulting stress they create. Employees commuting by public transportation have a level of satisfaction of 3.22 on average which is between the other two modes of commuting; the dissatisfaction may be the result of large commuting travel times as well. The distribution of the level of satisfaction by commute mode is summarized in Figure 32. On average, employees spend 32.5 minutes on their

way to AUB and 46 minutes on their way back home. Figure 33 categorizes commute travel time to and from AUB for each mode of commute. The average commute times to AUB for motorized and non‐motorized modes of commute are 38.7 minutes and 12.5 minutes, respectively. The average commute times from AUB for motorized and non‐ motorized modes of commute are 56 minutes and 13.9 minutes, respectively.

Satisfaction with Commute 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Auto 30% Public Transportation 20% Non-Motorized 10% 0% Percentage of (%) Respondants 1234567 Satisfaction Level

Figure 32: Employees’ Distribution of Satisfaction Level by Commute Mode

Average Travel Time by Mode of Commute 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 To AUB 10

Travel Time (Minutes) 0 From AUB

Figure 33: Employees’ Travel Time to AUB for Each Mode of Commute

A large proportion of employees, 47.5%, use the Medical gate to enter AUB; however, the Main gate is a common entrance as well, with 25.1% of employees using it.

3.3.2. Parking Employees complain about the current parking situation in AUB’s neighborhood. Great amount of time is wasted searching for a parking place and large sums of money are spent paying for parking when a parking spot at an AUB parking facility is not provided. The majority of employees (67.8%) park on campus, while 32.2% park off campus. Figure 34 shows the percentage of employees parking at each on‐campus parking lot. The most used on‐campus parking lot is the Hostler Center parking facility. On the other hand, the most common on‐street parking places are Bliss Street and Ain El Mraisseh. Employees who park on campus pay monthly on average 48,700 Lebanese Liras whereas those who park off campus pay on average 77,500 Lebanese Liras. A weighted average of parking fees paid by those who park on and off campus is 56,500 Lebanese Liras.

On-Campus Parking Lot Distribution Corporation Yard (Lot A) Corporation Yard (Lot B)

4% Corporation Yard (Lot C) 6% 12% 2% Corporation Yard (Lot D)

5% Corporation Yard (Lot E) 2% 22% 3% Hostler Center Lower campus: Faculty Apartments Parking lot Olayan School of Business 25% Underground lower level 18% (AUH) Underground upper level (AUH) 1% Upper campus (Bliss Parking)

Figure 34: Employees’ On-Campus Parking Lot Distribution

As in the student survey, the employee survey collected data on the employees’ likelihood to park at a potential new parking facility and their willingness to pay. This question was not asked for those who currently park on campus. For those who currently drive their private cars, they are willing to pay an average of 70,500 L.L. per month to park at the proposed parking facility; however, for those who use other modes of transportation, they are willing to pay 55,700 L.L. each month if they were to switch to driving once the parking facility becomes operational. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very unlikely to use the new parking facility and 5 very likely, employees who currently don’t drive to AUB recorded an average of 2.73, and 48.1% of them indicated that they are likely or very likely to use the new parking facility. Table 13 compares likelihood to park versus average willingness to pay. Those that are likely or very likely to park are willing to pay more than those who are unlikely or very unlikely to park but slightly less than those who are indifferent or not sure. Also, willingness to pay to park at the new parking lot was analyzed based on employee family monthly income range. Table 14 summarizes the latter data and shows that willingness to pay increases with income for the first four income categories but the relationship is unclear at higher income categories.

Table 13: Employees’ Likelihood to Park vs. Willingness to Pay

Likelihood to Park % of Employees L.L. Likely or Very Likely to Park (Rating 4 48.1% 62,000 & 5) Unlikely or Very Unlikely to Park 35.8% 47,300 (Rating 1 & 2) Indifferent / Not Sure (Rating 3) 16.1% 65,000

Table 14: Average Willingness to Pay by Monthly Family Income for Employees

Monthly Family Income Range Average Amount Willing to Pay (L.L.)

0 - 2,000,000 L.L. 55,000

2,000,000 - 4,000,000 L.L. 66,000

4,000,000 - 6,000,000 L.L. 80,000

6,000,000 - 8,000,000 L.L. 87,700

8,000,000 - 10,000,000 L.L. 63,000

10,000,000 - 15,000,000 L.L. 78,750

15,000,000 - 30,000,000 L.L. 82,000

More than 30,000,000 L.L. 76,750

Current monthly payments (for employees who currently drive) versus payments employees are willing to pay are plotted in Figure 35. Eighty‐nine percent of those who drive are willing to pay less than they currently pay to ensure a parking spot at the new proposed parking facility, which may indicate the lack of necessity for a new parking facility for employees or high perceived current payments.

Willigness to Pay vs Current Payment 300000

250000

200000

150000

100000 Willingness to Pay (L.L.)

50000

0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Current Payment (L.L.)

Figure 35: Employees’ Willingness to Pay versus Current Payment

In order to better understand differences in the willingness to pay values, several attributes have been compared between those who are willing to pay to park at the new parking facility more than they currently pay and those who are willing to pay less. These attributes include travel time to and from AUB, commute satisfaction, average monthly income, and parking location. Table 15 summarizes the attributes for both those who are willing to pay more and those who are willing to pay less than what they currently pay. Surprisingly, those who are willing to pay more to use the new proposed parking facility than what they currently pay have shorter travel times to/from AUB and are more satisfied with their commutes on average. As expected, average family income is higher among those with a higher willingness to pay than current payment. Among those who are willing to pay more, the majority of employees currently park on street compared to the other group. Moreover, almost 90% of those willing to pay less currently park in a parking lot off campus.

Table 15: Willingness to Pay by Employees’ Attributes

Willing to Pay More Willing to Pay Less Attribute than Current than Current Payment Payment

Travel Time to AUB (minutes) 32 39.93

Travel Time from AUB (minutes) 34.17 60.67

Commute Satisfaction 3.33 2.6

Monthly Family Income (L.L.) 5,000,000 4,603,000

% Parking in an off-Campus Parking 40.0% 89.4% Facility 60.0% 10.6% % Parking on Street

3.4. Pedestrian Activity in the Neighborhood of AUB

As in the student survey, the employee survey gathered data on employees’ pedestrian activity in the neighborhood of AUB. Data included satisfaction with walking in AUB’s neighborhood, places visited in the neighborhood, and the time of day of the visits. On a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being very dissatisfied and 7 being very satisfied, employees’ satisfaction on average is 4.39. Therefore, employees are somewhat satisfied with walking in the neighborhood, and 56.6% of them make visits on foot to places around the AUB neighborhood when they are on campus. In order to determine the most visited zones, the frequency of visits to each zone is calculated in percentage as shown in Table 16. Clearly, Zone 1 (Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street) is the most congested area with AUB employees. This is due to the abundance of restaurants and the presence of the AUBMC in that zone. The second most visited zone is Zone 2 which is Jeanne d’Arc Street. Jeanne d’Arc Street has many bookstores and copy centers. Refer to Figure 25 for the location of the zones.

Table 16: Percentage of Visits across Zones

Percentage Zone of Visits Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street; Zone 1 between Bliss Street and 35.4% Hamra Street Jeanne d’Arc Street; between Zone 2 25.0% Bliss Street and Hamra Street Bliss Street; between Omar Zone 3 Bin Abdul Aziz Street and 12.1%

Jeanne d’Arc Street Bliss Street; between Jeanne Zone 4 d’Arc Street and Gandhi 9.1% Street Gandhi Street; between Bliss Zone 5 1.0% Street and Hamra Street Zone 6 Makhoul Street 0.3% Zone 7 Sidani Street 3.3% Bliss Street; between Gandhi Zone 8 1.5% Street and Sadat Street Zone 9 Sadat Street 2.0% Zone 10 Makdisi Street 5.8% Zone 11 Hamra Street 4.6%

Table 17 summarizes the frequency of visits by time period to each zone. There is some variation in the time of day at which different zones become congested with pedestrians. Zones 1 and 2, which are the most congested zones, witness peak pedestrian activity at noon. This is probably due to the fact that employees go to Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street and Bliss Street for lunch.

Table 17: Percentage of Visits by Time Period to Each Zone for Employees

Zone Morning Noon Afternoon Zone 1 20.7% 47.1% 32.1% Zone 2 25.3% 38.4% 36.4% Zone 3 14.6% 37.5% 47.9% Zone 4 13.9% 47.2% 38.9% Zone 5 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% Zone 6 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Zone 7 7.7% 38.5% 53.9% Zone 8 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% Zone 9 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% Zone 10 21.7% 39.1% 39.1% Zone 11 5.6% 38.9% 55.6%

3.5. Employees’ Concerns

In the survey, employees were asked to write any comment or message they would like to be conveyed. All employees encouraged the implementation of the survey and hoped for witnessing some results. Most employees provided suggestions to improve Bliss Street. These suggestions included widening the sidewalks, providing more greenery, cleaning the roads, and installing proper lighting. Also, the employees are worried about their safety so they suggested installing pedestrian crossing lines and preventing motorcycles from driving on sidewalks. On the other hand, employees would like to have more parking lots designated for staff only. Some employees believe that the only solution for traffic congestion is a proper public transportation system that includes an organized bus system and a metro system. Furthermore, some employees proposed launching a shuttle bus system dedicated to AUB employees and students that would circulate in and outside Greater Beirut.

In addition, the survey asked the employees what changes to Bliss Street and neighboring streets they would like to see to enhance their walking experience. The employee sample said they would like the sidewalks to be wider, cleaner, and brighter. They also recommended having a police officer to regulate the flow of traffic so

pedestrians can cross safely. Some suggested prohibiting parking on Bliss Street and Jeanne d’Arc Street.

4. Conclusion and Implications

As part of the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies, a survey was conducted in 2010 to collect data on AUB students’ and employees’ travel patterns to/from AUB as well as in the AUB neighborhood. In addition to characterizing these travel patterns, the objective of the survey was also to evaluate the students’ and employees’ satisfaction with commuting to/from AUB and walking in the neighborhood of AUB. This report documented the analysis of this survey.

It was found that a significant proportion of students and about half of the employees drive their private cars to AUB, and students and employees are on average dissatisfied with their commute. Their dissatisfaction is a result of the shortage of parking spaces, high parking fees, and large commute travel times. The report examined the current location and payment of students’ and employees’ parking. Currently, 67% of students park in an off‐street parking facility and 68% of employees park on campus. On average, students and employees pay a monthly parking fee of 78,000 L.L. and 56,500 L.L., respectively, and the majority of students who currently don’t drive expressed likelihood to switch to driving if a new parking facility became available close to AUB.

Moreover, this report analyzed important findings related to walking in the AUB neighborhood, such as the most pedestrian congested streets and the time of day of the congestion. Omar Bin Abdul Aziz Street, Bliss Street, and Jeanne d’Arc Street witness the greatest pedestrian activity. Both students and employees are on average somewhat satisfied with walking in the neighborhood of AUB. Both students and employees recommended that Bliss Street and its neighboring streets become cleaner, wider, and more lit. They also suggested constructing wider sidewalks and crosswalks.

The survey results have several implications for targeting improvements in travel conditions in AUB’s neighborhood. The analysis of pedestrian travel patterns helps identify which streets are most congested with pedestrians and hence need the most attention to improve pedestrian safety and the pleasantness of the pedestrian environment (e.g. wider sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.).

Moreover, the survey can provide information needed for the construction of parking facilities in the future that could mitigate the shortage of parking spaces in the neighborhood of AUB. Information such as parking demand and supply (current parking locations and fees and willingness to pay for using a new parking facility) are helpful to estimate the size of such parking facilities as well as a suitable monthly user subscription fee.

Acknowledgments

The 2010 AUB student and employee travel survey was conducted and analyzed as part of the Neighborhood Initiative Congestion Studies funded by the Ford Foundation. The survey was designed by Professors Maya Abou‐Zeid and Isam Kaysi, implemented online by Maya Kassab, and analyzed by Mai Khattab under the supervision of Profs. Abou‐Zeid and Kaysi. The authors thank Professor Cynthia Myntti, Hossein Hamam, and the AUB administration for supporting the implementation of the survey and all students and employees that filled it out.

Appendix

List of Zones in Greater Beirut

Zone Zone Number Zone Name Number Zone Name 1 Port 33 Ouzai 2 Mar Mikhael, Khodr 34 Bourj Brajneh 3 Geitawi, Karm el‐Zeitoun 35 Bouchrieh 4 Gemmayzeh, Saifi, Remeil, Tabaris 36 Jdeideh, Sid Bouchrieh 5 Nasra, Furn al‐Hayek, Monot, Sodeco 37 Dekwaneh, Mkalles 6 Achrafieh, Mar Mitr, Sassine 38 Hazmieh, Fayadyeh, Baabda 7 Sioufi, Aadlieh, Hotel Dieu 39 Haddath, Laylakeh 8 Ras al‐Nabaa, Mathaf, Badaro 40 KfarChima, BeitChay 9 Horsh, Qasqas, Chatila 41 Hay el‐Sellom 10 Tareek al‐Jdideh, Fakhani 42 Airport 11 Mazraa, Bourj Abi Haidar 43 Khaldeh 12 Basta Faouka, Basta Tahta 44 Choueifat 13 Baladieh, Maarad, Riad al‐Solh 45 Deir Koubel 14 Serail, Minet al‐Hosn 46 Dbayeh, Aoukar, Haret Bellane 15 Ain El Mreisseh, al‐Zarif 47 Rabieh, Raboueh, Ain Aar 16 Hamra, Wardieh 48 Naccache, Tellel Srour 17 AUB/IC campuses 49 Antelias, Haret Gharouarni 18 Manara, Jal al‐Bahr 50 Jal al‐Deeb, Zalka, Deir Salib 19 Rawcheh, Qoreitem 51 Bsalim, Nabay, Baikout 20 Snoubra, Munla, Verdun 52 Roumieh 21 Moussaitbeh, Zaidanieh, Batrakieh 53 Ain Saade, Fanar 22 Tallet al‐Khayat, Wata 54 Mansourieh, Deychounieh 23 UNESCO, Ramlet al‐Baida 55 Jamhour Kahale, Bsous 24 Mar Elias, Dar Mouallimeen 56 Wadi Chahrour, Bdadoun 25 Bourj Hammoud (North), Dora 57 Ain Anoub, Bsaba 26 Bourj Hammoud (South), Nabaa 58 Bchamoun, Sarahmoul 27‐28 Sin el‐Fil, Jisr al‐Bacha 59 Yanar 29 Furn al‐Chebbak, Ain al‐Roummaneh 60 Aramoun 30 Chiah 61 Daouha, Naameh 31 Ghobeiry, Haret Hreik 62 Damour, Mechref 32 Jnah, Bir Hassan, Marriott 63 Baaourta, Dakkoun