Why introduce company travel plans (CTPs)?
Organisations introduce CTPs of their own volition to tackle parking shortages, improve accessibility, solve staff recruitment and retention problems, comply with planning regulations or in the case of some public sector organisations, comply with government directives. Organisations can also save money in the long term. This could be achieved by replacing company cars with pool vehicles for example, or reducing the kilometres travelled for business mileage through telecommunications.

The problems to be solved vary in their nature

Demand impacts
The demand impacts of CTPs will be dependent on the measures implemented through the plan. The key impact will be on the demand for car travel. As a consequence of this, demand for public transport, walking or cycling may increase. If there is significant up take of telecommuting and replacing business travel with telecommunications, the overall demand for travel will fall. Regardless of the measures implemented through the plan, it will contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce congestion and the associated negative impacts. However, impacts will be local to the site where a CTP is implemented unless there is widespread uptake. Responses and situations is completed on the basis of local impacts.

Response	Reduction in road traffic	Expected in situations
		N/A
		Where the CTP successfully facilitates ride sharing, modal shift and/or trip substitution with telecommunications, assuming the previous mode choice was solo driving
		Where the CTP facilitates modal shift as opposed to ride sharing or trip substitution
		This may happen where a CTP supplies sufficient alternatives to make owning a second household car unnecessary.
		In the long term a committed individual who moves house for other reasons may move closer to work or public transport links.

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

= No contribution

Short and long run demand responses
As with other measures, which work through attitudinal and behavioural change, CTPs have not been in use long enough to gauge long term demand response exactly. It is not merely that "there are very few examples of them having worked successfully" (Rye, 2002). Firstly, whilst "travel plans can work, and make a contribution to modal shift at the site level. At the network level, … the impact is much less clear, since trips removed by a travel plan may simply be replaced by others that were previously suppressed by congestion" (Rye, 2002). Secondly, in the private sector travel plans are usually adopted where there is a problem, even when that problem is created through planning regulations. Hence, where there is no problem (or perceived problem), travel plans are unlikely to be adopted. Thus, the long term responses could be marginal, as could the role of travel plans in transport policy (Rye, 2002).

The demand response will vary depending on which measures are implemented through the plan and whether more are phased in over time. Demand responses is completed on the basis of an overall decrease in car use. Again, the responses will be local.

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

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

= No contribution

Level of response
The price elasticity of demand varies with context, especially the measures implemented in the travel plan. The type of trip, traveller, price elasticity of related goods and services, and whether the elasticity accounts for short term or long term demand response are important influential factors in the calculation and interpretation.

Rye (2002) has compiled figures to show that 11% of private businesses in Great Britain have taken up travel plans, which means that 7% of employees are covered by a travel plan. 73% of trips were by car before travel plan uptake. This has dropped 6% afterwards. This is a decrease of 0.5m kilometres per annum.

A review of experience in the Netherlands reported by rye (2002) suggests that decreases of this amount are the result of plans consisting of only basic measures, e.g. ride sharing. "On average the reduction in drive alone commute trips from a travel plan … [is] as follows" (Rye, 2002):

Despite less public objection to CTPs in the Netherlands, only Washington State, through its legislation has achieved widespread uptake. In the UK, uptake in the private sector is mainly limited to companies with 200 or more employees. This is because smaller organisations rarely have the resources to divert to such peripheral activities (Rye, 2002).

Supply impacts

As with demand impacts, supply impacts will be local. CTPs themselves will not result in a change in the supply of road space. However, where CTPs form part of a new development, which includes new road access, a CTP can be accompanied by increased supply of road space. Ideally, the presence of the CTP will manage the demand for the new road space such that it is dominated by alternatives to solo driving.

In the more common scenarios where there is no increase in supply of road space, there is merely a change in the way that road space is used. This is common to all attitudinal and behavioural measures.

Where the CTP also includes additional provision for alternatives to the car, e.g. bus services, there can be an increase in public transport and facilities for walking and cycling.

Where CTPs seek to restrict parking, there will be a decrease in supply. Where ride sharing is accompanied by priority parking spaces the way existing supply is used will change and reduce supply available to solo drivers.

Financing requirements
The financial burden of a CTP varies according to the measures implemented through the plan. A staff travel survey can be undertaken at minimal cost, especially where there are facilities to collect data via an intranet. However, some staff time will need to be diverted to analyse the data, interpret the results and decide on appropriate action. Alternatively, a staff travel plan co-ordinator can be employed full or part time. The salary cost will vary with hours, responsibilities and between regions. It could range from £10-15 ($14-21) thousand per annum part time to £20-30 ($29-43) thousand per annum full time (2002 figures).

The cheapest and most basic measure to implement is a ride sharing scheme. Reducing parking space and information provision are also inexpensive measures. Providing loans to purchase bicycles or season tickets may also be inexpensive in the medium and long term despite initially large outlay. Annual adult travel cards in London range from £360 - £1,476 ($515 - $2,112) at April 2002 prices. In a company with 200 staff where 10 of the workforce take up the offer of travel card loans the initial outlay would range from £7,200 - £29,520 ($10,300 - $42,232) per annum. Other measures such as subsidised bus services can be more expensive, as the Pfizer example illustrates. However, if parking charges are implemented this could fund expensive measures, as could savings brought about by reduced business travel costs, not having to increase parking provision, reduced congestion around the site and/or reduced recruitment and retention costs.

Nevertheless, the staff time and cost taken up organising a plan should not be forgotten. It is more likely to be viable for a large company where the cost per head is lower, as the amount of organisation does not decrease directly in line with staff numbers. Additionally, administrative burden is likely to decrease over time as the travel plan becomes established.

Expected impact on key policy objectives
The exact impacts will depend on which measures are implemented. However, the overall aim is to reduce car use for work related journeys. Thus, Contribution to Objectives is completed on this basis. To see more detail on the impacts of specific measures, e.g. ride sharing or bus service provision, go to the individual measures within KonSULT. However, it should be noted that impacts will be less wide spread in terms of geographical impact, social groups affected and travel culture change than shown for individual measures. This is because CTPs are confined to work related journeys, which are concentrated around business locations.

Objective	Scale of contribution	Comment
		Notable around sites with successful plans.
		Around business locations and access routes, but where there are few residential, retail, commercial or entertainment sites, there may be little benefit.
		Around business sites and access routes.
		Where measures improve access from deprived areas and where infrastructure and/or public transport services are made available to the general public, or where there are benefits from reduced congestion.
		Around business sites and access routes.
		For individual companies that save money or can expand as a result of the plan. Also, some impact through reduced congestion in wider area, especially if the plan covers a whole industrial or retail development; or if a critical mass of companies in a city centre have plans.
		Negative impacts where CTPs are subsidised or there is substantially reduced tax revenue from fuel sales. Could be mitigated by savings in the cost of parking provision, road maintenance, accidents and enforcement.

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

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems
Again the impacts will vary according to the measures implemented and individual measures should be consulted for more detail. The impacts will be local to sites where CTPs are implemented.

Problem	Scale of contribution	Comment
Congestion-related delay		Contribution may be greater where the campaign is accompanied by infrastructure and/or service alterations which make using alternatives to the car more attractive.
Congestion-related unreliability		Contribution may be greater where the campaign is accompanied by infrastructure and/or service alterations which make using alternatives to the car more attractive.
Community severance		By reducing traffic volumes
Visual intrusion		By reducing traffic volumes
Lack of amenity		Where increased walking and cycling results from the campaign there may be greater use of local facilities, which will sustain and possibly increase their supply.
Global warming		By reducing traffic-related CO2 emissions
Local air pollution		By reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants
Noise		By reducing traffic volumes
Reduction of green space		By reducing pressure for new road building and city expansion
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites		By reducing traffic volumes
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments		There is no direct impact, but where increased demand for public transport results from a campaign, quality and volume of supply may increase.
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups		Individualised marketing targets car drivers, but in the longer term increased demand for alternatives may result in increased supply, which could benefit other social groups.
Number, severity and risk of accidents		By reducing traffic volumes
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area		By improving the efficiency of the local road network through reduced congestion, especially where combined with other measures

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

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers
One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measure and this is especially true of CTPs which target a very specific audience.

Group	Winners / losers	Comment
Large scale freight and commercial traffic		Where reduced car use is achieved on routes used by freight vehicles. High value journeys – less time spent in congestion the greater the vehicle utilization.
Small businesses		Unlikely to have their own CTP but if they are located near an organisation with a successful CTP they may benefit from reduced congestion. Most likely in city centres or business parks where a critical mass of companies have successful plans.
High income car-users	/	High income associated with high value of time and thus continued car use for high value journeys. Where there are financial penalties for car use in the CTP employees who continue to drive will loose. On a wider scale those making high value journeys in the area benefited by the CTP will benefit from reduced congestion.
People with a low income		Where CTP participants are ablve to save money through ride sharing or parking cash outs.
People with poor access to public transport		Where new bus services are available to the general public and/or where increased demand for alternatives results in increased quality and volume of supply.
All existing public transport users		Where new bus services are available to the general public and/or where increased demand for alternatives results in increased quality and volume of supply. Reduced congestion will also increase the supply of existing public transport.
People living adjacent to the area targeted		They may benefit from reduced congestion and improved or increased public transport supply.
People making high value, important journeys		Where these journeys are within the area benefiting from reduced congestion as a result of the CTP.
The average car user		Where they are able to travel more efficiently, saving time and money. Plus getting more exercise through walking and cycling, and experiencing the community benefits which accrue from these modes.

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

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

Barrier	Scale	Comment
Legal		There are no obvious legal barriers to the implementation of an CTP, although there may be a need to ensure that the instigating organisation is not held responsible for any negative impacts on an individual resulting from a change to habitual travel patterns. With regard to STPs and HTPs there may be a need to consider child protection and duty of care implications.
Finance		A basic CTP can be implemented with low costs, although for a small company these could be prohibitive.
Political		This varies from place to place and is likely to be highly related to public acceptance.
Feasibility		Reluctance of companies and individuals to participate is the key feasibility issue.

= minimal barrier,

= most significant barrier

Evidence on performance

In the State of Washington in the US, most employers with over 100 staff in urban areas are required to have a travel plan by law. Between 1994 and 1999 the number of employees who drove alone decreased by 5.5% (72% to 68%) (Rye, 2002).