Smarter Choices – changing travel behaviour through ‘soft’ policies

Dr Sally Cairns Senior Research Fellow

TRL and UCL

Email: scairns@trl.co.uk

ECOMM 2005: 27th-28th October 2005, Parma, Italy

Measures assessedTravel plans Workplace travel

plans School travel plans

Information and marketing

Personalised travel planning

Public transport information and marketing

Travel awareness campaigns

More efficient use of cars Car clubs Car sharing

schemes

Tele options Teleworking Teleconferencing Home shopping

Study details Research for the UK Department for Transport, 2003-2004

Study team:Sally CairnsLynn SlomanCarey NewsonJillian AnableAlistair KirkbridePhil Goodwin

Main report published in conjunction with the 2004 UK White Paper on ‘The Future of Transport’

Background

7 previous UK assessments of the potential impact of such measures

Wide range of results, with both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions

Rapidly developing evidence base

Methodology

Worldwide literature review

24 case studies of current local authority practice

Looked at effectiveness and cost of current schemes,and their potential scale in 10 years time

↓ Two scenarios: low intensity and high intensity

High intensity scenario: assumed a step-change in activity and resources, but within the limits of what

would be practically achievable

Results of high intensity scenario:Potential traffic reduction in 10 years

11%

7%

14%

13%21%

0 20 40 60 80 100

urban peak

urban off-peak

non-urban peak

non-urban off-peak

national

% traffic

Findings consistent with re-interpretation of previous studies

Costs and benefits

For every 1000 vehicle kilometres removed:

Average cost = £15

Average benefit = £150 (for congestion relief alone)

↓ Benefit : cost ratio is at least 10:1 Higher ratios (up to 30:1) in congested city

streets

BUT…. Benefits will only be realised if traffic reduction is ‘locked in’ with restraint measures

Example: Workplace travel plans“a package of measures that an organisation puts in place to encourage and enable staff to travel more sustainably”

Support for: walking cycling public transport car sharing local recruitment / relocation teleworking

Car park management

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Birmingham Royal Orthopaedic hospitalCompass Group Birmingham

HM Prison BirminghamGenerics, Cambridgeshire

Stockley ParkBoots, Nottingham

Birmingham dental hospitalLocal Government Ombudsman, York

Oxford Radcliffe HospitalArup, Bristol

AgilentAstraZeneca

PfizerBirmingham city council transportation

VodafoneUniversity of Bristol

Cambridgeshire County Council (county hall) Marks and Spencer

Orange (Almondsbury)BP

St Helen's College, MerseysideEgg

Wycombe District CouncilGovernment Office for the East Midlands

Computer AssociatesNottingham City Hospital NHS Trust Chamber of Commerce, Cambridge

Northfield Medical Centre, BirminghamCambridge University

Buckinghamshire County CouncilCambridge City Council

Birmingham city council economicBirmingham Priory Hospital

Plymouth HospitalGovernment Office for East of England

Addenbrookes NHS Trust, CambridgeNorwich Union, Bristol

WS Atkins, BirminghamOrange, Temple Point Bristol

Bluewater

Reductions in car driver trips to work

Typical reductions: 10-25%

Local authority role in workplace travel plans

Having advisers who work with businesses

Using the planning processes

Offering grants or other incentives

Having a plan for their own staff

Local authorities have promoted workplace travel plans by:

Scale of workplace travel planning

% employees affected by a travel plan

0

10

20

30

Mer

seytr

avel

Buckin

gham

shire

Bristo

l

Cambs

(all)

Cambs

City

& S

York

Nottin

gham

Birmin

gham

Future scale: two urban areas estimated 40-50%; one rural area estimated 15%.

What happens next?

Research has shown the cost-effectiveness of individual Smarter Choice measures

…But they will only deliver major cuts in traffic if they become mainstream

The next stage: large-scale local Smarter Choice Programmes

Now being developed in London, and in three ‘Sustainable Travel Towns’ - Darlington, Peterborough and Worcester.

What an intensive Smarter Choices Programme might involve

Workplace travel plan team who also consider car-sharing, telework,

teleconferencing over 10 years, reach half the workforce target larger employers first

School travel plan team over 10 years, cover every school

Personalised travel planning over 10 years, reach a third of households target 5-10,000 people per year

SmarterChoices

Programme

Marketing of bus and rail increase ridership by 2-3% per year

Over-arching travel awareness campaign Innovative projects: car clubs, home shopping

(prepare for next phase)

SmarterChoices

Programme

Cost of an intensive Smarter Choices Programme

Step-change in priority / resources

Annual revenue spend ~ €8 per person to achieve ‘high intensity’ scenario

Capital funding needed too

e.g. safer crossings near schools, cycle route networks etc.

SmarterChoices

Programme

Conclusions ‘Smarter choice’ measures could reduce traffic by up to

21% in urban peak areas if they are given more priority if the benefits are ‘locked in’ with demand restraint

measures Such measures are relatively cheap

£15 to remove 1000 vehicle kilometres Benefit: cost ratios better than 10:1

Local authorities have a critical role to play

To achieve their potential, ‘smarter choice’ measures need to be given more priority at national and local level

For the study reports, go to:

www.dft.gov.uk

then → Sustainable travel

then → ‘Smarter choices’