University of Westminster

School of Architecture and the Built Environment

Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study.

MSc Transport Planning & Management - 2012

Thomas King

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those that have assisted me in the production of this study and throughout the duration of the course. In particular I would like to thank the following:

Peter White and Peter Stanley who have supported me during the year in the development of my study. Many thanks for your advice.

My employer, Kent County Council who have provided the financial assistance to permit me to complete this course, and to my colleagues Katie Pettitt and Charlotte Owen who assisted with the development and collection of the study data as part of a wider paper on ‘Making Workplace Travel Plans Work’.

My family and friends who have supported me throughout the two year course.

Lastly I would like to thank those who assisted me in the data collection stage of this study by agreeing to be interviewed.

3

Abstract

Despite popularisation of the terms over 20 years ago Agenda21 and sustainability are still current, topical issues, which attract attention and stimulate debate at the highest levels of global governance. This study examines the early ideas of sustainability to understand the role it has played within global and UK national policy. One of the key local impacts as a consequence of this global debate has been the creation of Travel Plans as a method to minimise the impact of growing traffic associated with new developments. By examining the rise of global and national policy, this study seeks to understand how Kent County Council, and organisations within the County have developed, implemented and operated their Travel Plans.

Of particular interest is the view that Travel Plans are not producing the outcomes originally intended. As a result, the research undertaken as part of this study is designed to look at site-specific examples to understand the problems associated with trying to implement and run a successful Travel Plan. Importantly this will touch on the wider issues of national policy, local government and the problems faced by businesses trying to achieve tangible results. This study will conclude by highlighting the key areas that need to be tackled at both the national, local and organisational level if Travel Plans are to become successful and more widespread across the UK.

Word count: 19,938

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 4

1.1. Aims .................................................................................................... 4

1.2. Structure .............................................................................................. 4

1.3. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 5

2. Literature review ...................................................................................... 6

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 6

2.2. Sustainability “Agenda21” ................................................................... 6

2.3. Theoretical approaches to sustainability ............................................. 8

2.4. National and local policy background .................................................. 9

2.5. Travel Plan background .................................................................... 11

2.6. PPG13 ............................................................................................... 11

2.7. NPPF................................................................................................. 12

2.8. Travel Plan types .............................................................................. 13

2.9. International Travel Plans and fiscal incentives ................................. 14

2.10. Corporate social responsibilities ........................................................ 15

2.11. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 18

3. Methodology .......................................................................................... 20

3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 20

3.2. Choice of topic .................................................................................. 20

3.3. Study design ..................................................................................... 20

3.4. Qualitative data ................................................................................. 22

3.5. Quantitative data ............................................................................... 23

3.6. Data analysis ..................................................................................... 24

3.7. Ethical considerations and data protection ........................................ 24

3.8. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 25

2

4. Results & analysis ................................................................................. 26

4.1. Online survey responses ................................................................... 26

4.2. Creation ............................................................................................. 27

4.3. Implementation .................................................................................. 30

4.4. Reviewing .......................................................................................... 31

4.5. Engagement ...................................................................................... 33

4.6. Success ............................................................................................. 34

4.7. In-depth telephone interviews ........................................................... 36

4.8. Response summary .......................................................................... 38

4.9. In-depth telephone interview analysis ............................................... 41

4.10. Kent County Council interviews ......................................................... 42

4.11. Sustainable Transport Manager interview ......................................... 43

4.12. Senior Development Planner interview ............................................. 44

4.13. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 46

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 48

5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 48

5.2. To explain the origins of Travel Plans ............................................... 48

5.3. To identify past and present policies relating to Travel Plans ............ 49

5.4. To investigate how KCC manages the Travel Plan process.............. 51

5.5. To research how companies are managing their Travel Plans .......... 52

5.6. To identify constraints within the travel planning process ................. 53

5.7. To establish how Travel Plans can be improved ............................... 55

5.8. Limitations ......................................................................................... 58

5.9. Further research ideas ...................................................................... 58

6. References & Bibliography ................................................................... 60

6.1. References ........................................................................................ 60

6.2. Bibliography ...................................................................................... 64

3

Appendix

Appendix A - Online survey results

- Online survey letter

- Online survey responses

- ‘Making Workplace Travel Plans Work’ Paper

Appendix B - In-depth telephone interview transcripts

List of figures

Figure 01 - The research process. Figure 02 - Online survey responsibility responses. Figure 03 - Online survey ‘why’ responses. Figure 04 - Online survey key features responses. Figure 05 - Online survey problems responses. Figure 06 - Online survey implementation problem responses. Figure 07 - Online survey updating responses. Figure 08 - Online survey behavioural changes. Figure 09 - Online survey engagement responses. Figure 10 - Online survey satisfaction responses. Figure 11 - Online survey successful / unsuccessful key points. Figure 12 - Online survey improvement responses. Figure 13 - Online survey improvement responses.

List of tables

Table 01 - Follow-up interview sites. Table 02 - KCC iTRACE database breakdown. Table 03 - Online survey response breakdown. Table 04 - Follow-up interview sites.

4

1. Introduction

This study seeks to explore the issues surrounding Travel Plans and the wider policies that have developed over the past two decades. It will encompass the pressures of global, national and local policies, which have continued to evolve from the very early ideas of Agenda21 and sustainability.

The main focus of the study will be to look at existing Travel Plans required as part of a Section 106 agreement, and where possible, Plans which have been developed on a voluntary basis. In order to deconstruct the current situation in the UK I will be contacting businesses that have introduced Travel Plans, initially to understand how their Plans were developed, but also to identify the possible impacts this has had on changing employee travel behaviour.

Crucial to understanding how Travel Plans could be further enhanced, it is important to determine if the current fluid situation surrounding national and local government Travel Plan policy is impacting upon their long-term viability. If it is, what policy changes are required? and what can one learn and indeed recommend having considered the thoughts and opinions of businesses that have implemented plans in recent years?

1.1. Aims

This study has a number of aims:

1. To explain the origins of Travel Plans; 2. To identify past and present policies relating to Travel Plans; 3. To investigate how KCC manages the Travel Plan process; 4. To research how companies are managing their Travel Plans; 5. To identify constraints within the travel planning process; and 6. To establish how Travel Plans can be improved.

1.2. Structure

In order to achieve these aims, this study will be structured into the following sections:

(a) Literature review - concerned with framing the context of the study from an abstract stage, moving towards a more concrete account of today’s situation. In order to do this, the study will look at the origins of sustainability and the original Agenda21 movement. It will then focus on the national and local government policies that have been developed. It will also cover international examples, along with the move towards fiscally incentivising Travel Plan development.

(b) Methodology - this section is concerned with identifying the study choice and design. It will also identify the use of quantitative and qualitative data and set out how this is going to be analysed to help answer the main aims of this study.

5

(c) Results - this section will include analysis of research undertaken via contacts obtained by accessing Kent County Council’s iTRACE database of implemented Travel Plans. To enhance the initial research further, additional in-depth interviews will be undertaken with a selection of the initial respondents. As part of understanding how Travel Plan policy is changing at the more local level, interviews will also be carried out with key members of staff at Kent County Council.

(d) Conclusion - to conclude this study and answer the original aims, the conclusion will firstly deal with the responses to the initial survey; secondly the in-depth interview information will be introduced, and finally the results from the interviews undertaken with Kent County Council. This will all be used to try and answer the main aims of the study and to understand what needs to be done to improve the performance and longevity of Travel Plans in the UK.

1.3. Conclusion

By setting this study within the context of current planning policy regime and also including the origins of Travel Plans, it is envisaged it will be possible to set the scene for making suggestions for future improvements to the UK’s travel planning process. By collecting data from live Travel Plans the study will be able to establish what progress has been made, and where improvements could or should be introduced. Today’s society is a dynamic one, with issues of sustainability and new environmental policies continually being adapted and developed by successive governments. This study will also seek to evaluate the current situation by connecting live Travel Plan examples with current Government policies and looking at how they perform. In order for Travel Plans to continue, there is a real need to have a better understanding of what businesses require from future policies. This will enable businesses to introduce Travel Plans that produce meaningful results, as opposed to just being a ‘box-ticking exercise’.

6

2. Literature review

2.1. Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to set the study within a context that will introduce the reader to the notion of Travel Plans, as well as the national and local polices that have guided their development over the past two decades.

The literature review will seek to focus on the rise in importance of the term “sustainability” in the public and political conscience and the ideas of Agenda21. It will then look at the increasing prevalence of Travel Plans and the history surrounding the securing, enforcing and monitoring of such Plans as a result of national policies, such as PPG13. In addition to this, the review will look at the rise in corporate and social responsibility, and the changing attitudes this has brought towards sustainability and Agenda21.

This chapter has been structured in such a way to allow the reader to follow the ‘journey’ of Travel Plans from the theoretical abstract ideas, through to the polices that have led to a change in attitude by many companies towards their social responsibilities. A key question throughout this literature review is whether current policies are successfully influencing and changing travel behaviour to produce more sustainable patterns of commuting for the foreseeable future.

2.2. Sustainability “Agenda21”

Agenda21 is a voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations first produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (“UNCED”) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The Agenda21 plan fundamentally outlines the understanding that the environment must be integrated into all the policies and actions of industry, Government and consumers, and attempts to address the causes of environmental degradation as a means of creating a more sustainable economy and society. Agenda21 has played an important part in raising the awareness of sustainability as a term and as a global movement towards creating a more ecological balance. Since the early 1990s, issues of Agenda21 have been considered to be one of the world’s most important concepts for beginning to deal with the subject of sustainability. Lele (1991, p.613) remarked that its development is a ‘metafix’ that will unite everybody from the profit minded industrialists and risk minimising subsistence farmers to the equity seeking social workers. These local environmental strategies are not only linked to changing national priorities, but also reflect the particular economic, environmental and political challenges impacting on decision making in each locality (John, White & Gibb, 2004, pp. 151-168). Peck (1998, pp. 5-21) suggests that the issues of Agenda21 offer more means to contribute to democratic renewal in the UK than perhaps any other function of local government.

As it stands, Agenda21 does not have a formal authority of its own to direct others to green their policies; hence it relies on a more ‘bottom-up’ approach to integration. To speed up reform, past and present Governments have

7

looked to capitalise on the ideas of Agenda21. However, as a term, Agenda21 has now been superseded by the term ‘sustainability’ (Wilkinson, 1997, pp. 153-173). This builds on the work of Agenda21, but also starts to draw on new policies and binding regulations as part of the planning process. It also seeks to widen the scope of Agenda21 to cover areas such as: jobs; energy; cities; food; water; oceans; and disasters (RIO+20 UN, 2012).

Given heightened awareness and political pressures, the world’s governments can no longer afford to ignore the environmental agenda (Cocklin and Blundel, 1998, p. 59). With the development of national and international policies, we are starting to see planning policies that set out more detailed parameters for local authorities to follow. Currently, local economic pressures, interests and traditions have led to significant spatial variations in local environmental politics and policies. O’Brien and Penna, (1997, p. 186) believe that some aspects of the economic and political system privilege some strategies over others, this has resulted in certain places and regions benefiting more so than others.

In England there is evidence of a marked variation in the commitment and approaches towards sustainability and Travel Plans. These appear to reflect ‘local contingencies’ and depend upon how local authorities have chosen to manage their interests. Research by Emma Young in 2011 highlights one difference - Travel Plan enforcement. Her study showed that out of 86 Local Authorities, 46 knew of examples where Travel Plans subject to planning conditions or Section 106 agreements had not been implemented, yet very little evidence is available to demonstrate how Local Authorities have been enforcing planning conditions. It is clear from Young’s study and others that different local authorities are prioritising some environmental policies over others, and developing different ways of managing local economic-environmental tensions to satisfy both local and political needs and interests.

An alternative interpretation is that uneven development and rollout of Agenda21 has arisen as a result of the rapidly changing landscape of local and regional governance and state agendas; termed ‘local strategic selectivity’. Without strong governmental prescription of targets and definitions, a wide range of interpretations have developed. Furthermore, competing pressures and resource constraints has meant Agenda21 was unlikely to top the agendas of most local authorities that continue to be preoccupied with increasing economic development (Patternson & Theobald, 1996, p. 10). Consequently, as Agenda21 became incorporated it was simultaneously being detached from the key priorities in local and regional governance. In 2000 the then Labour Government introduced the Local Government Act. This gave greater discretionary power to local authorities to promote economic, social or environmental wellbeing, whilst also requiring community strategies to be prepared.

Bruff and Wood (2000, pp. 519-539) saw this change as a move away from market-based concerns, to one more in touch with the wider conceptions of local services and priorities. It is also a reverse to a traditionally conservative approach to encourage innovation and closer working between local authorities and their partners to improve communities’ quality of life (DETR,

8

2000, p. 7). Pinfield& Saunders (2000, pp.15-18) believe on the other hand that this Act marks a shift to a ‘weaker’ meaning for the term ‘sustainable development’ in comparison with the spirit of local Agenda21.

2.3. Theoretical approaches to sustainability

Sustainable development has been discussed extensively over the past two decades in political, economic and social forums alike; however the meaning of the word is something that remains contested. The geographical scale at which sustainability is viewed is most often global, dealing with the conceptual issues rather than actual policy change. Breheny (1992) believes it is this lack of empirical applicability, which has resulted in the discipline of sustainability becoming so contested. The range of literature on the topic is extensive and encompasses varying fields as detailed earlier in the literature review.

Sustainable development ought to mean the creation of a society and an economy that can come to terms with the life-support limits of the planet. But as Class (1997, p. 2) has discovered, the current approach to sustainable development can only be described as a “chimera, a theoretical position that attracts attention, stimulates debate and raises awareness about the scope and transition to a less unsustainable world”. The main difficulty with sustainable development lies not just in its ambiguity; there is a real issue of democratic probity at stake, if a majority honestly does not want to pay what it sees as ‘the price’ for sustainable development, who is to deny them their legitimate wish? As Shen (1997, p.76) explains “a multifaceted approach is necessary”. Muschett (1997, p.81) explains in his work that “sustainable development occurs when management goals and action are simultaneously ecologically viable, economically feasible and socially desirable; these imply environmental soundness and political acceptability”. The term ‘sustainable development’ has had widespread political usage because of its broad application and vague definition. If we are to tackle these problems, sustainability requires a fundamental shift in value and behaviour (Smith, Whitelegg & Williams 1998). This includes a shift from materialism to a more holistic view of what constitutes quality of life. Intangible, but also real elements of human contentment such as social cohesion, community and self-development must also be given greater priority.

Today sustainable development is a socially motivating force, in O’Riordan & Voisey’s (1997) book Sustainable development in Western Europe the authors perceive that because we globally understand our long-term survival is at stake, we will continue to develop the term ‘sustainability’. This may ultimately prove to be the most important driver towards envisioning a sustainable future. Muschett (1997) believes that in order to break through these barriers, government leadership, private sector ingenuity and public support will be required. Regulatory obstacles will also need to be removed to support this process.

Key to tackling regulatory obstacles is the hierarchical assignment of responsibility, which to a certain extent is still held by a central authority. Kairiukstis (1989) believes that the objectives of sustainable development may be achieved more easily if the process of socioeconomic development

9

and environmental change are implemented on a more regional, or local scale. Going back to Rio in 1992, the importance of local authorities and municipalities was stressed as a way of achieving sustainable development. Beck (1992, pp.37-74) suggests we are slowly moving in the direction of more local frameworks where we will no longer see politicians exclusively carrying out many tasks. As a consequence, numerous social and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have become important political actors, opening up a whole new area of ‘sub politics’, potentially adding an additional layer of complexity to a system already poorly understood.

2.4. National and local policy background

The implementation of a sustainable approach to planning relies on the creation of strong national and local policies and guidance to support Travel Plans. Bond and Brooks’ (1997, pp. 305-321) work shows that national guidance is often created in a hope to provide impetus for further methodological development at a more local level. In July 1998 the Labour Government released a white paper on transport policy ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’, this was intended to decrease the dependence on the private car, (T. Rye, 2002, p287-298) whilst promoting a policy to encourage the voluntary take up of Travel Plans.

National Government policies are about providing local authorities with the information and guidance necessary to enable them to become proactive. In the case of Travel Plans it is about putting in place the necessary support structures to enable collaborative working between public and private organisations. National policies are ideal for creating a top-down approach for tackling issues such as a national plan for dealing with traffic congestion, or national strategy for reducing CO2 emissions, they do not however provide a solution to deal with the more localised issues, for instance, tackling the very source of the problem hampering the success of Travel Plans; the stereotypical views people hold of the private car. A study by Lek in 1999 found that 61% of 14 - 16 year olds viewed a car as essential to their lives. In order to tackle these views Pacione (2002) believes that national policies need to be implemented and tackled at the local level. It has also been argued by Allen, Anderson & Browne (1997, pp. 3-6) in their study Urban Logistics that Pacione’s idea of implementing change at the local level must also be backed up by more prescribed national plans in order to promote the purpose of greener credentials to the widest possible audience.

In response to national frameworks produced by the Government, local authorities have drawn up localised Regional Spatial Strategies to try and tackle some of these problems. The South East Plan (2009) has a chapter focused on transport, which highlights the importance of transport issues within Kent and the wider south east region. The policy states:

“Monitored travel information for the south east shows an increase in overall travel per person since 2004, including an increase in travel by car […] the need to re-balance the transport system in favour of sustainable modes is recognised throughout this Plan […] our vision is a high quality transport system to act as a catalyst for continued economic growth”

10

As part of the South East Plan, all local authorities are required to ensure their local development documents and transport plans identify any developments that could create additional traffic constraints on the transport network and ensure a Travel Plan is developed. More recently Local Authorities have been creating their Local Development Plans; the bulk of which involves the establishment of the Local Development Framework (“LDF”) Core Strategy. The policies contained within the LDF are then used to outline policies against which all development within an area is assessed. LDF policies take their guidance from national Planning Policy Statements and from policies contained within Regional Plans.

Government policies, both nationally and locally are designed to facilitate change, for example Travel Plans are about changing travel habits and ensuring shorter commuter trips are able to occur by green modes or by public transport, and where this is not possible, to support alternatives such as car sharing schemes (Banister, 1999). However, according to the UK round table on sustainable development (Southwood, 1996, p. 5).

“There is no magic solution to the many problems caused by present land transport patterns and trends”.

For this reason we need to have a greater range of co-ordinated strategies to minimise current and anticipated future adverse impacts. In 1999 the Transport Bill provided the legal framework for a number of measures designed to support travel planning, including the introduction of work place parking charges (Green et al, 2011, pp. 235-243). One of the only Councils to introduce this policy has been Nottingham County Council. Businesses with more than 11 spaces will be charged £288 a year per space, rising to £380 by 2015. The levy has been introduced to pay for transport improvements, including the extension of Nottingham's tram network. Many employers have decided to pass on some or all of the charge to their staff while some have reduced their number of car parking spaces. AA president Edmund King said that schemes such as this will damage the economy and hit employees who just can't afford it (BBC News, 2012). It remains to be seen if this new policy measure has been effective at reducing congestion and creating a modal shift towards public transport.

Presently in the UK the planning process is the only national mandatory route by which a Local Authority can require a Travel Plan to be produced (Roby, 2010). It has long been acknowledged that the current setup is overly burdensome to ensure any commitment and that outcomes are enforced (LTT Issue 575). Similarly, even following the introduction of national policies which allowed devolution of power to local authorities to develop congestion charging zones and workplace parking levies, very little progress has been made on the case for private firms to voluntarily create and implement a Travel Plan. Furthermore, given the nature of modern development, it is often the case that suburban and city-edge sites are being required to produce Travel Plans, as opposed to existing inner-city sites where there is often greater need. Existing national policies make no attempt to tackle this problem (Enoch et al, 2003). Research by Rye and MacLeod in 1998 concluded that employers must believe that there is a transport problem which impacts upon their site and in addition to this, that they have a responsibility, or some

11

responsibility to solve it. As a consequence, any future policy changes are going to need to engender confidence in the national system, whilst locally it is going to be important to develop ownership and accountability if Travel Plans are to be successful.

2.5. Travel Plan background

A great deal of information now exists on what Travel Plans are and how to develop them. However, the effective implementation of such plans has been far from easy to secure (Coleman, 2000, p139-148). A Travel Plan can be described as:

“A package of measures implemented by an organisation to encourage people who travel to/from that organisation to do so by means other than driving alone by private car”.

Presently, Travel Plans are introduced to solve a very local problem, which may be site or area specific and generally relate to congestion or a parking shortage (Bradshaw, 2001). Kent County Council’s guidance on securing, monitoring and enforcing Travel Plans in Kent (2012) defines a Travel Plan as:

“A strategy for managing multi-modal access to a site or development focusing on promoting access by sustainable modes.”

From a point 20 years ago when Travel Plans where unknown in the UK, they have now become a central part of UK policy, especially English transport policy and the wider “Smarter Choices” (2005) agenda. This is mainly down to global influences, such as the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which spawned a new movement demanding greater accountability for the global environment.

Today, Travel Plans can be implemented voluntarily, though it is more likely that a Travel Plan will be required as part of a new, or expanding development that requires planning permission. It should be remembered that even when a Travel Plan is being provided, it cannot justify the siting of a development in a totally unsuitable location. However, a sufficiently strong Travel Plan may help to counterbalance the disadvantage of a site where sustainable access, without Travel Plan measures would be less than ideal.

2.6. PPG13

Travel Plans were first included within national planning policy in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (“PPG13”) in March 2001. PPG13 stated that:

“The Government wants to help raise awareness of the impacts of travel decisions and promote the widespread use of Travel Plans amongst businesses, schools, hospitals, and other organisations. Local Authorities are expected to consider setting local targets for the adoption of Travel Plans by local business and other organisations and to set an example by adopting their own plans.”

12

PPG13 did not set out any standard format, or content for Travel Plans. It did however state that their relevance to planning lies in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, including:

Reduction in car usage and increased use of public transport, walking and cycling;

Reduce traffic speeds and improved road safety and personal security particularly for pedestrians and cyclists; and

More environmentally friendly delivery and freight movements, including home delivery services.

PPG13 was also supported by a number of other guidance documents including:

Making residential Travel Plans work: guidelines for new development -DfT, 2007;

The Essential Guide to Travel Planning - DfT, 2008; and

Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the planning system - DfT, 2009.

2.7. NPPF

In 2012 PPG13 was superseded by The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), this combined existing guidance into one easily accessible document. The emphasis on sustainable transport has remained consistent, and NPPF continues to place an importance on the use of Travel Plans. It recommends that Travel Plans should be submitted alongside all planning applications that are likely to have a significant transport implication (Communities & Local Government, 2011, point 89). In the locating and designing of developments, NPPF states the need to:

Efficiently deliver goods and supplies;

Priorities pedestrian and cycle movements;

Have access to high quality public transport facilities;

Create safe and secure layouts;

Minimise conflict between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians;

Avoid street clutter;

Where appropriate establish home zones;

Incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low vehicles; and

Consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

13

NPPF goes on to emphasise that the primary purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which it defines as:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

Sustainable development is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country and is the core principle underpinning planning. For the planning system, delivering sustainable development means:

Planning for prosperity (an economic role) use the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type, and in the right place, is available to allow growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

Planning for people (a social role) use the planning system to promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing an increased supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health and well-being; and

Planning for places (an environmental role) – use the planning system to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, to use natural resources prudently and to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low-carbon economy.

2.8. Travel Plan types

The framework recommends that three components; economic, social and environmental, should be considered in an integrated way, looking for solutions that deliver the best-combined approach. It is envisaged that the planning system must play a much more active role in guiding development towards a sustainable solution. A key requirement to facilitate this will be delivered through a Travel Plan. It is recommended that all developments generating significant amounts of movement should be required to produce a Travel Plan. This is however only possible if Travel Plans are embedded within Local Planning Policy, including Local Development Frameworks.

Travel Plans have three distinct process stages, somewhat different to the historically drawn out process, which led to confusion and failure of past Travel Plans under PPG13:

1. Framework Travel Plans. These are normally secured at Outline Planning Stage, and may be submitted or secured as part of a Full/ Detailed Planning Application, provided there is a clear and agreed pathway for submission of a Detail Travel Plan.

14

2. Detailed Travel Plan. These should be submitted with a Full/Detail Planning Application. In some cases it may be deemed appropriate that the Developer or Site Management Company oversees the Plan. Alternatively, the requirement may be devolved to individual tenants, however where this occurs, the Developer or Site Management Company who submitted the Travel Plan retains overall accountability, with tenants requirements secured through the Tenancy Agreement.

3. Small Business Pro-forma Travel Plan. These are normally for multi-use sites with a number of small business units. It may be unnecessarily onerous to require the development of a Detailed Travel Plan by each individual tenant. In such circumstance it is generally appropriate for the Developer and Site Management Company to develop a ‘top down’ approach to the Travel Plan (as described above).

2.9. International Travel Plans and fiscal incentives

In other countries, a whole regulatory framework governs how businesses deal with getting their employees to work. In the USA, some State/Provincial, regional and local jurisdictions mandate so-called Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) programs for certain types of employers. Many transportation planning and transit agencies provided support for CTR programs, in a similar fashion to UK local authorities. Where a business or developer implements a CTR program it is possible that reduced parking requirements will be required.

According to Comsis Corporations (1993) & Winter and Rudge (1995), a comprehensive CTR program can reduce peak-period vehicular trips by as much as 10-30% at a work location. This can also be verified by work undertaken in the UK by Cairns et al in 2010. In Cairns’ study, 20 organisations that had implemented Travel Plans found that various measures used by employers to encourage employees out of their cars resulted in an overall reduction in the number of cars being driven to work of 14 per 100 staff.

Compared with the UK approach, the USA requires Travel Plans from virtually all employers in places where congestion and traffic pollution are a major problem. However, it has been argued that this overarching regulation has not resulted in Travel Plans being seen as a benefit; rather an additional cost (Enoch et al, 2003). In many European countries, governments have been working to reduce the financial burden of Travel Plans. In Norway, Germany and Belgium the tax system has been used to incentivise more sustainable modes relative to less sustainable modes of travel. In the UK, a similar system has been introduced whereby no tax or National Insurance Contributions are required, this includes (HMRC, 2012):

Free or subsidised work buses;

Subsidies to public bus services;

Cycle and safety equipment made available for employees; and

Workplace parking for cycles and motorcycles.

15

Although these changes to the UK tax system can be seen as a step in the right direction, they do not currently go as far as other European countries who have provided additional positive incentives to encourage staff to alter their travel behaviour. In order to demonstrate the benefit of the above tax ‘incentives’ it has been proposed that companies could complete an audit of their travel costs to demonstrate the financial benefit for adoption of a Travel Plan. As it stands currently the UK government has failed to use its tax system to provide any form of kick-start incentive to individuals or commercial organisations (Enoch et al, 2003).

Public institutions have so far led the way, but for widespread success as a policy tool, Travel Plans also need to be adopted by private sector employers. Local Authorities have been working to build links and produce guidelines and offering advice, however the vast majority of private sector employers do not have a Travel Plan in place and the vast majority still probably do not even understand the term or the implied concept (Coleman, 2000, p139-148). A study by T. Rye et al (2011) found that the guidance available to firms looking to implement a Travel Plan was excellent. However, the dissemination of guidance and the subsequent development amongst Local Authority offices has been piecemeal. T. Rye et al suggested that more active dissemination and training strategies, to include proactive communication and workshops led by planners who have successfully used the guidance are required if Travel Plans are to be successfully introduced on a wider scale.

2.10. Corporate social responsibilities

Since the Labour Government’s White Paper on transport policy was published in 1998, the aim has been to increase the widespread voluntary take-up of Travel Plans. However, even though many public sector organisations have now adopted Travel Plans, any policy mechanism to encourage voluntary take-up in the private sector has so far been relatively low-key (Enoch et al, 2003). The current half-hearted approach to travel planning is sending contradictory signals to businesses. Where the existing system does work, is getting Travel Plans onto a businesses’ agenda through planning consent regulation, but in these situations it could be argued that this is seen as a cost and not as something that businesses should undertake as part of their normal practice. As a general consensus transport will never be the core concern of the majority of employers, and so the current informational instruments that dominate UK policies are unlikely to be effective, unless they are supported by additional measures, such as a mix of planning regulation and fiscal incentives or penalties for non-participation (Enonch et al, 2003).

Although progress has been made in improving the travel planning process following the introducing of NPPF, the number of private businesses implementing and fore filling their obligations, either as part of a planning application or on a voluntary basis is still small. A study by T. Rye (2002, p287-298) concludes that the central reasons for non-implementation of Travel Plans in private businesses can be put down to the following:

16

Private sector businesses feel little need to lead by example, the main role of a company is to make profit and as such there is perceived to be no financial gain in implementing a Travel Plan;

Employees travel to work does not specifically present an employer with any problems in terms of the functioning of the business;

Often a business does not perceive any issue with transport or parking at or close to their site; and

There is insufficient evidence to prove that a Travel Plan of a given nature can generate a modal shift of a certain percentage and therefore there is no evidence to prove that spending any money would improve the situation locally.

In order to encourage the take up of Travel Plans and improve compliance, Enoch, et al (2003) identified four mechanisms targeted at the commercial sector to encourage their staff to commute in a ‘greener’ way:

1. Information and exhortation; 2. Regulation; 3. Subsidies; and 4. Fiscal incentives and/or penalties.

At the same time as considering the four mechanisms identified by Enoch et al, a business also needs to become an active instigator in linking the long-term benefits a Travel Plan can bring to the business, rather than planning for the short-term factors (Roby, 2010). In order to introduce the sustainable future concept, it is as much about changing policies to shift values as it is about changing practices. (Palmer, 1990). In the last two decades we have seen an increased awareness of ‘social responsibility’ within society, resulting in many companies reviewing the way their businesses operate. Kolk (2008, pp.1-15) in her study of multinational businesses sees a growing demand for transparency surrounding corporate behaviour. This has seen a move towards incorporating ethical and social issues within the traditionally financial aspects of corporate reporting, and has become known as either ‘corporate social responsibility’ or ‘triple bottom line reports’. Elkington (1999, p.24) talks further about the triple bottom line and how its purpose is to challenge and revolutionise how companies think and act. It is also about educating and changing the views of stakeholders and ensuring businesses improve their accountability. This is a move away from the traditional belief that businesses sole responsibility is concerned with only maximising profit.

However Milton Friedmen (1970) argues that businesses are not human beings and cannot assume true moral responsibility for their actions; his belief is that society’s best interests for achieving change lies with governments, not managers. Friedmen also argues that the current lack of legally binding obligations for a business to tackle commuter trip reduction is a major issue, which causes confusion and prolongs ignorance amongst businesses as to where their responsibilities lie. Wood and Ivens (1997, pp. 101-113) have studied these ideas further and in their research found that problems often

17

seen as social responsibilities will on inspection turn out to be political responsibilities, which the politicians are blind to, or afraid to tackle.

The problem with Travel Plans is unfortunately not confined to the need to increase the take-up of voluntary Travel Plans. In the UK, the issue of ‘greenwashing’ has developed. This is the process whereby a developer produces an impressive list of ‘environmentally friendly’ proposals, but then fails to implement them either effectively, or in the worst cases, at all. This is exacerbated further as a local authority can only serve the developer with a ‘breach of conditions notice’ and hope they comply. If funding has been secured through an obligation it is possible to enforce, but only through a quasi-court. T. Rye et al (2011) highlighted that even when a developer has not met one or more of their obligations, any challenge from a local authority could be counter challenged by a developer on the basis that they have done everything in their power to do so, and thus not acted unreasonably. Such an argument could undermine the basis of planning obligations and the use of monetary penalties for non-achievement of any associated targets. T. Rye’s study of local authorities that have taken enforcement action against a breach of Travel Plan conditions or obligations would appear to back-up this theory, with only four local authorities admitting to having begun proceedings against a developer. The survey also asked authorities how they would enforce planning conditions. 32 said they were not sure, whilst 54 did not answer the question.

Looking to the future, some progress has been made with businesses developing their own reports due to demand from stakeholders, shareholders and consumers, rather than in response to any direct government policy. In order to further enhance these changes, businesses will need to increasingly develop and implement zero emission activities linked to overarching business change - this will help Travel Plans become embedded in the wider business as a support measure of business planning - as opposed to a separate business objective (Roby, 2010). Holbeche (2001) describes business culture as something that results from a learning process of interaction, actions and processes built up on commonly accepted behaviours. Schein’s (1997) model of business culture places an emphasis on creating a supportive culture for the development of social responsibility in a concordant and non-contradictory way.

In a study conducted by Coleman (2000, p139-148), he identified that the issue of understanding the term Travel Plan as an implied concept is still holding back their widespread implementation. In a survey of businesses, around 38% indicated that public transport alternatives were important factors in enabling modal shift to be successful. 37% felt further central Government legislation was required, whilst 35% indicated that tax incentives would be needed before they took any action. Improved advice and information, along with business rate discounts and financial support were also seen as important (20%). As a result, Coleman suggested the following improvements to increase participation in Travel Plans:

Continued awareness raising of the term and concepts of Travel Plans is needed;

18

Widespread implementation of Travel Plans will be unlikely unless national legislation required it;

Targeting large businesses in urban/suburban location; and

If smaller businesses are to be targeted they should be looked at on an area basis rather than on an individual basis so that resources can be pooled.

Where Travel Plans have been introduced as part of a wider change towards corporate social responsibility, businesses will ultimately be the primary beneficiaries of a healthier and more prosperous environment. Taking a positive stance at this time can only improve the performance and position of a company through increased transparency and greater accountability. A successful business in Romme’s (1992, pp. 11-24) view will be the enterprising one that develops a range of measures and implements wider organisational change. This can then be used to deploy skills learned in the past to capitalise on the opportunities of the future, whilst meeting obligations to the environment. Corporate responsibilities are increasingly becoming a selling point for a company’s image; with the labelling of ‘socially responsible companies’ it is likely we will continue to see a shift where-by certain businesses become an active instigator of sustainable development, meeting Governments plans to increase the voluntary take-up of Travel Plans. On the reverse of this positive change, many firms are however still failing to make this adjustment. Without a move to a planning system, which is more proactive, simple and legally binding, Travel Plans are unlikely to produce more sustainable patterns of commuting in the foreseeable future.

2.11. Conclusion

From the literature that has been reviewed and researched, it is clear that Travel Plans are continuing to evolve, with competing pressures from global, national, and local policies still needing to be balanced to ensure the guidance released to Travel Plan developers is both concise and workable. The UK has continued to see the development of Travel Plans at a more local level, with the introduction and use of travel management software (iTRACE), car-pooling, offering on-site bicycles, and ecological driver training. However further development is still needed to link the process of planning, regulation and controlling of travel within a development, or business, including how a Travel Plan can be interconnected with the internal organisational goals of a business.

Helen Roby’s (LTT Issue 498 10 July, 2008) research demonstrated that Travel Plans are evolving on the basis of more localised agendas. This has seen some highway authorities, namely TfL (2012) demonstrating the need for Travel Plans to be linked into internal organisational goals, as opposed to just addressing an external regulatory agenda as per the national DfT guidelines:

19

DfT (national)

“A package of measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel within an organisation, with an emphasis on reducing reliance on single occupancy car travel.”

TfL (local)

“Travel planning is an effective business management tool which can be used to generate cost savings, lending companies a competitive advantage, and which has additional benefits for the environment and the health of employers.”

Unfortunately even after the introduction of the latest planning policy guidance (NPPF), it could be argued that an even stronger central government guide is required to steer developers and incentivise companies through fiscal means to embrace the introduction of Travel Plans within a development or organisation. The current situation surrounding the monitoring of Travel Plans is arguably farcical, making it virtually impossible for local authorities to prove in court that a site occupier has not fulfilled their obligations. This situation not only undermines the real purpose of Travel Plans, but also hinders their future development; not only at a planning level, but also at a voluntary level. The need for further change and a more consistent approach by local authorities across the UK has never been more important if we are to see any long-term benefit from Travel Plans.

As a result of the literature review and what I see to be the associated ‘gaps’ that currently exists within the travel planning world, this study will look to understand in greater detail how individual businesses and organisations have been dealing with their existing Travel Plan and then asking what they feel is required from both the national and local levels of government in order to support the future of Travel Plans.

20

3. Methodology

3.1. Introduction

In this chapter the chosen approach to this study’s methodology will be described. It will look at the reasons behind the choice of topic, and how the study has been designed to ensure the importance of looking at Travel Plans across the different geographical scales is not lost. It will also detail how the research will be undertaken and then analysed to understand how the data collected can be best used to answer the aims of the study.

3.2. Choice of topic

The choice of topic has been based around my previous experience with Travel Plans and my determination to understand why most Travel Plans in existence today are seen as a ‘box-ticking’ exercise to obtain planning permission, as opposed to a long-term solution designed to tackle increasing levels of personal mobility. What makes this topic more interesting is the global nature of the umbrella term ‘sustainability’, and the many different areas it is now seen to encompass, including: social, economic, and environmental factors. The focus on local and corporate social responsibility in this study has come about through my undergraduate studies. During my first degree I spent a great deal of time investigating the changing issues of corporate social responsibility, for this reason I wanted to look again at how things have continued to develop at the more local level and to see if more recent changes in government policy have brought about an increase, or even a potential decrease in the long-term success of travel planning.

3.3. Study design

The methods of research for this study were initially proposed in the Study Plan, which was prepared in May 2012. This identified the need to address a number of concerns relating to Travel Plans, for this reason the focus has been on three different levels: national, local, and corporate. Particular attention has been paid to the corporate level and contact has been made with a number of businesses through Kent County Council’s iTRACE database of Travel Plans. These contacts will be used to better understand how businesses setup their Travel Plan and the day-to-day requirements it places upon them. In order to answer the aims of this study, both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected from businesses that have introduced a Travel Plan. This will be supplemented with additional interviews conducted with employees of Kent County Council’s Planning and Sustainable Transport Team to better understand the local issues of implementing Travel Plans using past and current national policies.

To bring the local studies into context, this study has also been supplemented with information on planning policy and national guidance on Travel Plans. In the study design, both national and local inputs have been broken down to demonstrate how fragmented the current guidance is. The study has also

21

been designed to take account of all the different geographical scales needing to be addressed, working from the national to the local level.

Figure 01 - The research process (Bryman 2008).

Figure 01 illustrates the key stages that will be followed when conducting research. In this study both types of data will be collected, the qualitative data will bring a greater depth of understanding in relation to Travel Plans already in operation. The use of qualitative methods has become an increasingly important element of research and together with secondary data can result in valid pieces of research being produced (Marshall and Rossman 2010).

22

3.4. Qualitative data

One of the aims of this study is to gain a better understanding of Travel Plans at the local level. The use of qualitative data will support development of local understanding. It is at this very local context that one is able to ascertain feelings and attitudes towards Travel Plans and wider corporate social responsibilities. It will also be possible to further examine the initial responses provided through the online survey. Herbert (2000, p.550), describes the benefits of using more qualitative methods to gain insight into people’s anxieties and feelings, which are well suited to ethnographic enquiries:

“Humans create their social and spatial worlds through processes that are symbolically encoded and thus made meaningful. Through enacting these meaningful processes, human agents reproduce and challenge macro ecological structures in the everyday of place-bound action. Because ethnography provides singular insight into these processes and meaning, it can most brightly illuminate the relationships between structure, agency and geographical context.”

To provide a greater understanding of how Travel Plans operate at the local level, telephone interviews will be conducted with respondents who had indicated as part of the initial online survey that they would be happy to take part in a follow-up interview. These will be designed to generate a greater depth of understanding about respondents’ specific experiences and thoughts. As such, a semi-structured approach will be used. The themes each telephone interview will concentrate on are:

Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and monitoring);

Measures implemented;

Overall success;

Any difficulties encountered;

Interaction with KCC; and

What could be done to improve the Travel Plan process?

23

The organisations that have agreed to take part in the follow-up interviews include:

Table 01 - Follow-up interview sites.

Site Business Type Type Location Respondent

One Highway engineering Private Business park Sustainable team

Two Property management Private Business park Park manager

Three Retail development Private Business park Consultant

Four Supermarket Private City Centre Consultant

Five Education Public Multiple locations Sustainability coordinator

Six Higher education Public Multiple locations Travel Plan coordinator and parking manager

Furthermore, the study focuses on Kent County Council and their Planning and Sustainable Transport Teams. By conducting interviews with KCC employees it will be possible to see the work being undertaken across numerous departments, and with district and borough partners to promote Travel Plans across Kent. This includes working to tighten up plans required as part of planning permission, and also voluntary Travel Plans that require further outreach to the wider business community. By conducting interviews at this level of local government, it is also possible to gather feedback on current national initiatives and any ideas or suggestions that might be employed by Kent to enhance and extend Travel Plans to the widest possible audience.

Through the use of qualitative data, it is anticipated the research available to draw a conclusion to the study will be much more detailed and bring a personal understanding from a range of different perspectives and geographical scales. The data has been collected from a wide range of sources including: structured qualitative telephone interviews; and face-to-face meetings. These findings will be used to back-up and challenge the more statistical findings from the quantitative data.

3.5. Quantitative data

This study has sought to collect quantitative modes of data in order to enable the use of mathematical modelling and statistical analysis techniques. These have been set within the wider context of this study to ensure they are of interest and come to life, adding authority to the argument, rather than analysis for the sake of it.

The data collected will come from contacts stored by Kent County Council as part of their iTRACE software, which manages Travel Plans within the County. This includes the contact details for either the site coordinator or the manager of the site who is creating the Travel Plan. A survey link will be sent to the list of contacts held on the iTRACE software, requesting their response about their experiences with their site Travel Plan. For the majority this will be sent

24

via email, with letters and phone calls to the remainder for whom no contact email address is available.

In designing the online survey particular attention will be paid to five key areas, including:

1. ‘Creation’ of the Travel Plan, comprising of the reasons why the Plan was developed and the key features implemented.

2. ‘Implementation’. This included questions on the actions carried out, as well as any problem, or parts that had not been implemented.

3. ‘Reviewing’. This is seen as important as initial research suggested that very little updating of Plans was being undertaken, the purpose of this questions was to ascertain if this was the case, and if so why.

4. ‘Engagement with other organisations’ was designed to see how much involvement third parties had from inception through to completion.

5. ‘Success of the Travel Plan’, or the reasons why it might not have been successful.

In addition to these main sections, questions will also be asked to gage awareness of current marketing tools being used by KCC to promote New Ways 2 Work and car sharing.

The use of quantitative data is an important aspect to this study. It will be integrated with other data collected to examine the difference between the online survey and telephone interviews. By having localised data, from a range of different businesses, it will be possible to understand more about the development and day-to-day operations of a Travel Plan.

3.6. Data analysis

In order to process and analyse the data collected in the most appropriate way for this study, all of the findings will be presented in a simple format. The idea is not to produce overly confusing statistics, but to use graphs that show the results, and allow for a comparison between businesses. Where it is possible to obtain a statistically significant result, this will be included within the results & analysis chapter. By doing this it will be possible to answer the main aims of the study, whilst allowing for a comparison to be made between the different findings. By writing up the structured telephone interviews undertaken with businesses and Kent County Council, it will be possible to take the salient points from each to see if there is any link between the two. The data and any findings can then be used to form the conclusion of the study. By bringing together the qualitative and quantitative research the study will have a range of crosscutting data to help answer the study aims.

3.7. Ethical considerations and data protection

Prior to conducting any form of primary research, the University of Westminster’s Code of Practice Governing the Ethical Conduct of Research 2011/2012 was read to ensure that due consideration was given to the potential ethical implications of any such research. It was decided that the primary data collected for this piece of research fell under ‘class one’ of the

25

code of practice, due to it having minimal, or no ethical implications. As a result no prior approval is required.

All respondents invited to take part in the survey will be invited to do so anonymously.

3.8. Conclusion

To summarise, this study will focus on organisations who have already introduced a Travel Plan in the county of Kent. This data will be supplemented by further follow-up telephone interviews with those organisations who are willing to provided further information. Interviews will also be conducted with key employees at Kent County Council. The in-depth interviews will be used to understand the current constraints surrounding Travel Plans, and what changes need to be made at either, or both a national or local level to enable organisations to comply with travel planning obligations.

26

4. Results & analysis

This chapter will compile results that have been collected and attempt to analyse them in order to answer the questions posed by the aims of this study. The three main areas covered by the results include:

1. Online survey;

2. In-depth telephone interviews; and

3. Kent County Council interviews.

4.1. Online survey responses

The online survey was devised to assist with answering the following aims:

To research how organisations are managing their Travel Plans;

To identify constraints within the travel planning process; and

To establish how Travel Plans can be improved.

Through accessing the Kent County Council iTRACE database, it was possible to attempt to make contact with a total of 253 organisations recorded as having implemented Travel Plans.

Table 02 demonstrates the district breakdown, and the public / private sector split. In total, 129 recorded Travel Plans were found to be un-contactable, due mainly to out-of-date information, or a lack of any contact detail provided from the outset. It has been assumed that the remaining 124 contacts were successfully contacted, however 31 responses to the online survey in total were received (Table 03); although only 24 of these were fully complete. This gave the online survey a response rate of 25%. This chapter will therefore present and analyse responses to the main questions asked within the survey whilst full results are available to view in Appendix A, along with the original responses.

Table 02 - KCC iTRACE database breakdown.

District Public Private Total

Ashford 3 56 59 Canterbury 7 8 15 Dartford 4 4 8 Dover 3 6 9 Gravesend 1 1 2 Maidstone 8 22 30 Sevenoaks 1 11 12 Shepway 1 7 8 Swale 1 13 14 Thanet 2 13 15 Tonbridge & Malling 5 53 58 Tunbridge Wells 5 18 23 Total 41 212 253

27

Table 03 - Online survey response breakdown.

Public Private Unknown Total

7 14 10 31

4.2. Creation

“Does anyone in your organisation have Travel Plan responsibilities as part of their job role?”

Figure 02 - Online survey responsibility responses.

In response to this question, 7 out of 13 organisations acknowledged that they did have a lead member of staff who managed their Travel Plan as part of their job role (Figure 02). Generally this was someone who was a sustainability manager, or coordinator, but responses also indicated that senior managers had been selected to ensure someone within a more strategic role managed their Travel Plan. Responses were also received from individuals who had taken on the role as a result of a personal interest. Whilst this result indicates a more positive perspective of Travel Plan management, it is important to acknowledge the study by Rye and MacLeod (1998) which recognised that employers must believe that there is a transport problem, which impacts upon their site and in addition to this, that they have a responsibility to solve it before they are likely to develop a greater form of ownership and accountability. The 42% that had no one responsible for their Travel Plan arguably still require further education to reinforce the important role a Travel Plan coordinate has to play, despite having been through the process. From the data collected it would seem that some organisations have recognised the potential a properly managed Travel Plan can bring. Where an external consultant is included within the mix the role of the Travel Plan coordinator seems to be much less focused, with less understanding and drive to ensure the Travel Plan meets its commitments.

28

Figure 03 - Online survey ‘why’ responses.

It was deemed important to drill down into the background and understand why an organisation originally created their Travel Plan. Question 4 (“Why did your organisation develop a Travel Plan?”) of the survey provided a range of options, including: planning condition, corporate agenda, cost savings and others (Figure 03). As anticipated the majority of the responses received were from those who had a planning condition, or agreement that required a Travel Plan as part of a planning application. Those who responded with ‘others’ provided a surprisingly clear understanding of a number of other important areas linked to Travel Plans. This contradicts Coleman’s observation in his study (2000), which found a lack of understanding of the term was one of the main reasons for holding back the wider introduction of Travel Plans.

The responses received showed a higher level of understanding, even beyond what a ‘standard’ Travel Plan might look to achieve. This included organisations trying to develop, or enhance their own green corporate agenda. Other responses identified the issues of parking, traffic congestion and even the need to reduce travel costs. One response went as far as to highlight that they had developed a Travel Plan to “aid occupiers of their site” (Appendix A - Online survey responses).

Whilst the results of this question are interesting and relevant, for those respondents who created a Travel Plan for reasons other than simply to comply with planning, in hindsight it would have been interesting to ask a follow on question related to the relative level of success a Travel Plan had in assisting the organisation to achieve their primary objective. For those simply fulfilling planning requirements, it would also have been interesting to discover if they have received any unexpected operational or other benefit from the Travel Plan.

29

Figure 04 - Online survey key features responses.

To understand more about the level of commitment each organisation had made to travel planning, respondents were also asked to identify the key features that had been implemented (Figure 04). The suggestions list included everything from a ‘do minimum approach’ e.g. providing public transport information, through to a more proactive organsiation who may have chosen to subsidise staff travel, or enhance their office facilities to help facilitate cycling to work.

The results demonstrate that the vast majority of organisations introduced four main features, these included: information boards showing sustainable transport options; car sharing; restricted, or priority parking; and enhanced facilities (e.g. showers, changing facilities, lockers). Information boards are generally seen as a ‘do-minimum’ approach, whilst the creation of enhanced facilities could generate increased modal shift. As a general rule none of the above options can be seen to have a greater positive impact over one or other. Organsiations can provide enhanced facilities, but without successful marketing and a pro-active approach the ‘do-minimum’ option could have a bigger impact than a poorly marketed priority-parking scheme. A large number of respondents also selected ‘other’, these responses further highlighted a number of increasingly pro-active responses to travel planning, including Cycle to Work schemes, eco-driver training, discussion and forum groups and incentivising staff through competitions. Given Kent County Council’s strong promotion of websites like kentjourneyshare and the Cycle to Work scheme, it is not surprising that such a high number of responses singled out these

30

options as one of their key features. This response could in someway suggest that the education methods adopted by KCC have resulted in some examples of success.

4.3. Implementation

In addition to trying to understand more about the creation process, the online survey also focused on the implementation phase. This can often be a stumbling block for an organisation, especially when the Travel Plan has been written on the basis of a wish list, rather than something that is affordable and viable. This was addressed in the subsequent question, “What actions from your Travel Plan have been carried out?”. The responses received generally mirrored the answers recorded in Figure 04, suggesting the key features identified within each organisations’ Travel Plan had been implemented.

Figure 05 - Online survey problems responses.

To gain additional insight into the implementation phase and to assist in answering the aims of this study, the online survey was also developed with the intention of understanding more about the problems faced when trying to implement a Travel Plan (Figure 05). This question received a response from 31 respondents, however only 7 identified having a problem during the implementation stage. This was a significantly lower proportion than had been anticipated given the results of studies by T. Rye (2002) and Coleman (2000), which clearly indicated a higher percentage of organisations struggling to successfully implement their original Travel Plan commitments.

Where an organisation identified a problem or problems they were asked to clarify what they saw as the main obstacles. The four key areas identified included:

Funding constraints;

Lack of interest;

31

Time limitations; and

Poor existing public transport links.

The above areas identified were seen to ultimately hamper trying to change employee attitudes.

After trying to establish what actions had been carried out, the survey set out to understand the actions, or key features that had not been implemented. Given the sensitivity of such a question and the potential implications for an organisation contravening a planning obligation, the question was designed to understand ‘why’, as opposed to ‘what’ had not been implemented (Figure 06).

Figure 06 - Online survey implementation problem responses.

Many of the constraining factors identified where more ‘typical’ of what might have been expected, for instance: time; and director sign-off. Unfortunately ‘N/A’ received the largest number of responses, which is potentially significant given the sensitive nature of the question, and an organisation potentially not wanting to make light of the fact they are yet to implement certain requirements.

4.4. Reviewing

A significant amount of any Travel Plan should be about monitoring and reviewing its performance. For this reason the survey included a section on ‘reviewing’. The key purpose behind this was to understand how many

32

organisations continued to monitor their Travel Plan once it has been created and implemented.

Figure 07 - Online survey updating responses.

The findings from this question demonstrated an even split between those that never updated their Travel Plan, verses those that updated their Travel Plan every 1-2 years (Figure 07). A much smaller number (5) responded with every 2+ years, whilst only 2 organisations stated they updated their Travel Plan more than once a year.

When asked what they did to update their Travel Plan, 2 organisations claimed to update their Travel Plan more than once a year, whilst 3 organisations stated they carried out on going monitoring. Two organisations did make mention of linking their Travel Plan with their wider corporate strategy. Where such organisations are linking a Travel Plan with their corporate agenda, it is possible to create a powerful document capable of delivering real organisational change, especially if the Plan is correctly implemented and all aspects are followed through from start to end. The single document can also be used to deploy skills learned in the past to capitalise on the opportunities presented in the future, whilst in addition meeting obligations to the environment (Romme, 1992).

33

Figure 08 - Online survey behavioural changes.

As well as asking about how often an organisation updated their Travel Plan, the survey focused on the uptake of monitoring surveys following the initial implementation. Interestingly, 55% of respondents reported that their organisation had undertaken follow-up reviews. As a consequence, a number of travel behaviour changes had been identified (Figure 08). However, next to car sharing the second most common answer was that there had been no change to travel behaviour, with one respondent saying, “people are selfish as ever” (Appendix A - Online survey results).

4.5. Engagement

Figure 09 - Online survey engagement responses.

34

To identify how improvements might be made, the survey asked questions around ‘engagement with other organisations’. This identified that an alarming 67% of respondents did not make any contact with another organisation as part of setting up their Travel Plan (Figure 09).

Where respondents identified that contact had been made, it was overwhelmingly with either Kent County Council, or the district and borough councils (58%). Other points of contact identified included consultancy firms and other local businesses.

4.6. Success

Figure 10 - Online survey satisfaction responses.

The most important part of this survey was to identify the perception of how successful, or unsuccessful an organisation perceived their Travel Plan. 27 organisations responded to this question, with the majority of respondents (37%) providing a neutral answer (Figure 10).

35

Figure 11 - Online survey successful / unsuccessful key points.

To identify why a particular response was given, respondents were presented with either a ‘how has it been successful?’, or ‘why do you think it has not been successful?’ box.

Overall respondents who deemed their Travel Plan a success described it as being most effective at implementing car sharing (73%) and improving their sustainable image (65%). A further 27% of respondents also said that the Travel Plan had helped meet shareholder demand for corporate social responsibility. No one commented that it had reduced mileage claims, suggesting that the focus is on commuter journeys rather than business mileage.

A wide range of reasons were given for the ‘success’ of a respondent’s Travel Plan, with the most popular answer being “support from management”. An encouraging 38% of respondents said that support from Kent County Council was a reason for their success. 27% of respondents felt employee motivation was crucial. Other reasons given included the support of a consultant and crossover with other corporate plans and their companies’ sustainability agenda.

Those who felt their Travel Plan had not been a success provided a range of responses, with no one response giving a clear indication of a particular problem. It did however highlight a series of on-going issues (Figure 11), including:

Time constraints;

Lack of staff;

Public transport cost; and

Availability of public transport.

36

Figure 12 - Online survey improvement responses.

Finally, respondents were asked how they felt the travel planning process could be improved. This received a number of suggestions (Figure 12), however it was clear that the general theme of the responses provided were focused on the need for greater district and council input, along with greater central government policy - linked to enforcement and legislation. 2 responses also remarked on the importance of incorporating Travel Plans within a corporate strategy, as opposed to a stand-alone document.

4.7. In-depth telephone interviews

After the survey responses were collated, the respondents who had indicated that they would be happy to take part in a follow-up telephone interview were contacted. In-depth interviews were conducted to generate a greater depth of understanding about their specific experiences and thoughts about their Travel Plan. Before the interview, their questionnaire responses were studied in greater detail, so as to tailor the questions appropriately. As such, a semi-structured approach was taken. The themes each telephone interview concentrated on were:

1. Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and monitoring);

37

2. Measures implemented;

3. Overall success;

4. Any difficulties encountered;

5. Interaction with KCC; and

6. What could be done to improve the Travel Plan process.

In all, six follow-up telephone interviews were completed. Companies were carefully chosen to ensure a cross-section of the initial online-survey was followed-up. As a result, the following organisations in Table 04 were interviewed. (For the purposes of this study the company name and interviewee’s details have been removed).

Table 04 - Follow-up interview sites.

Site Business Type Type Location Respondent

One Highway engineering Private Business park Sustainable team

Two Property management Private Business park Park manager

Three Retail development Private Business park Consultant

Four Supermarket Private City Centre Consultant

Five Education Public Multiple locations Sustainability coordinator

Six Higher education Public Multiple locations Travel Plan coordinator and parking manager

Given the nature of semi-structured interviews, key points have been picked out from each response and categorised within the themes listed above. Full copies of the interview transcripts can be found in Appendix B.

38

4.8. Response summary

1. Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and monitoring)

Site One

Travel Plan responsibilities are linked to my job role as ‘Sustainability Manager’. I also manage the companies EMS (Energy Monitoring System). On taking over the role, no handover was conducted with my predecessor.

Site Two

My role as Park Manager includes, Travel Plan management, creation and implementation. I Coordinate an overarching site Travel Plan for every company on the business park. It was originally created as a way for dealing with heavy congestion.

Site Three

I was chosen as the coordinator because of my personal interest and position within the organisation as a senior manager.

Site Four

The Travel Plan was created by a consultancy firm for the purpose of a new store planning application.

Site Five

Our plan was created by a coordinator for the purpose of managing rising fuel prices and for understanding more about how people travel to the site.

2. Measures implemented

Site One

We have introduced a Sustainability Action Plan with targets for the site and a plan to monitor progress. This is updated every January. In addition to this, an annual Business Travel Survey is undertaken to monitor how people travel to work and has been used to encourage more staff to car share. Training has also been provided to staff on how to use video conferencing facilities, whilst driving styles are being monitored to look at fuel efficiency. Car share schemes have also been employed, with an internal database for colleagues to find people living near them to share with.

Site Two

Nothing at this stage, but the use of a parking management company to issue enforcement notices is being considered. Promotion of kentjourneyshare has been undertaken, whilst Arriva had been contacted about subsidised bus services. It had originally been envisaged that a new bridge could be constructed over the M25, avoiding the need for traffic to access jct 1A.

Site Three

Information boards detailing travel options.

39

Site Four

Post occupation survey and the installation of information boards.

Site Five

Undertaken monitoring as part of the Carbon Trust scheme to reduce CO2.

Site Six

Introduced restricted parking and exclusion zones for students. Subsidised transport use, with discounts available to staff and students. Additional bus services are also provided during the exam period. An online survey is regularly emailed out to staff and students to enable the monitoring of progress.

3. Overall success

Site Three

Neutral - the car is key to our business, people do not share as they are often out of the office at certain points of the day. Some staff have other commitments, such as children who require collecting, which makes car sharing impractical.

Site Four

We intend to re-survey the site annually if it is agreed. I am unsure what happens if the Travel Plan misses its targets, as I’ve never encountered this problem before.

Site Six

Our Travel Plan has achieved a 50% reduction in traffic travelling through the site (difficult to enforce certain restrictions due to a public highway running through the site).

4. Any difficulties encountered

Site One

Public transport is not a viable option for most due to the office location. It would also involve making multiple changes between buses and trains.

Site Two

Initially everyone was keen to start up a focus group to tackle the issues. However, this was disbanded when it became clear that infrastructure improvements were not being considered by KCC. The Highways Agency also failed to support our plans for improved signage on the M25 junction that provides access to the site. Bus services have also been cut following a review of passenger numbers.

The biggest problem was a lack of support from companies to implement sustainable improvements. The original focus group stakeholders were only interested in improvements designed to enhance access to the site by private car. It became clear to me that people do not understand what a green Travel Plan is about. More work is required to educate people on the alternatives to

40

the private car.

An initial survey was conducted using KCC’s iTRACE system. The response rate was very low. No follow up has ever been undertaken.

Site Three

We found iTRACE to be very clunky. Currently we use our Fire Book to log how people got to work. We do not use the data we record to monitor anything.

Site Four

We have no regular contact with the site coordinator to know how things are progressing.

Site Five

The decision was taken that we could no longer afford to subsidise a free bus service from the town to the site. We choose not to encourage cycling due to the lack of off-road facilities. We have issues with the functionality of iTRACE to monitor our Travel Plan. I have no long-term budget to support further work. My intention to introduce a working group to look at the long-term survival of the Travel Plan was halted by the University.

Site Six

Online survey response rates have been very poor. Out of 18,000 emails, only 2 students responded. It was suggested at the time that this was due to the timing of the email being sent.

5. Interaction with KCC

Site Two

KCC were proactive, but occupiers could not see a resolution to the problem of avoiding gridlock so lacked motivation.

Site Three

Not every local authority is proactive. From a consultancy perspective some authorities have lost the plot and are abusive and obstructive. People need to be encouraging and willing to make small changes. The main point of contact at Kent County Council is very good, but others in Kent have not been as positive. Communication is key.

Site Four

I have had some involvement with KCC and the site coordinator (HR Manager) in the store, but nothing further.

Site Five

I approached KCC following a recommendation by someone else.

41

6. What could be done to improve the Travel Plan process?

Site Two

It would be easier if legislation required individual companies to manage their own Travel Plan. This should have specific requirements, e.g. “you must…..”, without this, people will not be put off from driving.

Site Three

To improve the process the cost of fuel should be doubled so Travel Plans would not be needed. The car sharing website is ok, but there is a need to overcome concerns of sharing with a stranger. Travel Plans are overly restrictive on new developments in the current economic climate.

One Travel Plan model will not fit all organisations. There should be less spin and more honesty. Educating people on alternative travel choices at a young age could be one way to reduce the future reliance on the private car.

Site Six

Need for greater awareness. E.g. road show services, eco- driving simulators etc. Companies promoting ‘Walk to Work Week’ and ‘Cycling Week’.

It would be useful to have a catalogue / directory of useful contacts / companies that provide services for potential Travel Plan / Eco activities.

4.9. In-depth telephone interview analysis

Overall, it would seem that from the follow-up telephone interviews conducted, the main contact was either someone who had been allocated the job as part of their job role, or in the case of site three an individual identified as having a personal interest in Travel Plans. It was disappointing to see that at site one no formal handover was ever undertaken to ensure previous work could be continued. In answering this question most only spoke about his or her own involvement, whilst no one raised the issue of on-going monitoring.

The types of measures implemented varied greatly between responses. Some sites, such as one and six, had gone a long way to implementing a wide-range of measures. However, sites three, four and five introduced the very minimum. Sites three and four in particular have a Travel Plan as a result of a planning application, it is therefore disappointing to see that such a ‘do-minimum’ approach seems to have been required as part of their planning permission - although this cannot be confirmed.

When asked about the overall success of their Travel Plan, most were hesitant with their response. Those who did respond indicated that it had had a neutral impact, whilst one site was considering re-surveying; but was unsure of the impacts if they did not meet their targets. Site six did however demonstrate that they had achieved a 50% drop in through traffic following the implementation of their Travel Plan.

Key to this study were the responses received relating to ‘problems encountered’. In some instances the information provided related to local

42

issues, for instance the limitations of the public transport network to provide coverage to all areas of employment. However, site two in particular identified a clear lack of understanding among the business residents about what a Travel Plan constitutes. For example a Travel Plan can involve some infrastructure improvements, but these would not normally be related to improving access for private motor vehicles. Another feedback point related to the software provided by KCC for organisations to carry out travel surveys. The feedback received indicated that it was “clunky” and lacked the ability to meet some requirements. Response rates to on-going monitoring surveys were also highlighted as an issue, with site six identifying one survey that only received 2 responses from 18,000 emails. Contact between consultants who provided the original Travel Plan and the organisation that then operates the plan was also singled out as being poorly managed. In effect, the consultant is not going to continue to manage and monitor a Travel Plan free of charge, this then relies on the site Travel Plan coordinator being proactive in their approach to update and monitor on going progress.

Contact with Kent County Council has generally been positive, though it was identified by one site that they had been in contact with multiple contacts within the authority, and that their experience had not necessary been as positive. Overall it seemed clear to the respondents’ that Kent County Council is able to assist them with their Travel Plan questions.

In relation to Travel Plan improvements, the different sites provided a range of feedback. One site identified the need for legally binding legislation from central Government to enforce Travel Plans. Others felt that Travel Plans were ineffective without further ‘stick’ type disincentives for driving; for example increased fuel charges. What was clear across all responses was the need to personalise each Plan to meet the individual requirements of an organisation. One Plan should not be designed to meet the requirements of many. Finally increased marketing of events was identified as a way to increase participation and generate future interest from other individuals and organisations.

4.10. Kent County Council interviews

Interviews were undertaken with Kent County Council’s Sustainable Transport Manager and a Senior Development Planner. The interviews were structured around subjective, opinion based questions and for the purpose of openness, the format was semi-structured, providing interviewees and the interviewer with the opportunity to expand on certain questions.

The main themes of the interviews included:

Legislation;

Increasing participation;

Linking Travel Plans to other internal organisation goals; and

Examples of Travel Plans in breach.

43

4.11. Sustainable Transport Manager interview

Do you feel current legislation regarding Travel Plans, developed as part of a planning application is sufficient to generate long term modal shift?

Currently some plans have no connection with the end user and have simply been treated as a box-ticking exercise.

Full Transport Assessments need to be undertaken to understand the impact on the highway. This could be achieved through further traffic counts to more accurately understand the impact a development could have on the local highway.

What could promote longer-term change?

Getting the infrastructure in place first e.g. cycle routes, electric charging points and correct development location. Monitoring needs to be minimised with larger sites being targeted. Automated monitoring could be introduced at larger sites.

In addition to this, events such as New Ways 2 Work could be used to facilitate Travel Plans.

Concerns have been raised about the level of training and proactive communication coming from local authorities. Are you aware of these issues or others causing problems with the development of Travel Plans?

Time and resources are definitely a challenge. At the moment I do not have enough staff to be able to support all districts. Travel Plans require a top-down ‘champion’ to promote them.

Communication issues have been around since the change within Highways, when the function was taken from districts and placed at county level. Districts and county often have different policies and objectives.

Should any future legislation to enforce s.106s, or similar be more focused at the local level, or national?

Bonds could be used to secure developments. It is important to remember that the viability of a site to a developer is going to decrease the more onerous a Travel Plan becomes.

Important that as much red tape is removed.

44

Do you have any ideas for how to incentivise the uptake of Travel Plans, in particular voluntary Travel Plans? (E.g. tax incentives, greater local authority support etc)

One particular area that needs to be highlighted further is that parking at work is often an employee perk. Parking spaces can cost an employer around £1k per annum.

4.12. Senior Development Planner interview

Do you feel current legislation regarding Travel Plans, developed as part of a planning application is sufficient to generate long term modal shift?

Bigger sites need to be promoting a percentage shift change. TRICS should be used as a guide to provide targets to work towards. The key issue is highway capacity.

Legislation needs to use bonds to levy a charge where a developer misses their target.

Permanent counter loops and a yearly survey would assist with improved monitoring.

Plans are still being produced that are too ‘textbook’. Issues are often very local and not one size fits all.

No independent checking. Could a developer be reporting what a local authority wants to hear?

What could promote longer-term change?

Penalties and more upfront costs to the developer should be considered. Where a site is large enough, this should be linked to their Master Plan. Targets should be locked down at the different phases, as opposed to a whole development plan. There should be an agreement to meet mode targets.

Network performance needs to be understood.

Enforcement should sit with the local authorities and not the Highway Authority. Too many bodies make it difficult to enforce.

45

Concerns have been raised about the level of training and proactive communication coming from local authorities. Are you aware of these issues, or others causing problems with the development of Travel Plans?

The introduction of Transport Assessment checklists will make it easier to introduce a Travel Plan. Need more measured outcomes.

Still too many mixed messages being released.

Conditions should be checked to ensure that they are tied in as much as possible to the Transport Assessment.

Should any future legislation to enforce s.106s, or similar be more focused at the local level, or national?

A more local approach should be taken, but this needs to be consolidated to avoid the upper-lower tier authority problem.

Do you have any ideas for how to incentivise the uptake of Travel Plans, in particular voluntary Travel Plans? (E.g. tax incentives, greater local authority support etc.)

There is always going to be issues over location and accessibility. Sites will also become unviable if the demands placed upon them are excessive.

Brownfield sites that are not viable should be stopped in the early stages.

Bus operators should be challenged on the price quoted to increase services. Who checks the level of contribution and how much does it really cost to run a bus service?

More should be made of expanding existing bus routes, as opposed to a totally new service.

Bus operators should be challenged on what they can provide to ensure value for money.

Are you aware of any Travel Plans that are in breach of their legal agreement?

Yes.

What action was taken?

The local planning authority wrote to the occupier to remind them of their commitment to meet the Travel Plan Framework that governed that particular site.

46

4.13. Conclusion

Overall the online survey met the original aims set out in 4.1, and those linked to the wider study objectives. The response rate obtained was reasonable, although it fails to give a complete picture of the current situation in Kent.

The main points that can be taken from the online survey include:

The need for improvements in the long-term management and monitoring;

Constraining factors include: time; internal signoff; and geographical location; and

Long-term improvement suggestions included: greater local authority support; central government legislation; and a push to incorporate Travel Plans within wider corporate strategies.

The in-depth telephone interviews have helped to expand understanding of the current situation in Kent. The semi-structured approach overcame some of the closed question limitations found within the initial online survey.

The main points that can be taken from the in-depth telephone interviews include:

Lack of understanding surrounding the travel planning process;

The need for a dedicated site Travel Plan coordinator;

The majority of sites have approached travel planning with a ‘do minimum’ attitude;

Limited meaningful monitoring and poor response rates;

Kent County Council’s travel planning software iTRACE was poorly received;

Poor communication between consultants and site coordinators;

Issues of consistency when communicating with local authority contacts;

Need for stronger enforcement and incentives, including greater central government control and fiscal benefits;

Further disincentives to reduce the use of the private car; and

Increasing outreach, including events and marketing are required.

The Kent County Council interviews were designed around a number of themes. These were designed to extract more specific information about legislation and their unique experiences of working with ‘live’ Travel Plans, both positive and negative.

47

The main points that can be taken from the interviews include:

The current disconnected between Travel Plans and the end-user needs to be removed (box-ticking exercise);

Greater knowledge is needed to understand the impact of a site on the highway (Full Transport Assessments);

Installing infrastructure prior to a Travel Plan needs to be the norm, including the automated monitoring of traffic;

Effective resourcing of staff to support Travel Plans;

Clear lines of communication, upper and local tier authority responsibilities;

Introduction of bonds to secure developments and levy missed targets;

Bespoke plans, as opposed to a one size fits all approach;

Independent body checking site progress;

Greater use of upfront costs and penalties, with requirements tied to each phase of a development;

Linking Travel Plans to Master Plans and wider corporate strategies;

Stopping development in unsuitable locations, including brownfield sites; and

Challenging public transport operators pricing to ensure value for money.

48

5. Conclusion

5.1. Introduction

The main objectives of this study were:

1. To explain the origins of Travel Plans; 2. To identify past and present policies relating to Travel Plans; 3. To investigate how KCC manages the Travel Plan process; 4. To research how companies are managing their Travel Plans; 5. To identify constraints within the travel planning process; and 6. To establish how Travel Plans can be improved.

The study focused on three key areas of research in order to help answer these aims. These included; an online survey targeting organisations with Travel Plans in Kent; follow-up, in-depth telephone interviews with a carefully selected number of Travel Plan sites; and two key interviews with contacts at Kent County Council.

The literature review focused on addressing the many conceptual debates and examinations surrounding Travel Plans, whilst introducing the overarching theoretical foundations; Agenda21 and sustainability. It also sought to explain the background to Travel Plans and the current national and local policies, which support and guide their development. In an attempt to focus the literature review on more recent developments, time was spent examining a range of international examples, along with a growing trend by international governments on a national and local scale to introduce fiscal incentivises to promote Travel Plans. Finally, the key issues surrounding corporate social responsibilities were examined to see how organisations were managing their own responsibilities.

The wealth of academic commentary and practical studies discussed in the literature review has provided a foundation for establishing the aims of the study, planning the practical elements and indeed reviewing the results. Transitioning from the abstract origins of Travel Plans, through to understanding how companies manage their Plans, the study has tried to establish how the Travel Plan process might be improved, both from a KCC perspective, and most likely on a national policy basis too. However, the priority for this study has been to understand the needs of Travel Plan users, as opposed to focusing solely on national policies and theoretical approaches.

5.2. To explain the origins of Travel Plans

Travel Plans have come a significant way since the original action plan of the United Nations first produced at the UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The plan created an agenda that has started to slowly unite everyone (Lele, 1991), whilst raising the profile of the environmental challenges that humankind will continue to face. In response to this heightened awareness, many governments and local authorities sought to develop strategies to tackle the issues head on. Much of this development has been uneven however, with

49

varying success as a result of local strategic selectivity (Patterson & Theobald, 1996).

One of outcomes of the attempt to tackle the issues raised in Rio in 1992 was the introduction of Travel Plans. This however failed to feature in any national planning guidance in the UK until PPG13 some nine years later in 2001. Travel Plans are designed to solve a very local problem, which is often site or area specific; generally relating to congestion or a parking shortage (Bradshaw, 2001). As an example, Kent County Council has recorded in excess of 260 Travel Plans. As successive Governments have come and gone over the past ten years, Travel Plans have remained a key tool in the attempt to create awareness and change how people travel. The full impact of Travel Plans on changing travel patterns has to be viewed with caution. Roby (2010) succinctly sums up a typical view of Travel Plans; often overly burdensome, with few outcomes ever enforced. It remains to be seen if the recently updated planning policy (NPPF) will turnaround the current negative stereotype of Travel Plans. In my view, from the data collected as part of this study, most organisations had some understanding of why Travel Plans were necessary. However they failed to grasp the often complex and bureaucratic processes surrounding their introduction and benefit. At present organisations have no incentive to proactively introduce a Travel Plan that produces results. The current focus has been diluted, so the approach to Travel Plans is neither top-down, nor bottom-up. In my view a more top-down approach is long overdue and unless a stronger grasp is taken by central government to introduce a workable policy, Travel Plans will continue to be perceived as another bureaucratic government idea, ill afforded in a time of significant budget deficit and economic hardship.

5.3. To identify past and present policies relating to Travel Plans

Bond and Brooks (1997) identified that in order to implement a sustainable approach to planning, it is essential to have both strong national and local policies. This includes having sufficient guidance to support the successful introduction of Travel Plans and to maintain their longevity. Through reviewing a range of relevant literature, it has been possible to identify a number of key policies over the past decade that have either been introduced to directly, or in-directly support Travel Plans. In 1998 the then Labour Government introduced a White Paper on transport policy - ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’. This promoted the introduction of voluntary Travel Plans and intended to decrease dependency on the private car. Following this in 1999 the Transport Bill provided a number of legal frameworks to enable measures to be introduced that supported travel planning, this included options such as work place parking charges. However, it still remains to be seen if such measures will have any effect at reducing congestion and creating modal shift towards public transport (BBC News, 2012). Although none of the organisations questioned had implemented measures such as work place charging, it was clear that even basic travel reduction measures and monitoring were missing from some Travel Plans. In my view this gives a clear indication that most organisations would not be in a position to implement further, more advanced travel reduction measures without

50

considerable assistance from either the local authority, or a not for profit organisation.

Presently in the UK, an organisation is only required to produce a Travel Plan as a result of a planning application, this in turn is managed by each local planning authority. With the introduction of PPG13 in 2001, local authorities were encouraged to take up targets for the adoption of Travel Plans, whilst embracing their own plan to set an example for others to follow. Notably, in the case of Kent County Council, no Travel Plan has ever been produced for the organisation as a whole. The position taken by the Council fails to set a precedent for others to follow, and acts as a hindrance to Council staff when they are trying to promote and call for certain requirements from others.

In 2012 the current Coalition Government introduced ‘The National Planning Policy Framework’, this attempted to reduce the fragmented standards and policies that had been introduced under PPG13, and produce a single document. It also reinforced the fact that sustainable development is central to a number of areas, including: economic, environmental and social success of the county. In order to deliver the new standards set out within NPPF local authorities are required to produce Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), in the case of Kent this is managed by the lower tier authorities who each produce a document for their own district, or borough. In my view some districts play a more active role in promoting Travel Plans, this is often at locations where greater development has been seen, for example Ashford, which has been designated as a key growth area in the South East. Other lower tier authorities that rarely see large-scale developments are less likely to have the experience and knowledge required to make the most of what Travel Plans have to offer. It is therefore important that any national and local transport priorities are conveyed within the LDFs, as it is recommended that Travel Plans are submitted alongside all planning applications that are likely to have a significant transport implication (Communities & Local Government, 2011, point 89).

From the origins of Travel Plan policy, big steps have been made to improve and further develop the policies and guidance available. This has been mostly down to continued local level development and persistence by a minority to ensure that Travel Plans have a wider impact. Helen Roby (LTT 2008) established that local development has started to demonstrate a shift from Travel Plans just addressing an external regulatory agenda, to one that works with an organisation to support their own internal organisational goals. Within the findings of this study some responses did show a higher level of understanding, with organisations attempting to link their Travel Plan with their wider internal organisational goals. However, this was certainly not the case for the majority of the responses received. Unfortunately, even with the changes introduced alongside NPPF, it could be argued that stronger central government guidance needs to be issued, with a view to standardising the difference approaches taken across the UK. By utilising beacon examples of Travel Plans, and introducing a level of consistency, long-term it may be possible to introduce a network of interlinked Travel Plans, which work together; as opposed to a series of Travel Plans that serves only the interests of one organisation. By joining Travel Plans together, it may be possible to

51

promote the wider benefits of green initiatives; for example car sharing and supporting subsidised public transport.

5.4. To investigate how KCC manages the Travel Plan process

KCC has been managing Travel Plans based on Government guidance and Local Development Plans. This has resulted in a standard format being employed to produce Travel Plans over the past decade. It was possible to investigate this approach by studying the latest KCC document, ‘Revised Guidance on Securing, Monitoring and Enforcing Travel Plans in Kent’ (2012). In addition to this, interviews were undertaken with Kent’s Sustainable Transport Manager and a Senior Development Planner.

Kent County Council had applied Travel Plans in such a way that it led them to often become drawn out and confused, which resulted in the failure of Plans. It was identified in the interview that the ability for KCC to take a more proactive approach was also being hindered by resource constrains, this essential came down to a lack of staff to be able to support all districts within the County. Historically, it was identified that part of this resource issue was the result of the highways function being taken from a district level and administered at a county level. This not only caused problems with staff allocation, as services were streamlined, but also created a multitude of different policies and objectives across the Authority, as opposed to one single goal for the greater good of promoting and managing Travel Plans.

Through my use of the KCC iTRACE database, I was able to identify areas where a possible lack of communication between Travel Plan coordinators’ and KCC was reducing the overall effectiveness of Travel Plans. In total 129-recorded Travel Plans were un-contactable out of a total of 253-recorded Travel Plans. This gives a highly likely indication that the Plans were no longer either being enforced, or monitored.

Moving forward with the new guidance, KCC is looking to produce Travel Plans on an ‘outcomes’ basis, with on-going monitoring, targets and sanctions. The creation of a ‘Requirements Checklist’ is just one way that the Authority is trying to help support businesses looking to introduce a Travel Plan. In my opinion the use of a standard checklist not only makes it easier for organisations to identify measures they may wish to consider, but KCC can also benefit by limiting the number of suggestions and thus tailoring their advice, services and energy in to a set number of areas, as opposed to having to deal with endless proposals for measures known not to have been successful on the basis of previous experience. It is also about trying to improve the transparency of Travel Plans by being upfront with businesses about yearly monitoring costs, whilst working with organisations to ensure targets are met and appropriate action is taken where there is a failure to achieve agreed outcomes.

KCC’s Sustainable Transport Manager highlighted the need for KCC to work with developers to ensure that the required infrastructure is in-place, in advance of a Travel Plan being introduced. For example, cycle lanes and electric charging points. He also indicated that further improvements could be

52

made to the New Ways 2 Work website, with further marketing and proactive initiatives being promoted by the Council in conjunction with other external organisations. As part of the drive to improve the process clear roles and responsibilities have been defined. This includes three tiers of involvement, including: local planning authorities; KCC Highways and Transportation Development Planning Team; KCC Highways and Transportation Sustainable Transport Team; and where applicable the Highways Agency. By having this setup in place, organisations that are required to produce a Travel Plan will be dealing with a system that has a clearer structure, with reduced ambiguities. This goes someway to addressing the concerns of T. Rye et al (2011), who claimed that local authority dissemination and management has to date been piecemeal and was acting as a barrier to the wider introduction of Travel Plans.

One of the other main points raised by the Senior Development Planner included the need for KCC to make greater use of TRICs and Transport Assessments when Travel Plans are being produced. By utilising these planning tools, it would be possible to more accurately predict future traffic levels and subsequently produce a Travel Plan that is more closely linked to the development and its needs.

To date KCC has taken a ‘hands off’ approach to managing Travel Plans within the County, it has however started to change this in line with the introduction of NPPF. Long-term funding and staffing are however a big concern that stills needs to be overcome, especially when funding through Government schemes such as the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) concludes. Self-funding of elements, such as the on-going requirement to monitor progress is however one way to overcome funding shortfalls, which would enable KCC to more proactively manage all Travel Plans within its jurisdiction, on a more viable long-term basis.

5.5. To research how companies are managing their Travel Plans

Research by Roby (2010) indicates that organisations need to be active instigators of Travel Plans in order to ensure long-term benefits are achieved, as opposed to the short-term aspirations. In my opinion Roby’s observations are correct; unless organisations are willing to fully commit to delivering a workable Travel Plan it will fail to deliver not only the long-term benefits, but also any short-term aspirations. In the past two decades we have seen an increased awareness of ‘social responsibility’ within society, which has in turn resulted in many companies reviewing the way their business operates. This has also led to some companies working towards a management standard, which can then be used to publicise the ethical, environmental or social responsibilities of their organisation - for example ISO 14001 - Environmental Management System (British Standards Institution, 2012). Kolk’s (2008) and Elkington’s (1999) studies both demonstrated a trend towards growing transparency surrounding corporate behaviour, with a move to improving accountability and changing the traditional belief that businesses’ sole responsibility is concerned with only maximising profit.

53

To try and confirm the view that companies are changing their views towards corporate social responsibility, in particular Travel Plans, this study undertook a survey of organisations within Kent that had introduced a Travel Plan. In the main, those who responded did identify that they had an individual member of staff responsible for the administration of their Plan. However, on closer analysis during the in-depth telephone interviews it was clear that the coordinator role was often subject to staff changes, with little importance placed on the handover, thus resulting in a loss of knowledge and continuity for the Travel Plan. On-going management and updating of the Plan produced an inconsistent response. In the main most very rarely updated their Plan to take account of changes. Interestingly a large number of respondents did indicate that they undertook monitoring surveys throughout the year, though disappointingly it does not seem that any feedback, as a consequence of the surveys has resulted in Travel Plans being updated. As a result organisations are failing to capitalise on the opportunities of the future, as they are not taking full account of the knowledge gained (Romme, 1992). Results from the study also showed that few organisations were integrating their Travel Plan within a corporate green agenda. I believe that this is partly down to previous government guidance and as a result of the way that KCC has chosen to implement Travel Plans. The idea of linking Travel Plans with internal organisational goals is not necessarily new within the academic sphere; it is however something that KCC and other local authorities have less experience of delivering. Over time it is likely that standalone Travel Plans will be replaced by a single corporate green agenda, but until more pressure is put upon organisations to embed their Travel Plan within the foundations of their company the idea is unlikely to take off.

From the research undertaken in Kent, it would seem that most organisations have no firm plans for managing their Travel Plan on an on-going basis. Even those that identified having successfully introduced a Travel Plan were still being constrained from developing further by internal processes and politics. This further identifies that Travel Plans are yet to be fully understood and embedded within organisational goals. Unless this occurs, bureaucratic hurdles will persist, which will limit the potential of a Travel Plan and subsequently limit the identifiable benefits. To facilitate the long-term benefits of Travel Plans, it is going to be essential that the importance of a site coordinator to champion the whole Travel Plan process is demonstrated within planning and Travel Plan guidance. Without a site coordinator the active management of Travel Plans will continue to be a problem, which ultimately results in Plans not achieving the outcomes they set out to reach.

5.6. To identify constraints within the travel planning process

The travel planning process has been continuing to evolve since its first introduction. This has seen an unprecedented growth in more localised agendas amongst local authorities (Roby, 2008). At the same time, the national government has further developed the guidelines surrounding planning policy. The latest, NPPF has consolidated past guidelines. However, I would argue the most recent guidance still lacks a strong central control to guide developers and ultimately create a system that incentivises

54

organisations to embrace Travel Plans. Somewhat disappointingly, the Government is yet to satisfactorily tackle the metaphorical ‘elephant in the room’; creating policy to tackle existing developments and encouraging these organisations to introduce Travel Plans voluntarily, outside of the planning process.

Local planning and highway authorities are constrained by time and staff resources. This ultimately leads to Travel Plans being introduced that do not necessarily meet the needs of the end user. In a lot of cases Travel Plans are viewed as more of a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise in the process of obtaining planning permission. Long-term, this lack of resource is also hampering the effective monitoring and enforcement of Travel Plans that have already been introduced. This in part is down to insufficient training of public sector workers who are tasked with dissemination the required information to organisation.

Through discussions with staff at Kent County Council, it was also identified that a greater understanding is required about a site and the impact it is going to have on the transport network; this could be enhanced through the use of TRICS and Transport Assessments. Poor communication was also sighted as a barrier to those trying to implement a Travel Plan; this is especially relevant in Kent where the role of planning and enforcement is split between lower and upper tier authorities. Securing commitment from a developer, or organisation without any real form of penalties was also seen as a big challenge, which is yet to be fully addressed by the Government and local authorities. The current lack of independent checking and limited local authority resources to pursue broken commitments in court was seen as one of the biggest constraints within the existing travel planning process.

Through having direct contact with organisations that had introduced Travel Plans in Kent, it has also been possible to capture and identify the constraints within the current travel planning process. Overwhelmingly there seems to be a lack of awareness and understanding about what a Travel Plan is and can hope to achieve. The in-depth telephone interviews identified one Travel Plan group that had been formed to look at introducing a Travel Plan. This group and subsequently the Travel Plan were both shelved because the majority of the group were looking for car-based improvements e.g. new roads, increased parking. The four main constraints raised most frequently, include:

Funding & legislation constraints;

Lack of employer interest;

Lack of time; and

Poor access to public transport.

All four points were identified as hampering attempts to change employee attitudes. Interestingly, the identified constraints match closely with a study conducted by Coleman (2000, p139-148), where he identifies that businesses are held back by the lack of public transport alternatives (38%), lack of Government legislation (37%), tax incentives (35%), along with the need for

55

improved advice and support (20%). Other themes raised include the link between organisations and local authorities. It was felt that some local authorities showed a lack of willingness to engage, with many organisations being confused by internal processes and frustrated by not having a single point of contact. On-going monitoring was reported to suffer from poor response rates. Others reported that the monitoring software provided by Kent County Council was limited in its ability to be adapted to an individual organisation’s needs. Further feedback also suggested that the software was slow and had been plagued by poor performance issues.

In addition to the main points highlighted above, the lack of legislation to ensure companies comply with Travel Plan commitments was singled out as one of the possible underlying reasons for the lack of ownership surrounding Travel Plans. The very fact that organisations seem aware of the limited resources local authorities have to monitor and take action could also be a possible loophole being taken advantage of. This is resulting in the continued view that Travel Plans are more of a bureaucratic box-ticking requirement, as opposed to a unique site-specific Plan, designed to minimise the negative transport impacts of a site and indeed confer benefits on the end users.

5.7. To establish how Travel Plans can be improved

One of the priorities of this study has been to examine the current travel-planning situation within Kent, and to examine what Travel Plan coordinators and the local authority believe would improve today’s process.

Having established the study theme, the research focus has been to look at the day-to-day operational elements of running a Travel Plan. The data required was collected through an online survey (Figure 13), considered against the backdrop of current policies and guidelines. Data collected from questionnaires was examined further through more in-depth interviews to question and establish the reasons behind the responses to the original survey. The responses received indicated a wide range of suggested improvements, however none of them were unexpected. It is somewhat encouraging in my opinion that respondents’ suggestions received resemble those proposed within parts of the literature review, and echo the views following the interviews undertaken with Kent County Council. It also demonstrates that organisations do have an interest when it comes to Travel Plans, and their involvement could potentially bring a number of very relevant suggestions to the table for future improvements as a result of their experiences.

56

Figure 13 - Online survey improvement responses.

It was clear from the study that I undertook that the area relating to the success of Travel Plans is very emotive, with many organisations seizing upon the opportunity to provide feedback in relation to the Travel Plan process. For that reason, the responses received were wide-ranging and often highly specific to their own experiences. Nonetheless, all responses were collected to build up a wider picture of the current situation. Interestingly many of the comments, although relating to ‘local’ Travel Plans, linked closely with past and current academic thinking on how Travel Plans could be improved.

As a result, this study has been able to identify three headline areas that need to be tackled in-order for Travel Plans to be improved. These headline areas most closely reflect Coleman’s academic study (2000, p139-148) and include:

Greater local authority input / support;

Improved national Government policy, to include enforcement legislation and an incentives scheme; and

Renewed streamlined guidance / marketing.

57

My investigations have also shown that in order to improve the travel planning process, local authorities have a key part to play in providing support and working with organisations to introduce national policies. By identifying early the impact of a site on the network performance, through the use of Transport Assessments, the greater chance the local authority has of ensuring the final Travel Plan is a success for all. It has been shown in this study that organisations are calling for greater local authority support and input, this is one opportunity for local authorities to utilise their unique knowledge and specialist skills to support the Travel Plan process.

From the feedback collected, it is clear that there is a need for additional legislative support to enable the effective enforcement of Travel Plans. Following the interviews conducted with Kent County Council’s Senior Development Planner, it was suggested that bonds could be introduced to secure developer commitments early on with more upfront costs. It is hoped that this type of approach could incentivise greater commitment to meeting Travel Plan targets, with the developer taking greater ownership over coordinating a site Travel Plan and meeting mode targets. A need for caution was flagged by KCC’s Senior Development Planner, who noted that there would need to be a careful balance, otherwise “the viability of a site to a developer is going to decrease the more onerous a Travel Plan becomes”. It was also suggested that any targets could be “locked down at the different phases”, as opposed to a whole development plan. This approach would offer greater flexibility to adjust the Travel Plan on the basis of its performance. In my view, the approach for each site would need to be considered on an individual basis. However, by introducing bonds and providing greater flexibility to update a Travel Plan, both KCC and the developer could benefit by increasing the enforcement options, whilst also providing the developer with the flexibility to develop the Travel Plan in line with the requirements of their development.

In addition to looking at the use of bonds, the in-depth telephone interviews promoted the idea of ownership for Travel Plans sitting solely at the doorstep of an organisation. Without this, it was felt that people would not be put off from driving. To date, the Government has made limited progress through the tax system, whereby no tax or national insurance contributions are required for certain ‘green’ investments. However, this is vastly inferior to other countries, in particular the USA where Travel Plans are mandated for most types of employers through the CTR programme. I would advocate further research to identify and understand what types of fiscal incentives could be introduced in the UK and would trigger an organisation to develop a Travel Plan. This research also needs to consider how Travel Plans can be introduced on a voluntary basis with organisations outside of the planning process. Through studying examples such as CTR in the USA, considerable experience could be gained to help support future UK policy. By gathering the facts at the local level, it will also be possible to lobby central government to ensure that Travel Plans do not get left behind in an ever changing political and economic environment.

Finally, as Rye and MacLeod, (1998) highlighted in their study, it is crucial that an organisation understands that there is a transport problem impacting upon

58

their site. Today a large number of organisations still chose not to acknowledge this and subsequently do nothing to mitigate the problem. Any future changes need to eradicate the past “mixed messages” surrounding Travel Plans. This can only be achieved by building on the existing guidance disseminated by local authorities to ensure it is tied in with the national message, local objectives (as set out within Local Development Frameworks), and also more importantly, has the ability to be linked into internal organisational goals - as opposed to simply addressing an external regulatory agenda. By linking these different objectives in a single document, it will be easier to improve the accountability of businesses and educate stakeholders and senior managers, who in turn can pass this knowledge down to their staff, embedding travel planning as a tool for effective business management. This then provides organisations with the opportunity to generate cost savings, lending companies a competitive advantage and which has additional benefits for the environment and the health of employers.

5.8. Limitations

When designing the scope for this study, and in particular the online survey element, the number of available contacts gave me a reasonable level of comfort in receiving a significant enough rate of response to allow some statistical analysis to be conducted as part of the study. However the study has been significantly limited by the number of responses received to the online survey. This has been compounded by the subsequent lack of time available to expand the contact pool to find other potential survey respondents and also to undertake further in-depth telephone interviews.

Given the outdated nature of many of the contact details contained with the Kent County Council iTRACE database, it was only possible to obtain a small number of responses. In one sense, this highlights one of the main issues with Travel Plans, where details are not updated and a main point of contact is never identified and also perhaps reflects a general lack of relevance of Travel Plans to the wider community. Inaccurate data is a particularly prevalent problem when a Travel Plan is created by a consultant for an organisation, as this adds an additional obstacle between the local authority, consultant and site coordinator (if identified).

As stated, had more responses to the online survey been received it would have been possible to utilise statistical analysis tests, such as Chi-square, which could have been used to compare the recorded data against a set of specific hypothesises to identify the levels of statistical significance within the responses captured. In hindsight it may have been useful to contact several local authorities to try and capture a greater number of responses, however, this would also have diluted the local context of my study.

5.9. Further research ideas

As identified in section 5.8, it would be sensible to expand any future survey to try and gain a greater number of responses. This could be achieved by targeting out of date contacts within the Kent County Council iTRACE

59

database, or involve contacting additional local authorities that operate iTRACE, or a similar type of database. Although much of the data collected has come from consultants, site coordinators and Kent County Council, it would be good to understand more from an employee perspective. By having this information it would be possible to link policy and overarching organisational views with the opinions of everyday Travel Plan users. An additional area that could be investigated is the Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy to try and understand the wider impact this has had on Travel Plans within the city.

60

6. References & Bibliography

6.1. References

Allen, J., Anderson, S., Brown, M. (1997). Urban Logistics - how can it meet policy makers’ sustainability objectives? Progress in planning, 47, 3-6.

BBC News. (2012). Workplace Parking Levy begins in Nottingham. Retrieved April 1st, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-17573366.

Banister, D. (1999). Planning More to Travel Less: Land Use and Transport, Town Planning Review, Vol. 70, 1999, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool p313 -338.

Beck, P. (1992). Framing Business Ethics. Crane, A. & Matten, D. (Ed.), Business Ethics: A European Perspective (37-74) New York: Oxford.

Bond, A., Brooks, D. (1997). A strategic framework to determine the best practical environmental options for proposed transport schemes. Journal of environmental management, 51(3), 305-321.

Bradshaw, R. (2001). An evaluation of current initiatives to encourage employers to adopt travel plans. Transport Research Laboratory.

Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

British Standards Institution. (2012). ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/en/Assessment-and-Certification-services/Management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-14001/.

Brog, W., Erl, E., Ker, I., Ryle, J., & Wall, R. (2009). Evaluation of voluntary travel behaviour change: Experiences from three continents. Transport Policy, 16, 281-292.

Breheny, M. (1992). Sustainable Development of Urban Form. London: Pion.

Bruff, G. and Wood, A.P. (2000). Local sustainable development: land-use planning’s contribution to modern government’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(4), 519-39.

Cairns, S., Newson, C., & Davis, A. (2010). Understanding successful workplace travel initiatives in the UK. Transport Research Part A, 44, 473-494.

Class, F. (1997). Sustainable development in western Europe- coming to terms with agenda 21. London: Rutledge.

Clifford, N.J., & Valentine, G. (2003). Key methods in geography. (pp. 1-17, 37-55). London: Sage Publications.

Cocklin, C., & Blunden, G. (1998). Key methods in geography. (pp. 1-7 & 37-55).

61

Coleman, C. (2000). Green commuter plans and the small employer: an investigation into the attitudes and policy of the small employer towards staff travel and green commuter plans. Transport Policy, 7, 139-148.

Communities & Local Government. (2011). Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg13.

Communities & Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf.

Comsis Corporation. (1993) Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT (http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/474.html) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).

Department for Transport. (2007). Guidance on transport assessment. Retrieved May 25th, 2012, from http://dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-on-transport-assessment/.

Department for Transport .(2005). Smarter Choices - Changing the way we travel. http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/smarter-choices-changing-the-way-we-travel-main-document/.

Department for Transport. (2007). Making Residential Travel Plans Work. London: DfT Publications.

Department for Transport (2011). Local Sustainable Transport Fund. . http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-sustainable-transport-fund-guidance-on-the-application-process/

DETR. (2000b). Local Strategic partnerships, consultation document, London: DETR.

Duckenfield, T. (2012). If we really want to change travel patterns, behavioral economic can help us. Transportxtra, Issue 593.

Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

Enoch, M., Potter, S. (2003). Encouraging the commercial sector to help employees to change their travel behaviour. Transport Policy, 10, 51-58.

Friedman, m. (1970). Framing Business Ethics. Business Ethics: A European Perspective (37-74) New York: Oxford.

Forster, A. (2011). Makin travel plans count. Transportxtra, Issue 575.

General Assembly. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Retrieved May 25th, 2012, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm.

62

Government Office For The South East. (2009). The South East Plan. Retrieved April 1st, 2012, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100528142817/http:/www.gos.gov.uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/815640/.

Herbert, S. (2000). For ethnography. Progress in human geography. 24(4). 550-556.

Hebes, P., Menge, J., & Lenz, B. (2012). Service-related traffic: An analysis of the influence of firms on travel behaviour. Transport Policy.

HMRC. (2005). A Fact Sheet for Employers setting up Green Travel Plans. Retrieved May 25th, 2012, from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/green-transport/travel-plans.htm.

Holbeche, L. (2001). Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy.

London: ButterWorth-Heinemann.

House of Commons. (1999). Transport Bill. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/008/1000008.htm.

John, E.G., White, A., & Gibb, D.C. (2004). State modernisation and local strategic selectivity after local agenda 21: evidence from three northern English localities. The Policy & Politics, 32 (2), 151-68.

Kairiukstis, L. (1989). Ecological sustainability of regional development: background to the problems. Ecological sustainability of regional development. Austria: Analysis.

Kent County Council. (2004). Local Development Framework. Retrieved April 21st, 2012, from http://www.kent.gov.uk/environment_and_planning/planning_in_kent/strategies_and_plans/local_development_frameworks.aspx.

Kent County Council. (2012). Revised Guidance on Securing, Monitoring and Enforcing Travel Plans in Kent.

King, T. (2008). Creation and success of green travel plans: responsibilities at national, local, and corporate level. BA (Hons) University of Portsmouth.

Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, Accountability and Corporate Governance: Exploring Multinationals’ Reporting Practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 1-15.

Labour. (1998). A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone - White Paper. Retrieved April 1st, 2012, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607112847/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/previous/anewdealfortransportbetterfo5695.

Lele, S.M. (1991). Sustainable Development: A critical Review. World Development, 19, 609-621.

Local Government Act 2000. (2000). Retrieved May 20th, 2012, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/22/pdfs/ukpga_20000022_en.pdf.

63

Local Transport Today. (2010). Rethinking travel plans. Transportxtra, Issue 556.

Local Transport Today. (2008). Consultants aim to secure travel plans for long-term. Transportxtra, Issue 498.

Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B. (2010). Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications: London.

Muschett, F. (1997). Principle of Sustainable Development. Florida: St Lucie Press.

New Ways 2 Work. (2012). Smarter Travel Choices. http://newways2work.org.uk.

Nottingham City Council. (2011). Workplace Parking Levy. Retrieved April 25th,

2012, from http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=905.

O’Brien, M & Penna, s. (1997). European policy and the politics of environmental governance. Policy and Politics, 25(2), 185-200.

O’Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. (1997). The Political Economy of Sustainability. Environmental Politics, 6(1), 1-23.

Pacione, M. (2002). The City: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. London: Rutledge.

Patterson, A & Theobald, K.S. (1996). Local Agenda 21, Compulsory Competitive Tendering & Local Environmental Practices. Local Environment,

1(1), 7-19.

Palmer, J. (1990). The Slowly Dawning Green Revolution. Cannon, T. Corporate Responsibility (207-223) Canada: Pitman Publishing.

Peck, J. (1998). Geographies of Governance: TECs and the neo-liberalisation of local interests. Space and Polity, 2(1), 5-21.

Pinfield, G. & Saunders, J. (2000). Community strategies and LA21 strategies. September, 6(8), 15-18.

Rio+20. (2012). United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Retrieved July 5th, 2012, from http://www.uncsd2012.org.

R.J. & Zielowski, C. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(2), 1321-1327.

Roby, H. (2010). Workplace travel plans: past, present and future. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 23-30.

Roby, H. (2008). Policy-makers may see travel plans as a ‘green’ tool, but do employers see them the same way? Transportxtra, Issue 498.

Romme, N. (1992). Developing environmental management strategies. Business strategies and the environment. 1(1), 11-24.

64

Rye, T., Green, C., Young, E., & Ison, S. (2011). Using the land-use planning process to secure travel plans: an assessment of progress in England to date. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 235-243.

Rye, T., MacLeod, M. (1998). An Investigation of Employer Attitudes to Employer Transport Plans, AET European Transport Conference 1998, Policy Planning and Sustainability Seminar (Seminar C), vol. 2, PTRC.

Rye, T. (2002) Travel plans; do they work? Transport Policy, 9 (4), 287-298.

Schein, E.H. (2007). Analysing zero emission strategies regarding impact on organizational culture and contributions to sustainable development, Baumgartner.

Shen, T.T. (1997). Principle of Sustainable Development. Florida: St Lucie Press.

Smith, M., Whitelegg, J, & Williams, N. (1998). Greening the Built Environment. London: Earthscan.

Southwood, R. (1996). UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. London: DETR.

TfL. (2012). Workplace travel planning. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/workplacetravelplanning/7586.aspx.

UNCED. (2002). United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Retrieved April 22nd, 2012, from http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/basic_info/unced.html.

Wilkinson, D. (1997). Towards Sustainability on the European Union? Steps within the European commission towards integrating the environment into other European union policy sectors. Sustainability development in Western Europe. London: Routeledge.

Winters, P., and Rudge, D. (1995). Commute Alternatives Educational Outreach, National Urban Transit Institute, Centre for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida (www.cutr.usf.edu).

Wood, D. & Ivens, M. (1997). Business and Public Policy. Treasure, J. (Ed.), Business Responsibilities, A selection of foundation papers (101-113) Oxfordshire: NTC Publications.

6.2. Bibliography

Baue, B. (2007). Sustainability investment news. Retrieved January 24th, 2008, from http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2308.html.

Clifford, N.J., & Valentine, G. (2003). Key methods in geography. (pp. 1-17, 37-55). London: Sage Publications.

65

Commission for Integrated Transport. (2009). Transport Implications of Public Sector Decisions. MRC McLean Hazel.

Department for Transport. (2011). Creating Growth and Cutting Carbon: Marking Sustainable Local Transport Happen. http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/making-sustainable-local-transport-happen/.

Department for Transport. (2005). Making residential travel plans work: good practice guidelines for new development. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/rpt/makingresidentialtravelplans5775.

Department for Transport. (2008). The Essential Guide to Travel Planning. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110509101621/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/work/.

Department for Transport. (2009). Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the planning system. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101124142120/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/tpp/.

Elkington, J. (1999), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

Exeter. The Environmental Co-Coordinator. (2008). Exeter Climate Change Strategy (2008-2018). Exeter: Exeter City Council.

Exeter. City Council. (2001). Exeter City Council Environmental strategy 2001-2006). Exeter: Exeter City Council.

Friedman, M. (1970). Framing Business Ethics. Crane, A. & Matten, D. (Ed.), Business Ethics: A European Perspective (37-74) New York: Oxford.

Great Britain. Speller, J. (2005). Making Travel Plans Work. London: Department for Transport.

Jessop, B. (1997). A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes. Reconstructing urban regime theory, London: Sage Publications.

Kitchen, T., Whitney, D., Littlewood, S. (1997). Local Authorities/Academic Collaboration and Local Agenda 21 Policy Processes. Journal of environmental planning and management, 40(5), 645-659.

Liftshare. (2012). Kentjourneyshare. https://kentcarshare.liftshare.com/default.asp.

Metz, D. (2011). Demographic Determinants of Daily Travel Demand. Centre for Transport Studies, London.

Roby, H. (2009). The Development of Workplace Travel Plans. UTSG, 2A1.1-2A1.12.

Roby, H. (2010). Applying Business Studies Methods To Transport Research. UTSG.

66

TRICS. (2012). The national standard for trip generation analysis.

http://www.trics.org.

Treasure, J. (1997). Business Responsibilities – A Selection of Foundation Papers. Foundations for Business Responsibilities. Oxfordshire: NTC Publications Ltd.

University of Kent Canterbury Campus. (2011). Travel Plan 2011 – 2015.

Within the European commission towards integrating the environment into other European Union policy sectors. Sustainability development in Western Europe. London: Routeledge.

Wood, D. & Ivens, M. (1997). Business and Public Policy. Treasure, J. (Ed.), Business Responsibilities, A selection of foundation papers (101-113) Oxfordshire: NTC Publications.

67

Appendix A

Online survey results

Travel Plan Survey

Creation

1 Did you have any involvement in the development of your organisation's original Travel Plan?

Yes: 18

No: 13

Total responses: 31

2 Does anyone in your organisation have Travel Plan responsibilities as part of their job role?

Yes: 7

No: 6

Total responses: 13

3 How long have you been involved with your organisation's Travel Plan?

Less than a year: 4

Between 1 - 2 years: 5

More than 2 years: 9

Total responses: 18

4 Why did your organisation develop a Travel Plan? (tick all that apply)

Planning condition / agreement 15

Parking restraints

on the site 9

A green corporate agenda 15

Traffic problems on local roads 6

Cost savings 4

Other 6

Total responses: 31

Other responses:

No Travel Plan 2

68

To aid occupiers 1

Transport company 1

Planning condition 1

N/A 1

5 What are the key features of your Travel Plan?

Information boards showing sustainable transport options 14

Car sharing 19

Restricted/ priority parking on site 12

Financial incentives to use alternative means of transport to the private

car 3

Subsidised public transport use 6

Provision of showers/ changing facilities/ lockers 11

Public transport improvements 8

Provision of minibuses to collect/drop off staff 4

Other (please specify) 13

Total Response: 31

Other responses:

Cycle to Work scheme 4

Incentive competitions 1

Eco driver training 1

Forums 1

Taxi / Bus services 1

Improved walking access 1

N/A 4

Implementation

6 What actions from your Travel Plan have been carried out?

Information boards showing sustainable transport options 15

Car sharing 16

Restricted/ priority parking on site 11

Financial incentives to use alternative means of transport to the private

car 5

Subsidised public transport use 4

Provision of showers/ changing facilities/ lockers 14

Public transport improvements 6

Provision of minibuses to collect/drop off staff 4

Other (please specify) 13

Total responses: 31

69

Other responses:

Cycle to Work scheme 5

Eco driver training 1

Taxi / Bus services 1

Improved walking access 1

N/A 5

7 Have you had any problems implementing your Travel Plan?

Yes: 7

No: 24

Total responses: 31

7A What were they?

Funding 1

No internet access 1

Lack of interest 1

Time 1

Poor public transport / transport connections 2

No plan 1

8 Is there anything that hasn't been implemented?

Yes: 11

No: 20

Total responses: 31

8A Why?

Time 1

Viability 1

Internet access 1

Change in corporate priorities 1

On going planning issues 1

Director sign-off 1

Improvement in local public transport links 1

N/A 4

Reviewing

9 How often is your Travel Plan updated?

70

More than once a year 2

Every 1-2 years 12

Every 2+ years 5

Never 12

Total responses: 31

10 What do you do to update your Travel Plan?

Annual review of internal policies 1

Annual travel survey undertaken 6

As and when required 2

New plan produced every 4 years, or less 2

Review as part of ISO 14001 accreditation 1

iTRACE survey undertaken 1

On going monitoring 3

Reviewed against the current corporate agenda 2

11 Have you surveyed how people travel to/from your site since the Travel Plan was first implemented?

Yes: 17

No: 14

Total responses: 31

12 What changes to travel behaviour have you found since your Travel Plan was implemented?

Reduction in site traffic 1

Increase in car-sharing and reduce single occupancy car trips 5

Increase in the use of the free bus 1

Growth in kentjourneyshare membership 1

Staff showing greater consideration for how they travel 1

Decrease in car use 1

Reduced fuel use 1

Increase in bus frequency following increased demand 1

None 4

Engagement with other organisations

13 Have you contacted any other organisations about your Travel Plan?

Yes: 10

No: 20

Total responses: 30

71

14 Who did you contact?

Kent County Council 8

Your local District / Borough Council 6

Consultancy firm 3

Other companies developing Travel Plans 4

Other 3

14A Other responses:

Other local businesses 1

Local Primary Care Trust 1

Other 1

Success

15 How satisfied are you with the success of your Travel Plan?

Very Satisfied 2

Satisfied 9

Neutral 10

Dissatisfied 1

Very Dissatisfied 5

Total responses: 27

16 How has it been successful? (tick all that apply)*

Saved money (e.g. cost of providing parking spaces) 2

Cut mileage claims 1

Reduced staff downtime (e.g. time travelling on business) 2

Solved congestion problems on and around your site 7

Improved your 'sustainable' image 3

Helped meet demand for corporate social responsibility improvements 1

Increased car sharing to/from work 8

More staff now use public transport to travel to/from work 2

Other 3

Total responses: 11

Other responses:

Increased cycle usage 1

LSTF grant funding for cycling facilities 1

Other 1

72

17 What are the reasons for your Travel Plan's success?

Support from management 11

Employee motivation 6

Support from Kent County Council 8

Support from District/Borough Council 2

Grant funding 1

Other 4

Other responses:

Consultant support 1

Taking examples from other organisations plans 1

Corporate social agenda, rather than a specific Travel Plan 1

Other 1

18 Why do you think it has not been successful?

Lack of Local Authority support 1

Time constraints 1

Lack of public transport 1

High cost of public transport 1

Yet to be implemented 1

Not yet re-surveyed to understand the impacts 1

Individual responsible has left the organisation 1

Other 3

19 In your opinion, how could the overall Travel Plan process be improved?

Additional funding - S106s 1

Greater district and county council input 4

More central government policy 3

Collaboration between public services 1

Improved public transport 2

Enforcement and more legislation 2

More time to implement a Travel Plan 1

Increase fuel price 1

Greater guidance 1

Incorporate Travel Plans within a corporate strategy 2

Strategic travel planning, as opposed to stand alone plans 1

Other 6

73

20 Are you aware of either of the following websites?

www.newways2work.org.uk

www.kentjourneyshare.com

Yes: 19

No: 6

Total responses: 25

74

Online survey letter

75

Online survey responses

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

Making Workplace Travel Plans Work paper

MAKING WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLANS WORK

Charlotte Owen, Katie Pettitt and Thomas King Kent County Council

ABSTRACT Kent County Council has approved over 300 Workplace Travel Plans, yet the actual effect of these Travel Plans has been little assessed. While there are other studies across the UK which attempt to measure modal shift, the view of the critical owner of the Travel Plan (the site coordinator) has largely been ignored. This paper will seek to redress the balance and unmask the views of the site coordinator. Mixed quantitative-qualitative questionnaires and supplementary interviews will be used to understand their experience and attitudes towards their Travel Plans. The paper will examine when and why they consider their Travel Plans to have been successful (or not) and how the process could have procured better results. Travel Plans are now frequently required under Condition for planning permission, and their local reputation has unfortunately begun to slip. They are seen by some as a commodity to achieve planning permission, rather than a long term sustainable practice. This paper will unravel the perceptions and experiences held by the site coordinator, which will be critical in forming more effective and respected Travel Plans in the future. Nearly 20 years after the birth of Travel Plans, this research is fundamental in assessing how effective they have actually been as evidenced by those responsible for them. The views and experiences of the site coordinator will enable Kent County Council to better tailor the planning process to deliver effective Travel Plans that go further in achieving their objectives; not merely fulfilling one criteria required for planning permission. This will have policy implications for local authorities across the country and lead to some best practice examples. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 What is a Travel Plan? A Travel Plan is a set of measures put together to help an organisation meet its travel needs and improve safe and sustainable travel to and from their site. This will often involve the promotion of alternatives to the single occupancy car such as car sharing, walking, cycling and public transport. Intelligent changes to working arrangements, such as teleworking can also help to reduce the need to travel altogether.

138

Significant political appetite for travel planning began in the 1990s, as it became apparent that new roads created new journeys, hence demand for travelling must be managed (BBC News, 2010). The Government’s White Paper A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone in 1998 clearly defined this vision to reduce congestion and improve public transport options. 1.2 Past practice in Kent County Council Historically, at Kent County Council (KCC) all Travel Plans were recorded by the Sustainable Transport Team, who also conducted monitoring and offered advice as required. However, since the cessation of School Travel Plan funding from the Government and a restructure at KCC the Sustainable Transport Team lacks the resources to do this work for the sheer number of Workplace Travel Plans. Instead the Team will continue to work with schools in a voluntary matter but hand-over all planning obligated Travel Plans to the Development Planning Team. 1.3 April 2012- Hand over to Development Planning Team As the majority of planning obligated Travel Plans are requested at planning stage by the Development Planning Team, it was deemed appropriate and more effective for this team to take responsibility for such Travel Plans. As of April 2012, the Development Planning Team now has full responsibility for managing the county’s planning obligated Travel Plans. The idea is that the local Development Planners who consider the need for a Travel Plan at a certain site are the best placed to judge its progress and ensure targets are met. This is the perfect time therefore to assess the state of Travel Plans, and ensure they are taken forward in the most efficient and valuable way. The lessons learnt from this research, as well as the experience of the Sustainable Transport Team and Development Planners, have informed a new approach to Travel Plans. The details of the new procedure for securing, monitoring and enforcing Travel Plans in Kent are explained in Section 6. 2. METHODOLOGY A mixed quantitative – qualitative methodology was used, consisting of an online survey and follow-up telephone interviews. 2.1 Online Survey Kent County Council stores the details of the county’s Travel Plans using the software iTRACE. This includes the contact details for either the site coordinator or the manager of the site who is creating the Travel Plan. A survey link was sent to the list of contacts held on the iTRACE software, requesting them to respond about their experiences with their site Travel Plan. For the majority this was sent via email, with letters and phone calls to the remainder for whom we had no contact email address.

Of the 337 sites registered on iTRACE 253 were used for the survey. The remainder were labelled in iTRACE as “expression of interest” for voluntary Travel Plans or “proposed” for planning obligated Travel Plans; none

139

contained any details of proposals or commitments. It was judged likely that these Travel Plans were never taken forward.

In total, 129 were found to be un-contactable. This was mainly due to out-of-date information and a lack of any contact details. It is assumed, therefore, that 124 contacts were successfully contacted (as long as emails were read by the correct person). 31 responses to the online survey were received (24 complete and 7 partial), which gives a response rate of 25%. A copy of the online survey is available by request from the authors. 2.2 Limitations with the online survey Although a 25% response rate was achieved, it is believed that a higher rate was not achieved for the following reasons:

It is likely that many site coordinators had left their organisation and not passed on their Travel Plan responsibilities to a colleague. It was immediately evident for those sites with only telephone contact details that this was often the case, and upon phoning the organisation no one else knew about their Travel Plan.

If the “site coordinator” never really took responsibility for the Travel Plan, but merely gave their name as the contact then they were unlikely to complete the survey. The idea of a Travel Plan is to carry out on going monitoring and continually assess the needs of the site. However, some responses clearly showed that the “coordinator” had never conducted any work on their Travel Plan and were barely familiar with the concept at all. It was often the case that these were central corporate teams and not physically present on the site.

Similarly, where central corporate teams are responsible for Travel Plans they may cover more than one site. Our email did not specify which site we wanted the coordinator to fill out the survey for and this may have inhibited some from completing the form. However, we did not receive any return emails asking for clarification on this matter so it is assumed this had minimal effect.

For those organisations with multiple Travel Plans who did complete the survey, only one response was received.

Due to the economic recession and lengthy nature of planning developments, it is assumed that some sites have still not progressed into being built or occupied. It is also assumed that some sites never gained planning permission.

2.3 Telephone Interviews After the survey responses were collated, the respondents who had indicated that they would be happy to take part in a follow-up interview were contacted to arrange a time. Before the interview their answers were looked at in more

140

detail, so as to tailor the questions appropriately. This generated a greater depth of understanding about their specific experiences and thoughts during the interview. As such a semi-structured approach was used. The themes each telephone interview concentrated on were:

Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and monitoring);

Measures implemented;

Overall success;

Any difficulties encountered;

Interaction with KCC; and

What could be done to improve the Travel Plan process. 3. SURVEY RESULTS A number of questions were asked in the online survey pertaining to why the Travel Plan was created, whether the coordinator had been involved from the early stages and if they considered the Travel Plan to have been a success, amongst other questions. This section will now investigate selected results.

3.1 Did you have any involvement in the development of your organisation's original Travel Plan? 58% of respondents were involved in the development of their site Travel Plan. For those not involved, this may have been because they have taken over the responsibility from a colleague since its creation, or because the work was given to a consultant. 3.2 Why did your organisation develop a Travel Plan? Planning condition/agreement 48%

Parking restraints onsite 29% A green corporate agenda 48%

Traffic problems on local roads 19% Cost savings 13% Other 19%

Table 1: Reasons for creating a Travel Plan

Travel Plan proposed outputs mainly consisted of information boards, car sharing, restricted onsite parking, and provision of shower and locker facilities; of which the most common was car sharing. Of those using “other” measures the implementation of the Cycle to Work scheme was most common. Notably, whilst 61% of respondents named car sharing as a feature of their Travel Plan only 52% had actually implemented this. Conversely, whilst 36% had Travel Plans including provision of shower and locker facilities, 45% had actually implemented these measures. 23% of respondents experienced problems implementing their Travel Plan and 36% had not implemented all of the measures identified. The reasons

141

given for this difficulty included lack of time and funding, no internet access, poor public transport, the unviability of measures proposed, achieving director sign-off and lack of interest from site occupiers.

3.3 How often is your Travel Plan updated?

Never 39%

Every 2+ years 16% Every 1-2 years 39% More than once a year 6%

Table 2: Frequency of updating the Travel Plan 39% of respondents never update their Travel Plan whilst 45% update it more frequently than every 2 years. When asked how the Travel Plan was updated the vast majority of respondents cited merely carrying out a site survey and updating an information board. Only 55% of respondents had carried out a site survey. Whilst some sites were still less than a year old since occupation, there remain a high number which have not completed this basic component of a Travel Plan. 3.4 What changes to travel behaviour have you found since your Travel Plan was implemented? The main positive effect of the Travel Plan was cited to be an increase in employees car sharing, including more signed up to kentjourneyshare.com. Other positive effects were an increase in cycling and an improved corporate sustainability image. One site had identified a 50% reduction in traffic travelling through or on site. However, next to car sharing the second most common answer was that there had been no change to travel behaviour; with one respondent saying “people are selfish as ever.” When asked the reason for the relative success of the Travel Plan, respondents cited support from management, support from Kent County Council and employee motivation. Of the third of respondents who answered that they had contacted other organisations about their Travel Plan, 80% had contacted Kent County Council and 40% had spoken to other companies developing Travel Plans. These tended to be other companies in the same development site. 3.5 How satisfied are you with the success of your Travel Plan? Figure 1 shows the breakdown of responses to how successful coordinators felt their Travel Plan had been. The largest group of respondents answered “neutral” but a similar number were “satisfied.” More people were in the “satisfied” and “very satisfied” categories than “neutral” or “dissatisfied” with their success. No respondent said they were “very dissatisfied”. Where respondents have answered “not applicable” this is likely to be because the Travel Plan has not yet been implemented.

142

Figure 1: Satisfaction with the Success of the Travel Plan

As in 3.4, respondents felt their Travel Plans had been most successful in terms of car sharing (73%) and improved sustainable image (65%). A further 27% of respondents also said that the Travel Plan had helped meet shareholder demand for corporate social responsibility. No one ticked that it had reduced mileage claims suggesting that the focus is on commuter journeys rather than business mileage.

A wide range of reasons were given for the success of the Travel Plan with the most popular answer being support from management. This was echoed in the telephone interviews where it was confirmed that the Travel Plan is best implemented if it sits at director-level. An encouraging 38% of respondents said that support from Kent County Council was a reason for the success but this clearly has potential to be improved upon. 27% of respondents felt employee motivation was crucial. Other reasons given included the support of a consultancy and cross-over with other corporate plans and company sustainability agenda.

Where it was felt the Travel Plan had not been successful one respondent noted that it was because the original coordinator had left. This reinforces the assumption in section 2.2 that this may be a reason for non-response to the survey, and may well be the case across a number of organisations that we have on record. Another responded that the “public transport is not like London but we use London Travel Plan expectations.” This view was reiterated in follow-up telephone interviews particularly because Kent is a rural county with limited public transport options.

3.6 How could the overall Travel Plan process be improved?

143

This question was designed to gain insight into what Kent County Council and other organisations could do to improve the Travel Plan process. The majority of responses asked for better investment in public transport, including the use of Section 106 agreements to do so. Another theme was “top tips” on how to manage a Travel Plan suggesting that some coordinators are not very experienced in the process. Others suggested that central government legislation and enforcement is needed in order to get people to change their habits. Two respondents stated that the Travel Plans should integrate more effectively with other area plans, with one saying: “A plan in isolation will not really deliver. There needs to more interaction with

a strategic plan for the area to work out what would work.” 4. TELEPHONE INTERVIEW RESULTS The telephone interviews produced detailed insight into the real life experiences of Travel Plan site coordinators. We believe the information to be illustrative of the wider experiences of coordinators in Kent and indeed across the country. This section details the feelings and suggestions of the coordinators and section 5 derives learning from both the survey and interview data. Travel Plans are not a priority when employees leave an organisation resulting in out-of-date records held by KCC. Upon phoning one organisation the likely coordinator was tracked down as being in their Sustainability Team and it transpired that their predecessor had not ever handed over the Plan. This backs up the assertion in section 2.2 that an element of the low response rate is due to there being no current “owner” of the Travel Plan. Some organisations consider sustainability in wider terms to be more important, for example picking up elements of travel in their Sustainability Action Plan and Carbon Management Plan. These have been given priority because of their wider reach and concentration on reducing business costs rather than mileage due to commuting, which has little financial cost to the business. Fundamentally there was a lack of knowledge of what a Travel Plan actually entails, particularly around the focus on reducing single occupancy car use. One organisation said that as soon as it became clear that the Travel Plan was not going to address gridlock with infrastructure many companies on the site lost interest and motivation around sustainable travel. This may be affected by the majority of coordinators not having the Travel Plan as the main part of their role. All interviewees considered where the Travel Plan sits in the organisational structure to be important to its success. For example, having senior manager buy-in, or the Plan sitting at that level, was seen as vital. In reality, often the Plan is with a sustainability oriented team, a store manager or HR manager. A couple of coordinators remarked that their Travel Plan role conflicted with their other duties, such as selling parking permits (generating income for the

144

organisation) and ensuring site occupancy on a business park. The business park coordinator felt that individual companies should be responsible for their own Plan. Reflecting the survey results, there was support for “hard” measures such as legislation to double the cost of fuel. One proponent of this view believed that changes should be forced in a top-down approach starting at Government level. Those that had used iTRACE found it “clunky” and others had avoided using it altogether. One commented that a survey they produced had been a near-disaster because the organisation’s firewall wouldn’t let many people access it. Many criticisms and questions were then mistakenly sent to the Director because mass-mailings had to come from their email account. Further, the coordinator could not customise the survey so people in rural Kent were asked if they used the Docklands Light Railway to get to work. Many thought the survey had been produced in-house and therefore it impacted negatively on the management’s reputation. In the future surveys are unlikely to be sent out by this organisation as a consequence. In general, site coordinators were realistic about why people use the private car. There was general apathy around the success of Travel Plans and their ability to influence, and some coordinators seemed resigned to the idea that people would always drive. This was backed up when interviewing the coordinator of a voluntary Travel Plan who had researched other Plans and found that “reducing the carbon footprint isn’t a driving force for a lot of them.” The coordinator was implying that the focus is on cost and getting planning consent. When working with other organisations “communication is key,” particularly in the context of Local Authorities. Where enthusiastic people are helping with the Travel Plan, coordinators and consultants are more likely to commit real effort to making the Travel Plan a success. However, it was felt that some Local Authorities had been obstructive when the Travel Plan authors are just trying to “do their best” for the site. Notably, KCC was not highlighted as obstructive but instead received positive reviews. Linking back to the general apathy around Travel Plans, one coordinator said that “most businesses just want to ‘tick the box’ in their Travel Plan” and that KCC could make it easier for them to do so. They suggested issuing a catalogue or directory of useful contacts and companies who could help organise events, such as Walk to Work Week. 5. ANALYSIS

“Less spin and more honesty”

Travel Plans have often been lost by the wayside for a variety of reasons, including poor handover between coordinators, lack of employee and management motivation, and other priorities taking precedence. This may suggest that KCC’s monitoring and assistance processes are not proving effective in their current format.

145

It is possible that a lack of enthusiasm from site coordinators may translate into how the Travel Plan is implemented. For example, one interviewee seemed to accept that travel choices are due to upbringing and so there should be “less spin and more honesty” about the Plan’s potential benefits. Likewise, where bus subsidies have been cut and few alternatives to the private car exist, these further damage motivation and commitment to the Plan. This supports the need for encouraging and helpful Local Authorities to inspire coordinators to persevere and make a positive difference. It was found that when a consultant manages the Plan, they are able to use their expert knowledge to ensure the measures are implemented. They relieve pressure from the official site coordinator, and as they are being commissioned they are able to dedicate resources to implementing the Travel Plan. However, their dependence on the client commissioning their work can also disconnect them from actual progress. The nature of using an external consultant also means they are removed from the everyday working life of the site, and may lack knowledge of actual travel behaviour patterns. Use of an external consultant is best determined by the individual requirements of the organisation/site. A stand-alone Travel Plan may lack the support and staff resources to follow it through. By integrating it into wider existing plans and strategies, such as an organisation’s sustainability or carbon reduction agenda, it is more likely that it will receive sufficient financing and resourcing to achieve its outcomes; and this approach should be encouraged. As suspected, the key to the success of a Travel Plan is the site coordinator. Where a site has appointed a dedicated member of staff this reflects greater commitment to the Travel Plan. Although every site is meant to select a coordinator, in reality this is often a superficial designation. Sometimes even when the Travel Plan coordinator does take this responsibility seriously, they often lack the time and resources to fit this extra role into their working day. By employing someone expressly to manage the Travel Plan, they are able to prioritise the work and see it through. Some positive examples have been shown within organisations which have a “Sustainability Coordinator/Officer,” whose role expressly incorporates Travel Plan responsibilities. Many organisations group together related roles into one job description even when this results in a conflict of interest. Although the coordinator can identify this they have little choice in the matter and in these cases feel like there should be more of a “stick” to enforce Travel Plans coming from government legislation. A Travel Plan is meant to be reviewed and updated annually. The objective is to continually keep up-to-date with the factors affecting a specific site, and to tailor the response accordingly. This expectation is laid out in Kent County Council’s guidance on Travel Plans. The fact that 39% of respondents never update their Travel Plan reveals how they are not being treated as intended. To rarely or even never update the Travel Plan will mean it remains static and unconnected to the site’s needs.

146

For those sites which do update their Travel Plan, it is alarming to note the limited extent to which they do this, including the failure to use the information gained in their site surveys. The aim of the site survey is to provide key insight into the needs of employees/visitors and reveal ways which could incentivise people to travel more sustainably. There is little value to a travel survey if the data is not used. It is positive to note that information boards are being updated; however, as a stand-alone measure this is very passive. 6. LEARNING LESSONS: KENT COUNTY COUNCIL’S NEW GUIDANCE ON TRAVEL PLANS The above findings are largely consistent with the views of members of the Kent County Council Development Planning Team. Where Travel Plans were once commonly requested for even fairly small and insignificant developments, Kent County Council is now choosing to be more discriminate. The high volume of Travel Plans and the very limited staff resource to monitor their enforcement has resulted in Travel Plans becoming something of a tick-box measure to achieve planning permission. The lack of site surveying and updating reduces their value and utility, as they remain a static glimpse of past travel habits and objectives. If Travel Plans are not being used as an on going tool, then the value of creating them in the first instance is questionable. Kent County Council’s Revised Guidance on Securing, Monitoring and Enforcing Travel Plans in Kent seeks to remedy some of these weaknesses. Travel Plans will be sought from only the more significant developments, where resulting travel will likely have a greater impact on the surrounding highway/environment. All other development, which does not constitute minor development, will require a Sustainable Travel Statement and List of Sustainable Travel Measures. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, less significant sites are thus able to pursue sustainable travel in a more streamlined and less onerous way, rather than through a full Travel Plan. The following list identifies the sites for which Travel Plans would be considered suitable:

Large commercial and mixed use sites with potential for significant trip generation impacting the local or strategic road network.

Some medium commercial and mixed use sites within areas where cumulative traffic increase is seriously impacting the environment, economic viability or quality of life e.g. congestion hotspots, Air Quality Management Areas etc.

Some larger residential developments, depending on local context and likely value of on going monitoring in contributing to the Travel Plan objectives.

Any other development where on-going monitoring and targets can bring about improvements to sustainable travel.

6.1 Sustainable Travel Statement and List of Sustainable Travel Measures

147

The Sustainable Travel Statement and List of Sustainable Travel Measures constitute a tool to promote sustainable travel through direct measures rather than targets. This study has demonstrated that having a Travel Plan does not guarantee progress towards sustainable travel, as can be seen at the multiple sites which have been found to either not carry out a site survey, not put the survey information to good use, or do little beyond updating their information board. The long term and monitoring nature of a Travel Plan can mean it is neglected. This new approach ensures some easily identifiable “quick win” measures to facilitate sustainable travel. The purpose of the Sustainable Travel Statement is to allow the developer to explain how people will travel to and from the site, including the difficulties associated with sustainable travel and how they will tackle this. A Sustainable Travel Statement will often build on the contents of a Transport Statement/Transport Assessment and will typically include:

Site context;

Details of existing travel behaviour to/ from the site;

Staff/visitor travel survey results, including staff/visitor opinion regarding what would be an incentive to travel more sustainably;

Any factors which impede sustainable travel to/ from the site; and

List of Sustainable Travel Measures proposed. This will provide the relevant information to devise an appropriate and meaningful List of Sustainable Travel Measures. The measures will be on-site facilities and incentivisation schemes to enable and encourage sustainable travel choices. Examples might include cycle parking, electric vehicle charging point, showering facilities or real-time bus information. An effective Travel Plan which is utilised well is always preferable, as travel needs and preferences are never static, and influencing behaviour requires on going effort. However, it is necessary to remain realistic about outputs and what it is appropriate to ask of a developer. The new approach allows Kent County Council to ensure smaller/less significant sites deliver some solid measures to facilitate sustainable travel, instead of becoming lost in the long list of sites with Travel Plans but little resulting action. 7. CONCLUSION: HOW CAN WE MAKE WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLANS WORK? In conclusion, this study has provided evidence of the difficulties with implementing Travel Plans and the real life experiences of site coordinators. It has indicated that there are two broad categories of site coordinator: those that sit in wider sustainability oriented roles/teams; and those that have general responsibility for the site but little focus on travel in their main job role (such as store or HR managers). Unsurprisingly those coordinators with an interest in sustainability are more enthusiastic about their Travel Plan. In all cases coordinators are stretched for resources (“what budget!”) amongst a backdrop of expensive and inconvenient public transport.

148

The most significant lesson to take from this is that as a Local Authority we should make the process as easy as possible for coordinators by providing the information and the tools necessary to influence travel to/from the site. We also need to be encouraging, supportive and enthusiastic to bolster the efforts of the coordinator or consultant. Even where the Travel Plan is seen as a box-ticking exercise by helping them to tick the box we can have a positive impact. One thing we have little influence over is organisational buy-in, which no doubt affects whether the plan is handed over when employees move on. However, by improving our monitoring and enforcement of the Travel Plans we can promote the importance of the plan. Enforcement does not have to be hard and in reality softer enforcement (i.e. encouragement and a positive and helpful attitude) may be more effective by reflecting stretched resources across all organisations in the current economic climate. KCC’s voluntary scheme New Ways 2 Work unites businesses, transport providers and other organisations to share resources and ideas around sustainable travel. It is an excellent example of how organisations and KCC can work together. Hopefully KCC’s new and more targeted approach to Travel Plans will deliver greater benefits in sustainable travel and improve the image of the Travel Plan. Less significant sites will be asked to provide certain hard measures before occupation, which will be secured by Condition. It will thus be much faster and simpler to ensure each site has met its commitments. KCC will continue to request a Travel Plan from more significant sites. With a more selective list of Travel Plans in the county and their responsibility now lying with the Development Planning Team, their efficacy and reputation will improve as there will be greater resource to monitor and ensure Travel Plans hold fast to their targets. 7. REFERENCES BBC News (18/01/2010), What Happened to the Ten Year Transport Plan? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8465383.stm Accessed 05/06/2012 (DETR) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998), A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone (London: The Stationery Office)

149

Appendix B

In-depth telephone interview transcripts

Site One

Highway engineering, Kings Hill.

Contact was in sustainability team.

Background: Company has a Sustainability Manager for the local area. This person is also responsible for the EMS (Energy Monitoring System). X started her role in August 2011, and was not told anything about a Travel Plan for the site. Her predecessor (Y) had left 2 months previously and in the handover folder there was no reference to a Travel Plan.

The main site is in, Kings Hill, where there are 200 employees. There are another 7 highway depots across the county with salt gritters and other machinery.

X had carried out a site survey in February 2010 (see iTRACE), which showed 116 single occupancy car drivers out of 143 respondents.

Current Work: Although the Travel Plan is not continued, X’s role incorporates a great deal of work developing sustainable travel etc. They have a Sustainability Action Plan that sets out targets for the various sites and monitors their progress towards them. This contains a large section on “Environmental Limits” (carbon etc.) and within this there is a section on “Transport”. This is updated every January.

Business Travel Survey: (To be repeated annually, to monitor progress). This looked at how people travel to work and was used to encourage more staff to car share. It was deemed that public transport was not a viable option for most (live far away, and need to make changes between buses and trains etc.) and therefore concentrating on car sharing was the most sensible option.

They have given staff training on how to use video conferencing etc. to reduce staff travel and have begun to monitor driving (fuel efficiency) etc.

Car Share Scheme: They have priority parking for car sharers, and held an event giving free breakfast to car sharers (10-15 people turned up). They have set up a car share database (excel spreadsheet) and people add their details and browse through to find colleagues living near them. There are currently 20-25 people registered on the database.

The office has core hours, which people must work, but they do also have a certain amount of flexi- time, with approval from manager. Some employees have company cars. There is a fleet of 100 vans and estate vehicles on site, which can be booked out when site visits are required.

150

Recommendations: X asked if there was anything I recommended for her and I asked whether she had heard of New Ways 2 Work; she was interested to get involved and I sent her the website link.

Site Two

Business Park, Dartford.

Contact was the Property Manager.

Overview

The business park is located in north Kent. It comprises of approximately 140 companies, employing around 10,000 people.

The site has an issue with through-traffic from the M25 and A2. Heavy congestion is also a problem, and is mostly down to the close proximity of the Dartford Crossing (M25) and Bluewater shopping centre. This causes problems for companies and their employees accessing the business park.

Is managing the Travel Plan part of your job role?

The creation of the original Travel Plan fell to the Park Manager, rather than being the responsibility of individual companies on the site.

Reason for your plan being created?

The plan was originally created at the request of several companies on the business park. This was as a result of the heavy congestion in and around the business park.

What did your plan consist of?

Promotion of car sharing (Kent journey share). Although no audit was ever carried out on parking (supply / demand).

Arriva were asked to subsidies bus services, but this was not followed up as the main concern was with highway infrastructure improvements.

(It had originally been proposed that a new bridge could be constructed over the M25, avoiding the need for traffic to access Jct 1A).

The group of companies involved setup a mini focus group. This was quickly disbanded when it became clear that Kent Highways wouldn’t be improving the local road infrastructure.

The Highways Agency didn’t support the recommendations to improve the M25 junction that serves the site (improved signage).

151

How accessible is public transport?

Fastrack runs through the site, and onto The Bridge development. The Train is also a popular option. Arriva had once run services to the site, but these were cut when passenger numbers were reviewed.

Parking enforcement

The site is on a private road, this makes it difficult to enforce. We’re looking at employing a parking management company to issue enforcement notices.

Problems encountered

The biggest problem was a lack of support from companies to implement sustainable improvements. The original focus group stakeholders were only interested in improvements designed to enhance access to the site by private car.

It became clear that people do not understand what a green Travel Plan is about. More work is required to educate people on alternative to the private car.

A survey was conducted using KCC’s iTRACE system. The response rate was very low. No follow up has ever been undertaken.

KCC input

KCC were proactive, but occupiers could not see a resolution to the problem of avoiding gridlock so lacked motivation.

Future plans

The original plan has never been reviewed. The business park still has some development to be undertaken, which may require further planning consent. The Travel Plan may need to be reviewed at this point.

What would help with the introduction and compliance of existing Travel Plans?

It would be easier if legislation required individual companies to manage their own Travel Plans. This should have specific requirement. ….“you must”…. Without this people would not be put off from driving.

Your thoughts on the use of a parking levy to promote change?

It would be difficult to introduce a parking levy as it’s my responsibility to make sure we maintain our occupancy rates. If we try to restrict parking, or charge for parking, companies will simply find somewhere else to locate.

Incentivising new companies with a free trial of public transport?

Incentivising with free public transport for a week might make people use the bus / train, but it’s likely they’d return to using their car given the location of the business park.

152

Summary

Lack of understanding:

What is a green Travel Plan?; and

What should it set out to achieve?

No policy, or ‘stick’ to enforce change

Lack of interest, possible as a result of time constraints

Any enforcement needs to be at an individual company basis. Serious conflicts of interest when a management manages a Travel Plan.

Site Three

Consultant at Eureka Park, Ashford.

Contact is a director at the company.

Company offers Travel Plans as one of their services so they wrote their own Travel Plan.

It was decided that X would be the coordinator because he put it together, is very interested in the process and it was practical for him to be coordinator. He is a senior manager so it is advantageous for him to be responsible. They have over 20 employees and only 9 parking spaces.

A key feature of the plan is information boards but employees can use their computers to check real time travel information. Instead they issue updates on car parking utilisation.

They do not use iTRACE as he finds it very clunky. Instead he uses the Fire Book so when people sign in they also write down how they travelled so this data is logged every working day. However, they don’t make use of this data to encourage people to use alternative modes.

When asked why he was only “neutral” about their success he said “how do you measure success?” They have a commercial interest to use cars, for example the building control section don’t car share because they need to carry out site visits. This is one reason for poor employee motivation, plus some have young children they need to take to nursery etc.

For encouragement – he car shares because of the cost of diesel and convenience (i.e. someone else living nearby). He used to car share with someone who lived 4 miles away so he had to drive 8 miles so doesn’t think it really counts as car sharing.

The 9 spaces aren’t permitted but are a free for all. There is one car share space because this is the current demand, if more car shared they’d allocate more spaces. He and one other employee live in Medway so park at Blue Bell Hill and car share down to Ashford. A new car park opened in September 2011 and since then some employees have been paying the £400 per year.

153

Some employees double parked and were only blocking colleagues but were still both clamped with a £200 release fee each. Since then no one has been double parking.

In the summer some people use bikes and motorbikes.

To improve the process he thinks the cost of fuel should be doubled so Travel Plans wouldn’t be needed. The car sharing website is OK but why would you share with someone who is a bad driver? Travel Plans are very restrictive on new developments in the current marketplace.

When asked about travel statements being used for smaller sites he said that he felt Travel Plans definitely had a place in larger sites. Whatever KCC do not everyone is like Graham Tanner, i.e. positive and willing to help. He said he’d had positive experiences with TfL, Essex and Norfolk but that the London Borough of Ealing was a nightmare. He said this is very much down to the individuals you work with. As a consultancy they try to do the best for the site but some authorities have lost the plot and are abusive and obstructive. People need to be encouraging and willing to make small changes. Graham is very good but others in Kent haven’t been as positive. Communication is key.

X said he can see the benefits as he uses them himself but he thinks there is too much suggestion that we’ll all be fit using Plans. He thinks there should be less spin and more honesty. Most of our travel choices are down to our upbringing, e.g. parents driving their children to school rather than walking.

Site Four

Transport Consultant at a supermarket, Maidstone.

Contact is a consultant.

Background: Company is the Transport Consultant for supermarket site in Maidstone. They were commissioned to create the Travel Plan for the planning application and have since been asked to implement it. Their continuing involvement is on an intermittent basis, as the supermarket decide what they require.

They created the Travel Plan for the purpose of the planning application. The site opened in Spring 2011. They met with KCC and the site coordinator (HR Manager) in the store and carried out the post occupation survey in July/ August 2011. They have since produced the information for the notice boards to display in store.

They have not had a great deal of involvement with the site since. However, subject to getting the go ahead from the supermarket, they intend to re-survey the site annually, hand them the generated reports and update the information boards. When asked what happens if they do not meet their targets as laid out in the Travel Plan, they responded that they have not ever really come across this problem with their Travel Plans so far; they would nevertheless continue to implement the plan and update the notice boards.

154

Consultancy involvement: Depends on what the organisation wants. Involvement can be for full 5 year monitoring period, or just for first year. It can also be intermittent, as and when the site desires action.

Involvement from Site Coordinator: This is the HR Manager (often is with this supermarket) and they helped to collect the surveys from staff (paper based as no store Internet access for staff). The consultant then entered this paper based info into iTRACE. The site coordinator also sticks the posters sent to them by the consultant onto the notice board.

Benefit of Consultancies: They had involvement from the very start. By creating the Travel Plan for planning application, they have a good deal of background knowledge about the site and agreements e.g. contributions agreed for bus service- was forgotten about, but consultant made this happen as knew it was an agreement. However as they are not based in the store, they do not have regular contact with the store manager or employees and do not actually know how things are going. It relieves the work load on the store manager however, whose main role is not to monitor the TP.

Site Five

Education, west Kent. Sustainability coordinator. She started the Travel Plan about a year ago but at the same time signed up to the Carbon Trust’s HEFCE Carbon Management Plan. This had a very aggressive timescale and started in June (when teaching staff leave and facilities staff are very busy) and had to be submitted by 16th December. So all resources were focused on that (she only works 3 days a week). They have 2 issues – lack of public transport other than the bus and safeguarding when considering car sharing. She would still like to do the Travel Plan and will pick it up once the CMP is complete.

The CMP has a small section on travel and this is only on business mileage not on commuting. Some other places are looking at commuting in their CMP, e.g. University of Greenwich but they have more public transport options. The College do work with the local bus companies to make sure they run at suitable times. 5 years ago when she joined there was a free bus service from the two nearest town stations but this was too expensive to subsidies so is no longer offered. Staff wearing their badge on the bus do get a discount though.

It was her idea to do the Travel Plan because she thought it was something they should do, fuel prices were rising, and students can’t easily travel to the college.

She approached KCC and was recommended to by someone who she reported to who had previously worked at KCC. Probably would have got to KCC by other means had she not known them. They don’t work with other colleges in Kent in any kind of sustainability network but do tap into the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges. Travel is different all across Kent so hard to collaborate. For example, it is difficult to get to meetings in Maidstone as the Park and Ride is on the other side of town.

155

Bus is the only option, it’s 5 miles to the nearest town. They do not encourage cycling because there is no cycle route and the A road the college is on is unlit, a lorry route and has no pavements. They want to include students in their Travel Plan but the issue is safeguarding. She gave an example that during the snow an email was sent round that if any staff member sees a student struggling to get home they cannot offer a lift, for the safety of both parties. They have a wide range of students so what if a mature student car shared with a 16 year old?

They are still working on the data of their CMP and have had help from the Carbon Trust to monitor and track progress but have to make assumptions. The business miles data captures mileage but fares does not distinguish between rail and air – carbon footprints of both are very different.

The Travel Plan aims to minimise impact and offer suggestions to reduce trips, such as video conferencing, whereas the CMP is about energy efficiency on the campus. This is the current priority to get an 84% reduction.

As a coordinator she looked at other Travel Plans and found that reducing the carbon footprint wasn’t a driving force for a lot of them. Plus the College doesn’t have a lot of alternatives so their scope is limited.

She used iTRACE to do a survey but had issues completing it. It wouldn’t let people leave anything empty even when it wasn’t applicable resulting in people inputting answers that weren’t correct. There were also technical issues that meant students didn’t use it. Emails to the whole campus can only be sent by directors so had to get the Finance Director to send it out but people ignored that they had to reply to Sue and instead clicked “reply” so the Finance Director got lots of emails and probably wouldn’t be keen on doing it again. There were too many irrelevant options, such as “do you use the tram” or “do you use the DLR” so it needs customising. People thought the College had produced it and it wasn’t very good so they aren’t keen on using it again.

Nothing could persuade her to use public transport because of the time. No alternatives other than the car. It’s in a rural area and people attend from rural areas; someone she knows gets the bus at 6am to get in at 8:30.

She will contact KCC again when she looks at the Travel Plan and intends to take it forward. For example she’d like to work further with bus companies for discounts etc. to make it a palatable alternative for staff. Students are an issue so she needs to work through this.

They don’t have a budget for their Travel Plan.

Kent is very rural so transport issues are endemic. It’s a case of chicken and egg. They did bid for funding for an electric bus and charging points in the village but were unsuccessful. She would like to have electric estate vehicles but many aren’t a viable alternative and a converted milk float doesn’t convey the right image.

156

Site Six

Higher education, Kent-wide. Travel Plan coordinator + parking manager. Experience: X worked for DfT and DFDS as well as Medway Council. She introduced the funding into local authorities to spend on School Travel Plans from DfT. She therefore has experience in both policy and administering TPs directly. At the university, she is also responsible for all parking related to the University. These roles are complimentary yet conflicting = balancing act. The Uni earns money through selling parking permits, yet wants to restrict them to improve congestion and adhere to their Travel Plan. Uni has a Travel Plan for each campus. Restricted parking on site. They introduced exclusion zones for students across Canterbury city. They discourage students from bringing a car to Canterbury at all, especially to campus. Subsidised transport use-on going work with Stagecoach to provide services to students. They have an arrangement with Stagecoach to give students and staff reduced rates. A bus pass for East Kent = £155 approx for the academic year and £55 approx for the summer vacation. There is a regular bus service to the campus from the city centre (every 7 mins). They arranged with Stagecoach to put on “The Grocery Bus” which goes to Asda and Sainsbury’s, Hales Place and the campus. It is a circular route operating on Saturdays for the students. Staff are offered discounted bus travel too (£365 Megarider, £575 gold Megarider and can pay out of salary). During the exam periods additional bus services are put on by Stagecoach e.g. for Saturday exams. Changes to travel behaviour: 50% reduction in traffic travelling through site. Uni campus has a public highway running through the centre of it. It is very difficult to enforce certain restrictions therefore. The recent changes to traffic at Canterbury Westgate seemed to have caused people to cut through the campus more now however…. Moodle- conducts online studies. These are done anyway as part of wider University improvements by Telecoms; these studies help with their Travel Plan. A Travel Plan coordinator would normally set up a working group, but the University senior staff did not wish for this to happen. Teresa therefore works independently, but has a great deal of support by senior staff. Teresa had a good rapport with the Student Union and many people are keen to help her with her activities. Survey: She carried out an online survey of staff and students. However out of 18 000 students only 2 responded! She suspects this is because the survey was sent out at the same time as other electronic surveys by the University

157

(academic and Union). Students are frequently receiving uni surveys and the timing has to be very good to not conflict with these. The staff response was good however. X will re peat the survey in the coming months. Improvements: She suggests it would be really useful to have a catalogue/ directory of useful contacts/ companies which provide services for potential Travel Plan/ Eco activities.

- Company - What it provides

E.g. electric bicycle hire, road show services, eco- driving simulators etc. (Companies which provide such services, which could be useful in organising awareness and campaign events, such as Walk to Work Week and Cycling Week). We should invite companies to be put on the list (not recommend them, but say these companies exist and could be used). For events such as a road show it would also be useful to give approx. costs and ideas. Get Graham and X to add to list and open up to all businesses within the county. Alternative would be to have a list of typical events/ event archive and then a list of services/ resources which could be useful under each event. E.g. Cycling Week: ABC provides Brompton hire, XYZ provides cycle shelter advice, 123 provides road show organisation service. Many businesses just want to “tick the box” in their TP; by providing such a catalogue/ archive it would make it easy for businesses to organise/ pay someone to organise a promotional event and “tick the box”. KCC could periodically ask a site “Why don’t you hold a Cycle to Work promotional event?” or similar, and offer this catalogue as an aid. Need to make it easy for sites to “tick the box”, and they will take steps to do this. As most “site coordinators’ ” main job role is not the management of their Travel Plan, we need to make it easy for them.