A company travel plan (CTP) is "a strategy for an organisation to reduce its transportation impacts and to influence the travel behaviour of its employees, suppliers, visitors and customers" (Rye, 2002). Very often, the travel plan focuses on employee travel behaviour.
CTPs are also referred to as Employer Transport Plans and have in the past been known as Green Commuter Plans or Green Transport Plans. The term CTP is UK parlance. Elsewhere in Europe CTPs are referred to as site based mobility management. The phrase mobility management alone refers to more than a CTP; it is an umbrella term encompassing all attitudinal and behavioural measures which can include information provision. In the US CTPs are known as transportation demand management (TDM). As with mobility management, TDM can be an umbrella term for more than just a CTP.
CTPs consist of a package of measures, which are implemented to reduce solo car driving. A ride sharing scheme is a common measure. CTPs should have a number of common elements. These elements are a co-ordinator within the company (ideally full time), communication with staff, a staff travel survey (to identify travel patterns and potentially useful measures) and monitoring. Many organisations include incentives to take up alternatives and some also initiate disincentives. The stages involved in changing travel patterns through a CTP are the same generic stages of behaviour change discussed under individualised marketing campaigns to reduce car use.
Organisations introduce CTPs of their own volition to tackle parking shortages, improve accessibility, solve staff recruitment and retention problems, comply with planning regulations or in the case of some public sector organisations, comply with government directives. Organisations can also save money in the long term. This could be achieved by replacing company cars with pool vehicles for example, or reducing the kilometres travelled for business mileage through telecommunications.
Demand impacts are usually in terms of reductions in car use and increase in other modes (depending on availabilty). The impacts are normally incremental over time, and can generate increases in supply of alternatives to the car.
Terminology
A company travel plan (CTP) is "a strategy for an organisation to reduce its transportation impacts and to influence the travel behaviour of its employees, suppliers, visitors and customers" (Rye, 2002). Very often, the travel plan focuses on employee travel behaviour.
CTPs are also referred to as Employer Transport Plans and have in the past been known as Green Commuter Plans or Green Transport Plans. The word "Green" has been dropped as an organisations motivation to implement a travel plan is rarely environmental. This is despite transport policy promoting CTPs as a means of reducing negative environmental impacts of road vehicles.
The term CTP is UK parlance. Elsewhere in Europe CTPs are referred to as site based mobility management. The phrase mobility management alone refers to more than a CTP; it is an umbrella term encompassing all attitudinal and behavioural measures which can include information provision. In the US CTPs are known as transportation demand management (TDM). As with mobility management, TDM can be an umbrella term for more than just a CTP.
CTPs consist of a package of measures, which are implemented to reduce solo car driving. The choice and combination of measures varies from one organisation to another. A ride sharing scheme is a common measure. Regardless of the organisation in which a CTP is implemented and the choice of measures, CTPs should have a number of common elements. These elements are a co-ordinator within the company (ideally full time), communication with staff, a staff travel survey (to identify travel patterns and potentially useful measures) and monitoring. The communications should raise awareness amongst staff of the need to reduce car use and discuss the measures to be implemented. Allowing staff input to the choice of measures and how they are phased in generates a sense of ownership and commitment to follow through and reduce their car use. Many organisations include incentives to take up alternatives; some also initiate disincentives for car use and all should celebrate successes to maintain changes in travel behaviour. The changes in travel patterns (successes) can be identified through monitoring and such evidence will also help justify future plans.
The stages involved in changing travel patterns through a CTP are the same generic stages of behaviour change discussed under individualised marketing campaigns to reduce car use.
Styles of CTP
The style of CTP is a function of an organisations culture and the measures it implements. Many organisations have a strong car culture, which they are unwilling to challenge. Thus, anything which could be perceived as a threat to car use may not be implemented. This could be one reason why ride sharing is so popular. Other organisations may not have communications structures which easily facilitate negotiation with staff, which could make potentially unpopular measures such as disincentives difficult to implement.
The secondary outcomes a company may seek from reduced car use can also influence the style of a plan. The primary reason for a plan may be to improve accessibility to help solve recruitment and retention problems. However, the organisation may choose to focus on measures that will also improve health and potentially increase productivity and reduce absenteeism.
CTP Measures
Mode |
Measure |
Overall for whole plan |
Travel co-ordinator
Promotion and publicity
Implementation process, e.g. steering group
Staff travel survey |
Walking |
Improved lighting and walkways
Incentives, e.g. vouchers for sports shops*
Crossing in/adjacent to site |
Cycling |
Changing/shower facilities
Pool cycles
Bicycle loan scheme*
Secure cycle parking
Discount purchases of cycles and equipment* |
Public transport |
Provision of public transport information
Access to journey planner
Discounted season tickets, paid for by operator or interest free loans from company*
Liase with local operators to provide new services |
Ride sharing |
Database matching service based on travel survey which identified potential ride share partners
Priority parking spaces near building entrance*
Guaranteed ride home (free taxi) |
Parking |
Reduce parking supply
Ration parking through permit allocation
Charge for parking |
New conditions of employment |
Flexible working hours*
Telecommuting
Company car initiatives phased out/altered to pool cars
Changes to travel expenses, e.g. payments for cycling* |
Other |
Minibus linking site to public transport termini, local towns and/or other company sites
Individualised travel plans for the journey to work |
Source: Rye 2002 with adaptations.
* Measures that can be incentives. Incentives commonly have a financial element. However, this is not essential. Introduction of flexible working hours could be communicated as an incentive as employees will have the flexibility to work around possible public transport delays, additionally, it is an improvement in working conditions, which could mitigate other less popular measures.
There are a number of variations on CTPs, primarily school travel plans (STPS) and hospital travel plans (HTPs).
School Travel Plans
STPs differ from CTPs in a number of ways. Firstly, there are many more pupils than staff, thus measures are targeted at pupil transport. STPs are more likely in schools in congested urban areas where there is little drop off space or schools where many pupils are driven to school. These are often primary schools. The key elements of an STP are the same as a CTP. However, communications will be with children in the classroom and parents through letters home and school meetings.
Measures to encourage walking and cycling are often similar to those implemented in CTPs, but may include road safety and safe cycling courses. These are well established programmes in many schools with support from local authorities. A walking measure unique to schools is the 'walking bus'. Many parents are reluctant to allow younger children to walk to school alone, thus one or more adults (usually parents) walk their own children to school, collecting others en route.
Public transport measures tend to be engineering measures to facilitate vehicles pulling into the school safely. These facilities will also benefit any existing school bus services which may be absorbed into the plan. Working with operators can also enable routes to be altered to serve schools and possibly the provision of discount travel cards.
Measures relating to car use could include car pooling organised along the principles of the 'walking bus' described above. Parking regulations and/or restrictions can also be implemented in and around the school.
Hospital Transport Plans
Another variant is the HTP, which includes measures targeted at patients, especially out patients and visitors, as well as staff. The communications and travel survey element of the plan can be particularly difficult with regard to patients and visitors. For most people, hospital attendance is hopefully not a frequent or long term activity, thus, where car use is the habitual mode per se, that is likely to be the default choice. Thus, communications need to reach along way outside of the hospital such that potential patients and visitors are aware of alternatives (or where to obtain the relevant information) when the need arises. This work may be beyond the time and budget of many HTPs, thus they may rely on more general travel awareness and/or individualised marketing campaigns in their catchment area. Nevertheless, the travel survey can include existing visitors and patients (where appropriate).
The measures implemented through an HTP are similar to CTPs in relation to staff, as well as patients and visitors. All of these groups can benefit from re-routed bus services, as well as walking and cycling measures. Parking restrictions and regulations around the site can dissuade visitors from driving. Extended visiting hours can spread demand and make using public transport easier. Working with ambulance services or other community transport providers to supply collective out patient transport is another option.
Charging
CTPs do not include charging by definition, however, certain measures implemented through the plan may include charging. The introduction of parking charges is the obvious example. The charge can be ring-fenced to provide alternatives or incentives.
Technology
The technology needed to implement a CTP is minimal. At the most basic level a database to analyse staff travel surveys and/or operate a ride sharing scheme is all that is needed.
Optional uses of technology include ticket machines to collect parking charges, secure bicycle lockers, information provision via company intranet or dedicated visual display units (these can be especially useful in organisations with a variety of different groups access sites in large numbers, e.g. hospitals and universities) and computer equipment to facilitate telecommuting.
Why introduce company travel plans (CTPs)?
Organisations introduce CTPs of their own volition to tackle parking shortages, improve accessibility, solve staff recruitment and retention problems, comply with planning regulations or in the case of some public sector organisations, comply with government directives. Organisations can also save money in the long term. This could be achieved by replacing company cars with pool vehicles for example, or reducing the kilometres travelled for business mileage through telecommunications.
The problems to be solved vary in their nature
Overall problem |
Possible aspects of problem |
Parking shortage |
Adequate employee parking but none left for customers/patients/students or other visitors or vice versa
Not enough to satisfy demand from any group |
Accessibility |
Staff shortage and large area of unemployment near by but no transport links
Approach roads congested by customers/patients/students or other visitors |
Staff recruitment and retention |
As for accessibility
Company car demanded as perk but provision prohibitively expensive
Staff retention hampered by congested journey to and from work |
Planning regulations |
Large industrial or retail parks and major site expansions and developments refused planning permission unless a plan is to be implemented. A UK example of such planning policy is the Planning Policy Guidance note on Transport (PPG13) issued by the Government. |
Significant traffic generators |
Airports, stadium, retail parks and other activities generating a high volume of journeys are encouraged to develop plans. Such plans can include measures encouraging the general public not to drive as well as staff. |
Government directive |
Public sector organisations told to implement a plan |
Excessively high outlay on transport |
Car park maintenance
Company cars
High volume of first class/peak hour business travel and associated expenses
Duplicated inter-site journeys in relation to staff, goods and internal mail |
Demand impacts
The demand impacts of CTPs will be dependent on the measures implemented through the plan. The key impact will be on the demand for car travel. As a consequence of this, demand for public transport, walking or cycling may increase. If there is significant up take of telecommuting and replacing business travel with telecommunications, the overall demand for travel will fall. Regardless of the measures implemented through the plan, it will contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce congestion and the associated negative impacts. However, impacts will be local to the site where a CTP is implemented unless there is widespread uptake. Responses and situations is completed on the basis of local impacts.
Responses and situations |
Response |
Reduction in road traffic |
Expected in situations |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
Where the CTP successfully facilitates ride sharing, modal shift and/or trip substitution with telecommunications, assuming the previous mode choice was solo driving. |
|
|
Where the CTP facilitates modal shift as opposed to ride sharing or trip substitution. |
|
|
This may happen where a CTP supplies sufficient alternatives to make owning a second household car unnecessary. |
|
|
In the long term a committed individual who moves house for other reasons may move closer to work or public transport links. |
|
= Weakest possible response |
|
= Strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest possible negative response |
|
= Strongest possible negative response |
|
= No response |
Short and long run demand responses
As with other measures, which work through attitudinal and behavioural change, CTPs have not been in use long enough to gauge long term demand response exactly. It is not merely that "there are very few examples of them having worked successfully" (Rye, 2002). Firstly, whilst "travel plans can work, and make a contribution to modal shift at the site level. At the network level, … the impact is much less clear, since trips removed by a travel plan may simply be replaced by others that were previously suppressed by congestion" (Rye, 2002). Secondly, in the private sector travel plans are usually adopted where there is a problem, even when that problem is created through planning regulations. Hence, where there is no problem (or perceived problem), travel plans are unlikely to be adopted. Thus, the long term responses could be marginal, as could the role of travel plans in transport policy (Rye, 2002).
The demand response will vary depending on which measures are implemented through the plan and whether more are phased in over time. Demand responses is completed on the basis of an overall decrease in car use. Again, the responses will be local.
Demand responses |
Response |
- |
1st year |
2-4 years |
5 years |
10+ years |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
Change job location |
|
|
|
|
- |
Shop elsewhere |
|
|
|
|
|
Compress working week |
|
|
|
|
- |
Trip chain |
|
|
|
|
- |
Work from home |
|
|
|
|
- |
Shop from home |
|
|
|
|
|
Ride share |
|
|
|
|
- |
Public transport |
|
|
|
|
- |
Walk/cycle |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
= Weakest possible response |
|
= Strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest possible negative response |
|
= Strongest possible negative response |
|
= No response |
Level of response
AThe price elasticity of demand varies with context, especially the measures implemented in the travel plan. The type of trip, traveller, price elasticity of related goods and services, and whether the elasticity accounts for short term or long term demand response are important influential factors in the calculation and interpretation.
Rye (2002) has compiled figures to show that 11% of private businesses in Great Britain have taken up travel plans, which means that 7% of employees are covered by a travel plan. 73% of trips were by car before travel plan uptake. This has dropped 6% afterwards. This is a decrease of 0.5m kilometres per annum.
A review of experience in the Netherlands reported by rye (2002) suggests that decreases of this amount are the result of plans consisting of only basic measures, e.g. ride sharing. "On average the reduction in drive alone commute trips from a travel plan … [is] as follows" (Rye, 2002):
Measures |
Decrease in drive alone commute trips |
Basic, costing little |
5-8% |
Basic plus more expensive measures such as bus services |
8-10% |
The above plus disincentives such as parking charges |
10-15% |
Despite less public objection to CTPs in the Netherlands, only Washington State, through its legislation has achieved widespread uptake. In the UK, uptake in the private sector is mainly limited to companies with 200 or more employees. This is because smaller organisations rarely have the resources to divert to such peripheral activities (Rye, 2002).
Supply impacts
As with demand impacts, supply impacts will be local. CTPs themselves will not result in a change in the supply of road space. However, where CTPs form part of a new development, which includes new road access, a CTP can be accompanied by increased supply of road space. Ideally, the presence of the CTP will manage the demand for the new road space such that it is dominated by alternatives to solo driving.
In the more common scenarios where there is no increase in supply of road space, there is merely a change in the way that road space is used. This is common to all attitudinal and behavioural measures.
Where the CTP also includes additional provision for alternatives to the car, e.g. bus services, there can be an increase in public transport and facilities for walking and cycling.
Where CTPs seek to restrict parking, there will be a decrease in supply. Where ride sharing is accompanied by priority parking spaces the way existing supply is used will change and reduce supply available to solo drivers.
Financing requirements
The financial burden of a CTP varies according to the measures implemented through the plan. A staff travel survey can be undertaken at minimal cost, especially where there are facilities to collect data via an intranet. However, some staff time will need to be diverted to analyse the data, interpret the results and decide on appropriate action. Alternatively, a staff travel plan co-ordinator can be employed full or part time. The salary cost will vary with hours, responsibilities and between regions. It could range from £10-15 ($14-21) thousand per annum part time to £20-30 ($29-43) thousand per annum full time (2002 figures).
The cheapest and most basic measure to implement is a ride sharing scheme. Reducing parking space and information provision are also inexpensive measures. Providing loans to purchase bicycles or season tickets may also be inexpensive in the medium and long term despite initially large outlay. Annual adult travel cards in London range from £360 - £1,476 ($515 - $2,112) at April 2002 prices. In a company with 200 staff where 10 of the workforce take up the offer of travel card loans the initial outlay would range from £7,200 - £29,520 ($10,300 - $42,232) per annum. Other measures such as subsidised bus services can be more expensive, as the Pfizer example illustrates. However, if parking charges are implemented this could fund expensive measures, as could savings brought about by reduced business travel costs, not having to increase parking provision, reduced congestion around the site and/or reduced recruitment and retention costs.
Nevertheless, the staff time and cost taken up organising a plan should not be forgotten. It is more likely to be viable for a large company where the cost per head is lower, as the amount of organisation does not decrease directly in line with staff numbers. Additionally, administrative burden is likely to decrease over time as the travel plan becomes established.
Expected impact on key policy objectives
The exact impacts will depend on which measures are implemented. However, the overall aim is to reduce car use for work related journeys. Thus, Contribution to Objectives is completed on this basis. To see more detail on the impacts of specific measures, e.g. ride sharing or bus service provision, go to the individual measures within KonSULT. However, it should be noted that impacts will be less wide spread in terms of geographical impact, social groups affected and travel culture change than shown for individual measures. This is because CTPs are confined to work related journeys, which are concentrated around business locations.
Contribution to objectives |
Objective |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
|
|
Notable around sites with successful plans. |
|
|
Around business locations and access routes, but where there are few residential, retail, commercial or entertainment sites, there may be little benefit. |
|
|
Around business sites and access routes. |
|
|
Where measures improve access from deprived areas and where infrastructure and/or public transport services are made available to the general public, or where there are benefits from reduced congestion. |
|
|
Around business sites and access routes. |
|
|
For individual companies that save money or can expand as a result of the plan. Also, some impact through reduced congestion in wider area, especially if the plan covers a whole industrial or retail development; or if a critical mass of companies in a city centre have plans. |
|
|
Negative impacts where CTPs are subsidised or there is substantially reduced tax revenue from fuel sales. Could be mitigated by savings in the cost of parking provision, road maintenance, accidents and enforcement. |
|
= Weakest possible positive contribution |
|
= Strongest possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest possible negative contribution |
|
= Strongest possible negative contribution |
|
= No contribution |
Expected impact on problems
Again the impacts will vary according to the measures implemented and individual measures should be consulted for more detail. The impacts will be local to sites where CTPs are implemented.
Contribution to alleviation of key problems |
Problem |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
Congestion-related delay |
|
Contribution may be greater where the campaign is accompanied by infrastructure and/or service alterations which make using alternatives to the car more attractive. |
Congestion-related unreliability |
|
Contribution may be greater where the campaign is accompanied by infrastructure and/or service alterations which make using alternatives to the car more attractive. |
Community severence |
|
By reducing traffic volumes. |
Visual intrusion |
|
By reducing traffic volumes. |
Lack of amenity |
|
Where increased walking and cycling results from the campaign there may be greater use of local facilities, which will sustain and possibly increase their supply. |
Global warming |
|
By reducing traffic-related CO2 emissions. |
Local air pollution |
|
By reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants. |
Noise |
|
By reducing traffic volumes. |
Reduction of green space |
|
By reducing pressure for new road building and city expansion. |
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites |
|
By reducing traffic volumes. |
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments |
|
There is no direct impact, but where increased demand for public transport results from a campaign, quality and volume of supply may increase. |
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups |
|
Individualised marketing targets car drivers, but in the longer term increased demand for alternatives may result in increased supply, which could benefit other social groups. |
Number, severity and risk of accidents |
|
By reducing traffic volumes. |
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area |
|
By improving the efficiency of the local road network through reduced congestion, especially where combined with other measures. |
|
= Weakest possible positive contribution |
|
= Strongest possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest possible negative contribution |
|
= Strongest possible negative contribution |
|
= No contribution |
Expected winners and losers
One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measure and this is especially true of CTPs which target a very specific audience.
Winners and losers |
Group |
Winners/Losers |
Comment |
Large scale freight and commercial traffic |
|
Where reduced car use is achieved on routes used by freight vehicles. High value journeys - less time spent in congestion the greater the vehicle utilization. |
Small businesses |
/ |
Unlikely to have their own CTP but if they are located near an organisation with a successful CTP they may benefit from reduced congestion. Most likely in city centres or business parks where a critical mass of companies have successful plans. |
High income car-users |
|
High income associated with high value of time and thus continued car use for high value journeys. Where there are financial penalties for car use in the CTP employees who continue to drive will loose. On a wider scale those making high value journeys in the area benefited by the CTP will benefit from reduced congestion. |
People with a low income |
|
Where CTP participants are ablve to save money through ride sharing or parking cash outs. |
People with poor access to public transport |
|
Where new bus services are available to the general public and/or where increased demand for alternatives results in increased quality and volume of supply. |
All existing public transport users |
|
Where new bus services are available to the general public and/or where increased demand for alternatives results in increased quality and volume of supply. Reduced congestion will also increase the supply of existing public transport. |
People living adjacent to the area targeted |
|
They may benefit from reduced congestion and improved or increased public transport supply. |
People making high value, important journeys |
|
Where these journeys are within the area benefiting from reduced congestion as a result of the CTP. |
The average car user |
|
Where they are able to travel more efficiently, saving time and money. Plus getting more exercise through walking and cycling, and experiencing the community benefits which accrue from these modes. |
|
= Weakest possible benefit |
|
= Strongest possible positive benefit |
|
= Weakest possible negative benefit |
|
= Strongest possible negative benefit |
|
= Neither wins nor loses |
Barriers to implementation
Scale of barriers |
Barrier |
Scale |
Comment |
Legal |
|
There are no legal restrictions. |
Finance |
|
Support for travel plans is relatively inexpensive, but does need to be sustained. |
Governance |
|
The only restrictions relate to the need for public transport operators to contribute information. |
Political acceptability |
|
There may be resistance to using measures which have no immediate impact on the ground. |
Public and stakeholder acceptability |
|
The main barrier is companies’ resistance to change in response to such campaigns. |
Technical feasibility |
|
Some requirements arise for data collation on travel patterns and opportunities. |
|
= Minimal barrier |
|
= Most significant barrier |
In the State of Washington in the US, most employers with over 100 staff in urban areas are required to have a travel plan by law. Between 1994 and 1999 the number of employees who drove alone decreased by 5.5% (72% to 68%) (Rye, 2002).
The evidence on performance of CTPs is sketchy as there is a serious lack of monitoring. Despite an obvious role for data demonstrating the success (or otherwise) of a plan in securing continued resourcing, only a minority of organisations collect after data. Thus, there are more descriptions of what constitutes a plan to be found in the literature than actual results. The level of detail disseminated by organisations also varies considerably. Some organisations are very open about the details and costs of their plans, whilst others regard such detail as confidential business information. Thus, the first case study is given in detail to provide a comprehensive illustration of a CTP, whilst others are summaries.
Pfizer
Context
Contribution to objectives and problems |
Objective |
Pfizer |
Manchester Airport
|
Stockley Park
Business Park |
Nottingham City
Hospital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban regeneration around the site |
|
|
- |
- |
|
= Weakest possible positive contribution |
|
= Strongest possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest possible negative contribution |
|
= Strongest possible negative contribution |
|
= No contribution |
Summary of each case study's contribution to alleviation of key problems |
Problem |
Pfizer |
Manchester Airport |
Stockley Park Business Park |
Nottingham City Hospital |
Congestion-related delay |
|
|
|
|
Congestion-related unreliability |
|
|
|
|
Community severance |
|
|
|
|
Visual intrusion |
|
|
|
|
Lack of amenity |
|
|
|
|
Global warming |
|
|
|
|
Local air pollution |
|
|
|
|
Noise |
|
|
|
|
Reduction of green space |
|
|
|
|
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites |
|
|
|
|
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments |
|
|
|
|
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups |
|
|
|
|
Number, severity and risk of accidents |
|
|
|
|
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area |
|
|
|
|
|
= Weakest possible positive contribution |
|
= Strongest possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest possible negative contribution |
|
= Strongest possible negative contribution |
|
= No contribution |
The contribution made by Pfizer, Manchester Airport and Nottingham City Hospital may be over estimated, but they are awarded two ticks to demonstrate the difference between these plans and the plan at Stockley Park.
Appropriate contexts
There are no areas where CTPs are inappropriate as such, but implementation will be more acceptable in areas where there is a demonstrable need, i.e. areas where there is a serious congestion problem and/or high density areas where there is little space for expansion beyond the current property boundaries. If and when a more robust case can be made for the contribution of CTPs to an individual firms profitability, these constraints will no longer apply.
There is more likely to be a demonstrable need in areas with a high density of business, be this a city centre, main street in a small market town, or a suburban business park. By definition, this makes non-residential area types most appropriate. However, where businesses are located in residential areas and many employees drive to work there remains a need for a CTP. Safety of local residents, severance and liveable streets should be more significant motivators and influences on the measures implemented in such cases. Where many employees are local measures suitable for short journeys, such as those facilitating walking and cycling, may be most suitable. Where employees are not local, public transport links are likely to be needed. Appropriate Area Types indicates the areas where the need for CTPs is likely to be greatest, making them more acceptable and the areas appropriate to such work.
Appropriate area-types |
Area type |
Suitability |
City centre |
|
Dense inner suburb |
|
Medium density outer suburb |
|
Less dense outer suburb |
|
District centre |
|
Corridor |
|
Small town |
|
Tourist town |
|
|
= Least suitable area type |
|
= Most suitable area type |
It should be noted that isolated single occupant business sites, or multi-occupant business, retail or leisure parks are particularly suitable, so long as public transport links to near by public transport hubs already exist or can be created as part of the CTP, or many employees travel from the same residential areas and can ride share.
Adverse side-effects
Experience in the UK and the Netherlands suggests that there are no significant side-effects resulting from CTPs. The US experience suggests that CTPs can be very unpopular amongst the business community, but this may have more to do with the way they were introduced than the CTPs per se. The implication here is that CTPs need to be introduced in a phased approach with the idea and information preceding action to avoid negative political fall out. The same principle applies within a company to maintain positive staff relations.
East Midlands Local Government Association, 2001, "OPTIMUM Pilot 3 Final Report. Report to European Commission Interreg III Programme" forthcoming in Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.
Elliot J and Chadwick S, 2002, "Can Green Travel Plans really work? The Pfizer Experience" in Richards M (Ed), 2002, "Delivering the Transport Renaissance - Locally", Construction Industry Conference Centre Ltd, Cambridge.
Ernst and Young, 1996, "Benutten Naast Bouwen", Report to Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Den Haag in Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.
ETSU, 2001, "A Travel Plan Resource Pack for Employers" ETSU, Oxfordshire
DETR, 2001, personal communication in Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.
DTLR, 2002, various at http://www.local-transport.dtlr.gov.uk/travelplans/index.htm (as viewed on the 19/05/02)
Gladstone K, 2001, "A Review of Travel Plans: comparing theory and practice", Unpublished Masters of Research Thesis, University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies
Ligtermoet M, 1998, "Status: kansrijk. Report to Netherlands Ministry of Transport , Den Haag in Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.
Manchester Airport PLC, 1998, Annual Report and Accounts 1997/98.
Manchester Airport PLC, 2002, http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk (as viewed on the 13/05/02)
Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.
Stockley Park Consortium, 2002, http://www.stockleypark.co.uk (as viewed on the 18/05/02).
Touwen M, 1997, "Vervoermanagement in de Randstad: en Evaluatie op basis van ReMOVE" Report to Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Den Haag in Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.
Walker T, 2000, "Assess and Developing Nottingham City Hospital's Green Transport Plan," Unpublished Honours Degree Project, University of Nottingham, School of Civil Engineering in Rye T, 2002, "Travel Plans: do they work?" Transport Policy, uncorrected proof, forthcoming.