Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
National guidance on Best Practice has also been published (DfT 2007n). By 2007 it
was estimated that 11% of employers with 100 or more staff would have travel plans,
22% of hospitals and 51% of further/higher education establishments (Cairns et al.
2004 Table 3.3).
However this apparent progress is subject to two very important qualifications:
1
a large proportion of private firms have yet to engage with travel planning and
there is a fear that those already participating represent the 'easy wins'
2
the production of travel plan documents should not be equated with achieving
actual changes in travel behaviour.
Although individual examples of significant behavioural change can be cited, the
norm is typically very modest (a reduction in car commuting by a few percentage
points). 'Promoting travel choices' by itself is insufficient. To be effective this needs to
be complemented by sticks or carrots (i.e. penalties for car use or rewards for forgoing
it) and these are much more difficult to achieve - both in terms of support by the firm's
management and acceptance by the workforce (G Emmerson in LTT 441).
In theory it should be possible to enforce the car use reductions anticipated in the
travel plans produced as a condition of planning permission. However there are several
barriers to this.
... the concept of the 'ideal travel plan' as developed for major single-occupier
organisations does not easily translate into the planning context, particularly
where multi-occupation, speculative development and commercial factors are
major issues.
(DfT 2005n)
A recent survey of highway authorities undertaken by Napier University indicates
that almost 75% of travel plans currently produced are the product of a requirement
for planning permission (LTT 487). However only four authorities had ever taken
enforcement action in this field and, when asked how they would enforce such plans,
the remaining 82 respondents said they were not sure or did not answer the question!
The process is complicated by the fact that travel plan officers working for highway
authorities are not responsible for dealing with breaches of planning permission, whilst
travel plans feature very low in the list of issues to be monitored by enforcement officers
working for planning authorities. Monitoring of travel behaviour is in any case a much
more difficult proposition than monitoring the physical nature of developments, and
unless funding for monitoring is included in the original section 106 agreement the
necessary data will not be available.
Overall the evidence suggests that using the planning system as a 'back door' means
of securing WTPs is not only unsatisfactory in coverage (by definition) but ineffective
in outcome. Certainly there is no prospect of achieving the sort of national reductions
in traffic suggested in the Smarter Choices report without a major overhaul in the
instruments available.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search