|
First principles assessment
Why introduce company travel plans (CTPs)?
Demand impacts.Short and long run demand responses
Short and long run demand responses
Level of response
Supply impacts
Financing requirements
Expected impact on key policy objectives
Expected impact on problems
Expected winners and losers
Barriers to implementation
Evidence on performance
Why introduce company travel plans (CTPs)?
Organisations introduce CTPs of their own volition to tackle parking shortages,
improve accessibility, solve staff recruitment and retention problems,
comply with planning regulations or in the case of some public sector
organisations, comply with government directives. Organisations can also
save money in the long term. This could be achieved by replacing company
cars with pool vehicles for example, or reducing the kilometres travelled
for business mileage through telecommunications.
The problems to be solved vary in their nature
Overall problem |
Possible aspects of problem
|
Parking shortage
|
Adequate employee parking but none left for customers/patients/students
or other visitors or vice versa
Not enough to satisfy demand from any group
|
Accessibility
|
Staff shortage and large area of unemployment near by but no transport
links
Approach roads congested by customers/patients/students or other
visitors
|
Staff recruitment and retention
|
As for accessibility
Company car demanded as perk but provision prohibitively expensive
Staff retention hampered by congested journey to and from work
|
Planning regulations
|
Large industrial or retail parks and major site expansions and
developments refused planning permission unless a plan is to be
implemented. A UK example of such planning policy is the Planning
Policy Guidance note on Transport (PPG13) issued by the Government.
|
Significant traffic generators
|
Airports, stadium, retail parks and other activities generating
a high volume of journeys are encouraged to develop plans. Such
plans can include measures encouraging the general public not to
drive as well as staff.
|
Government directive
|
Public sector organisations told to implement a plan
|
Excessively high outlay on transport
|
Car park maintenance
Company cars
High volume of first class/peak hour business travel and associated
expenses
Duplicated inter-site journeys in relation to staff, goods and
internal mail
|
Demand impacts
The demand impacts of CTPs will be dependent on the measures implemented
through the plan. The key impact will be on the demand for car travel.
As a consequence of this, demand for public transport, walking or cycling
may increase. If there is significant up take of telecommuting and replacing
business travel with telecommunications, the overall demand for travel
will fall. Regardless of the measures implemented through the plan, it
will contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce congestion
and the associated negative impacts. However, impacts will be local to
the site where a CTP is implemented unless there is widespread uptake.
Responses and situations is completed on the basis of local impacts.
Response |
Reduction in road traffic
|
Expected in situations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
Where the CTP successfully facilitates ride
sharing, modal shift and/or trip substitution with telecommunications,
assuming the previous mode choice was solo driving |
|
|
Where the CTP facilitates modal shift as
opposed to ride sharing or trip substitution |
|
|
This may happen where a CTP supplies sufficient
alternatives to make owning a second household car unnecessary. |
|
|
In the long term a committed individual who
moves house for other reasons may move closer to work or public transport
links. |
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Short and long run demand responses
As with other measures, which work through attitudinal and behavioural
change, CTPs have not been in use long enough to gauge long term demand
response exactly. It is not merely that "there are very few examples
of them having worked successfully" (Rye, 2002). Firstly, whilst
"travel plans can work, and make a contribution to modal shift at
the site level. At the network level,
the impact
is much less clear, since trips removed by a travel plan may simply
be replaced by others that were previously suppressed by congestion"
(Rye, 2002). Secondly, in the private sector travel plans are usually
adopted where there is a problem, even when that problem is created through
planning regulations. Hence, where there is no problem (or perceived problem),
travel plans are unlikely to be adopted. Thus, the long term responses
could be marginal, as could the role of travel plans in transport policy
(Rye, 2002).
The demand response will vary depending on which measures are implemented
through the plan and whether more are phased in over time. Demand responses
is completed on the basis of an overall decrease in car use. Again, the
responses will be local.
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Level of response
The price elasticity of demand varies with context, especially the measures
implemented in the travel plan. The type of trip, traveller, price elasticity
of related goods and services, and whether the elasticity accounts for
short term or long term demand response are important influential factors
in the calculation and interpretation.
Rye (2002) has compiled figures to show that 11% of private businesses
in Great Britain have taken up travel plans, which means that 7% of employees
are covered by a travel plan. 73% of trips were by car before travel plan
uptake. This has dropped 6% afterwards. This is a decrease of 0.5m kilometres
per annum.
A review of experience in the Netherlands reported by rye (2002) suggests
that decreases of this amount are the result of plans consisting of only
basic measures, e.g. ride sharing.
"On average the reduction in drive alone commute trips from a travel
plan
[is] as follows" (Rye, 2002):
Measures
|
Decrease in drive alone commute trips
|
Basic, costing little
|
5-8%
|
Basic plus more expensive measures such as bus services
|
8-10%
|
The above plus disincentives such as parking charges
|
10-15%
|
Despite less public objection to CTPs in the Netherlands, only Washington
State, through its legislation has achieved widespread uptake. In the
UK, uptake in the private sector is mainly limited to companies with 200
or more employees. This is because smaller organisations rarely have the
resources to divert to such peripheral activities (Rye, 2002).
Supply impacts
As with demand impacts, supply impacts will be local. CTPs themselves
will not result in a change in the supply of road space. However, where
CTPs form part of a new development, which includes new road access, a
CTP can be accompanied by increased supply of road space. Ideally, the
presence of the CTP will manage the demand for the new road space such
that it is dominated by alternatives to solo driving.
In the more common scenarios where there is no increase in supply of
road space, there is merely a change in the way that road space is used.
This is common to all attitudinal and behavioural measures.
Where the CTP also includes additional provision for alternatives to
the car, e.g. bus services, there can be an increase in public transport
and facilities for walking and cycling.
Where CTPs seek to restrict parking, there will be a decrease in supply.
Where ride sharing is accompanied
by priority parking spaces the way existing supply is used will change
and reduce supply available to solo drivers.
Financing requirements
The financial burden of a CTP varies according to the measures implemented
through the plan. A staff travel survey can be undertaken at minimal cost,
especially where there are facilities to collect data via an intranet.
However, some staff time will need to be diverted to analyse the data,
interpret the results and decide on appropriate action. Alternatively,
a staff travel plan co-ordinator can be employed full or part time. The
salary cost will vary with hours, responsibilities and between regions.
It could range from £10-15 ($14-21) thousand per annum part time
to £20-30 ($29-43) thousand per annum full time (2002 figures).
The cheapest and most basic measure to implement is a ride
sharing scheme. Reducing parking space and information provision are
also inexpensive measures. Providing loans to purchase bicycles or season
tickets may also be inexpensive in the medium and long term despite initially
large outlay. Annual adult travel cards in London range from £360
- £1,476 ($515 - $2,112) at April 2002 prices. In a company with
200 staff where 10 of the workforce take up the offer of travel card loans
the initial outlay would range from £7,200 - £29,520 ($10,300
- $42,232) per annum. Other measures such as subsidised bus services can
be more expensive, as the Pfizer example illustrates.
However, if parking charges are implemented this could fund expensive
measures, as could savings brought about by reduced business travel costs,
not having to increase parking provision, reduced congestion around the
site and/or reduced recruitment and retention costs.
Nevertheless, the staff time and cost taken up organising a plan should
not be forgotten. It is more likely to be viable for a large company where
the cost per head is lower, as the amount of organisation does not decrease
directly in line with staff numbers. Additionally, administrative burden
is likely to decrease over time as the travel plan becomes established.
Expected impact on key policy objectives
The exact impacts will depend on which measures are implemented. However,
the overall aim is to reduce car use for work related journeys. Thus,
Contribution to Objectives is completed on this basis. To see more detail
on the impacts of specific measures, e.g. ride
sharing or bus service provision, go
to the individual measures within KonSULT. However, it should be noted
that impacts will be less wide spread in terms of geographical impact,
social groups affected and travel culture change than shown for individual
measures. This is because CTPs are confined to work related journeys,
which are concentrated around business locations.
Objective |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
|
|
Notable around sites with successful plans. |
|
|
Around business locations and access routes,
but where there are few residential, retail, commercial or entertainment
sites, there may be little benefit. |
|
|
Around business sites and access routes. |
|
|
Where measures improve access from deprived
areas and where infrastructure and/or public transport services are
made available to the general public, or where there are benefits
from reduced congestion. |
|
|
Around business sites and access routes. |
|
|
For individual companies that save money or
can expand as a result of the plan. Also, some impact through reduced
congestion in wider area, especially if the plan covers a whole industrial
or retail development; or if a critical mass of companies in a city
centre have plans. |
|
|
Negative impacts where CTPs are subsidised
or there is substantially reduced tax revenue from fuel sales. Could
be mitigated by savings in the cost of parking provision, road maintenance,
accidents and enforcement. |
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Expected impact on problems
Again the impacts will vary according to the measures implemented and
individual measures should be consulted for more detail. The impacts will
be local to sites where CTPs are implemented.
Contribution to alleviation of key problems
|
Problem |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
Congestion-related delay |
|
Contribution may be greater where the campaign
is accompanied by infrastructure and/or service alterations which
make using alternatives to the car more attractive. |
Congestion-related unreliability |
|
Contribution may be greater where the campaign
is accompanied by infrastructure and/or service alterations which
make using alternatives to the car more attractive. |
Community severance |
|
By reducing traffic volumes |
Visual intrusion |
|
By reducing traffic volumes |
Lack of amenity |
|
Where increased walking and cycling results
from the campaign there may be greater use of local facilities, which
will sustain and possibly increase their supply. |
Global warming |
|
By reducing traffic-related CO2
emissions |
Local air pollution |
|
By reducing emissions of NOx,
particulates and other local pollutants |
Noise |
|
By reducing traffic volumes |
Reduction of green space |
|
By reducing pressure for new road building
and city expansion |
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites |
|
By reducing traffic volumes |
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those
with mobility impairments |
|
There is no direct impact, but where increased
demand for public transport results from a campaign, quality and volume
of supply may increase. |
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social
or geographic groups |
|
Individualised marketing targets car drivers,
but in the longer term increased demand for alternatives may result
in increased supply, which could benefit other social groups. |
Number, severity and risk of accidents |
|
By reducing traffic volumes |
Suppression of the potential for economic activity
in the area |
|
By improving the efficiency of the local
road network through reduced congestion, especially where combined
with other measures |
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Expected winners and losers
One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measure
and this is especially true of CTPs which target a very specific audience.
Group |
Winners / losers
|
Comment |
Large scale freight and commercial traffic
|
|
Where reduced car use is achieved on routes
used by freight vehicles. High value journeys – less time spent in
congestion the greater the vehicle utilization. |
Small businesses |
|
Unlikely to have their own CTP but if they
are located near an organisation with a successful CTP they may benefit
from reduced congestion. Most likely in city centres or business parks
where a critical mass of companies have successful plans. |
High income car-users |
/
|
High income associated with high value of
time and thus continued car use for high value journeys. Where there
are financial penalties for car use in the CTP employees who continue
to drive will loose. On a wider scale those making high value journeys
in the area benefited by the CTP will benefit from reduced congestion. |
People with a low income |
|
Where CTP participants are ablve to save
money through ride sharing or parking cash outs. |
People with poor access to public transport
|
|
Where new bus services are available to the
general public and/or where increased demand for alternatives results
in increased quality and volume of supply. |
All existing public transport users |
|
Where new bus services are available to the
general public and/or where increased demand for alternatives results
in increased quality and volume of supply. Reduced congestion will
also increase the supply of existing public transport. |
People living adjacent to the area targeted
|
|
They may benefit from reduced congestion
and improved or increased public transport supply. |
People making high value, important journeys
|
|
Where these journeys are within the area
benefiting from reduced congestion as a result of the CTP. |
The average car user |
|
Where they are able to travel more efficiently,
saving time and money. Plus getting more exercise through walking
and cycling, and experiencing the community benefits which accrue
from these modes. |
|
=
weakest possible benefit, |
|
=
strongest benefit |
|
= weakest
possible disbenefet, |
|
= strongest
possible disbenefit |
|
= neither
wins nor loses |
Barriers to implementation
Barrier |
Scale |
Comment |
Legal |
|
There are no obvious legal barriers to the
implementation of an CTP, although there may be a need to ensure that
the instigating organisation is not held responsible for any negative
impacts on an individual resulting from a change to habitual travel
patterns. With regard to STPs and HTPs there may be a need to consider
child protection and duty of care implications. |
Finance |
|
A basic CTP can be implemented with low costs,
although for a small company these could be prohibitive. |
Political |
|
This varies from place to place and is likely
to be highly related to public acceptance. |
Feasibility |
|
Reluctance of companies and individuals to
participate is the key feasibility issue. |
|
=
minimal barrier, |
|
=
most significant barrier |
Evidence on performance
In the State of Washington in the US, most employers with over 100 staff
in urban areas are required to have a travel plan by law. Between 1994
and 1999 the number of employees who drove alone decreased by 5.5% (72%
to 68%) (Rye, 2002).
Text edited at the Institute for Transport Studies,
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
|