Personalised journey planning

Why introduce personalised journey planning (PJP)?

Reducing car use is a common transport strategy in light of the high levels of car dependence in developed countries and the negative impacts of car use. These include atmospheric and noise pollution, severance, land take and congestion, which can have negative economic impacts, especially with regard to CO2 emissions and climate change. There are a variety of carrot and stick measures which can be used to reduce car use, including low car housing, travel information centres, bus service management, cycle routes (these are all pull measures), urban road charging, parking controls and traffic management and restraint (these are all push measures). Measures designed to push drivers out of their cars are often very unpopular amongst the general public and hence, politicians as well. Travel information centres, bus service management and provision of cycle routes pull drivers out of cars. However, they are not always successful. Facilities are obviously improved for existing users, which is one objective of such policies, but modal shift is often small because car drivers are unaware that new facilities exist and/or cannot see how they could fulfil their travel obligations by modes other than the car. Where introduction of new facilities is particularly high profile, i.e. it is given a high media presence in the catchment area through advertising to the relevant market sectors, there can be noticeable modal shift, but the level of transfer could still be increased by providing journey specific information to individuals through PJP.

Further to this, use of PJP can make reducing car use more acceptable to the general public. Personalised journey planning is a pull measure specifically adapted for each individual. Thus, participants are more likely to feel that the programme is relevant to them, not a facility provided for users of alternative modes, and thus respond positively.

Demand impacts

The impacts resulting from PJP are on the demand for car travel and demand for alternatives. Most often that is an increase in the demand for public transport, walking and cycling, but it could also include increased use of ride sharing, car clubs, telecommuting and shopping from home. This will therefore contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce congestion and the associated negative impacts.

Response	Impact on vehicle kilometres	Expected in situations
		Personalised journey planning does not seek to change departure time, although it may be a secondary consequence of modal shift.
		Personalised journey planning does not seek to change routes, although it may be a secondary consequence of modal shift.
		Where the personalised journey planning seeks to encourage greater use of more local facilities. Greater use of local facilities may also be a secondary consequence of modal shift.
		Where this is the chosen means of reducing car use. Journey purposes can be linked into a trip chain, suppressed or substituted with teleshopping/working etc.
		Where participants respond to information provided regarding alternatives with behaviour change in the form of modal shift.
		Where modal shift and/or reduction in number of journeys is a sufficiently high proportion of car journeys made to make owning a car (or a second household car) uneconomic.
		Personalised journey planning does not promote moving house, but in the long term committed individuals may move closer to frequent destinations or corridors where it is possible to walk, cycle or use public transport. Most likely when moving house for other reasons.

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Short and long run demand responses

Where a PJP campaign is successful in creating new travel habits there is potential for noticeable long term demand responses. Firstly, individual change is likely to be cumulative. As the individual becomes familiar with using alternatives to the car, it becomes easier, and therefore feasible for a wider range of journeys. Additionally, as more people are seen to make these changes, others are likely to follow.

However, it should be noted that change in travel behaviour is unlikely if it is not economically viable for the individual concerned. Particularly committed individuals could divert funds from other expenditure, but this is rare. Thus, if there are no financial incentives to change, such a response is unlikely. Such incentives do not necessarily require local authority expenditure; it can merely be a case of highlighting the savings to be made from reducing mileage and thus, fuel consumption, for example. However, as choice of personal transport often has consequences for an individual’s image, other members of their household, and sometimes employers, the decisions may not be made on a purely objective economic basis. Maintaining a certain image associated with car use, escorting other members of the household or family, and conforming to established work patterns may be considered to justify continued use of a car, even where total travel expenditure is greater than it would be if car use were reduced.

The demand responses in terms of reducing number of journeys and changing mode are dependent on the options available to individuals. For example, working from home would not be an option for an individual working for an employer who does not allow such practices and ride sharing is unlikely to be a response where there is no ride sharing scheme. The table here is completed on the basis of a homogeneous environment where all options being available.

	-	1st year	2-4 years	5 years	10+ years
	-
	-
	Change job location
-	Shop elsewhere
	Compress working week
-	Trip chain
-	Work from home
-	Shop from home
	Ride share
-	Public transport
-	Walk/cycle
	-
	-

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Selling a car and moving house are very unlikely as even medium term responses to a PJP campaign. They are more likely to be a long term response enacted when the change is prompted by other motivations. The situation is similar with regard to changing job location, although there is more likelihood of this being a medium term response.

Level of response

The impacts on price elasticity of demand caused by the implementation of a PJP campaign will vary according to the success of the programme and the context in which it is implemented. A programme that promotes all alternatives available equally will have different impacts from one which is targeted at increasing cycling rates. Thus, the type of trip, type of traveller, price elasticity of related goods and services and whether the elasticity accounts for short term or long term demand responses are important influential factors in the calculation and interpretation.

Supply impacts

There will not be an increase in the supply of road space. Where a PJP campaign works with existing alternatives to car use, there will be no change in the nature of supply, merely a change in the way the existing supply is used. Where a PJP campaign accompanies infrastructure measures such as the introduction of bus rapid transit, the supply impacts will be greater.

Financing requirements

The cost of a PJP campaign can be significant, especially where a local authority buys in services from an outside organisation. The cost is a factor of the number of individuals targeted, the amount of publicity material and information leaflets involved, the design of the survey (nature of travel diaries used, and possibly questionnaires) the level of technology used to process data and how much needs to be bought in specifically for the project. High levels of technology utilisation may not be more expensive than employing staff to process diaries by hand. Despite potentially high costs, the PJP aspect of the Travel Smart programme in Perth, Western Australia has been shown to be cost effective.

The following figures compare the total cost of the Travel Smart programme in South Perth with that of introducing a new bus service. The whole programme includes a PJP campaign, as well as wider publicity and initiatives. The public transport figures are derived from the first four months of monitoring of the Transperth (public transport) electronic ticketing system undertaken throughout the large scale roll out of Travel Smart between February and June 2000.

Source: Department of Transport Western Australia (DTWA), (August 2000) Travel Smart, A Cost Effective Contribution to Transport Infrastructure.

The return is based on a 10 year time span with the following assumptions:

• No decline in the effect of Travel Smart®
  
• Patronage, costs and revenue for the new bus service remain constant (DTWA, 2000).

It is noted that the bus services in "South Perth have sufficient capacity to absorb the expected increase in patronage" (DTWA, 2000).

DTWA (2000) note that the point of the comparison “is not to say that this new bus service should not be implemented but that Travel Smart is an effective programme that should be included in public transport capital works assessments.”

Assessment of recent UK Sustainable Travel Demonstration Towns indicates a cost in the most expensive example of £16.13 per head for the Smarter Choices measures implemented (DfT, 2009) – these included PJP. Where a Smarter Choices scheme is a rolling programme over a number of years “it is assumed that the costs of the scheme increase by 2.0% per annum” (DfT, 2009). This is calculated on the basis of urban population forecasts, and assumes Smarter Choices measures involve the whole urban population of a town or city.

Expected impact on key policy objectives

Personalised journey planning is usually implemented as part of a strategy of reducing car use, thus it will contribute to policy objectives that require this. Even where PJP is implemented with other strategies, e.g., an increase in public transport patronage, as in some Australian examples, reductions in car use are likely. However, where reducing car use is perceived as socially unacceptable (or ‘untrendy’), the impacts are likely to be small. Further to this, they will be unsustainable if there is no support to encourage individuals to maintain changes in their travel behaviour.

Contribution to objectives

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

In as much as the key problems caused by road transport are often the result of excessive car use, a successful PJP campaign has the potential to have significant impacts. However, where reducing car use is perceived by the public as socially unacceptable (or ‘untrendy’), the impacts are likely to be small. As reducing car use becomes more acceptable over time, impacts may increase cumulatively.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measures. However, a PJP campaign does not force anybody to change their travel habits, thus there is more potential for winners than losers.

	= weakest possible benefit,		= strongest benefit
	= weakest possible disbenefet,		= strongest possible disbenefit

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

There are a variety of barriers to the implementation of personalised journey planning.

= minimal barrier,

= most significant barrier