Land Transport NZ is now
part of the NZ Transport Agency
www.nzta.govt.nz
Accessibility | Help | Site index | Contact us
Travel behaviour change guidance handbook
Print version: Travel behaviour change guidance handbook (PDF, 1.29 MB, 87 pages)
3. Developing and implementing a successful TBhC project
3.1 Introduction
This section provides practitioners with advice on the initial specification for particular types of TBhC project, namely:
- Workplace (including tertiary education and clusters of smaller organisations banding together)
- School travel
- Household / person-based.
These types of TBhC project have the most information available on factors that may contribute, either to successful travel behaviour change (i.e. a measurable reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled), or to the successful development and implementation of the project. Other TBhC project types (e.g. car sharing clubs, etc) have not yet had the same degree of scrutiny to confidently provide such information.
In some cases, it is possible to confidently state what impact a factor will have on the outcome of the TBhC project. In others, the factor identified is one that will undoubtedly facilitate the successful development and implementation of the project, even though it is not yet possible to provide evidence of its direct impact on travel behaviour change. These characteristics are brought together to create templates for describing TBhC proposals in the evaluation procedure. Completing the appropriate proposal description template not only demonstrates that the organisation / school / community selected for a TBhC programme has the characteristics to facilitate the successful completion of the project, but in the case of workplace and school, provides the basis for the initial funding to develop the travel plan. This process is described further in Section 4.0.
The Guidance Handbook is not intended to provide detailed guidelines on how to carry out specific individual projects such as “school travel plans” or “personalised marketing”. There are many such “how to” documents available through other organisations and on the internet. A selection of the more informative and user-friendly ones is listed following each section.
One important characteristic for successful completion of a project dominates across all TBhC types: the “buy-in” and commitment of both the project proponent (usually a local authority or other government agency) and the target community / organisation to seeing the project through. This is discussed in the following section.
3.2 Commitment
Buy-in and commitment from both the sponsoring local authority or government agency and participant organisation / community, along with good project management, are important features in successful TBhC initiatives. This section highlights some of the issues to be aware of when undertaking any TBhC initiative.
At least one representative from both the sponsoring agency and the target population (whether it be a workplace, school or community) will be needed to take ownership of the TBhC development process. To successfully implement the initiative, particularly workplace- or school-based ones, will require the engagement and support of the target population.
It is expected that the sponsoring local authority or government agency will have someone who has a defined role to manage, direct or assist in the delivery of TBhC initiatives. This person will also have to engage with other public sector agencies and transport providers in order to produce an effective project to address passenger transport, parking supply, walking and cycling and other issues. Apart from fulfilling this support role, the level of commitment from the sponsoring agency, usually a local authority, will depend both on the nature of the TBhC initiative and on how supportive the sponsoring agency wants to be. For example, there may be the need for local authorities to negotiate trial tickets with public transport operators, provide public transport information or access maps, or arrange implementation of various initiatives, including the funding and construction of infrastructure and other facilities.
Identifying a committed project leader or champion from within the target population will vary according to the type of TBhC project, for example:
- Workplace: a member of the human resources department, a manager or a specialist travel plan coordinator (the latter is typically only financially viable in larger companies). Cairns et al / Dept for Transport UK (2002) found that promotion of a scheme by senior managers within an organisation is an important factor to obtain employee (and union) cooperation. Where managers “lead by example”, such as relinquishing parking spaces or agreeing to cycle to work on one day a week, it is often easier to gain staff support.
- School: the principal, a senior teacher, a member of the Board of Trustees or parent-teacher association, or an enthusiastic parent. Ideally, the person should be someone in a position of responsibility or who is already active and well known in the school community.
- Household/Community: a community leader, a member of a community organisation or a body corporate.
It is important to remember that the “champion” is likely to have existing responsibilities within their organisation or community. Hence, they will need as much support from the sponsoring authority as possible, as well as respect for their other time commitments.
Although one person will likely be the manager of the plan, the wider community (or organisation or school) must also “buy-in” and take ownership of the initiative if travel behaviour change is to be achieved. This is particularly true for workplace and school travel plans. Committing to or taking ownership of the initiative implies a degree and timing of input from the target community / population. The extent and nature of this input will vary for each TBhC initiative, but should be documented to ensure that all participants understand what is required of them and when.
Advice on gaining organisational buy-in and what commitment entails for various types of TBhC initiatives are discussed in some of the guideline documents outlined in sections 3.3.6 (workplaces); 3.4.4 (schools); and 3.5.2 (household-based initiatives).
3.3 Workplaces
3.3.1 Attributes for success
A review of international experience with workplace travel plans found that the key attribute of success in achieving modal shift was the quality of the travel plan itself. Table 3.1 shows that the range and combination of measures within the plan contribute to how much mode shift away from “single occupancy vehicle” is achieved.
Table 3.1: Impact of workplace travel plan measures on modal shift
| Measures within the workplace travel plan | Impact on modal shift away from single occupancy vehicle use |
|---|---|
| Information provision only | Nil |
| Basic measures (ride share, information, provision of personalised assistance to employees) | Low |
| Basic measures plus either financial incentives or parking management | Medium |
| Comprehensive: a combination of basic, financial incentives and parking management | High |
With respect to the organisations themselves, only one characteristic has been identified as measurably affecting the impact of the travel plan: whether or not the organisation is experiencing parking issues and is prepared to actively address these, for example by introducing parking charges, restricting supply, offering employees the opportunity to “cash out” free parking or financial incentives to use alternative modes of transport for commuting.
Achieving modal shift through a workplace travel plan clearly depends on the successful development and implementation of the travel plan itself. The following section outlines some organisational and location characteristics that will assist local authorities in selecting organisations that are more likely to successfully engage in a workplace travel plan process.
3.3.2 Selecting organisations to participate in a workplace travel plan project
While it cannot be confidently said that the absence of any of the following characteristics will result in the failure of a workplace travel plan to achieve modal shift, there is some indication that the presence of some or all of these characteristics will undoubtedly assist in the successful development and implementation of a workplace travel plan. Once in place, it is the quality of the travel plan and the combination of measures it contains that will determine the success in achieving modal shift.
Physical location
While workplace travel plans have achieved modal shift in both rural and urban areas, an urban centre location is considered to enhance the likelihood of success, especially where there is:
- Local access to services (such as cafes, hairdressers, shops)
- A reasonable level and quality of walking and cycling infrastructure (footpaths / cycleways, intersection treatment, etc)
- A good quality passenger transport service (or the ability / willingness to seek improvements to services), and/or
- Parking-related and/or traffic congestion issues.
As indicated above, the existence of parking-related issues, and the willingness or necessity for the organisation to address these, will strongly affect the likelihood of achieving modal shift.
Organisational characteristics
Engaging with organisations that hold the view that investing in their employees and the environment is wise and where there is a focus on employee well-being – not just in terms of efficiency and productivity – appears to contribute to the successful development and implementation of a workplace travel plan. For example, in New Zealand, organisations that are members of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s EnergyWise Partnership Programme or New Zealand Businesses for Social Responsibility may be more receptive to the concept of workplace travel plans than some other organisations.
It also helps if the organisation has a good internal communication system (e.g. internal email and mail distribution systems) and a strong health, safety, and environment policy / programme. Initial indications of the willingness to support the implementation of a travel plan through provision of trip end facilities (lockers; showers; bike storage / lockup) or staff time or other resources are also useful.
While the size of an organisation does not affect the possibility of achieving modal shift, the impact of any shift on the overall traffic stream (and congestion) is obviously going to be much greater when a larger organisation is targeted to develop and implement a workplace travel plan. Smaller organisations (of less than 100 staff) may find it hard to keep the momentum required to develop and implement the travel plan and may lack the volume of people necessary to implement measures such as ride share, company buses, etc.
Where there are clusters of smaller (or even clusters of large) organisations, it may be possible to establish a “transport management association” (essentially a multi-organisation travel plan), in order to gain sufficient “mass” to influence passenger transport services, implement ride share programmes, or seek infrastructure improvements. Business “parks” and large retail shopping centres might be suitable locations for the formation of a transport management association.
Some evidence suggests that public sector organisations (such as other government agencies, tertiary educational institutions, and hospitals) may good early candidates for workplace travel plans as these organisations may be subject to Government policies or directives requiring them to act “clean and green” or they may wish to be perceived as “leading by example”.
Organisations that are in the process of re-locating to a new site are also good targets for developing and implementing workplace travel plans because staff members are likely to have limited information about commuting options and be most open to balanced evaluation of all options at this stage before they have developed habits.
3.3.3 Measures adopted
International experience in implementing workplace travel plans has found that information provision on its own will not lead to travel behaviour change. Additional measures are required. The most effective workplace travel plans contain a combination of “carrots and sticks” – such as providing financial incentives, introducing ride share or shuttle buses, or improving facilities and services together with parking management strategies.
Examples of the wide range of measures used in workplace travel plans to facilitate changes in travel behaviour, include:
- Managing parking supply (e.g. parking restrictions, parking charges, “cashing out” free parking)
- Financial incentives (such as discounted PT tickets, discounted walking or cycling equipment; gym memberships)
- Improvements to PT services
- Free shuttle buses have been provided for employees between their home and work place, or from a nearby train / bus station to their workplace
- Improving access to, and security at, the site
- Introducing showers and locker facilities
- Organising events to promote ridesharing, walking and/or cycling to staff.
- Organising ride share programmes – these are most successful in larger organisations where there are greater opportunities for coordinating a ride share matching service and where flexibility is maintained (e.g. no requirement to ride share everyday)
- “Guaranteed ride home” service (particularly if ridesharing is introduced)
- Fleet management improvements
- Teleworking – where employees are granted the flexibility to work anywhere from ½ to 5 days per week from home
- Teleconferencing.
There are definite synergies between some of the measures listed here. For example, teleworking is likely to grow more rapidly where parking management strategies (or area-wide congestion charging) is implemented at the same time.
3.3.4 Barriers to success
Clearly, having the opposite situation from “success” characteristics will create a barrier to success: e.g. smaller organisations, a lack of good existing infrastructure for walking and cycling and passenger transport, or an organisation which has less regard for its employees’ well-being or willingness to invest in the travel plan are going to create barriers to success.
Probably the most important potential barrier arises when there is a lack of overall commitment to the travel plan’s development and implementation. If the organisation’s senior management and/or the staff do not “own” or support the travel plan or are sceptical of their ability to achieve change, then it may well fail. Smaller businesses or organisations are more likely to believe that there is no need for them to develop a travel plan as they perceive that their actions are unlikely to influence the overall traffic stream in an area. Likewise, if the local authority does not provide any necessary assistance with the implementation of the travel plan, the success of the project may be jeopardised.
3.3.5 Hard selling workplace travel plans: what is in it for the organisation?
Local authorities may find that they need to convince organisations of the benefits of undertaking to support, develop and implement a workplace travel plan. There are a number of reasons that can be offered:
- Better conditions for employees – e.g. if they have more commuting choices and/or the flexibility to choose their working hours or work location.
- Improved staff recruitment and retention.
- Improving a company’s reputation within the wider community: a company may be seeking planning permission to expand or a quality and assurance accreditation (such as ISO 14001). A workplace travel plan commends the company as a responsible and environmentally sustainable member of the business community and indicates the company is proactive about facilitating employee travel behaviour change.
- Potential financial savings and/or better property management, particularly if parking space requirements are reduced or fleet management improved.
- Better conditions for freight movements as a result of reductions in car use.
3.3.6 Guidelines on “how to” develop workplace travel plans
Workplace Travel Plan Guidance Handbook
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, New Zealand, (to be published)
The workplace travel plan guidance handbook, being developed by EECA, is likely to include an overview and examples of projects, project management considerations, project planning (identifying and understanding target workplaces), project development, project components and project implementation.
Source: Workplace Travel Plan Guidance Handbook
Smarter choices – changing the way we travel (Section 3: workplace travel plans)
Department for Transport, UK, 2004
The Smarter Choices report is a comprehensive review of travel behaviour change and travel demand management processes. For workplace travel plans, the report includes detailed information about effectiveness and take-up of plans, typical costs, a review of case studies, a useful section with details of tactics used to promote plans, staffing and budget implications, use of the planning system, a comparison of plan quality and synergy with other processes.
Source: Smarter choices
Making travel plans work – lessons from UK case studies
Department for Transport, UK, 2003
Building on the findings of a large survey of travel plans in the UK, this document provides guidance on the development of a travel plan strategy and design (the process), measures that can be used to achieve change, funding and further information.
TravelSmart employers kit
TravelSmart Australia, Australia, 2003
The TravelSmart employers’ resource kit provides advice regarding the development of a travel plan (the process) and details of potential measures (tools) that can be used within the plan.
Source: TravelSmart employers kit
Workplace travel plan evaluation tool
Department for Transport, 2003
This software tool assists in the evaluation of the framework and scope of travel plans, rather than the content or application. It is a useful tool for establishing a common framework for plans, but needs to be used with a degree of caution and must not be allowed to become a substitute for thorough and accurate development of plans.
The main use of this tool is to give consent authorities, or reviewing bodies, a framework against which to compare workplace travel plans, for structure and scope. However, the tool does not provide guidance regarding actual content, and the site specific nature of travel plans means that it is not possible to compare all plans on a like-for-like basis.
A travel plan resource pack for employers – an essential guide to developing, implementing and monitoring a travel management strategy for your organisation
Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, UK, 2000
This resource pack is a comprehensive guide to the development of workplace travel plans, including information on both the steps required to create a plan and measures (or tools) that can be included. The pack was developed in consultation with industry, Government and consultants and provides a broad spectrum of advice, including background information, roles and responsibilities, understanding current travel patterns, establishing objectives, targets and indicators, identifying measures, awareness raising and marketing, maintaining momentum, financial issues and useful sources of further information.
Travel planning for sustainability: Guidance for higher education institutions
Forum for the Future (Steer Davies Gleave UK), May 2003
This document was published specifically to provide guidance on travel plans for universities and other tertiary institutions. It addresses issues such as “getting started” (how to explain the idea of travel planning to others); securing support and financial / technical and human resources to develop the plan; the partnerships required to ensure the success of the plan; methods for assessing travel needs, setting targets and objectives and implementation measures, as well has how to maintain the “momentum” once the travel plan is in place.
Source: Travel planning for sustainability
3.4 Schools
It is recognised that not all schools developing and implementing travel plans will achieve student mode shift away from car passenger – in fact, the UK Department for Transport (2004) estimates that up to 40% of schools do not experience any such change in mode share. Unfortunately, a review of international, New Zealand and Australian experience with school travel plans could only determine what motivates a school community or local authority to undertake school travel work rather than identify any specific attributes that contribute to successful modal shift.
The lack of identifiable characteristics for success or failure implies that almost any school is a suitable candidate for travel planning. Hence, what remains is to determine how to prioritise schools, given the limited availability of resources. The remainder of this section considers this issue.
Further specification should be possible as the results of the monitoring programmes for travel behaviour change projects are fed back into the system.
3.4.1 Motivation for undertaking a school travel plan
As was indicated in Section 3.2, the commitment of the school community and the local authority to the school travel planning process, including implementation of the school travel plan, is of great importance to its success – all the more so because there are, as yet, no particular factors identifying other characteristics for success or failure.
Safety and congestion issues
There appear to be two significant factors motivating school communities to develop and implement travel plans at primary schools:
- Real or perceived safety issues – the most commonly named include:
- Inadequate or no crossings for children to access the school
- Inadequate or no footpaths / cycle paths (lanes)
- Roads near the school are considered to have either or both of high volumes and fast moving vehicle traffic
- Parking or stopping of cars (usually by parents) near the school entrance(s) is undertaken in a careless fashion, potentially endangering pedestrians and/or cyclists.
- “Chaos at the school gate”: a perception of unreasonable levels of traffic congestion around or in the school grounds. This creates the desire to reduce the use of the car for the journey to school and, consequently, the congestion on the roads around the school.
Note that it is common for the more vociferous school communities to be the ones where the safety issues are more apparent than real, whereas less well-organised and articulate communities with more genuine safety issues are not highly visible. Any framework to prioritise schools for travel planning should take account of this. While there is limited experience with school travel plan development in secondary schools, it appears that the characteristics for participation and success tend to be more related to concerns about the congestion around the school and the effects of this on the surrounding neighbours. This is possibly due to the fact that secondary schools tend to have a much bigger student population than most primary schools.
Recently, there has been an increasing awareness of the potential for the journey to school to be used as a means for promoting increased physical activity and reducing the health problems (including obesity) associated with physically inactive lifestyles.
With TBhC initiatives the key outcome sought from school travel plans is a reduction in motor vehicle use (VKT), particularly from those parents who currently drive their children to school. Providing that they are carefully designed an associated benefit of school travel plans is an improvement in safety for children, along with regular physical exercise etc. There is a distinction between the key outcome sought and associated benefits.
While no predictors of VKT reduction could be identified through research and therefore safety (as a significant motivator) is proposed as an alternative method of determining priorities at least in the short term, proponents should keep in mind that reduction in motor vehicle use (VKT), and modal shift are key TBhC objectives and that where practical prioritisation frameworks should be adopted that include factors that theoretically at least would make it easier for the school to achieve a reduction in VKT. Monitoring and evaluation of school travel plan projects in the future could then test the applicability of an initial list of such factors. If prioritisation is done solely on the basis of safety issues, it is possible that a school may be chosen on the basis of safety issues without any real investigation of whether there is the potential for the school to reduce VKT.
This issue is complicated further by the area where the school travel plan is implemented. Not all areas with safety issues have congestion issues. If the key outcome sought is a reduction in VKT and therefore a reduction in congestion then this is potentially more applicable for affluent areas as it is parents in these areas taking their children to school that is contributing to the congestion, particularly around schools. However, if school travel plans are to be implemented in more deprived areas, congestion (generated from parents driving their children to school) may not be such a significant issue. In these areas more children tend to walk and cycle and therefore safety issues are the main concern, generally from through traffic. In these situations it is reasonable to have safety issues as the main way of prioritising schools for school travel plans and an improvement in safety could be a better overall outcome than VKT reduction.
Consideration should be given to targeting to different types of areas and the key outcome expected in these areas and the issue of local authority commitment relative to different target groups and areas. This requires identification of the importance of having a representative and champion from the target population and also distinguishing between different types of target populations and the issues associated with implementing travel behaviour change activities in these different areas.
Rural v. urban schools
Schools in rural areas are less likely to participate in travel planning, most probably because these schools are smaller and the catchment area is larger than for urban schools. Schools situated in small towns (less than 10,000 population) are also likely to have less traffic and shorter distances to walk, creating a safer environment for younger children to walk or cycle to school. Hence, most school travel planning is expected to occur in urban areas with a population greater than 25,000.
Measures adopted
The measures identified to address the barriers to environmentally friendly mode use can be broadly categorised as follows:
- Walking initiatives (e.g. “Walking School Bus”; walking clubs)
- Cycling initiatives (e.g. cycle safety training; cycle maintenance training; cycle trains / “pools” (Belgium), cycle clubs)
- Public transport initiatives (e.g. improving bus shelters; subsidised fares; introduction of school bus / public transport routes)
- Engineering measures (e.g. crossing treatments; cycle paths / lanes; maintenance of footpaths / cycle lanes; park and walk sites; construction of cycle storage facilities; traffic calming; 30 km/h speed zones)
- Enforcement measures (e.g. parking restrictions; speed enforcement)
- Education programmes – pupils and parents (e.g. TravelSmart – Australia; RoadSense – New Zealand)
- Promotional activities (e.g. “Walking Wednesday”; “Walk to School Day”; car free day / week / month; incentives, breakfasts for walkers)
- Others.
Without exception, all school travel plans include some combination of the above elements, as does “safe routes to school” work in the UK and New Zealand, and “mobility management” work in Europe. To be successful, the combination of measures must reflect the needs and perceptions of the school community, including students, parents, teachers and the local authority.
Land Transport NZ currently recommends that cycle trains/pools not be utilised as a measure due to a lack of New Zealand research on the safety implications. If cycle trains/pools are being considered then appropriate consultation and research should be undertaken to ensure that there are no potential safety issues associated with this measure.
More generally, Land Transport NZ considers that promotional activities to get children walking and cycling to school should not take place prior to safety issues being resolved. Therefore engineering and enforcement related safety issues will need to be resolved before the promotional activities occur.
3.4.2 Barriers to success
One of the key barriers to successful school travel work is the perception of parents that it is more convenient and/or safe to drive their child to school in the car. This is particularly true for parents of younger children – parents may be more willing to allow walking or cycling to school as the child gets older, irrespective of whether or not a school travel plan is in place. Parental choice with respect to schools may also be a barrier, as it means that there may be a longer journey to school for some students, increasing the potential need for car use.
School rules disallowing cycling and/or walking to the school are a distinctive barrier to successful modal shift. Addressing such rules may be the first step in developing a school travel plan.
3.4.3 Possible frameworks to assist in prioritising schools
Apart from the identification of safety issues as a motivator for school communities to participate in the travel planning process, the lack of statistically proven contributors to success means that project proponents need to develop their own mechanism for identifying and prioritising schools suitable for travel plan development and implementation. It is suggested that an investigation of the amount of congestion and how it is generated is conducted to help in the prioritisation of school areas. Further specification should be possible as the results of the monitoring programmes for TBhC projects are fed back into the system.
There are a few frameworks that have been used to prioritise schools for participation in the travel planning process. Three of these are highlighted here. Note that the frameworks are used solely to prioritise activity, not to identify the potential for success.
Hertfordshire County Council, in the UK, has developed a detailed weighting system, based on its extensive experience (515 of 635 schools in the Council area have some involvement) to decide which schools to undertake its “safe routes to school” work with. While the weighting measures were not identified (neither in the document nor through personal contact), Table 3.2 provides insight into the mix of safety and other factors that Hertfordshire County perceives are important in selecting schools.
Table 3.2: Criteria for prioritising safe routes to school work in Hertfordshire County (source: Dept for Transport UK, forthcoming)
| Criteria | Measure |
|---|---|
| The proximity of students to school | |
| The opportunities for undertaking a cluster approach (i.e. working with a number of schools at the same time) | |
| Numbers of casualties | Accidents per year |
| Evidence of interest from the school | Enthusiasm and commitment of school are given a high weighting |
| Potential synergies with other work being carried out in area traffic management plans | For example, traffic calming in areas around schools |
By contrast, Auckland City Council adopted a more stringent safety focus in prioritising schools across the entire city for involvement in school travel planning. Every element in the framework (Table 3.3) was given a weighting, and subsequently each school had a weighted ranking, where the lowest score indicated a school with the highest priority.
Table 3.3: Auckland City Council school investigation priority ranking (2003)
| Criteria | Weighting measure |
|---|---|
| Number of crashes within 200m of school boundary over 5 years | 0 to >5 (>5 is highest weighting) |
| Pedestrian blackspot within 200m of school boundary | Yes / No (Yes is higher weighting) |
| School type | Primary / intermediate / secondary – primary highest weighting |
| School role | Larger role (>800) has highest weighting |
| Road hierarchy of the road that the main school crossing is on | No crossing has the highest weighting; then arterial, collector, local |
| Schools with direct frontage on to an arterial road | Yes / No (Yes is higher weighting) |
| Schools with a walkway that connects to an arterial road | Yes / No (Yes is higher weighting) |
| Schools with direct frontage on to a collector road | Yes / No (Yes is higher weighting) |
| Schools with a walkway that connects to a collector road | Yes / No (Yes is higher weighting) |
The Victoria Department of Infrastructure did not use any specific safety criteria in selecting the 34 schools for its travel planning trial. Rather the schools were chosen based on the proximity of students to the school and the awareness and interest in addressing congestion problems around the school, such as:
- Awareness that the school has an access problem, either manifested as traffic congestion at the start and end of the school day, or as low rates of walking and cycling
- A high percentage of students living within 4 km (2km for walking, 4km for cycling)
- Positive interest shown by the school in acting to address the access problem
- Regional equity in the final selection
- Schools have links to travel related programmes.
3.4.4 Guidelines and advice on developing school travel plans
School travel plan coordinators’ guide
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, New Zealand
The school travel plan coordinators’ guide, being developed by EECA, is likely to include an overview and examples of projects, project management considerations, project planning (identifying and understanding target schools), project development, project components and project implementation.
Source: School travel plan coordinators’ guide
Smarter choices – changing the way we travel (Section 4: school travel plans)
Department for Transport, UK, 2004
The Smarter Choices report is a comprehensive review of travel behaviour change and travel demand management processes. For school travel plans, the report includes detailed information about the background to school travel plans in the UK, including a literature review regarding the traffic impacts of school travel. The report provides a review of eight authorities “before and after” results for schools that had engaged in school travel initiatives in some way, a review of other effects from school travel studies, synergies with school travel studies and other policies and issues, relationship between spending and outcomes, and opportunities for the future.
This comprehensive and technical document provides a source of information regarding school travel planning in the UK, rather than a “how-to” guide for the production of travel plans.
Source: Smarter choices
School travel plan resource pack
Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions, UK, 1999 (revised 2003)
The school travel plan resource pack, originally published by the DETR in 1999, is one of the best sources of information for school travel planning. The pack includes a best practice guide for local authorities, a case studies report, sample posters, sample information and “how to” leaflets.
Travelling to school: a good practice guide
Department for Education and Skills and Department for Transport, UK, 2003
An easy-to-read summary of various initiatives to encourage walking, cycling, ride sharing and passenger transport use.
Source: Travelling to school: a good practice guide
Safer Routes guidelines (Draft)
Land Transport New Zealand
The Safer Routes guidelines are being developed by Land Transport New Zealand. These guidelines describe how to carry out integrated community projects that target all ages of pedestrians and cyclists, of which the school community is a part. The guidelines would be particularly useful if safety improvements were the primary outcome sought.
3.5 Households
While there is considerable anecdotal evidence about selecting suitable locations for implementing household-based TBhC initiatives, an analysis of the modal shift results of such interventions could not substantiate any of these characteristics with statistical confidence. Household-based initiatives have been found to work with all age groups; in family and adult only households; with students, homemakers and full time employees; in low and high car ownership areas; with men and women; and in inner and outer urban areas. While hilly locations may make walking and cycling less attractive, it appears that modal shift, particularly to passenger transport or ridesharing will still occur. Hence the discussion below focuses on providing some “common sense” suggestions for area selection.
Further specification should be possible as the results of the monitoring programmes for travel behaviour change projects are fed back into the system.
The Dept for Transport UK (2004) Smarter Choices project, suggested a coherent set of factors that together may positively influence the outcome of a household-based TBhC initiative. These factors were:
- Fairly discrete and self-contained community, with reasonable local services (retail shops, supermarket, personal services) and facilities (i.e. not just a dormitory or satellite suburb)
- Reasonable level of public transport (and ideally, some recent improvements in services)
- Some excess capacity on public transport
- Reasonable quality of environment for walking and cycling, including lower speeds and a ‘people friendly’ street-scene
- Recognition in the community concerned that there are traffic problems
- Support from the local authority and other key partners, including public transport operators.
Existing infrastructure
The condition and quality of the existing land transport network, particularly with respect to passenger transport services and the walking and cycling environment are possibly the most important factors.
There is universal agreement that areas with good passenger transport services but low utilisation are “high potential” areas for household-based initiatives. In addition, the existence of a perception gap between what people believe exists and the actual passenger transport service quality can also be a contributor to success. Research has shown that non-users generally avoid using public transport for subjective reasons and they are somewhat ignorant of travel costs. In examining personalised marketing and travel blending initiatives, the Dept for Transport UK (A review of the effectiveness of personalised journey planning techniques, 2002) concluded that:
- It is clear that the techniques will generally only work ‘on their own’ where there is a large gap in perception between what exists and what people believe exists. For public transport, where services and travel quality is much higher than is perceived, personalised approaches can have very large effects, but where such a gap does not exist the travel behaviour effects could be negligible. For walking and cycling encouragement, the factors that will lead to increases are more complex but the concept of a ‘perception gap’ is still of relevance.
What has not been delineated is how a “good quality” passenger transport service should be defined. Is it by the frequency of peak or off-peak services? By the variety of routes available? By the quality of the buses or train carriages? In one New Zealand trial, for example, the council thought that the level of passenger transport service was “reasonable”, while residential feedback indicated that the service did not meet the “good quality” standard from their point of view. Hopefully, future monitoring programme results will clarify this point.
Peak and off-peak trips
International and New Zealand experience clearly indicates that household-based initiatives work best when considering off-peak, non-work trips. Where it is possible to disaggregate the effects, it has been found that at least 80% of any modal shift attributed to the project occurs in the off-peak periods.
Measures adopted
Using information, marketing and community education with integrated travel planning can increase awareness, influence attitudes and enable changes in behaviour. There is a wide range of potential information that may be offered as part of a household-based initiative: from advice on specific journeys, pamphlets on local walk or cycle ways, brochures on how to take the bus, to customised timetables for a pre-specified bus route from near a person’s house to their work. It is suggested that the more customised information is, the greater the effect.
Providing an opportunity to try public transport appears to be important. This may reduce any misconceptions individuals have about public transport. It is common to offer up to a one-month trial period to people who have no previous public transport use.
Ride-sharing programmes and the provision of “eco-driving” information and educational opportunities are sometimes incorporated into personalised marketing or travel blending initiatives.
3.5.1 Possible frameworks to assist in prioritising areas for household-based initiatives
The lack of specific guidance on community selection, apart from a need for reasonable level and quality of walking, cycling and passenger transport infrastructure and services, means that project proponents need to develop their own mechanism for identifying and prioritising areas suitable for household-based travel behaviour change initiatives. Further specification should be possible as the results of the monitoring programmes for travel behaviour change projects are fed back into the system.
In the meantime, the processes used by Environment Canterbury and Auckland Regional Council provide two examples of how prioritisation may be undertaken by local authorities. In its Technical Report: East Papanui Go Smarter Community Project (ECAN, 2004), Environment Canterbury outlined a framework used to select the community for undertaking a Go Smarter (travel blending) trial.
Table 3.4: Demographic summary of possible Go Smarter trial study areas (source: ECAN, 2004)
| Attribute | Measure | Area 1 | Area 2 | Area 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meshblocks included | ||||
| Occupied dwellings | Number | |||
| Average household (HH) occupancy | Number | |||
| Families in HH | Number or proportion | |||
| HH owned by usual residents | Number or proportion | |||
| HH as rental accommodation | Number or proportion | |||
| Usually resident (UR) at same HH location 5 years ago | Number or proportion | |||
| HH with no vehicles | Number or proportion | |||
| HH with 1 vehicle | Number or proportion | |||
| HH with 2 vehicles | Number or proportion | |||
| HH with 3+ vehicles | Number or proportion | |||
| Average vehicles per HH | Number or proportion | |||
| Usually resident population (URP) | Total population of area | |||
| URP aged 65+ | Number or proportion | |||
| URP aged 15+ | Number or proportion | |||
| URP aged <15 years | Proportion | |||
| URP over 15 years, gainfully employed | Number or proportion | |||
| Journey to work (JTW) by vehicle | Number or proportion | |||
| JTW by bus | Number or proportion | |||
| JTW by cycle | Number or proportion | |||
| Worked at home | Number or proportion | |||
| Attribute summary of possible Go Smarter Trial Study Areas | ||||
| Vehicle trip making potential | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| HH size | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Working population | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| School age connections | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Permanent property ownership | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Long term residency | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Families in HH | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Proximity to school | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Proximity to other services | Poor - good - excellent | |||
| Proximity to bus routes | Poor - good - excellent | |||
ECAN considered the characteristics of the households (composition, age, number of household vehicles, etc) and some of their trip-making habits, as well as rating different aspects of the community as a whole (refer Table 3.4). With respect to household characteristics, weighting was given to the age / family mix of the population, vehicle ownership rates, average income and the proportion of rental accommodation.
By contrast, the ARC framework (see Table 3.5) used to select the area for its 2003 “Way2Go” personalised marketing project, had a much greater emphasis on the characteristics of the area and the potential synergies with other projects. Each characteristic was scored out of five (with zero being the lowest and five the highest). The higher the score, the more favourable the area is considered for undertaking a household-based initiative.
Table 3.5: Auckland Regional Council Way2Go selection criteria (source: ARC, 2003)
| Attribute | Score out of 5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Area 1 | Area 2 | Area 3 | |
| Congestion / bottleneck | |||
| Contribution to congestion | |||
| Passenger transport | |||
| Existing under-utilised services | |||
| Existing information infrastructure | |||
| Potential for information improvement (given timeframe) | |||
| Potential for integration into future annual plans (ARC & TLA) | |||
| Supportive PT operators (bus/rail) | |||
| Priority lanes | |||
| Incidence of key locations | |||
| Travel centres | |||
| Employment (clusters) | |||
| Schools (clusters) | |||
| Shopping | |||
| Leisure | |||
| Other modes | |||
| Walk-ability (safety / distance / infrastructure) to key locations | |||
| Cycle-ability (safety / distance / infrastructure) to key locations | |||
| Planned / potential changes (given timeframe) | |||
| Integration of project into future annual plan (long term) | |||
| Planned / potential infrastructure improvements: | |||
| 1. PT information | |||
| 2. PT services | |||
| 3. Walking | |||
| 4. Cycling | |||
| Potential School Travel Plan activity (given timeframe) | |||
| Potential business activity - travel plans | |||
| Existing community groups / network | |||
3.5.2 Guidelines and advice on undertaking household-based TBhC initiatives
Due to the relative complexity, short length of time and limited geographic spread of household-based initiatives there is a limited amount of information available regarding the implementation of such schemes. However, with this in mind, the following references provide a valuable insight into the various approaches available.
“Community travel plan” guidelines
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, New Zealand
The “community travel plan” guidebook which focuses on how to develop and implement household-based initiatives, being developed by EECA, is likely to include an overview and examples of projects, project management considerations, project planning (identifying and understanding target communities), project development, project components and project implementation.
Smarter choices – changing the way we travel (Section 5: personalised travel planning)
Department for Transport, UK, 2004
The Smarter Choices report refers to community-based travel behaviour change programmes (sometimes known as individualised marketing) in the personalised travel planning section. This section provides a history to personalised travel planning, findings from previous studies, an explanation of the various approaches available, staffing and budgets, comparison of findings, and synergies with personalised travel planning and other policies.
Source: Smarter choices – changing the way we travel
Voluntary household travel behaviour change – theory and practice
Ampt, Liz , 2003 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland
This paper develops an understanding of people’s motivation for travel behaviour change (money, information, attitude, values) and what supports behaviour change (household-based approach, personal knowledge of change and options). Communication is highlighted as a key element of any TBhC programme. An overview of the Melbourne TravelSmart Communities (travel blending and personalised journey planning) is given. The project involved the development of specific and general information, bicycle loan scheme and children’s activities.
Travel behaviour change TravelSmart program, 2001-2005 Town of Cambridge: final report
SocialData Australia Pty Ltd, Australia, 2003
The Cambridge household travel behaviour change programme involved a potential 24,000 households. This report discusses the process behind the SocialData travel behaviour change process, the application of this procedure to the town of Cambridge in Western Australia, the implementation and evaluation processes.
Source: Travel behaviour change TravelSmart program
Page created: 20 October 2008