University of Westminster      School of Architecture and the Built EnvironmentCan the travel planning process be improved...
AcknowledgementsI would like to thank all those that have assisted me in the production of thisstudy and throughout the du...
AbstractDespite popularisation of the terms over 20 years ago Agenda21 andsustainability are still current, topical issues...
Contents1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 4   ...
4. Results & analysis ................................................................................. 26   4.1. Online s...
AppendixAppendix A -      Online survey results            -     Online survey letter            -     Online survey respo...
1.          IntroductionThis study seeks to explore the issues surrounding Travel Plans and the widerpolicies that have de...
(c)    Results - this section will include analysis of research undertaken via       contacts obtained by accessing Kent C...
2.      Literature review2.1.    IntroductionThe aim of this chapter is to set the study within a context that will introd...
looked to capitalise on the ideas of Agenda21. However, as a term, Agenda21has now been superseded by the term ‘sustainabi...
2000, p. 7). Pinfield& Saunders (2000, pp.15-18) believe on the other handthat this Act marks a shift to a ‘weaker’ meanin...
and environmental change are implemented on a more regional, or local scale.Going back to Rio in 1992, the importance of l...
As part of the South East Plan, all local authorities are required to ensure theirlocal development documents and transpor...
responsibility to solve it. As a consequence, any future policy changes aregoing to need to engender confidence in the nat...
PPG13 did not set out any standard format, or content for Travel Plans. It didhowever state that their relevance to planni...
NPPF goes on to emphasise that the primary purpose of the planning systemis to contribute to the achievement of sustainabl...
2. Detailed Travel Plan. These should be submitted with a Full/Detail   Planning Application. In some cases it may be deem...
Although these changes to the UK tax system can be seen as a step in theright direction, they do not currently go as far a...
    Private sector businesses feel little need to lead by example, the main        role of a company is to make profit an...
seen as social responsibilities will on inspection turn out to be politicalresponsibilities, which the politicians are bli...
    Widespread implementation of Travel Plans will be unlikely unless        national legislation required it;       Tar...
DfT (national)“A package of measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel within anorganisation, with an emphasis on redu...
3.      Methodology3.1.    IntroductionIn this chapter the chosen approach to this study’s methodology will bedescribed. I...
been designed to take account of all the different geographical scales needingto be addressed, working from the national t...
3.4.    Qualitative dataOne of the aims of this study is to gain a better understanding of Travel Plansat the local level....
The organisations that have agreed to take part in the follow-up interviewsinclude:Table 01 - Follow-up interview sites.  ...
via email, with letters and phone calls to the remainder for whom no contactemail address is available.In designing the on...
code of practice, due to it having minimal, or no ethical implications. As aresult no prior approval is required.All respo...
4.          Results & analysisThis chapter will compile results that have been collected and attempt toanalyse them in ord...
Table 03 - Online survey response breakdown. Public      Private   Unknown      Total       7         14         10       ...
Figure 03 - Online survey ‘why’ responses.It was deemed important to drill down into the background and understandwhy an o...
Figure 04 - Online survey key features responses.To understand more about the level of commitment each organisation hadmad...
options as one of their key features. This response could in someway suggestthat the education methods adopted by KCC have...
   Time limitations; and      Poor existing public transport links.The above areas identified were seen to ultimately ha...
organisations continued to monitor their Travel Plan once it has been createdand implemented.Figure 07 - Online survey upd...
Figure 08 - Online survey behavioural changes.As well as asking about how often an organisation updated their Travel Plan,...
To identify how improvements might be made, the survey asked questionsaround ‘engagement with other organisations’. This i...
Figure 11 - Online survey successful / unsuccessful key points.To identify why a particular response was given, respondent...
Figure 12 - Online survey improvement responses.Finally, respondents were asked how they felt the travel planning processc...
2. Measures implemented;   3. Overall success;   4. Any difficulties encountered;   5. Interaction with KCC; and   6. What...
4.8.    Response summary1.      Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and        monitoring)Site...
Site FourPost occupation survey and the installation of information boards.Site FiveUndertaken monitoring as part of the C...
the private car.An initial survey was conducted using KCC’s iTRACE system. The responserate was very low. No follow up has...
6.      What could be done to improve the Travel Plan process?Site TwoIt would be easier if legislation required individua...
issues, for instance the limitations of the public transport network to providecoverage to all areas of employment. Howeve...
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.

1,626

Published on

Published in: Travel, Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,626
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Can the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study, 2012.

  1. 1. University of Westminster School of Architecture and the Built EnvironmentCan the travel planning process be improved? A Kent case study. MSc Transport Planning & Management - 2012 Thomas King
  2. 2. AcknowledgementsI would like to thank all those that have assisted me in the production of thisstudy and throughout the duration of the course. In particular I would like tothank the following:Peter White and Peter Stanley who have supported me during the year in thedevelopment of my study. Many thanks for your advice.My employer, Kent County Council who have provided the financialassistance to permit me to complete this course, and to my colleagues KatiePettitt and Charlotte Owen who assisted with the development and collectionof the study data as part of a wider paper on ‘Making Workplace Travel PlansWork’.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 stageof this study by agreeing to be interviewed. 2
  3. 3. AbstractDespite popularisation of the terms over 20 years ago Agenda21 andsustainability are still current, topical issues, which attract attention andstimulate debate at the highest levels of global governance. This studyexamines the early ideas of sustainability to understand the role it has playedwithin global and UK national policy. One of the key local impacts as aconsequence of this global debate has been the creation of Travel Plans as amethod to minimise the impact of growing traffic associated with newdevelopments. By examining the rise of global and national policy, this studyseeks to understand how Kent County Council, and organisations within theCounty have developed, implemented and operated their Travel Plans. Of particular interest is the view that Travel Plans are not producing theoutcomes originally intended. As a result, the research undertaken as part ofthis study is designed to look at site-specific examples to understand theproblems associated with trying to implement and run a successful TravelPlan. Importantly this will touch on the wider issues of national policy, localgovernment and the problems faced by businesses trying to achieve tangibleresults. This study will conclude by highlighting the key areas that need to betackled at both the national, local and organisational level if Travel Plans areto become successful and more widespread across the UK.Word count: 19,938 3
  4. 4. Contents1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 4 1.1. Aims .................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Structure.............................................................................................. 4 1.3. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 52. 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 ........................................................................................ 183. 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
  5. 5. 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 ........................................................................................ 465. 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 ...................................................................... 586. References & Bibliography................................................................... 60 6.1. References ........................................................................................ 60 6.2. Bibliography ...................................................................................... 64 2
  6. 6. AppendixAppendix A - Online survey results - Online survey letter - Online survey responses - ‘Making Workplace Travel Plans Work’ PaperAppendix B - In-depth telephone interview transcriptsList of figuresFigure 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 tablesTable 01 - Follow-up interview sites.Table 02 - KCC iTRACE database breakdown.Table 03 - Online survey response breakdown.Table 04 - Follow-up interview sites. 3
  7. 7. 1. IntroductionThis study seeks to explore the issues surrounding Travel Plans and the widerpolicies that have developed over the past two decades. It will encompass thepressures of global, national and local policies, which have continued toevolve from the very early ideas of Agenda21 and sustainability.The main focus of the study will be to look at existing Travel Plans required aspart of a Section 106 agreement, and where possible, Plans which have beendeveloped on a voluntary basis. In order to deconstruct the current situation inthe UK I will be contacting businesses that have introduced Travel Plans,initially to understand how their Plans were developed, but also to identify thepossible impacts this has had on changing employee travel behaviour.Crucial to understanding how Travel Plans could be further enhanced, it isimportant to determine if the current fluid situation surrounding national andlocal 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 indeedrecommend having considered the thoughts and opinions of businesses thathave implemented plans in recent years?1.1. AimsThis 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. StructureIn order to achieve these aims, this study will be structured into the followingsections:(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. 4
  8. 8. (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. ConclusionBy setting this study within the context of current planning policy regime andalso including the origins of Travel Plans, it is envisaged it will be possible toset the scene for making suggestions for future improvements to the UK’stravel planning process. By collecting data from live Travel Plans the study willbe able to establish what progress has been made, and where improvementscould or should be introduced. Today’s society is a dynamic one, with issuesof sustainability and new environmental policies continually being adaptedand developed by successive governments. This study will also seek toevaluate the current situation by connecting live Travel Plan examples withcurrent Government policies and looking at how they perform. In order forTravel Plans to continue, there is a real need to have a better understandingof what businesses require from future policies. This will enable businesses tointroduce Travel Plans that produce meaningful results, as opposed to justbeing a ‘box-ticking exercise’. 5
  9. 9. 2. Literature review2.1. IntroductionThe aim of this chapter is to set the study within a context that will introducethe reader to the notion of Travel Plans, as well as the national and localpolices 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 ofAgenda21. It will then look at the increasing prevalence of Travel Plans andthe history surrounding the securing, enforcing and monitoring of such Plansas a result of national policies, such as PPG13. In addition to this, the reviewwill look at the rise in corporate and social responsibility, and the changingattitudes this has brought towards sustainability and Agenda21.This chapter has been structured in such a way to allow the reader to followthe ‘journey’ of Travel Plans from the theoretical abstract ideas, through to thepolices that have led to a change in attitude by many companies towards theirsocial responsibilities. A key question throughout this literature review iswhether current policies are successfully influencing and changing travelbehaviour to produce more sustainable patterns of commuting for theforeseeable future.2.2. Sustainability “Agenda21”Agenda21 is a voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations firstproduced at the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (“UNCED”) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The Agenda21plan fundamentally outlines the understanding that the environment must beintegrated into all the policies and actions of industry, Government andconsumers, and attempts to address the causes of environmental degradationas a means of creating a more sustainable economy and society. Agenda21has played an important part in raising the awareness of sustainability as aterm and as a global movement towards creating a more ecological balance.Since the early 1990s, issues of Agenda21 have been considered to be oneof the world’s most important concepts for beginning to deal with the subjectof sustainability. Lele (1991, p.613) remarked that its development is a‘metafix’ that will unite everybody from the profit minded industrialists and riskminimising subsistence farmers to the equity seeking social workers. Theselocal environmental strategies are not only linked to changing nationalpriorities, but also reflect the particular economic, environmental and politicalchallenges impacting on decision making in each locality (John, White & Gibb,2004, pp. 151-168). Peck (1998, pp. 5-21) suggests that the issues ofAgenda21 offer more means to contribute to democratic renewal in the UKthan perhaps any other function of local government.As it stands, Agenda21 does not have a formal authority of its own to directothers to green their policies; hence it relies on a more ‘bottom-up’ approachto integration. To speed up reform, past and present Governments have 6
  10. 10. looked to capitalise on the ideas of Agenda21. However, as a term, Agenda21has 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 newpolicies and binding regulations as part of the planning process. It also seeksto 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 governmentscan no longer afford to ignore the environmental agenda (Cocklin and Blundel,1998, p. 59). With the development of national and international policies, weare starting to see planning policies that set out more detailed parameters forlocal authorities to follow. Currently, local economic pressures, interests andtraditions have led to significant spatial variations in local environmentalpolitics and policies. O’Brien and Penna, (1997, p. 186) believe that someaspects of the economic and political system privilege some strategies overothers, this has resulted in certain places and regions benefiting more so thanothers.In England there is evidence of a marked variation in the commitment andapproaches towards sustainability and Travel Plans. These appear to reflect‘local contingencies’ and depend upon how local authorities have chosen tomanage their interests. Research by Emma Young in 2011 highlights onedifference - Travel Plan enforcement. Her study showed that out of 86 LocalAuthorities, 46 knew of examples where Travel Plans subject to planningconditions or Section 106 agreements had not been implemented, yet verylittle evidence is available to demonstrate how Local Authorities have beenenforcing planning conditions. It is clear from Young’s study and others thatdifferent local authorities are prioritising some environmental policies overothers, 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 ofAgenda21 has arisen as a result of the rapidly changing landscape of localand regional governance and state agendas; termed ‘local strategicselectivity’. Without strong governmental prescription of targets and definitions,a wide range of interpretations have developed. Furthermore, competingpressures and resource constraints has meant Agenda21 was unlikely to topthe agendas of most local authorities that continue to be preoccupied withincreasing economic development (Patternson & Theobald, 1996, p. 10).Consequently, as Agenda21 became incorporated it was simultaneouslybeing detached from the key priorities in local and regional governance. In2000 the then Labour Government introduced the Local Government Act. Thisgave greater discretionary power to local authorities to promote economic,social or environmental wellbeing, whilst also requiring community strategiesto be prepared.Bruff and Wood (2000, pp. 519-539) saw this change as a move away frommarket-based concerns, to one more in touch with the wider conceptions oflocal services and priorities. It is also a reverse to a traditionally conservativeapproach to encourage innovation and closer working between localauthorities and their partners to improve communities’ quality of life (DETR, 7
  11. 11. 2000, p. 7). Pinfield& Saunders (2000, pp.15-18) believe on the other handthat this Act marks a shift to a ‘weaker’ meaning for the term ‘sustainabledevelopment’ in comparison with the spirit of local Agenda21.2.3. Theoretical approaches to sustainabilitySustainable development has been discussed extensively over the past twodecades in political, economic and social forums alike; however the meaningof the word is something that remains contested. The geographical scale atwhich sustainability is viewed is most often global, dealing with the conceptualissues rather than actual policy change. Breheny (1992) believes it is this lackof empirical applicability, which has resulted in the discipline of sustainabilitybecoming so contested. The range of literature on the topic is extensive andencompasses varying fields as detailed earlier in the literature review.Sustainable development ought to mean the creation of a society and aneconomy that can come to terms with the life-support limits of the planet. Butas Class (1997, p. 2) has discovered, the current approach to sustainabledevelopment can only be described as a “chimera, a theoretical position thatattracts attention, stimulates debate and raises awareness about the scopeand transition to a less unsustainable world”. The main difficulty withsustainable development lies not just in its ambiguity; there is a real issue ofdemocratic probity at stake, if a majority honestly does not want to pay what itsees as ‘the price’ for sustainable development, who is to deny them theirlegitimate wish? As Shen (1997, p.76) explains “a multifaceted approach isnecessary”. Muschett (1997, p.81) explains in his work that “sustainabledevelopment occurs when management goals and action are simultaneouslyecologically viable, economically feasible and socially desirable; these implyenvironmental soundness and political acceptability”. The term ‘sustainabledevelopment’ has had widespread political usage because of its broadapplication 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 moreholistic view of what constitutes quality of life. Intangible, but also realelements of human contentment such as social cohesion, community andself-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 theauthors perceive that because we globally understand our long-term survivalis at stake, we will continue to develop the term ‘sustainability’. This mayultimately prove to be the most important driver towards envisioning asustainable future. Muschett (1997) believes that in order to break throughthese barriers, government leadership, private sector ingenuity and publicsupport will be required. Regulatory obstacles will also need to be removed tosupport this process.Key to tackling regulatory obstacles is the hierarchical assignment ofresponsibility, which to a certain extent is still held by a central authority.Kairiukstis (1989) believes that the objectives of sustainable developmentmay be achieved more easily if the process of socioeconomic development 8
  12. 12. and environmental change are implemented on a more regional, or local scale.Going back to Rio in 1992, the importance of local authorities andmunicipalities was stressed as a way of achieving sustainable development.Beck (1992, pp.37-74) suggests we are slowly moving in the direction of morelocal frameworks where we will no longer see politicians exclusively carryingout 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 additionallayer of complexity to a system already poorly understood.2.4. National and local policy backgroundThe implementation of a sustainable approach to planning relies on thecreation of strong national and local policies and guidance to support TravelPlans. Bond and Brooks’ (1997, pp. 305-321) work shows that nationalguidance is often created in a hope to provide impetus for furthermethodological development at a more local level. In July 1998 the LabourGovernment released a white paper on transport policy ‘A New Deal forTransport: Better for Everyone’, this was intended to decrease thedependence on the private car, (T. Rye, 2002, p287-298) whilst promoting apolicy to encourage the voluntary take up of Travel Plans.National Government policies are about providing local authorities with theinformation and guidance necessary to enable them to become proactive. Inthe case of Travel Plans it is about putting in place the necessary supportstructures to enable collaborative working between public and privateorganisations. National policies are ideal for creating a top-down approach fortackling issues such as a national plan for dealing with traffic congestion, ornational strategy for reducing CO2 emissions, they do not however provide asolution to deal with the more localised issues, for instance, tackling the verysource of the problem hampering the success of Travel Plans; thestereotypical views people hold of the private car. A study by Lek in 1999found that 61% of 14 - 16 year olds viewed a car as essential to their lives. Inorder to tackle these views Pacione (2002) believes that national policiesneed to be implemented and tackled at the local level. It has also been arguedby Allen, Anderson & Browne (1997, pp. 3-6) in their study Urban Logisticsthat Pacione’s idea of implementing change at the local level must also bebacked up by more prescribed national plans in order to promote the purposeof greener credentials to the widest possible audience.In response to national frameworks produced by the Government, localauthorities have drawn up localised Regional Spatial Strategies to try andtackle some of these problems. The South East Plan (2009) has a chapterfocused on transport, which highlights the importance of transport issueswithin Kent and the wider south east region. The policy states:“Monitored travel information for the south east shows an increase in overalltravel per person since 2004, including an increase in travel by car […] theneed to re-balance the transport system in favour of sustainable modes isrecognised throughout this Plan […] our vision is a high quality transportsystem to act as a catalyst for continued economic growth” 9
  13. 13. As part of the South East Plan, all local authorities are required to ensure theirlocal development documents and transport plans identify any developmentsthat could create additional traffic constraints on the transport network andensure a Travel Plan is developed. More recently Local Authorities have beencreating their Local Development Plans; the bulk of which involves theestablishment of the Local Development Framework (“LDF”) Core Strategy.The policies contained within the LDF are then used to outline policies againstwhich all development within an area is assessed. LDF policies take theirguidance from national Planning Policy Statements and from policiescontained within Regional Plans.Government policies, both nationally and locally are designed to facilitatechange, for example Travel Plans are about changing travel habits andensuring shorter commuter trips are able to occur by green modes or bypublic transport, and where this is not possible, to support alternatives suchas car sharing schemes (Banister, 1999). However, according to the UKround table on sustainable development (Southwood, 1996, p. 5).“There is no magic solution to the many problems caused by present landtransport patterns and trends”.For this reason we need to have a greater range of co-ordinated strategies tominimise current and anticipated future adverse impacts. In 1999 theTransport Bill provided the legal framework for a number of measuresdesigned to support travel planning, including the introduction of work placeparking charges (Green et al, 2011, pp. 235-243). One of the only Councils tointroduce this policy has been Nottingham County Council. Businesses withmore than 11 spaces will be charged £288 a year per space, rising to £380 by2015. The levy has been introduced to pay for transport improvements,including the extension of Nottinghams tram network. Many employers havedecided to pass on some or all of the charge to their staff while some havereduced their number of car parking spaces. AA president Edmund King saidthat schemes such as this will damage the economy and hit employees whojust cant afford it (BBC News, 2012). It remains to be seen if this new policymeasure has been effective at reducing congestion and creating a modal shifttowards public transport.Presently in the UK the planning process is the only national mandatory routeby which a Local Authority can require a Travel Plan to be produced (Roby,2010). It has long been acknowledged that the current setup is overlyburdensome to ensure any commitment and that outcomes are enforced (LTTIssue 575). Similarly, even following the introduction of national policies whichallowed devolution of power to local authorities to develop congestioncharging zones and workplace parking levies, very little progress has beenmade on the case for private firms to voluntarily create and implement aTravel Plan. Furthermore, given the nature of modern development, it is oftenthe case that suburban and city-edge sites are being required to produceTravel Plans, as opposed to existing inner-city sites where there is oftengreater need. Existing national policies make no attempt to tackle this problem(Enoch et al, 2003). Research by Rye and MacLeod in 1998 concluded thatemployers must believe that there is a transport problem which impacts upontheir site and in addition to this, that they have a responsibility, or some 10
  14. 14. responsibility to solve it. As a consequence, any future policy changes aregoing to need to engender confidence in the national system, whilst locally itis going to be important to develop ownership and accountability if TravelPlans are to be successful.2.5. Travel Plan backgroundA great deal of information now exists on what Travel Plans are and how todevelop them. However, the effective implementation of such plans has beenfar from easy to secure (Coleman, 2000, p139-148). A Travel Plan can bedescribed as: “A package of measures implemented by an organisation to encouragepeople who travel to/from that organisation to do so by means other thandriving alone by private car”.Presently, Travel Plans are introduced to solve a very local problem, whichmay be site or area specific and generally relate to congestion or a parkingshortage (Bradshaw, 2001). Kent County Council’s guidance on securing,monitoring and enforcing Travel Plans in Kent (2012) defines a Travel Planas:“A strategy for managing multi-modal access to a site or developmentfocusing on promoting access by sustainable modes.”From a point 20 years ago when Travel Plans where unknown in the UK, theyhave now become a central part of UK policy, especially English transportpolicy and the wider “Smarter Choices” (2005) agenda. This is mainly down toglobal influences, such as the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which spawned anew movement demanding greater accountability for the global environment.Today, Travel Plans can be implemented voluntarily, though it is more likelythat a Travel Plan will be required as part of a new, or expanding developmentthat requires planning permission. It should be remembered that even when aTravel Plan is being provided, it cannot justify the siting of a development in atotally unsuitable location. However, a sufficiently strong Travel Plan may helpto counterbalance the disadvantage of a site where sustainable access,without Travel Plan measures would be less than ideal.2.6. PPG13Travel Plans were first included within national planning policy in PlanningPolicy Guidance Note 13 (“PPG13”) in March 2001. PPG13 stated that:“The Government wants to help raise awareness of the impacts of traveldecisions and promote the widespread use of Travel Plans amongstbusinesses, schools, hospitals, and other organisations. Local Authorities areexpected to consider setting local targets for the adoption of Travel Plans bylocal business and other organisations and to set an example by adoptingtheir own plans.” 11
  15. 15. PPG13 did not set out any standard format, or content for Travel Plans. It didhowever state that their relevance to planning lies in the delivery ofsustainable 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 documentsincluding:  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. NPPFIn 2012 PPG13 was superseded by The National Planning Policy Framework(“NPPF”), this combined existing guidance into one easily accessibledocument. The emphasis on sustainable transport has remained consistent,and NPPF continues to place an importance on the use of Travel Plans. Itrecommends that Travel Plans should be submitted alongside all planningapplications that are likely to have a significant transport implication(Communities & Local Government, 2011, point 89). In the locating anddesigning 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. 12
  16. 16. NPPF goes on to emphasise that the primary purpose of the planning systemis to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which itdefines as:"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Report of the WorldCommission on Environment and Development, 1987).Sustainable development is central to the economic, environmental and socialsuccess of the country and is the core principle underpinning planning. Forthe 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 typesThe framework recommends that three components; economic, social andenvironmental, should be considered in an integrated way, looking forsolutions that deliver the best-combined approach. It is envisaged that theplanning system must play a much more active role in guiding developmenttowards a sustainable solution. A key requirement to facilitate this will bedelivered through a Travel Plan. It is recommended that all developmentsgenerating significant amounts of movement should be required to produce aTravel Plan. This is however only possible if Travel Plans are embeddedwithin Local Planning Policy, including Local Development Frameworks.Travel Plans have three distinct process stages, somewhat different to thehistorically drawn out process, which led to confusion and failure of pastTravel 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. 13
  17. 17. 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 incentivesIn other countries, a whole regulatory framework governs how businessesdeal 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 planningand transit agencies provided support for CTR programs, in a similar fashionto UK local authorities. Where a business or developer implements a CTRprogram it is possible that reduced parking requirements will be required.According to Comsis Corporations (1993) & Winter and Rudge (1995), acomprehensive CTR program can reduce peak-period vehicular trips by asmuch as 10-30% at a work location. This can also be verified by workundertaken in the UK by Cairns et al in 2010. In Cairns’ study, 20organisations that had implemented Travel Plans found that various measuresused by employers to encourage employees out of their cars resulted in anoverall 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 virtuallyall employers in places where congestion and traffic pollution are a majorproblem. However, it has been argued that this overarching regulation has notresulted in Travel Plans being seen as a benefit; rather an additional cost(Enoch et al, 2003). In many European countries, governments have beenworking to reduce the financial burden of Travel Plans. In Norway, Germanyand Belgium the tax system has been used to incentivise more sustainablemodes relative to less sustainable modes of travel. In the UK, a similar systemhas been introduced whereby no tax or National Insurance Contributions arerequired, 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. 14
  18. 18. Although these changes to the UK tax system can be seen as a step in theright direction, they do not currently go as far as other European countrieswho have provided additional positive incentives to encourage staff to altertheir travel behaviour. In order to demonstrate the benefit of the above tax‘incentives’ it has been proposed that companies could complete an audit oftheir travel costs to demonstrate the financial benefit for adoption of a TravelPlan. As it stands currently the UK government has failed to use its taxsystem to provide any form of kick-start incentive to individuals or commercialorganisations (Enoch et al, 2003).Public institutions have so far led the way, but for widespread success as apolicy tool, Travel Plans also need to be adopted by private sector employers.Local Authorities have been working to build links and produce guidelines andoffering advice, however the vast majority of private sector employers do nothave a Travel Plan in place and the vast majority still probably do not evenunderstand the term or the implied concept (Coleman, 2000, p139-148). Astudy by T. Rye et al (2011) found that the guidance available to firms lookingto implement a Travel Plan was excellent. However, the dissemination ofguidance and the subsequent development amongst Local Authority officeshas been piecemeal. T. Rye et al suggested that more active disseminationand training strategies, to include proactive communication and workshopsled by planners who have successfully used the guidance are required ifTravel Plans are to be successfully introduced on a wider scale.2.10. Corporate social responsibilitiesSince the Labour Government’s White Paper on transport policy waspublished in 1998, the aim has been to increase the widespread voluntarytake-up of Travel Plans. However, even though many public sectororganisations have now adopted Travel Plans, any policy mechanism toencourage voluntary take-up in the private sector has so far been relativelylow-key (Enoch et al, 2003). The current half-hearted approach to travelplanning is sending contradictory signals to businesses. Where the existingsystem does work, is getting Travel Plans onto a businesses’ agenda throughplanning consent regulation, but in these situations it could be argued that thisis seen as a cost and not as something that businesses should undertake aspart of their normal practice. As a general consensus transport will never bethe core concern of the majority of employers, and so the currentinformational instruments that dominate UK policies are unlikely to beeffective, unless they are supported by additional measures, such as a mix ofplanning regulation and fiscal incentives or penalties for non-participation(Enonch et al, 2003).Although progress has been made in improving the travel planning processfollowing the introducing of NPPF, the number of private businessesimplementing and fore filling their obligations, either as part of a planningapplication or on a voluntary basis is still small. A study by T. Rye (2002,p287-298) concludes that the central reasons for non-implementation ofTravel Plans in private businesses can be put down to the following: 15
  19. 19.  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 commercialsector 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 etal, 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 forthe short-term factors (Roby, 2010). In order to introduce the sustainablefuture concept, it is as much about changing policies to shift values as it isabout changing practices. (Palmer, 1990). In the last two decades we haveseen an increased awareness of ‘social responsibility’ within society, resultingin many companies reviewing the way their businesses operate. Kolk (2008,pp.1-15) in her study of multinational businesses sees a growing demand fortransparency surrounding corporate behaviour. This has seen a movetowards incorporating ethical and social issues within the traditionally financialaspects of corporate reporting, and has become known as either ‘corporatesocial responsibility’ or ‘triple bottom line reports’. Elkington (1999, p.24) talksfurther about the triple bottom line and how its purpose is to challenge andrevolutionise how companies think and act. It is also about educating andchanging the views of stakeholders and ensuring businesses improve theiraccountability. This is a move away from the traditional belief that businessessole responsibility is concerned with only maximising profit.However Milton Friedmen (1970) argues that businesses are not humanbeings and cannot assume true moral responsibility for their actions; his beliefis that society’s best interests for achieving change lies with governments, notmanagers. Friedmen also argues that the current lack of legally bindingobligations for a business to tackle commuter trip reduction is a major issue,which causes confusion and prolongs ignorance amongst businesses as towhere their responsibilities lie. Wood and Ivens (1997, pp. 101-113) havestudied these ideas further and in their research found that problems often 16
  20. 20. seen as social responsibilities will on inspection turn out to be politicalresponsibilities, which the politicians are blind to, or afraid to tackle.The problem with Travel Plans is unfortunately not confined to the need toincrease the take-up of voluntary Travel Plans. In the UK, the issue of‘greenwashing’ has developed. This is the process whereby a developerproduces an impressive list of ‘environmentally friendly’ proposals, but thenfails to implement them either effectively, or in the worst cases, at all. This isexacerbated further as a local authority can only serve the developer with a‘breach of conditions notice’ and hope they comply. If funding has beensecured through an obligation it is possible to enforce, but only through aquasi-court. T. Rye et al (2011) highlighted that even when a developer hasnot met one or more of their obligations, any challenge from a local authoritycould be counter challenged by a developer on the basis that they have doneeverything in their power to do so, and thus not acted unreasonably. Such anargument could undermine the basis of planning obligations and the use ofmonetary penalties for non-achievement of any associated targets. T. Rye’sstudy of local authorities that have taken enforcement action against a breachof Travel Plan conditions or obligations would appear to back-up this theory,with only four local authorities admitting to having begun proceedings againsta developer. The survey also asked authorities how they would enforceplanning conditions. 32 said they were not sure, whilst 54 did not answer thequestion.Looking to the future, some progress has been made with businessesdeveloping their own reports due to demand from stakeholders, shareholdersand consumers, rather than in response to any direct government policy. Inorder to further enhance these changes, businesses will need to increasinglydevelop and implement zero emission activities linked to overarchingbusiness change - this will help Travel Plans become embedded in the widerbusiness as a support measure of business planning - as opposed to aseparate business objective (Roby, 2010). Holbeche (2001) describesbusiness culture as something that results from a learning process ofinteraction, actions and processes built up on commonly accepted behaviours.Schein’s (1997) model of business culture places an emphasis on creating asupportive culture for the development of social responsibility in a concordantand non-contradictory way.In a study conducted by Coleman (2000, p139-148), he identified that theissue of understanding the term Travel Plan as an implied concept is stillholding back their widespread implementation. In a survey of businesses,around 38% indicated that public transport alternatives were important factorsin enabling modal shift to be successful. 37% felt further central Governmentlegislation was required, whilst 35% indicated that tax incentives would beneeded before they took any action. Improved advice and information, alongwith business rate discounts and financial support were also seen asimportant (20%). As a result, Coleman suggested the following improvementsto increase participation in Travel Plans:  Continued awareness raising of the term and concepts of Travel Plans is needed; 17
  21. 21.  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 towardscorporate social responsibility, businesses will ultimately be the primarybeneficiaries of a healthier and more prosperous environment. Taking apositive stance at this time can only improve the performance and position ofa company through increased transparency and greater accountability. Asuccessful business in Romme’s (1992, pp. 11-24) view will be theenterprising one that develops a range of measures and implements widerorganisational change. This can then be used to deploy skills learned in thepast to capitalise on the opportunities of the future, whilst meeting obligationsto the environment. Corporate responsibilities are increasingly becoming aselling point for a company’s image; with the labelling of ‘socially responsiblecompanies’ it is likely we will continue to see a shift where-by certainbusinesses become an active instigator of sustainable development, meetingGovernments plans to increase the voluntary take-up of Travel Plans. On thereverse of this positive change, many firms are however still failing to makethis adjustment. Without a move to a planning system, which is moreproactive, simple and legally binding, Travel Plans are unlikely to producemore sustainable patterns of commuting in the foreseeable future.2.11. ConclusionFrom the literature that has been reviewed and researched, it is clear thatTravel Plans are continuing to evolve, with competing pressures from global,national, and local policies still needing to be balanced to ensure the guidancereleased to Travel Plan developers is both concise and workable. The UK hascontinued to see the development of Travel Plans at a more local level, withthe introduction and use of travel management software (iTRACE), car-pooling, offering on-site bicycles, and ecological driver training. Howeverfurther development is still needed to link the process of planning, regulationand controlling of travel within a development, or business, including how aTravel Plan can be interconnected with the internal organisational goals of abusiness.Helen Roby’s (LTT Issue 498 10 July, 2008) research demonstrated thatTravel Plans are evolving on the basis of more localised agendas. This hasseen some highway authorities, namely TfL (2012) demonstrating the needfor Travel Plans to be linked into internal organisational goals, as opposed tojust addressing an external regulatory agenda as per the national DfTguidelines: 18
  22. 22. DfT (national)“A package of measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel within anorganisation, with an emphasis on reducing reliance on single occupancy cartravel.”TfL (local)“Travel planning is an effective business management tool which can be usedto generate cost savings, lending companies a competitive advantage, andwhich has additional benefits for the environment and the health ofemployers.”Unfortunately even after the introduction of the latest planning policy guidance(NPPF), it could be argued that an even stronger central government guide isrequired to steer developers and incentivise companies through fiscal meansto embrace the introduction of Travel Plans within a development ororganisation. The current situation surrounding the monitoring of Travel Plansis arguably farcical, making it virtually impossible for local authorities to provein court that a site occupier has not fulfilled their obligations. This situation notonly undermines the real purpose of Travel Plans, but also hinders their futuredevelopment; not only at a planning level, but also at a voluntary level. Theneed for further change and a more consistent approach by local authoritiesacross the UK has never been more important if we are to see any long-termbenefit 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 tounderstand in greater detail how individual businesses and organisationshave been dealing with their existing Travel Plan and then asking what theyfeel is required from both the national and local levels of government in orderto support the future of Travel Plans. 19
  23. 23. 3. Methodology3.1. IntroductionIn this chapter the chosen approach to this study’s methodology will bedescribed. It will look at the reasons behind the choice of topic, and how thestudy has been designed to ensure the importance of looking at Travel Plansacross the different geographical scales is not lost. It will also detail how theresearch will be undertaken and then analysed to understand how the datacollected can be best used to answer the aims of the study.3.2. Choice of topicThe choice of topic has been based around my previous experience withTravel Plans and my determination to understand why most Travel Plans inexistence today are seen as a ‘box-ticking’ exercise to obtain planningpermission, as opposed to a long-term solution designed to tackle increasinglevels of personal mobility. What makes this topic more interesting is theglobal nature of the umbrella term ‘sustainability’, and the many differentareas it is now seen to encompass, including: social, economic, andenvironmental factors. The focus on local and corporate social responsibilityin this study has come about through my undergraduate studies. During myfirst degree I spent a great deal of time investigating the changing issues ofcorporate social responsibility, for this reason I wanted to look again at howthings have continued to develop at the more local level and to see if morerecent changes in government policy have brought about an increase, or evena potential decrease in the long-term success of travel planning.3.3. Study designThe methods of research for this study were initially proposed in the StudyPlan, which was prepared in May 2012. This identified the need to address anumber of concerns relating to Travel Plans, for this reason the focus hasbeen on three different levels: national, local, and corporate. Particularattention has been paid to the corporate level and contact has been madewith a number of businesses through Kent County Council’s iTRACEdatabase of Travel Plans. These contacts will be used to better understandhow businesses setup their Travel Plan and the day-to-day requirements itplaces upon them. In order to answer the aims of this study, both qualitativeand quantitative data will be collected from businesses that have introduced aTravel Plan. This will be supplemented with additional interviews conductedwith employees of Kent County Council’s Planning and Sustainable TransportTeam to better understand the local issues of implementing Travel Plansusing past and current national policies.To bring the local studies into context, this study has also been supplementedwith information on planning policy and national guidance on Travel Plans. Inthe study design, both national and local inputs have been broken down todemonstrate how fragmented the current guidance is. The study has also 20
  24. 24. been designed to take account of all the different geographical scales needingto 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 conductingresearch. In this study both types of data will be collected, the qualitative datawill bring a greater depth of understanding in relation to Travel Plans alreadyin operation. The use of qualitative methods has become an increasinglyimportant element of research and together with secondary data can result invalid pieces of research being produced (Marshall and Rossman 2010). 21
  25. 25. 3.4. Qualitative dataOne of the aims of this study is to gain a better understanding of Travel Plansat the local level. The use of qualitative data will support development of localunderstanding. It is at this very local context that one is able to ascertainfeelings and attitudes towards Travel Plans and wider corporate socialresponsibilities. It will also be possible to further examine the initial responsesprovided through the online survey. Herbert (2000, p.550), describes thebenefits of using more qualitative methods to gain insight into people’sanxieties and feelings, which are well suited to ethnographic enquiries:“Humans create their social and spatial worlds through processes that aresymbolically encoded and thus made meaningful. Through enacting thesemeaningful processes, human agents reproduce and challenge macroecological structures in the everyday of place-bound action. Becauseethnography provides singular insight into these processes and meaning, itcan most brightly illuminate the relationships between structure, agency andgeographical context.”To provide a greater understanding of how Travel Plans operate at the locallevel, telephone interviews will be conducted with respondents who hadindicated as part of the initial online survey that they would be happy to takepart in a follow-up interview. These will be designed to generate a greaterdepth of understanding about respondents’ specific experiences and thoughts.As such, a semi-structured approach will be used. The themes eachtelephone 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? 22
  26. 26. The organisations that have agreed to take part in the follow-up interviewsinclude: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 Travel Plan coordinator Six Higher education Public Multiple locations and parking managerFurthermore, the study focuses on Kent County Council and their Planningand Sustainable Transport Teams. By conducting interviews with KCCemployees it will be possible to see the work being undertaken acrossnumerous departments, and with district and borough partners to promoteTravel Plans across Kent. This includes working to tighten up plans requiredas part of planning permission, and also voluntary Travel Plans that requirefurther outreach to the wider business community. By conducting interviews atthis level of local government, it is also possible to gather feedback on currentnational initiatives and any ideas or suggestions that might be employed byKent to enhance and extend Travel Plans to the widest possible audience.Through the use of qualitative data, it is anticipated the research available todraw a conclusion to the study will be much more detailed and bring apersonal understanding from a range of different perspectives andgeographical scales. The data has been collected from a wide range ofsources including: structured qualitative telephone interviews; and face-to-face meetings. These findings will be used to back-up and challenge the morestatistical findings from the quantitative data.3.5. Quantitative dataThis study has sought to collect quantitative modes of data in order to enablethe use of mathematical modelling and statistical analysis techniques. Thesehave been set within the wider context of this study to ensure they are ofinterest and come to life, adding authority to the argument, rather thananalysis for the sake of it.The data collected will come from contacts stored by Kent County Council aspart of their iTRACE software, which manages Travel Plans within the County.This includes the contact details for either the site coordinator or the managerof the site who is creating the Travel Plan. A survey link will be sent to the listof contacts held on the iTRACE software, requesting their response abouttheir experiences with their site Travel Plan. For the majority this will be sent 23
  27. 27. via email, with letters and phone calls to the remainder for whom no contactemail 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 gageawareness of current marketing tools being used by KCC to promote NewWays 2 Work and car sharing.The use of quantitative data is an important aspect to this study. It will beintegrated with other data collected to examine the difference between theonline survey and telephone interviews. By having localised data, from arange of different businesses, it will be possible to understand more about thedevelopment and day-to-day operations of a Travel Plan.3.6. Data analysisIn order to process and analyse the data collected in the most appropriateway for this study, all of the findings will be presented in a simple format. Theidea is not to produce overly confusing statistics, but to use graphs that showthe results, and allow for a comparison between businesses. Where it ispossible to obtain a statistically significant result, this will be included withinthe results & analysis chapter. By doing this it will be possible to answer themain aims of the study, whilst allowing for a comparison to be made betweenthe different findings. By writing up the structured telephone interviewsundertaken with businesses and Kent County Council, it will be possible totake 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 thestudy. By bringing together the qualitative and quantitative research the studywill have a range of crosscutting data to help answer the study aims.3.7. Ethical considerations and data protectionPrior to conducting any form of primary research, the University ofWestminster’s Code of Practice Governing the Ethical Conduct of Research2011/2012 was read to ensure that due consideration was given to thepotential ethical implications of any such research. It was decided that theprimary data collected for this piece of research fell under ‘class one’ of the 24
  28. 28. code of practice, due to it having minimal, or no ethical implications. As aresult no prior approval is required.All respondents invited to take part in the survey will be invited to do soanonymously.3.8. ConclusionTo summarise, this study will focus on organisations who have alreadyintroduced a Travel Plan in the county of Kent. This data will be supplementedby further follow-up telephone interviews with those organisations who arewilling to provided further information. Interviews will also be conducted withkey employees at Kent County Council. The in-depth interviews will be usedto understand the current constraints surrounding Travel Plans, and whatchanges need to be made at either, or both a national or local level to enableorganisations to comply with travel planning obligations. 25
  29. 29. 4. Results & analysisThis chapter will compile results that have been collected and attempt toanalyse 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 responsesThe 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 waspossible to attempt to make contact with a total of 253 organisations recordedas having implemented Travel Plans.Table 02 demonstrates the district breakdown, and the public / private sectorsplit. 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 providedfrom the outset. It has been assumed that the remaining 124 contacts weresuccessfully contacted, however 31 responses to the online survey in totalwere received (Table 03); although only 24 of these were fully complete. Thisgave the online survey a response rate of 25%. This chapter will thereforepresent and analyse responses to the main questions asked within the surveywhilst full results are available to view in Appendix A, along with the originalresponses.Table 02 - KCC iTRACE database breakdown.District Public Private TotalAshford 3 56 59Canterbury 7 8 15Dartford 4 4 8Dover 3 6 9Gravesend 1 1 2Maidstone 8 22 30Sevenoaks 1 11 12Shepway 1 7 8Swale 1 13 14Thanet 2 13 15Tonbridge & Malling 5 53 58Tunbridge Wells 5 18 23Total 41 212 253 26
  30. 30. Table 03 - Online survey response breakdown. Public Private Unknown Total 7 14 10 314.2. Creation“Does anyone in your organisation have Travel Plan responsibilities as part oftheir job role?”Figure 02 - Online survey responsibility responses.In response to this question, 7 out of 13 organisations acknowledged that theydid have a lead member of staff who managed their Travel Plan as part oftheir job role (Figure 02). Generally this was someone who was asustainability manager, or coordinator, but responses also indicated thatsenior managers had been selected to ensure someone within a morestrategic role managed their Travel Plan. Responses were also received fromindividuals who had taken on the role as a result of a personal interest. Whilstthis result indicates a more positive perspective of Travel Plan management, itis important to acknowledge the study by Rye and MacLeod (1998) whichrecognised that employers must believe that there is a transport problem,which impacts upon their site and in addition to this, that they have aresponsibility to solve it before they are likely to develop a greater form ofownership and accountability. The 42% that had no one responsible for theirTravel Plan arguably still require further education to reinforce the importantrole a Travel Plan coordinate has to play, despite having been through theprocess. From the data collected it would seem that some organisations haverecognised the potential a properly managed Travel Plan can bring. Where anexternal consultant is included within the mix the role of the Travel Plancoordinator seems to be much less focused, with less understanding anddrive to ensure the Travel Plan meets its commitments. 27
  31. 31. Figure 03 - Online survey ‘why’ responses.It was deemed important to drill down into the background and understandwhy an organisation originally created their Travel Plan. Question 4 (“Why didyour organisation develop a Travel Plan?”) of the survey provided a range ofoptions, including: planning condition, corporate agenda, cost savings andothers (Figure 03). As anticipated the majority of the responses received werefrom those who had a planning condition, or agreement that required a TravelPlan as part of a planning application. Those who responded with ‘others’provided a surprisingly clear understanding of a number of other importantareas linked to Travel Plans. This contradicts Coleman’s observation in hisstudy (2000), which found a lack of understanding of the term was one of themain reasons for holding back the wider introduction of Travel Plans.The responses received showed a higher level of understanding, evenbeyond what a ‘standard’ Travel Plan might look to achieve. This includedorganisations trying to develop, or enhance their own green corporate agenda.Other responses identified the issues of parking, traffic congestion and eventhe need to reduce travel costs. One response went as far as to highlight thatthey 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 thoserespondents who created a Travel Plan for reasons other than simply tocomply with planning, in hindsight it would have been interesting to ask afollow on question related to the relative level of success a Travel Plan had inassisting the organisation to achieve their primary objective. For those simplyfulfilling planning requirements, it would also have been interesting to discoverif they have received any unexpected operational or other benefit from theTravel Plan. 28
  32. 32. Figure 04 - Online survey key features responses.To understand more about the level of commitment each organisation hadmade to travel planning, respondents were also asked to identify the keyfeatures that had been implemented (Figure 04). The suggestions list includedeverything from a ‘do minimum approach’ e.g. providing public transportinformation, through to a more proactive organsiation who may have chosento subsidise staff travel, or enhance their office facilities to help facilitatecycling to work.The results demonstrate that the vast majority of organisations introduced fourmain features, these included: information boards showing sustainabletransport options; car sharing; restricted, or priority parking; and enhancedfacilities (e.g. showers, changing facilities, lockers). Information boards aregenerally seen as a ‘do-minimum’ approach, whilst the creation of enhancedfacilities could generate increased modal shift. As a general rule none of theabove options can be seen to have a greater positive impact over one or other.Organsiations can provide enhanced facilities, but without successfulmarketing and a pro-active approach the ‘do-minimum’ option could have abigger impact than a poorly marketed priority-parking scheme. A large numberof respondents also selected ‘other’, these responses further highlighted anumber of increasingly pro-active responses to travel planning, includingCycle to Work schemes, eco-driver training, discussion and forum groups andincentivising staff through competitions. Given Kent County Council’s strongpromotion of websites like kentjourneyshare and the Cycle to Work scheme, itis not surprising that such a high number of responses singled out these 29
  33. 33. options as one of their key features. This response could in someway suggestthat the education methods adopted by KCC have resulted in some examplesof success.4.3. ImplementationIn addition to trying to understand more about the creation process, the onlinesurvey also focused on the implementation phase. This can often be astumbling block for an organisation, especially when the Travel Plan has beenwritten on the basis of a wish list, rather than something that is affordable andviable. This was addressed in the subsequent question, “What actions fromyour Travel Plan have been carried out?”. The responses received generallymirrored the answers recorded in Figure 04, suggesting the key featuresidentified 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 inanswering the aims of this study, the online survey was also developed withthe intention of understanding more about the problems faced when trying toimplement a Travel Plan (Figure 05). This question received a response from31 respondents, however only 7 identified having a problem during theimplementation stage. This was a significantly lower proportion than had beenanticipated given the results of studies by T. Rye (2002) and Coleman (2000),which clearly indicated a higher percentage of organisations struggling tosuccessfully implement their original Travel Plan commitments.Where an organisation identified a problem or problems they were asked toclarify what they saw as the main obstacles. The four key areas identifiedincluded:  Funding constraints;  Lack of interest; 30
  34. 34.  Time limitations; and  Poor existing public transport links.The above areas identified were seen to ultimately hamper trying to changeemployee attitudes.After trying to establish what actions had been carried out, the survey set outto understand the actions, or key features that had not been implemented.Given the sensitivity of such a question and the potential implications for anorganisation contravening a planning obligation, the question was designed tounderstand ‘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 mighthave been expected, for instance: time; and director sign-off. Unfortunately‘N/A’ received the largest number of responses, which is potentially significantgiven the sensitive nature of the question, and an organisation potentially notwanting to make light of the fact they are yet to implement certainrequirements.4.4. ReviewingA significant amount of any Travel Plan should be about monitoring andreviewing its performance. For this reason the survey included a section on‘reviewing’. The key purpose behind this was to understand how many 31
  35. 35. organisations continued to monitor their Travel Plan once it has been createdand implemented.Figure 07 - Online survey updating responses.The findings from this question demonstrated an even split between thosethat never updated their Travel Plan, verses those that updated their TravelPlan every 1-2 years (Figure 07). A much smaller number (5) responded withevery 2+ years, whilst only 2 organisations stated they updated their TravelPlan more than once a year.When asked what they did to update their Travel Plan, 2 organisationsclaimed to update their Travel Plan more than once a year, whilst 3organisations stated they carried out on going monitoring. Two organisationsdid make mention of linking their Travel Plan with their wider corporatestrategy. Where such organisations are linking a Travel Plan with theircorporate agenda, it is possible to create a powerful document capable ofdelivering real organisational change, especially if the Plan is correctlyimplemented and all aspects are followed through from start to end. Thesingle document can also be used to deploy skills learned in the past tocapitalise on the opportunities presented in the future, whilst in additionmeeting obligations to the environment (Romme, 1992). 32
  36. 36. 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 initialimplementation. Interestingly, 55% of respondents reported that theirorganisation had undertaken follow-up reviews. As a consequence, a numberof travel behaviour changes had been identified (Figure 08). However, next tocar sharing the second most common answer was that there had been nochange to travel behaviour, with one respondent saying, “people are selfish asever” (Appendix A - Online survey results).4.5. EngagementFigure 09 - Online survey engagement responses. 33
  37. 37. To identify how improvements might be made, the survey asked questionsaround ‘engagement with other organisations’. This identified that an alarming67% of respondents did not make any contact with another organisation aspart of setting up their Travel Plan (Figure 09).Where respondents identified that contact had been made, it wasoverwhelmingly with either Kent County Council, or the district and boroughcouncils (58%). Other points of contact identified included consultancy firmsand other local businesses.4.6. SuccessFigure 10 - Online survey satisfaction responses.The most important part of this survey was to identify the perception of howsuccessful, or unsuccessful an organisation perceived their Travel Plan. 27organisations responded to this question, with the majority of respondents(37%) providing a neutral answer (Figure 10). 34
  38. 38. Figure 11 - Online survey successful / unsuccessful key points.To identify why a particular response was given, respondents were presentedwith either a ‘how has it been successful?’, or ‘why do you think it has notbeen successful?’ box.Overall respondents who deemed their Travel Plan a success described it asbeing most effective at implementing car sharing (73%) and improving theirsustainable image (65%). A further 27% of respondents also said that theTravel Plan had helped meet shareholder demand for corporate socialresponsibility. No one commented that it had reduced mileage claims,suggesting that the focus is on commuter journeys rather than businessmileage.A wide range of reasons were given for the ‘success’ of a respondent’s TravelPlan, with the most popular answer being “support from management”. Anencouraging 38% of respondents said that support from Kent County Councilwas a reason for their success. 27% of respondents felt employee motivationwas crucial. Other reasons given included the support of a consultant andcrossover with other corporate plans and their companies’ sustainabilityagenda.Those who felt their Travel Plan had not been a success provided a range ofresponses, with no one response giving a clear indication of a particularproblem. 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. 35
  39. 39. Figure 12 - Online survey improvement responses.Finally, respondents were asked how they felt the travel planning processcould be improved. This received a number of suggestions (Figure 12),however it was clear that the general theme of the responses provided werefocused on the need for greater district and council input, along with greatercentral government policy - linked to enforcement and legislation. 2 responsesalso remarked on the importance of incorporating Travel Plans within acorporate strategy, as opposed to a stand-alone document.4.7. In-depth telephone interviewsAfter the survey responses were collated, the respondents who had indicatedthat they would be happy to take part in a follow-up telephone interview werecontacted. In-depth interviews were conducted to generate a greater depth ofunderstanding about their specific experiences and thoughts about theirTravel Plan. Before the interview, their questionnaire responses were studiedin greater detail, so as to tailor the questions appropriately. As such, a semi-structured approach was taken. The themes each telephone interviewconcentrated on were: 1. Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and monitoring); 36
  40. 40. 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 werecarefully chosen to ensure a cross-section of the initial online-survey wasfollowed-up. As a result, the following organisations in Table 04 wereinterviewed. (For the purposes of this study the company name andinterviewee’s details have been removed).Table 04 - Follow-up interview sites. Site Business Type Type Location RespondentOne Highway engineering Private Business park Sustainable teamTwo Property management Private Business park Park managerThree Retail development Private Business park ConsultantFour Supermarket Private City Centre ConsultantFive Education Public Multiple locations Sustainability coordinator Travel Plan coordinatorSix Higher education Public Multiple locations and parking managerGiven the nature of semi-structured interviews, key points have been pickedout from each response and categorised within the themes listed above. Fullcopies of the interview transcripts can be found in Appendix B. 37
  41. 41. 4.8. Response summary1. Responsibility for the Travel Plan (at creation, implementation and monitoring)Site OneTravel Plan responsibilities are linked to my job role as ‘SustainabilityManager’. I also manage the companies EMS (Energy Monitoring System).On taking over the role, no handover was conducted with my predecessor.Site TwoMy role as Park Manager includes, Travel Plan management, creation andimplementation. I Coordinate an overarching site Travel Plan for everycompany on the business park. It was originally created as a way for dealingwith heavy congestion.Site ThreeI was chosen as the coordinator because of my personal interest and positionwithin the organisation as a senior manager.Site FourThe Travel Plan was created by a consultancy firm for the purpose of a newstore planning application.Site FiveOur plan was created by a coordinator for the purpose of managing rising fuelprices and for understanding more about how people travel to the site.2. Measures implementedSite OneWe have introduced a Sustainability Action Plan with targets for the site and aplan to monitor progress. This is updated every January. In addition to this,an annual Business Travel Survey is undertaken to monitor how people travelto work and has been used to encourage more staff to car share. Training hasalso been provided to staff on how to use video conferencing facilities, whilstdriving styles are being monitored to look at fuel efficiency. Car shareschemes have also been employed, with an internal database for colleaguesto find people living near them to share with.Site TwoNothing at this stage, but the use of a parking management company to issueenforcement notices is being considered. Promotion of kentjourneyshare hasbeen undertaken, whilst Arriva had been contacted about subsidised busservices. It had originally been envisaged that a new bridge could beconstructed over the M25, avoiding the need for traffic to access jct 1A.Site ThreeInformation boards detailing travel options. 38
  42. 42. Site FourPost occupation survey and the installation of information boards.Site FiveUndertaken monitoring as part of the Carbon Trust scheme to reduce CO2.Site SixIntroduced restricted parking and exclusion zones for students. Subsidisedtransport use, with discounts available to staff and students. Additional busservices are also provided during the exam period. An online survey isregularly emailed out to staff and students to enable the monitoring ofprogress.3. Overall successSite ThreeNeutral - the car is key to our business, people do not share as they are oftenout of the office at certain points of the day. Some staff have othercommitments, such as children who require collecting, which makes carsharing impractical.Site FourWe intend to re-survey the site annually if it is agreed. I am unsure whathappens if the Travel Plan misses its targets, as I’ve never encountered thisproblem before.Site SixOur Travel Plan has achieved a 50% reduction in traffic travelling through thesite (difficult to enforce certain restrictions due to a public highway runningthrough the site).4. Any difficulties encounteredSite OnePublic transport is not a viable option for most due to the office location. Itwould also involve making multiple changes between buses and trains.Site TwoInitially everyone was keen to start up a focus group to tackle the issues.However, this was disbanded when it became clear that infrastructureimprovements were not being considered by KCC. The Highways Agencyalso failed to support our plans for improved signage on the M25 junction thatprovides access to the site. Bus services have also been cut following areview of passenger numbers.The biggest problem was a lack of support from companies to implementsustainable improvements. The original focus group stakeholders were onlyinterested in improvements designed to enhance access to the site by privatecar. It became clear to me that people do not understand what a green TravelPlan is about. More work is required to educate people on the alternatives to 39
  43. 43. the private car.An initial survey was conducted using KCC’s iTRACE system. The responserate was very low. No follow up has ever been undertaken.Site ThreeWe found iTRACE to be very clunky. Currently we use our Fire Book to loghow people got to work. We do not use the data we record to monitoranything.Site FourWe have no regular contact with the site coordinator to know how things areprogressing.Site FiveThe decision was taken that we could no longer afford to subsidise a free busservice from the town to the site. We choose not to encourage cycling due tothe lack of off-road facilities. We have issues with the functionality of iTRACEto 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 ofthe Travel Plan was halted by the University.Site SixOnline 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 tothe timing of the email being sent.5. Interaction with KCCSite TwoKCC were proactive, but occupiers could not see a resolution to the problemof avoiding gridlock so lacked motivation.Site ThreeNot every local authority is proactive. From a consultancy perspective someauthorities have lost the plot and are abusive and obstructive. People need tobe encouraging and willing to make small changes. The main point of contactat Kent County Council is very good, but others in Kent have not been aspositive. Communication is key.Site FourI have had some involvement with KCC and the site coordinator (HRManager) in the store, but nothing further.Site FiveI approached KCC following a recommendation by someone else. 40
  44. 44. 6. What could be done to improve the Travel Plan process?Site TwoIt would be easier if legislation required individual companies to manage theirown Travel Plan. This should have specific requirements, e.g. “you must…..”,without this, people will not be put off from driving.Site ThreeTo improve the process the cost of fuel should be doubled so Travel Planswould not be needed. The car sharing website is ok, but there is a need toovercome concerns of sharing with a stranger. Travel Plans are overlyrestrictive on new developments in the current economic climate.One Travel Plan model will not fit all organisations. There should be less spinand more honesty. Educating people on alternative travel choices at a youngage could be one way to reduce the future reliance on the private car.Site SixNeed for greater awareness. E.g. road show services, eco- driving simulatorsetc. 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 analysisOverall, it would seem that from the follow-up telephone interviews conducted,the main contact was either someone who had been allocated the job as partof their job role, or in the case of site three an individual identified as having apersonal interest in Travel Plans. It was disappointing to see that at site oneno formal handover was ever undertaken to ensure previous work could becontinued. In answering this question most only spoke about his or her owninvolvement, whilst no one raised the issue of on-going monitoring.The types of measures implemented varied greatly between responses. Somesites, 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 veryminimum. Sites three and four in particular have a Travel Plan as a result of aplanning application, it is therefore disappointing to see that such a ‘do-minimum’ approach seems to have been required as part of their planningpermission - although this cannot be confirmed.When asked about the overall success of their Travel Plan, most werehesitant with their response. Those who did respond indicated that it had hada neutral impact, whilst one site was considering re-surveying; but was unsureof the impacts if they did not meet their targets. Site six did howeverdemonstrate that they had achieved a 50% drop in through traffic following theimplementation of their Travel Plan.Key to this study were the responses received relating to ‘problemsencountered’. In some instances the information provided related to local 41
  45. 45. issues, for instance the limitations of the public transport network to providecoverage to all areas of employment. However, site two in particular identifieda clear lack of understanding among the business residents about what aTravel Plan constitutes. For example a Travel Plan can involve someinfrastructure improvements, but these would not normally be related toimproving access for private motor vehicles. Another feedback point related tothe software provided by KCC for organisations to carry out travel surveys.The feedback received indicated that it was “clunky” and lacked the ability tomeet some requirements. Response rates to on-going monitoring surveyswere also highlighted as an issue, with site six identifying one survey that onlyreceived 2 responses from 18,000 emails. Contact between consultants whoprovided the original Travel Plan and the organisation that then operates theplan was also singled out as being poorly managed. In effect, the consultant isnot going to continue to manage and monitor a Travel Plan free of charge, thisthen relies on the site Travel Plan coordinator being proactive in theirapproach to update and monitor on going progress.Contact with Kent County Council has generally been positive, though it wasidentified by one site that they had been in contact with multiple contactswithin the authority, and that their experience had not necessary been aspositive. Overall it seemed clear to the respondents’ that Kent County Councilis able to assist them with their Travel Plan questions.In relation to Travel Plan improvements, the different sites provided a range offeedback. One site identified the need for legally binding legislation fromcentral Government to enforce Travel Plans. Others felt that Travel Planswere ineffective without further ‘stick’ type disincentives for driving; forexample increased fuel charges. What was clear across all responses wasthe need to personalise each Plan to meet the individual requirements of anorganisation. One Plan should not be designed to meet the requirements ofmany. Finally increased marketing of events was identified as a way toincrease participation and generate future interest from other individuals andorganisations.4.10. Kent County Council interviewsInterviews were undertaken with Kent County Council’s Sustainable TransportManager and a Senior Development Planner. The interviews were structuredaround subjective, opinion based questions and for the purpose of openness,the format was semi-structured, providing interviewees and the interviewerwith 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. 42

×