Why introduce flexible working hours?
From a transport perspective, flexible working hours are introduced to spread travel demand beyond conventional peak hours and thus, reduce congestion and/or to facilitate alternatives to solo commuting, which in turn reduces congestion. Flexible hours facilitate ride sharing by allowing co-ordination of schedules, cycling by allowing off peak travel in less congested conditions and public transport use by giving the flexibility to fit in with timetables and cope with unreliability (where the flexitime is not a rigid model). From a business perspective, the ultimate aim is to increase efficiency through reduced congestion.

There are also a number of other productivity related motivations. For the employee, flexible working hours

• Provide family friendly working practices by allowing employees to meet dependent care responsibilities,
  
• Enable employees to combine work with other responsibilities and interests,
  
• Reduce the need to take un-paid leave or use holiday entitlement to meet responsibilities,
  
• Allow greater job satisfaction through the above and because work can be completed when motivation and energy levels are high.

For the employer, flexible working hours

• Increase the ability to adapt staffing levels according to seasonal demand and customer requirements, thus improving customer service,
  
• Increase staff motivation and commitment because staff needs are met,
  
• Increase competitive edge in attracting and retaining staff,
  
• Reduce absenteeism
  
• Reduce overtime costs
  
• Accommodate the various need and circumstances of employees.

Whilst these employee and employer benefits may not be directly related to transport, where congestion is not perceived to be a problem, they may be a means of persuading a business to introduce at least one measure with the potential to reduce traffic.

A brief survey of company flexible hours policies (University of Glamorgan, 2002; OCPE, 2002; WRc, 2002; DataViz, 2002; Carnegie Mellon University, 2002; Lucent Technologies, 2002; Monash University, 2002) available via the internet suggests that the majority of organisations do not recognise transport benefits in relation to flexible working hours. Few mentioned participating in ride sharing, avoiding traffic congestion and co-ordinating work schedules with a limited bus service as potential benefits. Transport impacts are more likely to be mentioned at a government policy level, for example Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2002).

Demand impacts
The demand impacts resulting from flexible working hours depend on the up-take of the option by employees and whether it is used as an opportunity to use alternatives to solo driving. A study by Picado (2000) states that "in one case study, two-thirds of employees surveyed have flexible work schedules, yet less than twenty percent of them actually shift their commute times to avoid congestion" (Litman, 2002). This could be because fitting in with child care arrangements or other duties does not allow journeys outside of peak hours and the need to meet these responsibilities necessitates habitual travel.

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

= No response

Short and long run demand responses
Up-take of flexible working hours may increase over time as individuals alter their domestic arrangements (to something more convenient) when the opportunity arises. With regard to modal shift to public transport, walking or cycling, there may be a small shift in the short term. This is unlikely to increase over time unless congestion becomes significantly worse (but does not affect the alternatives) or incentives to use alternatives are offered.

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

= No response

*Where flexible working hours are part of an over all flexible approach to working which allows working at home.
**May require incentives unless there is improvement in provision.

Level of response
The price elasticity of demand varies with context, primarily the type of trip, traveller, price elasticity of related goods and services, and whether the elasticity accounts for short term and long term demand response. In the case of response to flexible working hours it is likely that unless there are incentives to use alternatives, the elasticity in relation to mode will be low, i.e. most change will be in time of travel, rather than mode choice. Although, where ride sharing is an option, the elasticity may be greater.

Supply impacts
The introduction of flexible working hours will not affect the supply of road space or the supply of alternatives to solo driving.

Financing requirements
There are no financial requirements.

Expected impact on key policy objectives
Flexible working hours has potential to contribute to a number of key objectives through reduction in congestion, but the scale of contribution is dependent on the number of organisations in an area offering flexible hours, the scale of up take and the degree of variability.

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

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems
As with impacts on objectives flexible working hours has potential to contribute to the alleviation of a number of key problems through reduction in congestion, but the scale of contribution is dependent on the number of organisations in an area offering flexible hours, the scale of up take and the degree of variability.

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

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers
One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measure and this is especially true of one targeted at particular groups of employees. Nevertheless, benefits of reduced congestion will accrue to all road users.

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

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

= minimal barrier,

= most significant barrier