|  
  
  
   
  
  
  
     |   
 Contribution 
      to objectives and problems
 
 
 
         
          | Objective  | Ottawa | Manhattan | UK |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 |  
 
   
    |  | = Weakest 
      possible positive contribution, |  | = strongest 
      possible positive contribution |   
    |  | = Weakest 
      possible negative contribution |  | = strongest 
      possible negative contribution |  
   
    |  | = 
      No contribution |  
   
         
          | Contribution to alleviation of key problems |   
          | Problem  | Ottawa | Manhattan | UK |   
          | Congestion-related delay  | 
 |  *
 | 
 |   
          | Congestion-related unreliability  | 
 |  *
 | 
 |   
          | Community severance  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Visual intrusion  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Lack of amenity  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Global warming  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Local air pollution  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Noise  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Reduction of green space  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Damage to environmentally sensitive sites  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility 
              impairments  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic 
              groups  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Number, severity and risk of accidents  | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          | Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area 
             | 
 | 
 | 
 |   
          |  |  |  |  |  |  
 
   
    |  | = Weakest 
      possible positive contribution, |  | = strongest 
      possible positive contribution |   
    |  | = Weakest 
      possible negative contribution |  | = strongest 
      possible negative contribution |  
   
    |  | = 
      No contribution |  
 *The congestion considered in this table is road congestion, not passenger 
        congestion on public transport. Were the table to consider this, both 
        congestion items would have been awarded two positive ticks. 
 Appropriate contextsThe most appropriate context for flexible working hours implemented to 
        tackle transport problems is now as part of a company travel plan (CTP). 
        Congestion levels in cities have now reached levels where by flexible 
        working hours alone would make no significant difference. This is especially 
        so as they are already a wide spread working practice. However, their 
        ability to facilitate public transport use by enabling employees to alter 
        departure times to coincide with timetables and to avoid punctuality problems 
        when faced with delays can be emphasised through a CTP. Consequently, 
        flexible working hours can best be used in the same areas as CTPs.
 
         
          | Appropriate area-types  |   
          | Area type | Suitability |   
          | City centre | 
 |   
          | Dense inner suburb | 
 |   
          | Medium density outer suburb  | 
 |   
          | Less dense outer suburb | 
 |   
          | District centre | 
 |   
          | Corridor | 
 |   
          | Small town | 
 |   
          | Tourist town | 
 |  
 
  
    |  | = Least suitable 
      area type |  | = Most suitable 
      area type |  
 
 
 
 
     |