Travel Blending®

Context

Travel blending® is an individualised marketing campaign implemented by Steer Davies Gleave consultancy. Travel Blending® has been implemented in Sydney and Adelaide in Australia, Leeds and Nottingham in the UK and San Diego in Chile. The Australian examples are presented here.

"The Travel Blending® Program was initially developed as part of a major public initiative called 'Clean Air 2000' which aims to reduce pollution caused by car travel in Sydney prior to the year 2000 Olympics. …After the pilot study had been completed in Sydney, the Department of Transport in South Australia (TransportSA) initiated a trial which took place in Adelaide" (Rose and Ampt, 2001). Travel Blending® in Adelaide is known as 'TravelSmart' Adelaide. As an individualised marketing campaign, Travel Blending® emphasises the "How to rather than … [the]
Should do" (Rose and Ampt, 2001).

Travel Blending® consists of two one week travel diaries completed by all members of participating households. So far individual participants have been recruited through the workplace; the individual then co-opts the rest of their household. The first travel diary allows:

• the amount of travel to be quantified
  
• the pollution generated to be calculated
  
• consideration of household interactions which result in travel
  
• generation of targeted suggestions about how to reduce car use.

The second diary:

• identifies change in travel behaviour
  
• facilitates feedback to participants
  
• monitors the impact of Travel Blending®

Travel diaries record "all travel outside the home with details obtained of destination, place and purpose, start and end time of each trip, travel mode and for car driver trips, the odometer reading at the start and end of the trip" (Rose and Ampt, 2001). The diaries cover seven days as week day and weekend journeys can be very different; people may be more able to travel blend at the weekend than during the week, or vice versa. It was found that people did complete the full seven day diaries; possibly because they included a built in reminder system (Rose and Ampt, 2001).

Travel Blending® does not merely promote replacing motor vehicle travel with other modes or means of communication, it encourages "thinking about activities and travel in advance (i.e. in what order can activities be done, who should do them, where should they be done etc.), and then blending modes (i.e. sometimes car, sometimes walk, sometimes public transport etc.), or blending activities (i.e. doing as many thins as possible in the same place, or on the same journey [i.e. trip chaining]), or finally blending over time (i.e. making small sustainable changes over time on a weekly or fortnightly basis)" (rose and Ampt, 2001). The key message is "to blend travel choices in a manageable but sustainable way to reduce motor vehicle use … [whilst] allowing people to participate in the same activities that they currently undertake" (Rose and Ampt, 2001).

Further information regarding the detailed design of Travel Blending® can be found in rose and Ampt (2001).

Impacts on demand
Rose and Ampt (2001) report details of the Sydney pilot study in qualitative terms due to the small sample size, and the Adelaide study in quantitative terms.

Sydney

• One individual who previously drove to the [train] station every day, started to catch the bus one day per week. This represents a 12 km reduction in distance travelled per week, and two less cold starts. The individual also reported that the change was sustainable in the long term.
  
• One individual who exhibited no change between diary one and diary two organised a group of friends travelling to the countryside to travel in two vehicles instead of three. This saved 600km of motor vehicle travel.
  
• One individual increased walking and ride sharing trips

The above households changed their travel patterns as a result of Travel Blending®. Two others made fairly dramatic changes because one of their vehicles was off the road. Other participants had plans to change in the longer term, including:

• Occasionally cycling to a friends' instead of being escorted by car, by her mother
  
• Organising a car pool for children's' Saturday morning sport
  
• Travelling to work by bus one day per week
  
• Considering access to public transport when moving house in the near future, so that the household can 'survive' with one rather than two cars.

Adelaide
Travel Behaviour Change Amongst Adelaide Participants indicates the changes in car use as a result of Travel Blending®. The results of a Z test to test the hypothesis that the means are equal for diary one and diary two, against the alternative hypothesis that the mean for diary two is less than that for diary one are also included.

*Significant at a 5% significance level, critical Z value = -1.64.
Source: Rose and Ampt (2001)

Rose and Ampt (2001) have produced aggregate results for the population as a whole by including non-participants in the analysis. This is done by assuming "that each person who refused to participate in rounds one and two travelled in the same way as the average for all persons in diary one (i.e. before they had received feedback) in both rounds, and that any person who participated in dairy one and not diary two was assumed to have made no change between the two diaries" (rose and Ampt, 2001).

Impacts on supply
Travel Blending® has had no impacts on either the supply of road space or public transport infrastructure.

Other impacts
Changes in participants' opinions and attitudes are reported for the Sydney study (Rose and Ampt, 2001). These are:

• "Unanimous agreement that the Travel Blending® Program resulted in increased awareness of the use of the motor vehicle and its associated environmental consequences for people of all ages. The tailored feedback was given as the major reason for this."
  
• "One individual who did not reduce her car travel … said that "I started valuing my trips in the car". This respondent came to appreciate the role the car played "as an important tool to communicate" and for the access it provided for speciality shopping and leisure activities."
  
• Another "participant said "I used to consider convenience and cost when making travel decisions now I consider three things: convenience, cost and environment."

Contribution to objectives

Travel Smart®

Context

Travel Smart® is a registered trademark of the Western Australian Department of Transport (TransportWA), used as a branding for voluntary travel behaviour change programmes. Travel Smart® informs and motivates people to use alternative modes to the car, including ride sharing and alternatives to travel (e.g. teleaccess). Like Travel Blending®, Travel Smart® does not constrain mobility. Travel Smart® as a brand encompasses a variety of attitudinal and behaviour change measures, including individualised marketing.

The Travel Smart® individualised marketing was developed by SOCIALDATA under the name Indimark. Travel Smart® individualised marketing starts by identifying individuals who are prepared to think about reducing their car use through telephone surveys. Those completely resistant to the idea do not receive any further communication. Those who already use alternatives a lot receive some form of reward, which is found to increase use said modes further. Those who are prepared to think about reducing their car use and participate provide information about their journeys and receive targeted suggestions to reduce their car use. This is done through the post or a home visit where appropriate. (Brög and Schädler, 1999).

A pilot study was undertaken in South Perth in 1997, with approximately 400 randomly selected households. The pilot comprised a benchmark survey in August 1997, intervention in September/October 1997 and an evaluation survey in November 1997. A second and third evaluation survey were undertaken in September 1998 and February 2000 respectively.

A large scale application occurred between February and June 2000, but the full evaluation has not be obtained to date. Monitoring of the large scale application was also undertaken using the electronic bus ticketing system in the area subject to individualised marketing.

Impacts on demand
The percentage changes in travel behaviour resulting from the pilot study are presented in Percentages Travel Behaviour Change from Travel Smart® Pilot

The farebox monitoring undertaken with the large scale application revealed a 27% increase in bus patronage between the period March to June 1999 and the same period in 2000. Over the wider network, there was a 1.5% increase in patronage, thus the net increase resulting from the Travel Smart® individualised marketing is 25%.

Impacts on supply
The implementation of individualised marketing through Travel Smart® does not affect the supply of road space or public transport infrastructure. It is possible that supply of public transport services may increase in response to demand.

Other impacts
The Travel Smart® analysis notes a number of cross cutting benefits. Many of these fall within the contribution to objectives below, but additionally, there are preventative health outcome due to increased levels of physical activity.

Contribution to objectives

Indimark in Europe

Context
Brög and Schädler (1999) report Indimark in Europe, which takes the same form as that developed for Travel Smart® in Australia, described above. Following the Australian success, the 'Switching to Public Transport' demonstration project was initiated in Europe by the International Association of Public Transport (UITP). Indimark was applied with the specific aim of increasing public transport patronage, and has since been adopted by a number of operators as part of their marketing strategy. All applications in Europe have included upwards of 2000 participants, the largest being in Leipzig, where there were 75,452 participants.

Impact on demand

Like the Travel Smart® results, those in Europe indicate that changes are sustained over two years. Even where there is a slight reversal in changes in travel behaviour, there is still less car use and more public transport use two years on than before intervention.

Impact on supply
Again, implementation of individualised marketing does not change the supply of road space or public transport. However, there may be increases in public transport supply resulting from increases in demand, especially as Indimark in Europe has been implemented to increase patronage.

Other impacts
Indimark has resulted in an improved image of public transport amongst the target group. Perceptions have also improved amongst a control group, but by a much smaller degree.

Source: (Brög and Schädler, 1999).

Participants who received a 'test ticket' (a free ticket that could be used for trial public transport use) reported improved perceptions of public transport and increased intentions to use public transport. However, a trial of test tickets in one German city, without prior contact and dialogue indicates that experience alone does not change behaviour. The dialogue is essential.

Source: (Brög and Schädler, 1999).

Additionally, one Austrian city public transport operator sent out conventional, untargeted information packages to one group, in addition to the Indimark group. The results suggest that conventional information has little impact on public transport patronage, but that Indimark does have an impact.

*Car driver and motorcycle journeys
Source: (Brög and Schädler, 1999).

Contribution to objectives

Gaps and weaknesses
The primary weakness in the evidence presented stems from individualised marketing to reduce car use being a recent development. Consequently, there is a scarcity of evidence.