Travel Plans for New Residential Developments - Insights from Theory and Practice (2017)

《Travel Plans for New Residential Developments - Insights from Theory and Practice (2017)》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

SpringerThesesRecognizingOutstandingPh.D.ResearchChrisDeGruyterTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice SpringerThesesRecognizingOutstandingPh.D.Research AimsandScopeTheseries“SpringerTheses”bringstogetheraselectionoftheverybestPh.D.thesesfromaroundtheworldandacrossthephysicalsciences.Nominatedandendorsedbytworecognizedspecialists,eachpublishedvolumehasbeenselectedforitsscientificexcellenceandthehighimpactofitscontentsforthepertinentfieldofresearch.Forgreateraccessibilitytonon-specialists,thepublishedversionsincludeanextendedintroduction,aswellasaforewordbythestudent’ssupervisorexplainingthespecialrelevanceoftheworkforthefield.Asawhole,theserieswillprovideavaluableresourcebothfornewcomerstotheresearchfieldsdescribed,andforotherscientistsseekingdetailedbackgroundinformationonspecialquestions.Finally,itprovidesanaccrediteddocumentationofthevaluablecontributionsmadebytoday’syoungergenerationofscientists.Thesesareacceptedintotheseriesbyinvitednominationonlyandmustfulfillallofthefollowingcriteria•TheymustbewritteningoodEnglish.•ThetopicshouldfallwithintheconfinesofChemistry,Physics,EarthSciences,EngineeringandrelatedinterdisciplinaryfieldssuchasMaterials,Nanoscience,ChemicalEngineering,ComplexSystemsandBiophysics.•Theworkreportedinthethesismustrepresentasignificantscientificadvance.•Ifthethesisincludespreviouslypublishedmaterial,permissiontoreproducethismustbegainedfromtherespectivecopyrightholder.•Theymusthavebeenexaminedandpassedduringthe12monthspriortonomination.•Eachthesisshouldincludeaforewordbythesupervisoroutliningthesignifi-canceofitscontent.•Thethesesshouldhaveaclearlydefinedstructureincludinganintroductionaccessibletoscientistsnotexpertinthatparticularfield.Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/8790 ChrisDeGruyterTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPracticeDoctoralThesisacceptedbyMonashUniversity,Clayton,Australia13 AuthorSupervisorDr.ChrisDeGruyterProf.GeoffreyRoseDepartmentofCivilEngineeringDepartmentofCivilEngineeringInstituteofTransportStudiesInstituteofTransportStudiesMonashUniversityMonashUniversityClayton,VictoriaClayton,VictoriaAustraliaAustraliaISSN2190-5053ISSN2190-5061(electronic)SpringerThesesISBN978-981-10-2091-9ISBN978-981-10-2092-6(eBook)DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016946328©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Printedonacid-freepaperThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNatureTheregisteredcompanyisSpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingaporePteLtd. Supervisor’sForewordTransportchallengesareevidentincitiesacrosstheworld.Thecombinationofthegrowingworldpopulation,compoundedbytheclearpreferenceforthemajor-ityofpeopletoliveincities,ismagnifyingthosechallenges.Citiesfacedwithlimitedphysicalspacefornewtransportinfrastructurearestrugglingwithrisingtrafficcongestion,decliningairquality,andadeterioratingqualityoflifefortheirresidents.Whilea‘predictandprovide’approachtotransportplanningwasthepredominantparadigmformanyyears,thereisnowaclearrecognitionoftherolethatdemand-sidestrategiescanplay.Onesuchstrategyofincreasinginterestisthetravelplan,amechanismusedfordeliveringasetoftransportmeasurestomanagecaruseandpromoteagreateruptakeofpublictransport,walkingandcycling.Thisbookexplorestheuseoftravelplansinthecontextofnewresidentialdevelopments,atopicworthyofmuchattentionbutonethatwaslargelyunchar-tered.Thebookprovidescoverageofthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopments,industryperspectivesontheirdevelopmentandimplementation,andanassessmentoftheirqualityandeffectiveness.Thetheoreticalfoundationfortheresearchdrawsonimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Thosetheoriesareappliedinapracticalmannertoidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thisbookfindsthatwhiletravelplanscanbeassociatedwithlowercaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments,anumberofopportunitiescanberealisedtoenhancetheireffectiveness.Avaluablecontributionisprovidedthroughthedevel-opmentofanintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementasaframe-worktoguidefuturetravelplanningpractice.Anotherkeycontributionprovidedbythisbookisitsexplorationof‘self-selection’inthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thephenomenoncanoccurwhenresidentschooseto‘self-select’intoanewdevelopmentwithatravelplanbecauseitisconsistentwiththeirattitudesandpreferencestowardsmoresustainabletravel.Abetterunderstandingofself-selectionissues,asthisbookprovides,iscriticalinevaluatingtheeffectivenessofresidentialtravelplans.v viSupervisor’sForewordThisbookemploysadetailedandrigorousmethodologyformeetingitsresearchobjectivesandpresentsaclearlyconsideredsetofresultsandconclusions.Itshouldprovideavaluableresourcetotransportresearchersandthoseprofessionalsinvolvedintheplanningofnewresidentialdevelopments.Victoria,AustraliaProf.GeoffreyRoseJuly2016 AbstractContinueddemandfornewhousingdevelopmentisexpectedtoaddfurtherpres-suretoexistingtransportnetworksandservicesinmanyurbanisedareas.Giventhesechallengesandalimitedabilitytoaddmorecapacitytothetransportnet-work,itisappropriatetoconsidertheroleofdemand-sidestrategies,suchastravelplans.Travelplansaimtomanagecaruseamongbuildingoccupantsbyprovidingapackageofsite-specificinitiativesandfacilitiesthatsupportaccessbymoresustainableformsoftransport.Theycanberequiredthroughthelanduseplanningandapprovalprocessfornewandexpandedbuildings,suchasoffices,schoolsandresidentialdevelopments.However,thereisalimitedunderstandingoftheeffectivenessoftravelplanswhenappliedtonewresidentialdevelopments.Furthermore,theimplementationoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentshasnotbeensufficientlyexplored.Thisthesisaimstoassesstheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsandidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheireffectiveness.Amixedmethodsapproachcomprisingfivekeyresearchcomponentsisadoptedtoachievethisaim,includingtheapplicationandintegrationofbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.ThefirstcomponentinvolvesasurveyofcouncilstoexaminethescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria,Australia.Resultsshowthathalfofthecouncilshadpreviouslyrequiredatravelplanforanewdevel-opment,primarilytooffsettheimpactoflesscarparkingspacebeingprovided.Around100travelplanswerefoundtoberequiredduring2010–2012alone,yet80%ofcouncilshadnotmonitoredanyofthosetravelplans.Thesecondcomponentdevelopsanappreciationfortheperspectivesofindus-tryactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentsthroughasetofinterviews.Thisshowsgeneralsupportfortravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments,butlimitedconfidenceintheabilitytoimplementthemsuccess-fully.Implementationchallengeswerefoundtocentreonalackofenforcement,uncertaintyregardingimplementationresponsibilities,andageneraloflackofownershipoftravelplanswhenappliedtoresidentialsettings.vii viiiAbstractThethirdcomponentprovidesanassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspre-paredfornewresidentialdevelopmentsagainstabestpracticeframework.Thisshowsconsiderablescopetoimprovetravelplanquality,particularlyinestimat-ingexpectedtravelpatternsoffuturebuildingoccupants,specifyinghowthetravelplanwillbemanagedandimplemented,andoutliningclearerprocessesformoni-toringandreview.Thefourthcomponentprovidesanassessmentoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Asetofmulti-modaltripcountsrevealthatcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplanswas14percentagepointslowerthanmatchedcontrolsites.Inaddition,itprovidessomepreliminaryevi-denceofresidents‘self-selecting’intodevelopmentswithtravelplans,withthisaccountingforarelativelysmallyetnon-trivialproportionofobserveddifferencesintravelbehaviour.Thefifthandfinalcomponentviewstheresearchfindingsthroughthelensofbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheorytoidentifyoppor-tunitiestoenhancetheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelop-ments.Short-termenhancementsincludegreaterownershipandengagementof‘implementers’,improvementstotravelplanquality,provisionofguidancematerialandtraining,andamorepro-activeandfacilitativestyleofenforce-ment.Long-termenhancementsincludesoundplanningrequirements,astrongerindustryfocusforresidentialtravelplanningandensuringanadequatenumberoftechnicallycompetentstaffareavailableforenforcement.Anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcement,withconsiderationtobothtop-downandbottom-upstylesofimplementation,andbothfacilitativeandsystematicstylesofenforcement,isdevelopedtoguidefuturetravelplanningpractice.Thisthesisprovidesanumberoforiginalcontributionstoknowledgeinthefieldoftravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments.Overall,itisconcludedthatwhiletravelplanscanbeeffectiveinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevel-opments,anumberofopportunitiescanberealisedtoenhancetheireffectiveness.Actingontheseopportunitieswillrequiresufficientresourcesandcommitment.However,thiswillultimatelyimprovethewayinwhichtravelplansaredevel-oped,implementedandmonitoredatnewresidentialdevelopmentintothefuture,therebysupportingagreateruptakeofmoresustainableformsoftransport. Partsofthisthesishavebeenpublishedinthefollowingjournalarticles:DeGruyter,C,Rose,G&Currie,G(InPress)‘TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:MeasuringSelf-SelectionEffectstoBetterUnderstandTravelBehaviourImpacts’,TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,no.2564(Acceptedforpublication26thFebruary2016).DeGruyter,C,Rose,G&Currie,G(2015)‘UnderstandingTravelPlanEffectivenessforNewResidentialDevelopments’,TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,no.2537,pp.126–136.DeGruyter,C,Rose,G&CurrieG(2015)‘Enhancingtheimpactoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments:Insightsfromimplementationtheory’,TransportPolicy,vol.40,pp.24–35.DeGruyter,C,Rose,G&CurrieG(2014)‘MethodologyforEvaluatingQualityofTravelPlansforNewDevelopments’,TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,no.2417,pp.46–57.DeGruyter,C,Rose,G&CurrieG(2014)‘Securingtravelplansthroughtheplanningapprovalsprocess:AcasestudyofpracticefromVictoria,Australia’,Cities,vol.41partA,pp.114–122.ix AcknowledgementsThisthesiswouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesupportfromanum-berofpeople.Sincerethanksgotobothmysupervisors,Prof.GeoffRoseandProf.GrahamCurrie,fortheirexcellentguidanceandadvice,butalsofordevelop-ingmyskillsasanindependentresearcher.WordscannotexpresshowfortunateIfeeltohavehadtheopportunitytobesupervisedbysuchtalentedindividuals.Prof.BillYoungisalsoacknowledgedforhisroleasaninformalmentorandforalloftheinterestingconversationswehadalongtheway.ThePh.D.studentsinthetransportgrouparealsothankedformakingthisjourneyanextremelyenjoy-ableone,alwaysremindingmetonevertakethingstooseriously.Inparticular,IwouldliketoexpressmythankstoBrendanPender(Iwilldearlymissourcoffeeruns!)andKelvinGoh(oneofthemosthumblepeopleIhaveevermet).IamalsogratefultoJennyManson,ourResearchandPostgraduateManager;howshecanmakeeachPh.D.studentfeelasthoughtheyaretheonlyoneinthedepartment(whenthereareactuallymorethan100ofus!)neverceasestoamazeme.ManythanksalsogotoDavidMeiklejohnwhofirstprovidedmewiththeopportunitytogetinvolvedwithtravelplansbackin2004,andforhiscontinuedadviceandfriendship.Eachofthecouncilrepresentativesandinterviewparticipantsarethankedfortheirassistancewithparticipatinginthisresearch.Inparticular,IwouldliketothankJamesNoy(PublicTransportVictoria),RichardArmitage(RATC,UnitedKingdom)andChrisanthySemertzidis(CityofStonnington).Alsoacknowledgedareeachofthepropertyandbuildingmanagerswhoenthusiasticallysupportedtheresearch.BrendaO’KeefefromtheInstituteofTransportStudiesisalsoacknowl-edgedforherbrilliantassistancewiththeproductionofsurveymaterial,asarethe16civilengineeringstudentsfortheirtirelesseffortsinsupportingthedatacollection.Mostimportantly,IwouldliketothankmywifeElainewhonowknowsalotmoreabouttravelplansthansheprobablyeverwantedto,whocouldnotfeelhertoesonmanycoldmorningswhilehelpingmecountcars,whopatientlylistenedtoeverypresentationIpractised,andwhoreadovereverywordinthisthesis.Iwouldalsoliketothankmymotherforhercontinualsupportandforprovidingxi xiiAcknowledgementssuchhelpfulcommentsoneachdraftchapterofthisthesis.Otherfamilymembers—Melissa,Andrew,Kylie,ParisandDamien—arealsothankedforofferingafreshsetofperspectivesandshowingsuchakeeninterestinmyresearchtopic. Contents1Introduction...............................................11.1Overview.............................................11.2BackgroundandMotivation..............................11.3ResearchAimandObjectives.............................21.4ScopeandTheoreticalContext............................31.5ContributionofThisStudy...............................41.6StructureofThisThesis.................................4References.................................................62TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopments.........92.1Introduction...........................................92.2TheTravelPlanningProcess..............................112.3ActorsInvolvedintheTravelPlanningProcess...............132.4GeographicalCoverageandScope.........................162.4.1UnitedStates:AStrongRegulatoryApproachwithaFocusonWorkplaces........................172.4.2UnitedKingdom:ALargeFocusonRequiringTravelPlansforNewDevelopments..................182.4.3Australia:AFocusonVoluntaryAdoptionbyWorkplacesandSchools.........................212.4.4OtherCountries..................................222.5IssueswithRequiringTravelPlansforNewDevelopments......232.6EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofTravelPlans.................242.7SuccessFactorsforTravelPlans...........................302.8Conclusion............................................32References.................................................343TheoreticalFoundations.....................................413.1Introduction...........................................413.2ImplementationTheory..................................423.2.1Top-downApproachtoImplementation...............433.2.2Bottom-upApproachtoImplementation...............46xiii xivContents3.2.3ComparingApproachestoImplementation.............473.3PlanningEnforcementTheory............................493.3.1SystematicApproachtoPlanningEnforcement.........493.3.2FacilitativeApproachtoPlanningEnforcement.........493.3.3ComparingtheSystematicandFacilitativeApproachestoPlanningEnforcement.................503.4Conclusion............................................52References.................................................534ResearchMethodology......................................554.1Introduction...........................................554.2ReviewofResearchMethods.............................554.3OverallResearchApproach...............................604.3.1ResearchComponent1:OnlineSurveyofVictorianCouncils........................................604.3.2ResearchComponent2:InterviewswithIndustryRepresentatives..................................634.3.3ResearchComponent3:DesktopAssessmentofTravelPlans...................................644.3.4ResearchComponent4:CaseStudiesofNewResidentialDevelopments..........................644.3.5ResearchComponent5:ApplicationandIntegrationofImplementationandPlanningEnforcementTheories........................................654.4LimitationsoftheResearchApproach......................664.5Conclusion............................................67References.................................................685TheScaleofTravelPlanningPractice..........................695.1Introduction...........................................695.2ResearchMethod.......................................705.3Results...............................................735.3.1RequirementsforTravelPlans.......................735.3.2ReasonsforRequiringTravelPlans...................745.3.3ReasonsforNotRequiringTravelPlans...............755.3.4MechanismsUsedtoRequireTravelPlans.............755.3.5MonitoringofTravelPlans.........................765.3.6FamiliarityandExperiencewithTravelPlans...........765.3.7PerceivedEffectivenessofTravelPlans................775.3.8FutureLikelihoodofRequiringTravelPlans...........795.3.9OtherKeyIssues.................................795.4Discussion...........................................805.5Conclusion...........................................81References.................................................826ActorPerspectives..........................................836.1Introduction...........................................83 Contentsxv6.2ResearchMethod.......................................846.3Results...............................................896.3.1IndustryInvolvementwithTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments..........................896.3.2PerceivedBenefitsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments..........................906.3.3PotentialShortcomingsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments..........................916.3.4InteractionsBetweenOrganisations/Actors.............926.3.5ChallengesAssociatedwithImplementation............936.3.6PotentialResponsestoImplementationChallenges......946.3.7FutureExpectationsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments..........................956.3.8SynthesisofInterviewFindings......................956.4Discussion............................................976.5Conclusion............................................99References.................................................997TravelPlanQuality.........................................1017.1Introduction...........................................1017.2ResearchContext......................................1037.3ResearchMethod.......................................1077.3.1DevelopmentofAssessmentFramework...............1077.3.2SourcingofTravelPlans...........................1107.3.3ReviewofTravelPlanContent......................1127.3.4ApplicationoftheAssessmentFramework.............1127.4Results...............................................1127.4.1ContentSummary................................1127.4.2AssessmentResults...............................1167.5Discussion............................................1217.6Conclusion............................................123References.................................................1238TravelPlanImpacts.........................................1258.1Introduction...........................................1258.2LiteratureReviewofResidentialSelf-selection...............1278.3ResearchMethods......................................1288.3.1DescriptionofCaseandControlSites.................1298.3.2DataCollectionandAnalysis........................1308.4Results...............................................1408.4.1VehicleTripGenerationRates.......................1408.4.2TransportModeShares............................1428.4.3CarandBicycleParkingUtilisation...................1448.4.4AwarenessandUseofTravelPlanMeasures............1458.4.5ResidentialSelf-selection...........................1468.5Discussion............................................152 xviContents8.6Conclusion............................................154References.................................................1559OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpacts............................1579.1Introduction...........................................1579.2ApplicationofImplementationTheory......................1599.2.1ApplicationoftheTop-downApproachtoImplementation................................1599.2.2ApplicationoftheBottom-upApproachtoImplementation................................1619.2.3OpportunitiestoEnhancetheImpactsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments..............1629.3ApplicationofPlanningEnforcementTheory................1659.3.1Context.........................................1659.3.2ApplicationoftheSystematicApproachtoPlanningEnforcement...........................1669.3.3ApplicationoftheFacilitativeApproachtoPlanningEnforcement.............................1679.3.4OpportunitiestoEnhancetheImpactsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments..............1689.4TowardsanIntegratedTheoryofImplementationandEnforcement......................................1709.5Conclusion............................................173References.................................................17510Conclusions................................................17710.1Introduction...........................................17710.2SummaryofKeyFindingsandContributions.................17710.3ImplicationsforTheoryandPractice.......................18310.4Critique..............................................18410.5FutureResearchDirections...............................185AppendixA:CommonTravelPlanMeasures.......................187AppendixB:SuccessFactorsforTravelPlans.......................191AppendixC:CouncilSurveyQuestionnaire........................195AppendixD:LettertoPropertyManagers.........................199AppendixE:Pre-NotificationLetter...............................201AppendixF:ResidentSurveyPostcard............................203AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire........................205References....................................................215 AbbreviationsACFAdvocacyCoalitionFrameworkATEAverageTreatmentEffectATTrBuTEAssessmentToolforTravelPlanReviewing,Building,TestingandEvaluationAVRAverageVehicleRidershipBedZEDBeddingtonZeroEnergyDevelopmentBUGBicycleUserGroupCBDCentralBusinessDistrictCTRCommuteTripReductionEPAEnvironmentProtectionAuthorityESDEnvironmentallySustainableDesignICCIntraclassCorrelationCoefficientITEInstituteofTransportationEngineersMUHRECMonashUniversityHumanResearchEthicsCommitteeNHSNationalHealthServiceODObservedDifferenceOECDOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopmentPSMPropensityScoreMatchingQRQuickResponseRMSRoadsandMaritimeServicesRTARoadsandTrafficAuthoritySMARTSpecific,Measurable,Achievable,Relevant,Time-basedSSESelf-SelectionEffectTAFETechnicalandFurtherEducationTDMTravelDemandManagementTROTripReductionOrdinanceUKUnitedKingdomURLUniformResourceLocatorUSUnitedStatesVISTAVictorianIntegratedSurveyofTravelandActivityxvii ListofFiguresFigure1.1Thesisstructure.....................................5Figure2.1PositionofChap.2inthethesisstructure.................10Figure2.2Thetravelplanningprocess.SourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonHowlettandWatson(2010).....................12Figure2.3Evolutionoftravelplansinvariouscountries.SourceEnoch(2012).................................17Figure2.4Resultsfromlong-termmonitoringofworkplacetravelplans.SourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedonBaker(2007),BrockmanandFox(2011),Cairnsetal.(2002),Dill(1998),HancockandNuttman(2013)andMyers(2005)..............................28Figure3.1PositionofChap.3inthethesisstructure.................42Figure3.2Variablesaffectingtheimplementationprocessfromatop-downperspective.SourceSabatierandMazmanian(1980)...............................43Figure3.3Planningenforcementpyramid.SourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonMcKay(2003)......................51Figure3.4Conceptualisationofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.SourceAuthor’ssynthesis.............................52Figure4.1PositionofChap.4inthethesisstructure.................56Figure4.2Researchapproachintermsofinputs,componentsandoutcomes.......................................63Figure5.1PositionofChap.5inthethesisstructure.................70Figure5.2LocationofVictoriancouncilstargetedforthesurvey.......72Figure5.3Keyreasonsforcouncilsrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopments................................74Figure5.4Mechanismsusedbycouncilstorequiretravelplansfornewdevelopments................................75Figure5.5Leveloftravelplanmonitoringamongcouncils............76xix xxListofFiguresFigure5.6Levelofrespondentfamiliarityandexperiencewithtravelplans.....................................77Figure5.7Mechanismsconsideredeffectiveformanagingtransportaccessatnewdevelopments....................78Figure5.8LikelihoodofVictoriancouncilsrequiringatravelplaninthenext12months.................................79Figure6.1PositionofChap.6inthethesisstructure.................84Figure6.2Interactionsbetweenactorsontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.SourceAuthor’ssynthesisbasedonresponsesfrominterviewparticipantstoquestion6.Note:circlesandlinesdrawntoscaleandnormalised......................................92Figure6.3Challengeswithimplementingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Notephrasescontainedinthewordcloudarebasedontheauthor’sinterpretationofinterviewresponses................................93Figure6.4Potentialresponsestoimplementationchallenges.Notephrasescontainedinthewordcloudarebasedontheauthor’sinterpretationofinterviewresponses.........94Figure6.5Levelsofsupportandconfidenceintravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Noteinterviewparticipantswerenotaskedtoindicatewheretheywerepositionedonthegraph;anassessmentwasmadebytheresearcherbasedonresponsesfrominterviewparticipantstoquestions3,4,7,8and9..................96Figure7.1PositionofChap.7inthethesisstructure.................102Figure7.2Allocationofpointsbykeyheadingsusedintheassessmentframework...........................111Figure7.3DevelopmentsinmetropolitanMelbournewithtravelplans(basedonsample)...............................114Figure7.4Cumulativefrequencydistributionofmaximumpossiblescoresachieved......................................119Figure7.5Scoresbytravelplandocumentlength...................120Figure8.1PositionofChap.8inthethesisstructure.................126Figure8.2LocationofcaseandcontrolsitesinMelbourne,Australia....130Figure8.3Propensityscorematching(PSM)process.................138Figure8.4Comparisonofvehicletripgenerationrates—averageweekdayAMpeakhour...............................141Figure8.5Comparisonofvehicletripgenerationrates—Saturdaypeakhour..........................................141Figure8.6Comparisonofcardrivermodeshares—averageweekday7am–9am..................................142Figure8.7Comparisonofcardrivermodeshares—Saturday10am–1pm........................................143 ListofFiguresxxiFigure8.8Distributionofpropensityscoresforthecaseandcontrolsitesunderdifferentmatchingalgorithms.................150Figure9.1PositionofChap.9inthethesisstructure.................159Figure9.2Extenttowhichtop-downconditionsforeffectiveimplementationaremetinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinAustraliaandEngland....161Figure9.3Keyactorsinthetravelplanningprocessfornewresidentialdevelopments..............................163Figure9.4Planningenforcementpyramid.SourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonMcKay(2003)......................166Figure9.5Conceptualisationofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory........................171Figure9.6Conceptualisationofintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcement.....................................172Figure10.1PositionofChap.10inthethesisstructure................178 ListofTablesTable2.1Actorsinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocessandtheirroleatkeystages..............................14Table2.2Characteristicsofselectedtripreductionordinances(TROs)intheUnitedStates.............................19Table2.3Keyissuesinrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopments.....23Table2.4Commonmethodsusedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftravelplans........................................25Table2.5Evaluationsofworkplaceandschooltravelplansinreducingcaruse....................................27Table2.6Summaryofevaluationsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments........................................29Table2.7Researchgapsandopportunities.........................33Table3.1Assessmentofconditionsforeffectiveimplementation(SabatierandMazmanian1981)basedonworkplacetravelplansmandatedthroughRegulationXVintheUnitedStates...................................44Table3.2Relevanceofpreconditionsforperfectimplementation(Gunn1978)toworkplacetravelplanningintheUnitedKingdom................................45Table3.3Comparisonoftop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementation....................................47Table4.1Summaryofresearchmethods...........................57Table4.2Linkagesbetweenresearchgaps,researchopportunities,researchobjectives,researchcomponentsandthesischapters....61Table5.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent1.............................71Table5.2RequirementsfortravelplansfornewdevelopmentsbyVictoriancouncils..................................73Table5.3NumberoftravelplansrequiredbyVictoriancouncilsduring2010–12......................................74xxiii xxivListofTablesTable5.4Extenttowhichrespondentsagreedthattravelplansareeffectiveinmanagingtransportaccessfornewdevelopments(cross-classifiedbytheirfamiliarityandexperience)......................................78Table6.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent2.............................85Table6.2Interviewparticipantsandtheirgeneralexperiencewithtravelplans......................................86Table6.3Interviewquestions...................................88Table6.4Organisationalinvolvementintravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments...............................90Table6.5Summaryofinterviewfindings..........................97Table7.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent3.............................103Table7.2Synthesisoftravelplanelementscoveredbytheliterature.....105Table7.3Assessmentframework................................108Table7.4Travelplanauthorship.................................113Table7.5Travelplansbydevelopmentlocation(basedonsampleusedinassessment)...................................113Table7.6Typesofmeasuresincludedinthesampleoftravelplans......114Table7.7Fulllistofindividualmeasuresincludedinthesampleoftravelplans........................................115Table7.8Summaryoftheassessmentresults.......................117Table7.9Averagescoresbytravelplanauthorship..................120Table7.10Comparisonofscoresamongtravelplanningpractitioners.....121Table8.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent4.............................127Table8.2Keycharacteristicsofthecaseandcontrolsites.............131Table8.3Totalpersontrips(alltransportmodes)observedatcaseandcontrolsites......................................133Table8.4Residenttravelsurveyresponses.........................136Table8.5Comparisonofresidentsurveysampleandlocalaareapopulationcharacteristics..........................137Table8.6Comparisonofaveragetransportmodesharesacrossallcaseandcontrolsites...............................144Table8.7Comparisonofon-sitecarandbicycleparkingdemandatcaseandcontrolsites................................145Table8.8Comparisonofon-sitecarandbicycleparkingutilisationatcaseandcontrolsites................................145Table8.9Awarenessanduseoftravelinitiativesamongsurveyrespondents.........................................146Table8.10Characteristicsofsurveyrespondentsresidingatthecaseandcontrolsites.............................147Table8.11Binarylogitmodelforthechoiceofresidingatacasesite(vs.acontrolsite)..........................149 ListofTablesxxvTable8.12Comparisonofcovariatemeansbetweencaseandcontrolsiterespondentsbeforeandaftermatching.................151Table8.13Relativecontributionsofthetravelplanandself-selectionontravelbehaviour...................................152Table9.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent5.............................158Table9.2Extenttowhichtop-downconditionsforeffectiveimplementationaremetinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinAustralia...............160Table9.3Summaryofopportunitiesforenhancingimpacts............174Table10.1Summaryofkeyfindingsandcontributions................179 Chapter1Introduction1.1OverviewAtravelplancanbedefinedasastrategycontainingapackageoftailoredinitiativesandfacilitiesdeliveredatasitetomanagecaruseandencouragetheuseofmoresus-tainableformsoftransport,suchaswalking,cyclingandpublictransport(Enoch2012).Thisthesisexplorestheuseoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Itaimstoprovideanunderstandingoftheireffectiveness,anddrawsuponatheoreti-calmodeltoidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheireffectivenessandguidefuturepractice.Thisintroductionprovidesthebackgroundandmotivationforthisresearch,followedbyadescriptionofitsaimandobjectives.Thescope,theoreticalcontext,andcontributionsoftheresearcharealsodiscussed.Thechapterconcludeswithanoutlineofthethesisstructure.1.2BackgroundandMotivationMajorcitiesacrosstheworldareexperiencingvarioustransportchallengesassoci-atedwithagrowingpopulation,dependencyonthemotorvehicle,andconcernsabouttheenvironment(StopherandStanley2014).InAustralia,congestioncostsarisingfromincreasedtraveltimes,highervehicleoperatingcostsandpoorerairqualityareexpectedtorisefrom$9billionin2005to$20billionperannumby2020(BureauofTransportandRegionalEconomics2007).PopulationgrowthinAustraliahascontinuedtooutpacethatofall34membercountriesoftheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),at1.5%perannumbetween2002and2012(OECD2014).By2075,Australia’spopulationispredictedtodoubleto46millionpeople(AustralianBureauofStatistics2013).©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore20171C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_1 21IntroductionApproachestodealingwithincreasedpressuresonthetransportsystem,par-ticularlypopulationgrowth,havetraditionallyfocusedonprovidingadditionalinfrastructuretocaterforpredictedlevelsoffuturetraveldemand(StopherandStanley2014).However,bothphysicalandfinancialconstraintsposechallengesincontinuingwiththe‘predictandprovide’approach.Itisthereforeappropriatetoconsidertherolethatcomplementary‘demandside’strategiescanplay,suchasTravelDemandManagement(TDM).TDMisdefinedbytheInstitutionofEngineersAustralia(1996)as‘interven-tion(excludingprovisionofmajorinfrastructure)tomodifytraveldecisionssothatmoredesirabletransport,social,economic,and/orenvironmentalobjectivescanbeachievedandtheadverseimpactsoftravelcanbereduced’.ExamplesofTDMstrategiesrangefromtravelawarenessprogramsandstaggeredworkinghourstofueltaxesandcongestionpricing(Wayte1991).Inrecentyears,theuseofthe‘travelplan’asaTDMstrategyhasbeenadoptedtoassistinmanagingcarusebydeliveringapackageofsite-specificinitiativesandfacilitiesatkeytripgenerators,suchasworkplacesandschools(Cairnsetal.2004).Theinitiativesandfacilitiescontainedinatravelplancanbewide-ranging,althoughthemoreeffectiveonestendtoincludeboth‘carrots’,suchasfinancialincentivestousepublictransport,and‘sticks’,suchascarparkinglimita-tionstodiscouragecaruse(Cairnsetal.2010).Morerecently,travelplanshavebeenrequiredthroughthelanduseplanningandapprovalsprocessfornewandexpandedbuildings,suchasoffices,schoolsandresidentialdevelopments(Ryeetal.2011a).Theuseoftravelplansspecificallyfornewresidentialdevelopmentsisthefocusofthisthesis.TravelplanshavebeenrequiredfornewresidentialdevelopmentsintheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdomandotherpartsofEurope(Jollon2013;Ryeetal.2011b),yetlittleresearchhasbeenundertakeninthisfieldtodate.Ingeneral,mostresearchundertakenintotravelplanshasfocusedonpre-existingsitessuchasworkplacesandschools(Cairnsetal.2004).TwokeyresearchgapsemergefromtheliteraturereviewpresentedinChap.2ofthisthesis.Firstly,thereisaninsufficientunderstandingoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments.Secondly,theimplementationoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentshasnotbeensuffi-cientlyexplored;thisisparticularlyrelevantgiventheircharacteristicswhencom-paredtotraditionalworkplaceandschooltravelplans.Thisthesisaimstoaddressthesetwokeyresearchgaps.1.3ResearchAimandObjectivesInresponsetotheresearchgapsidentified,theaimofthisresearchis:Toassesstheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsandtoidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheireffectiveness 1.3ResearchAimandObjectives3Inthecontextofthisthesis,‘effectiveness’referstotheabilityofthetravelplantoreducecaruseamongresidentslivingatagivendevelopment,relativetonothavingatravelplaninplace.Anumberofspecificresearchobjectiveshavebeenidentifiedaskeystepsrequiredtomeettheresearchaim.Theseresearchobjectivesareframedinresponsetothewiderresearchgapsidentifiedfromtheliteraturereview(presentedinChap.2).Inthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,theresearchobjectivesare:1.ToexaminethescaleofpracticeinVictoria,Australia2.Togainanappreciationfortheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintheirapplication3.Toevaluatetheirqualityandeffectiveness4.Toidentifyandassessopportunitiesforenhancingtheirimplementation.1.4ScopeandTheoreticalContextThisresearchisfocusedspecificallyontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelop-mentsrequiredthroughthelanduseplanningandapprovalsprocess.TheresearchhasbeenconductedintheAustralianstateofVictoria.VictoriaislocatedinthesoutheastcorneroftheAustralianmainlandandishometooverfivemillionpeo-ple.ThecapitalcityofVictoriaisMelbourne,withapopulationofaroundfourmillionpeople(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014).Melbournehasbeenconsistentlyrankedastheworld’smostliveablecityoutof140citiessurveyedsince2011(TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit2014).Infrastructure,whichaccountsfor20%oftheranking,takesintoaccountthequalityoftransportnetworksandavailabilityofgoodqualityhousing(TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit2014).Melbournehasoneofthelargeststreetcar(tram)networksintheworld(CurrieandBurke2013),yetcartravelaccountsfor65%ofthejourneytoworkbyMelbourneresidents(AustralianBureauofStatistics2011).ThefindingsofthisresearchhavewidergeographicalimplicationsthanMelbourne(andVictoria)giventhattravelplansareusedinotherstatesandcoun-tries.However,thelocalcontextshouldalwaysbeconsidered.Amixedmethodsresearchapproachwasadoptedwhichcomprisedthefollow-ingkeyelements:•Industrysurvey:togaugethescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsamongVictoriancouncils,providingcontextforsubsequentcom-ponentsoftheresearch•Interviews:toprovideinsightintotheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments,particularlyissuesrelatedtoimplementation 41Introduction•Documentreviews:toprovideanassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspre-paredfornewresidentialdevelopmentsagainstabestpracticeframework•Casestudies:toprovideanassessmentoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments.Inordertoidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheimplementationandsubse-quenteffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,theresearchdrawsuponbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Implementationtheoryprovidesvaluableguidancefortheeffectiveimplementa-tionofprogramsandpolicies(SabatierandMazmanian1980),whileplanningenforcementtheorysuggestssuitableapproachesforachievingplanningcompli-ance(Burbyetal.1998).Thesetheoriesthereforeprovidedirectrelevancetotheimplementationandenforcementoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thisthesisusestheterm‘travelplan’.However,travelplansarealsoreferredtoasgreentravelplans,mobilitymanagementplans,tripreductionplansandTDMplans(EnochandRye2006).Inaddition,theterm‘council’isusedinthisthesistorefertoalocalgovernmentelectedauthority.Slightlydifferenttermsmaybeusedinothercountriessuchasmunicipalgovernment,localauthorityorcountygovern-ment.Finally,theterm‘newdevelopment’isusedtorefertoanyneworexpandedbuilding(e.g.office,school,residential).1.5ContributionofThisStudyInlinewiththescope,thisthesismakesfiveoriginalcontributionstoknowledge.Inthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,theseinclude:1.AnunderstandingofthescaleofpracticeinVictoria2.Anappreciationfortheperspectivesofactorsinvolved3.Anunderstandingoftheirquality4.Anunderstandingoftheireffectiveness5.Anunderstandingofhowimplementationcanbeenhancedtoimproveoutcomes.Thisthesisalsoprovidesanimportanttheoreticalcontributionbyintegratingimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Thishelpstofacilitateanimprovedunderstandingofimplementationandenforcementinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.1.6StructureofThisThesisFigure1.1presentsthestructureofthisthesisandidentifieswhereoriginalcontri-butionstoknowledgeflowfromtheresearch.Thethesishastenchapters,includ-ingthisintroduction. 1.6StructureofThisThesis5BackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONBackgroundandmotivation,aimandobjectives,scopeandtheoreticalcontext,contributionCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSProcess,actors,coverageandscope,issues,effectiveness,successfactors,researchgapsCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSImplementationtheory,planningenforcementtheoryCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYMethods,overallapproach,limitationsResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeCHAPTER5:UnderstandingofthescaleofTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEtravelplanningpracticefornewAim,method,results,discussionurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaCHAPTER6:AppreciationofperspectivesofACTORPERSPECTIVESactorsinvolvedintravelplanningAim,method,results,discussionfornewresidentialdevelopmentsCHAPTER7:UnderstandingofthequalityofTRAVELPLANQUALITYtravelplanspreparedfornewAim,context,method,results,discussionresidentialdevelopmentsCHAPTER8:UnderstandingoftheTRAVELPLANIMPACTSeffectivenessoftravelplansforAim,context,method,results,discussionnewresidentialdevelopmentsCHAPTER9:UnderstandingofhowtheOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSimplementationprocesscanbeApplicationandintegrationoftheories,discussionenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSKeyfindingsandcontributions,implications,critique,futureresearchdirectionsFig.1.1ThesisstructureChapter2—Travelplansandtheirapplicationtonewdevelopments—providesareviewoftheliteratureontravelplansatbothpre-existingsitesandnewdevel-opments,includingtheirapplicationtonewresidentialdevelopments.Researchgapsarethenidentifiedwhichareaddressedbythethesisinlaterchapters.Chapter3—Theoreticalfoundations—continueswiththeliteraturereviewbyprovidinganoverviewofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcement 61Introductiontheory,alongwithadiscussionoftheirrelevancetotravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Chapter4—Researchmethodology—describestheoverallapproachtakentoaddresstheresearchgapsandprovidesjustificationfortheapproachthroughareviewofresearchmethods.Limitationsoftheresearchapproacharealsodiscussed.Chapter5—Thescaleoftravelplanningpractice—detailsthefirstsetofresearchresults.ItpresentsthefindingsfromanindustrysurveyofcouncilstogaugethescaleandassociatedcharacteristicsoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria.Chapter6—Actorperspectives—describesthefindingsfromaseriesofinter-viewswithactorsinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocessfornewresidentialdevel-opments.Aparticularfocusisplacedonimplementationissuesandchallengestoassistinidentifyingopportunitiesforenhancingtheimplementationprocess.Chapter7—Travelplanquality—reviewsasetoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinVictoriaandassessestheirqualityagainstabestprac-ticeframework.Thishelpstoidentifytheirrelativemeritsandpotentialareasforimprovement.Chapter8—Travelplanimpacts—presentsthefindingsfromanevaluationoftravelplansimplementedatnewresidentialdevelopmentsusingasetofcasestudysitesinVictoria.Thisprovidesanunderstandingoftheireffectivenessinreducingcaruse.Chapter9—Opportunitiestoenhanceimpacts—takestheresultsfromChaps.5–8andviewsthesethroughthelensofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Thisprocessassistsinassessingopportunitiesforenhancingtheimplementa-tionoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Anintegratedtheoryofimple-mentationandenforcementisthendevelopedtoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticefornewresidentialdevelopments.Chapter10—Conclusions—presentsasummaryofkeyfindingsandcon-tributionstodemonstratehowtheresearchaimandobjectiveshavebeenmet.Implicationsfortheoryandpracticearealsodiscussed.Acritiqueoftheresearchapproachisthenprovided,followedbyadiscussionoffutureresearchdirections.Thisintroductionhasprovidedcontextfortheresearchbyoutliningitsmotiva-tion,aim,objectives,scopeandcontributions.Thenextchapterpresentsadetailedreviewoftheliteraturetoprovidefurthercontextforhowthisthesiscontributestoourunderstandingoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.ReferencesAustralianBureauofStatistics.(2011).Censusofpopulationandhousingdata.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/census.AustralianBureauofStatistics.(2013).PopulationProjectionsAustralia:2012(Base)to2101.Cataloguenumber3222.0,Canberra,Australia. References7Burby,R.,May,P.,&Paterson,R.(1998).Improvingcompliancewithregulations:Choicesandoutcomesforlocalgovernment.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,64(3),324–334.BureauofTransportandRegionalEconomics.(2007).EstimatingurbantrafficandcongestioncosttrendsforAustraliancities.Canberra,Australia:DepartmentofTransportandRegionalServices.Cairns,S.,Sloman,L.,Newson,C.,Anable,J.,Kirkbride,A.,&Goodwin,P.(2004).Smarterchoices—Changingthewaywetravel.UK:DepartmentforTransport.Cairns,S.,Newson,C.,&Davis,A.(2010).Understandingsuccessfulworkplacetravelinitia-tivesintheUK.TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,44(7),473–494.Currie,G.,&Burke,M.(2013).LightRailinAustralia—performanceandprospects.Paperpre-sentedto36thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Brisbane,Australia.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.(2014).VictoriainFuture2014DataTables,Victoria,Australia.Retrievedfromhttp://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/.Enoch,M.(2012).Sustainabletransport,mobilitymanagementandtravelplans.Surrey,England:AshgatePublishingLimited.Enoch,M.,&Rye,T.(2006).Travelplans:Usinggoodpracticetoinformfuturepolicy.InB.Jourquin,P.Rietveld,&K.Westin(Eds.),Towardsbetterperformingtransportnetworks(pp.157–177).London,UK:Routledge.InstitutionofEngineersAustralia.(1996).Policyontraveldemandmanagementinurbanareas,Canberra,Australia.Jollon,M.(2013).Bestpracticesinintegratingtravelplanswiththedevelopmentapprovalpro-cess:ExamplesfromtheUSA.PaperpresentedtoPlanningInstituteofAustralia(PIA)2013NationalCongress,Canberra,Australia.OECD.(2014).OECDFactbook2014:Economic,environmentalandsocialstatistics.OECDPublishing.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook_18147364.Rye,T.,Green,C.,Young,E.,&Ison,S.(2011a).Usingtheland-useplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:AnassessmentofprogressinEnglandtodate.JournalofTransportGeography,19(2),235–243.Rye,T.,Welsch,J.,Plevnik,A.,&deTomassi,R.(2011b).Firststepstowardscross-nationaltransferinintegratingmobilitymanagementandlanduseplanningintheEUandSwitzerland.TransportPolicy,18,533–543.Sabatier,P.,&Mazmanian,D.(1980).Theimplementationofpublicpolicy:Aframeworkofanalysis.PolicyStudiesJournal,8(4),538–560.Stopher,P.,&Stanley,J.(2014).Introductiontotransportpolicy:Apublicpolicyview.Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgarPublishingLimited.TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit.(2014).Asummaryoftheliveabilityrankingandoverview.RetrievedDecember23,2014,fromhttp://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/Liveability_rank-ings_2014.pdf.Wayte,A.(1991).Roaddemandmanagementstudy—asynopsis.PaperpresentedtoRoadDemandManagementSeminar,Austroads,Perth,Australia. Chapter2TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopments2.1IntroductionTheaimofthischapteristoprovideareviewoftheliteratureontravelplansandtheirapplicationtonewdevelopments.Researchgapsidentifiedfromtheliteraturereviewarealsodiscussedwhichthenbecomethefocusofthisthesisinsubsequentchapters(Fig.2.1).Todate,researchintotravelplanshaspredominantlyfocusedontheirapplica-tiontopre-existingsites,particularlyworkplacesandschools(Cairnsetal.2004).Thishasprovidedvaluableguidanceforapplyingtravelplanstonewdevelop-ments.Forthisreason,thischapterdrawsuponthetravelplanningliteraturecon-cernedwithbothpre-existingsitesandnewdevelopments.Thisliteraturereviewalsodrawsupontheexperiencewithdevelopingtravelplansfordifferenttypesoflanduses.Examplesoflanduseswheretravelplanshavebeendevelopedinclude:•Offices(Cairnsetal.2010)•Primaryandsecondaryschools(Smith2010)•Universities(CurtisandHolling2004)•Hospitals(Khandokaretal.2013)•Residentialsites(DepartmentforTransport2005)•Airports(Isonetal.2014)•Railwaystations(ATOC2013)•Retail/shoppingcentres(WoodruffandHui2010)•Sportingvenuesandevents(CurrieandDelbosc2011)•Touristattractions(GuiverandStanford2014)•Mixedusedevelopments(Wiblin2010).Thisliteraturereviewdoesnotcovertheuseofpersonalisedjourneyplanningtechniquesinthecontextofhouseholdandcommunitybasedprograms.These©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore20179C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_2 102TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSProcess,actors,coverageandscope,issues,effectiveness,successfactors,researchgapsCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.2.1PositionofChap.2inthethesisstructureprogramshavebeenextensivelyresearchedinthepast10–15yearsundervari-ousnamessuchasindividualisedtravelmarketingandtravelblending(Brögetal.2009;RoseandAmpt2001).Theyareconsidereddifferenttotravelplansinthattheyrepresentaspecificvoluntarytravelbehaviourchangeinitiativefocusedpri-marilyoninformation,awarenessandfeedback.Thisisincontrasttoatravelplanwhichrepresentsamechanismfordeliveringapackageoftravelinitiativesovertime(Enoch2012). 2.1Introduction11Inordertogainacomprehensiveandholisticunderstandingoftravelplans,theobjectivesofthisliteraturereviewaretoprovideanunderstandingof:•Thetravelplanningprocess•Actorsinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocess•Geographicalcoverageandscopeoftravelplans•Issueswithrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopments•Methodsforevaluatingtheeffectivenessoftravelplansandtheirassociatedresults•Keysuccessfactorsfortravelplans.Thischapterisstructuredinlinewiththeseobjectives.Thechapterconcludeswiththeidentificationofresearchgapsarisingfromtheliteraturereviewandadiscus-sionoftheopportunitiesforaddressingthesegaps.2.2TheTravelPlanningProcessThetravelplanningprocessiscommonlydescribedasaseriesofsteps(HowlettandWatson2010)asfollows:1.Securingcommitmentandownership:securingsupportofdecisionmakers,identifyingwhotoinvolve,confirmingobjectivesandidentifyingthebenefitsofdevelopingatravelplan2.Understandingtheexistingsituation:gatheringinformationoncurrenttravelbehaviourthroughsurveysand/orunderstandingtheexistingtransportcharac-teristicsofthesite3.Developingthetravelplan:identifyingstrategiesandactionsaimedatencour-agingtravelbehaviourchangethatwillformthebasisofthetravelplan4.Implementingthetravelplan:implementingthetravelplanandmaintainingparticipation5.Monitoring,reviewingandsustaining:measuringthesuccessofthetravelplanandrefiningaspectswherenecessary.ThesestepsareillustratedinFig.2.2.Thecircularnatureofthefigureillustratesthattravelplansareanongoingprocess,withtheneedtorevisitpreviousstepstoensurethetravelplancontinuestomaintainrelevanceinlightofanychangingcir-cumstances(HowlettandWatson2010).Travelplansaretypicallyimplementedbyacoordinator,preferablybasedatthesitewithsupportfromaworkinggroup.Mosttravelplansalsoincludeasetofobjectivesandtargetswhicharemonitoredandreviewedonaregularbasis(DepartmentforTransport2009).However,priortoatravelplanbeingdeveloped,itmayhavefirstbeenrequiredusingaplanningconditionorformalagreement,inthecaseofanewdevelop-ment.Aformalagreementisconsideredtohavemore‘legalforce’asitcanbeusedtosecurepaymentsassociatedwithimplementingandmonitoringthetravel 122TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsStep1ManagementapprovalSecuringTravelplancoordinatorcommitmentandWorkinggroupownershipTravelsurvey&countsStep5Step2SiteauditRevisionoftravelplanMonitoring,UnderstandingtheTravelsurveyMaintainingmomentumreviewingandsustainingexistingsituationOtherindicatorsTravelplanlaunchStep4Step3Objectives&targetsImplementationImplementingtheDevelopingtheActions&timeframesCommunicationtravelplantravelplanRoles&responsibilitiesFig.2.2Thetravelplanningprocess.SourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonHowlettandWatson(2010)plan(DepartmentforTransport2002,2009).Itcanalsoberegisteredoverthetitleofthelandandbecomebindinguponfutureowners(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014a).However,Harrison(2003,p.401)main-tains‘thereisnoneedforabeltandbracesapproachandeitherconditionsor(agreements)concerningtravelplansifproperlydrafted,areperfectlycapableofbeinglawfulandenforceable’.Planningrequirementsfortravelplansarecommonlycitedaskeyreasonsfortheirinitialpreparation(Dill1998;Roby2010c;YeatesandEnoch2012).Inparticular,Khandokaretal.(2013)foundthat98%ofhealthcareauthoritiesintheUKcitedtherequirementasamotivationfordevelopingtheirtravelplan.However,astravelplansdevelop,othermotivationstypicallysustainthemsuchascarparkingsupplyissues,corporatesocialresponsibility,andthepresenceoflocalisedcongestionandaccessissues(Roby2010c).Indevelopingatravelplan,correspondingtostep3ofFig.2.2,guidanceavail-ablefromvariouscountries(ACTCanada&NoxonAssociatesLimited2010;DepartmentofInfrastructure2008;NZTransportAgency2011;TransportforLondon2011b)generallyallrecommendthatthefollowingelementsareincluded:•Context•Existingtransportconditions•Objectives•Targetsandindicators•Actions/measures•Management•Monitoringandreview.Thecontextforatravelplantypicallyincludesasummaryofsitecharacteristics,suchasitsphysicallocationandthenumberofusers/occupants(Departmentof 2.2TheTravelPlanningProcess13Infrastructure2008).Anoutlineofanyrelevantpoliciesmayalsobeprovidedatthisstage.Forexample,anemployermayhaveaworkingfromhomepolicyinplacewhichcanhelpinreducingthenumberoftripstoandfromthesite(Cairnsetal.2004).Existingtransportconditionsgenerallydescribetheexistingtransportnet-worksandservicesinthesurroundingarea.Wherepossible,asummaryofanyrelevantlocaltravelsurveydatahelpsinunderstandingexistingtravelpatterns(TransportforLondon2011b).Theobjectivesofthetravelplantypicallysetoutwhatthetravelplanaimstoachieve.Targetsandindicatorsarethendevelopedtosupporttheseobjec-tives(DepartmentofInfrastructure2008).Whiletargetsandindicatorsareoftenfocusedonoutcomesrelatingtotransportmodeshares,theycanalsoconsidertheuptakeandawarenessoftravelplaninitiativesandmaybeframedinbothquanti-tativeandqualitativeterms(NZTransportAgency2011).Thetypesofactions/measuresincludedwithintravelplanscanbewide-rang-ing.Importantly,theseneedtobetailoredtothesite’scharacteristicsandincludebothdemandrestraintandpositiveincentiveswherepossible(Cairnsetal.2010).AppendixAprovidesalistofover50examplesoftravelplanmeasuresfromtheliterature.Thesecovertheareasofwalking,cycling,publictransport,carparking,carpooling,carsharing,marketingandpromotion,financialincentives,travelplanmanagement,andworkingpractices.However,asnotedbyEnoch(2012),oncecontextualconstraintsaretakenintoaccount,therangeofmeasuresavailabletoasitemaybelessthanoriginallyenvisaged.Forexample,whilerationingcarpark-ingmaybehighlyeffectiveinachievingareductionincaruse,thelowaccept-abilityofthismeasuremaypreventitfrombeingimplementedatmanysites.Thisissupportedbyareviewofover5,000workplacetravelplansintheUnitedStateswhichshowedthanonly6%includedparkingmanagementmeasures(YoungandLuo1995).Managementofthetravelplantypicallystipulatestimeframes,rolesandresponsibilities(includingtheappointmentofatravelplancoordinator)andtheavailablebudget(TransportforLondon2011b).Handoverarrangementsmayalsobespecifiedwherethetravelplanispreparedanewdevelopmentandtheoccupantisnotyetknown(DepartmentforTransport2009).Thefinalelementofatravelplanisgenerallyconcernedwithmonitoringandreview.Here,thefrequency,method/s,responsibilitiesandtimingassociatedwiththesecomponentsistypicallydescribed(DepartmentforTransport2009).2.3ActorsInvolvedintheTravelPlanningProcessGiventhattravelplanscanbepreparedfordifferenttypesoflanduses,awiderangeofactorstendtobeinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocess.Table2.1pre-sentsasynthesisoftheliteraturerelatingtokeyactorsandtheirrolesindevelop-ing,implementingandmonitoringtravelplans. 142TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsTable2.1ActorsinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocessandtheirroleatkeystagesActorDevelopmentImplementationMonitoringGovernmentagenciesNationalMayprovideoverarch-Mayprovidefund-Minimalrole;monitor-governmentingpolicycontextforingandguidanceforingmayreflectnationaltravelplansimplementationpolicygoalsStateTypicallyprovidesTypicallyprovidesMaysetmonitoringgovernmentpolicycontextforfundingandguidancestandardsandguidelinestravelplansforimplementationLocalSeekstoapplyHands-onroleand/orLeadroleorcoordina-governmentnational/statepolicyatprovidesguidancefortionthroughthirdparty;locallevelimplementationenforcementTravelplanorganisationsWorkplacesTypicallyinvolvedinDeliveryagentgener-Leadroleorcoordina-writingthetravelplanallyresponsiblefortionthroughthirdpartyimplementationSchoolsTypicallyinvolvedinDeliveryagentgener-Leadroleorcoordina-writingthetravelplanallyresponsiblefortionthroughthirdpartyimplementationUniversitiesTypicallyinvolvedinDeliveryagentgener-Leadroleorcoordina-writingthetravelplanallyresponsiblefortionthroughthirdpartyimplementationHospitalsOfteninvolvedinwrit-Deliveryagentgener-Leadroleorcoordina-ingthetravelplanallyresponsiblefortionthroughthirdpartyimplementationRetailcentresProvideinputbutSomeinvolvementProvideinputbutunlikelytoleadwithsupportfromthirdunlikelytoleadprocessprocesspartiesPropertyMayprovideinputGenerallyinvolvedProvideinputbutmanagersbutunlikelytoleadfollowingpropertyunlikelytoleadprocessprocessoccupationTransportusersEmployeesProvideinputthroughFulfilrolesfortravelProvideinputthroughsurveyand/orotherplancoordinatorandsurveys;mayassistwithforumsworkinggroupmonitoringtasksStudentsProvideinputthroughInvolvedinsupport-Provideinputthroughsurveyand/orotheringimplementationofsurveys;mayassistwithforumsinitiativesmonitoringtasksTeachersMaybeinvolvedinMayfulfilrolesforMaybeinvolvedinwritingtravelplantravelplancoordinatorcoordinatingmonitoringandworkinggrouptasksParents(forProvideinputthroughMayhaverepresentationProvideinputthroughschooltravelsurveyand/orotheronworkinggroupsurveys;mayassistwithplans)forumsmonitoringtasksPatients(forMaybeconsultedNoroleProvideinputthroughhospitaltravelthroughsurveyand/orsurveysplans)otherforums(continued) 2.3ActorsInvolvedintheTravelPlanningProcess15Table2.1(continued)ActorDevelopmentImplementationMonitoringVisitorsMaybeconsultedNoroleProvideinputthroughthroughsurveyand/orsurveysotherforumsShoppersMaybeconsultedNoroleProvideinputthroughthroughsurveyand/orsurveysotherforumsResidentsProvideinputthroughMayhaverepresentationProvideinputthroughsurveyand/orotheronworkinggroupsurveys;mayassistwithforumsmonitoringtasksOthersLocaltravelSupportdevelopmentMaydeliverlargerMaycoordinateplangroupsthroughinformationinitiativesonbehalfofmonitoringonbehalfofsharingseveralorganisationsorganisationsPropertyCoordinateand/orLikelytoimplementLeadroleorprovidesdeveloperswritethetravelplansomemeasuresandfundingformonitoringprovidefundingTransportMaypreparetravelMaybeengagedastravelMaycoordinateconsultantsplansonbehalfofplancoordinatormonitoringonbehalfoforganisationsorganisationsTransportMaybeconsultedMaydelivernewservicesMaysupportmonitor-operatorsaboutimproving/provid-aspartoftravelplaningthroughprovisionofingservicesdata/informationInterestgroupsMaylobbyforMayprovidelocalMayrequestmonitor-improvementsandguidanceandadviceingdatatosupportowncommentontravelwhereapplicableinterestsplanSourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedonCairnsandNewson(2006),DiPietroandHughes(2003),Enoch(2012),Holzer(2004),Roby(2010a,c),WoodruffandHui(2010)andYeatesandEnoch(2012)Governmentagenciesarelikelytobeinvolvedindevelopingpoliciesontravelplans,alongwithprovidingfundingandguidancetosupportimplementationandmonitoring.Localgovernmentgenerallyplaysastrongerrolegiventhesite-spe-cificnatureoftravelplanning.Theycanalsobeinvolvedinenforcingtravelplansthathavebeenrequiredfornewdevelopments.Travelplanorganisationscanbewiderangingwithworkplaces,schools,uni-versitiesandhospitalshavingplayedastrongroletodateinallaspectsofthetravelplanningprocess.Suchorganisationsgenerallyhavethemostinfluenceindeterminingtheeffectivenessofatravelplanintheirroleas‘deliveryagent’(Enoch2012).However,theyarenottypicallypartofthe‘traditional’transportpolicyinstitutionalstructureandthereforemayonlyhavelimitedtransportknowl-edgeandexperience(Enoch2012). 162TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsTransportusers,astherecipientsorendusersoftravelplans,aregenerallyinvolvedthroughparticipatinginsurveysandotherforumstosupportthedevelop-mentandmonitoringoftravelplans.However,theymayalsobeinvolvedinfulfill-ingthetravelplancoordinatorroleandhavingrepresentationonaworkinggroup,particularlywheretravelplansareintroducedinworkplacesandschools.Anumberofotheractorscanalsobeinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocess.Inparticular,propertydevelopersandtransportconsultantsarebecomingincreas-inglyinvolvedgivenrequirementsinsomejurisdictionsfortravelplansatnewdevelopments.Previousresearchhassoughttheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintravelplan-ning(Davisonetal.2010;EnochandIson2008;Ryeetal.2011a;YeatesandEnoch2012),withrelevantfindingsincorporatedthroughoutsubsequentsectionsofthischapter.WhileYeatesandEnoch(2012)exploredtheperspectivesofdevel-opersinvolvedintravelplanningfornewdevelopments,noresearchhasspe-cificallyexploredtheperspectivesofthedifferentactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments,particularlyaspectsrelatingtoimplementation.2.4GeographicalCoverageandScopeThetravelplanconceptstartedintheUnitedStateswithafocusoncarpoolinginresponsetotheoilcrisisinthe1970s.TheconceptwaslaterpickedupbytheUnitedKingdomandtheNetherlandsinthe1980sandearly1990swithafocusonreducingcar-basedcommutertrips(Coleman2000).Today,travelplanshaveextendedtheirreachintoanumberofEuropeancountries,aswellasAustralia,NewZealandandJapan(Enoch2012).Figure2.3illustrateshowtravelplanshaveevolvedindifferentcountries.TheUnitedStatesandtheNetherlandsaretheonlycountrieswithanindustrysectorinplacefortravelplanservices.AnumberofEuropeancountries,includingtheUnitedKingdom,haveastronglevelofsupportfortravelplans,whileothershavelesssupport,suchasAustralia,orarestillinthepilottestingstage.InadditiontothecountriesshowninFig.2.3,Singaporehasrecentlycommencedtheirinvolvementwithworkplacetravelplans,althoughthisisonlyatapilottestingstage(Hooi2012).Thelevelofdetailavailableintheliteratureontravelplanningactivityvariesconsiderablybycountry.LevelsofactivityintheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdomandAustraliaaregenerallywelldocumentedcomparedtoothercountries.Asyn-thesisoftheliteraturefromthesecountries,alongwithotherswhereinformationwasavailable,isprovidedinthefollowingsections. 2.4GeographicalCoverageandScope17Fig.2.3Evolutionoftravelplansinvariouscountries.SourceEnoch(2012)2.4.1UnitedStates:AStrongRegulatoryApproachwithaFocusonWorkplacesApproachestotravelplanningintheUnitedStateshavelargelyfocusedontheuseofregulation,withemployersasthekeytargetgroup.Commencingin1988,RegulationXVinSouthernCaliforniarequiredemployerswith100ormorestafftoprepareatravelplan,whichwastoincludethedesignationandtrainingofanon-sitetravelplancoordinator(knownlocallyasanemployeetransportationcoordinator)(Giulianoetal.1991).AspartofRegulationXV,anorganisation’sAverageVehicleRidership(AVR),definedastheratioofemployeestovehiclesarrivingattheworkplacebetween6amand10am,wastoachievespecifictargets:1.75forCentralBusinessDistricts(CBDs),1.5forotherdevelopedurbanandsub-urbanareas,and1.3foroutlyinglowdensityareas(Giulianoetal.1991;Lopez-Aqueres1993;Orski1993).Around9,000firmsemploying3.8millionworkersweresubjecttotheregulation(Giulianoetal.1991).However,thelegislationwasrepealedduetolobbyingfrombusinessesin1996(Dill1998;Ferguson2000). 182TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsAsimilarmandatetoRegulationXVwasimplementedfrom1992onwardsinotherlargemetropolitanareasoftheUnitedStates,includingNewYork,Baltimore,Chicago,Philadelphia,HoustonandSanDiego.However,thiswasalsorepealedin1996(Rye1999b).Atastatelevel,theCommuteTripReduction(CTR)programinWashingtoncommencedin1991underthe‘CleanAirAct’.Thisprogramistheonlymanda-torystate-widecommuteTripReductionOrdinance(TRO)stillinoperationintheUnitedStatestoday(Vanoutriveetal.2010).Itrequiresemployerswithmorethan100staffincountieswithapopulationofmorethan150,000peopletodevelopandimplementprogramstoreducepeakperiodtrips(EnochandRye2006).Morethan700employersareinvolvedintheprogram(EnochandRye2006;Rye1999b).The‘locally-owned’natureofthemandate(passedatastateratherthanfederallevel)andtheemphasisonreducingtrafficcongestionandenergycon-sumption,areconsideredtobereasonsforthesurvivalofthemandate(Enoch2012).Inaddition,anumberoflocalcouncilsintheUnitedStateshaveadoptedtheirownTripReductionOrdinances(TROs)withexamplespresentinalmosteverystate(ABC2014).Thesehavetraditionallyfocusedonrequiringexistingemploy-erstodevelopandimplementtravelplans.However,theyhavealsobeenusedfornewdevelopmentswithtravelplanrequirementswrittenintothemunicipalcodeorplansoftherelevantjurisdiction(Jollon2013).Table2.2providesasummaryofselectedTROsoperatingintheUnitedStates.Thresholds,requirementsandpenaltiesfornon-compliancevaryconsiderablyacrossjurisdictions.Forexample,Bloomingtonrequiresatravelplanforanydevelopmentsofmorethan1,000ft2,whileMinneapolisadoptsathresholdof100,000ft2.SomeTROsprescribeaspe-cificsetoftravelplanmeasuresthatshouldbeimplementedwhileothersaremoreopenendedbysimplyrequiringthepreparationofatravelplan.Insomejurisdic-tions,financialpenaltiesapplyfornotcomplyingwiththeTRO,yetotherjurisdic-tionsdonotadoptanypenaltiesfornon-compliance.2.4.2UnitedKingdom:ALargeFocusonRequiringTravelPlansforNewDevelopmentsIn1998,only3%oflocalcouncilsintheUnitedKingdomhadimplementedatravelplanonapermanentbasis,withafurther4%implementingoneonatrialbasis(Bradshawetal.1998).Theleveloftravelplantake-upsubstantiallyincreasedinfutureyears.Asurveyconductedin2000bySteerDaviesGleave(2001)foundthat24%ofcouncilshadatravelplaninplace,whileafurther45%weredevelopingone.Inaddition,anumberofbusinesses,hospitalsandhighereducationestablishmentswerealsoinvolvedintravelplanning.Thesurveyalsorevealedthat58%ofcouncilshadrequiredtravelplansfornewdevelopmentsaspartoftheplanningapprovalsprocess.Inasubsequentsurveyofcouncilsby 2.4GeographicalCoverageandScope19Table2.2Characteristicsofselectedtripreductionordinances(TROs)intheUnitedStatesLocationThresholdsRequirementsPenaltiesfornon-complianceBoston,AnydevelopmentwithRecommendedlistofNonespecifiedMassachusettsmorethan50,000ft2ortravelplanmeasures15+dwellingunitsBloomington,AnydevelopmentwithTravelplanwith$50perparkingMinnesotamorethan1,000ft2oroutlineofexpendituresspace(notimeframe350parkingspacesover3yearsspecified)Boulder,AnydevelopmentaddingChoiceofoneofthreeNoneenforcedColorado20+peaktripsfortravelplans:transitresidentialor100+peakoriented,parkingtripsforcommercialmanagement,otherCambridge,Non-residentialdevelop-Specificsetoftravel$10perparkingspaceMassachusettsmentwithmorethan5planmeasures,includ-perdayparkingspacesingon-sitetravelplancoordinatorDurham,NorthAnybusinesswithmoreListofsuggested$100/dayuptomaxi-Carolinathan100employeestravelplanmeasuresmumof$1,000tochoosefromFairfax,VirginiaAllnewdevelopmentsPreparationoftravelNonespecifiedplanMinneapolis,AnydevelopmentwithPreparationoftravelNonebeingappliedMinnesotamorethan100,000ft2planMontgomery,AnybusinesswithmoreTravelplanplan,NonespecifiedMarylandthan25+employeesincludingemployeetransportcoordinatorPasadena,AnydevelopmentwithPreparationoftravelPermitwithheld,finesCaliforniamorethan25,000ft2planwithlistofsug-gestedmeasuresPimaCounty,AnybusinesswithmoreAnnualsurveyandUpto$250/dayArizonathan100employeestravelplanwithspecificmeasuresrequiredPortland,OregonBusinesseswithmoreListofsuggestedRevisedplantobethan100employeestravelplanmeasuressubmittedwithproofinportlandairqualityofgoodfaitheffortmaintenanceareaRichmond,AnybusinesswithmoreMustprovideapre-tax$200–$600(noCaliforniathan10employeesbenefit,transitsubsidytimeframespecified)orshuttleserviceRockville,DevelopmentaddingPaymentoftransportNonespecifiedMaryland30+tripsinpeakperiodimprovementfeeand/orpreparationoftravelplanSanFrancisco,AnybusinesswithmoreMustprovideapre-tax$100/yearCaliforniathan20employeesbenefit,transitsubsidyorshuttleservice(continued) 202TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsTable2.2(continued)LocationThresholdsRequirementsPenaltiesfornon-complianceSantaMonica,AnybusinesswithPreparationoftravel$5/dayperemployeeCalifornia10+employeesplancontainingspecificmeasuresSeattle,Anybusinesswith100Twotravelplanmeas-$250/dayWashingtonfull-timeemployeesuresfromaspecificlistStateofBusinesseswithListofspecifictravelNoneMassachusetts1,000+employees/planmeasuresstudentsSourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedonABC(2014),Jollon(2013)andStewart(1994)Addison&Associates(2008),athreefoldincreasehadbeenfoundinthenumberoftravelplansrequiredthroughtheplanningprocessbetween2001and2006.Inaddition,65%ofcouncilshadrequiredover10travelplanssince2001,withthreecouncilsrequiringover200duringthattimeframe.RequirementsfortravelplansatnewdevelopmentsarewellsupportedthroughanationalplanningpolicyintheUnitedKingdom(Ryeetal.2011b),withdevel-opment‘thresholds’usedtospecifywhenatravelplanisrequired.ExamplesadoptedbyTransportforLondon(2011b)includedevelopmentswithatleast80residentialunits,1,000m2ofretailspaceor2,500m2ofoffice.However,itisalsonotedthatthresholdscanvaryconsiderably,evenbetweenlocalcouncilsthatarelocatedwithinthesameregion(Addison&Associates2008).Morrisetal.(2009)refertoanumberoftravelplanspreparedfornewresiden-tialdevelopmentsintheUnitedKingdom.ExamplesincludetheBeddingtonZeroEnergyDevelopment(BedZED)inLondon,PooleQuarterinDorset,andvari-ousresidentialsitesinNottingham.However,henotesthat‘thereismuchpolicyguidanceondevelopingsuccessfulworkplacetravelplansbutstillrelativelylit-tleinformationiscurrentlyavailableregardingthepotentialforapplyingsimilarprinciplestoresidentialsites’(Morrisetal.2009,p.25).Furthermore,theUKDepartmentforTransport(2005,p.3)recognisethatthereisa‘limitedscaleofexperiencenationallyofdevelopingresidentialtravelplans’andthat‘itshouldberecognisedthatemerginggoodpracticeisatanembryonicstage’.Moreover,Addison&Associates(2008,p.12)statethat‘thereisnoindicationofthenum-berofresidentialtravelplansthathavebeendrawnuporimplemented’andthattheirresearchwas‘unabletoascertainnumbersasthemajorityofcouncilsdonotmonitortheirtravelplanactivities’.OthertravelplanningactivityreportedintheUnitedKingdomincludes:•Schools:by2003,around3,100schooltravelplansintheUnitedKingdomhadbeenimplemented(Cairnsetal.2004).However,Smith(2010)reportthatthishadincreasedtoover10,000by2006,representingaround40%ofthepotential24,000schooltravelplans. 2.4GeographicalCoverageandScope21•Hospitals:Khandokaretal.(2013)foundthatby2011,115acutetrustsoutofatotalof170NationalHealthService(NHS)acutetrusts(68%)hadatravelplaninplace.•Railwaystations:ATOC(2013)reportthattherearecurrentlymorethan70travelplansfortrainstationsinplace,someofwhichhavebeenrequiredthroughtheplanningprocess.2.4.3Australia:AFocusonVoluntaryAdoptionbyWorkplacesandSchoolsIncontrasttotheUnitedStatesandUnitedKingdom,Australiahastakenmoreofavoluntaryapproachtotravelplanning,withafocusonpre-existingsitessuchasworkplacesandschools.AnexpressionofinterestprocessisusedinWesternAustraliatoseekemploy-erswishingtodevelopatravelplan(Thom2009).Workplacesareselectedaccord-ingtotheirleveloforganisationalcommitmentandgeographiclocation(e.g.proximitytopublictransport).AsimilarapproachisusedinSouthAustraliawherebyinterestedworkplacesneedtodemonstratealevelofcommitmenttoresourcingtheirtravelplan(HallingandMayes2011).InthestateofVictoria,workplacetravelplanshavebeenpreparedonbehalfofemployers(DeGruyteretal.2005;MeiklejohnandWake2007),howeverthesewerefoundtobelesssuc-cessfulastheworkplacecommunitywasremovedfromactivelyparticipatingintheprocessofdevelopingthetravelplan,therebyreducingthelevelofownershipintheconcept(HowlettandWatson2010).Moghtaderietal.(2012)reportonthescaleofvoluntaryschooltravelplanningpracticeinAustralia.TheydescribeactivityinthestatesofVictoria(morethan30schoolssince2002),NewSouthWales(15schools),WesternAustralia(30–60schoolsperyearsince1998,with160schoolsinvolvedby2006),SouthAustralia(190schoolsby2010)andQueensland(117schoolssince2004).VoluntaryadoptionoftravelplansisalsoevidentacrossAustraliaatvari-oushospitals(McFaddenetal.2006;Petrunoffetal.2013),shoppingcentres(WoodruffandHui2010)anduniversities(CooperandMeiklejohn2003;CurtisandHolling2004).Inthecontextofnewdevelopments,nonationalorstatepolicyisinplaceinAustraliathatsupportstherequirementfortravelplans.Requirementsfortravelplansaregenerallyonlyspecifiedbysomecouncilsthroughlocalplanningpoli-cies.InthestateofVictoria,only4outofthe79councils(5%)explicitlyincludearequirementfortravelplansintheirlocalplanningpolicy(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014b).Despitethisminorrepre-sentation,othercouncilsarenotprecludedfromimposingtherequirementwhereitisconsideredappropriate.InthestateofNewSouthWales,travelplanshavebeenrequiredfornewdevelopmentsonamostlyadhocbasis;examplesinclude 222TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsamixedusedevelopmentinRouseHill(Wiblinetal.2012)andtherelocationofOptus,amajortelecommunicationsemployer(NSWGovernment2011).Morerecently,councilsinWesternAustraliaarebeginningtoconsiderrequirementsfortravelplansfornewdevelopments,althoughthisisstillinthedevelopmentstages(RAC2014).Whiletheliteraturecitesthesefewexamples,thereisnounder-standingofthescaleandassociatedcharacteristicsoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinAustralia.2.4.4OtherCountriesExamplesoftravelplanningactivityoccurringinothercountriesinclude:•NewZealand:178schools,31workplacesand2tertiaryinstitutionshavebeeninvolvedintravelplanningsince2008(SullivanandPercy2008).Alim-itednumberofcouncils(WaitakereCityCouncil,RodneyDistrictCouncilandHamiltonCityCouncil)requiretravelplansfornewdevelopmentsalthoughnonationalpolicyexiststosupportthisprocess(Baker2007).•Canada:morethan100schoolshavebeeninvolvedintravelplanningsince2010(Mammenetal.2014).Inaddition,theCityofMississaugainOntariorequiresasetofspecifictravelplanmeasurestobeimplementedatnewresiden-tialdevelopments(Mele2013),whiletheCityofWaterlooinOntarioprovidesavoluntaryTDMchecklistfornon-residentialdevelopmentstosupportproposedreductionsincarparkingprovision(Hill2013).•Italy:in1998,thegovernmentmandatedthatemployerswithover300staffnominateamobilitymanagertoreducetheimpactofcommutingtripsthroughatravelplan(EnochandPotter2003).However,noquantitativetargetsaresetandtherearenopenaltiesforemployersthatdonotcomplywiththerequire-ment(PotterandEnoch2007).•Belgium:theBrusselscapitalregionrequiresatravelplanforeveryemployerwithatleast200employees(Vanoutriveetal.2010).Inaddition,therearevariousexamplesofcar-freehousingdevelopmentslocatedinGermany,Austria,theNetherlandsandDenmark(Meliaetal.2013;Wright2005).Whilethesedonottypicallyhavetravelplansinplace,theyoftenincludeanon-sitecarsharingservice(Wright2005).Insummary,travelplanshavebeenadoptedacrossmanycountriesincludingtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,otherpartsofEurope,Australia,NewZealandandCanada.Mostofthesecountrieshaverequiredtravelplansfornewdevel-opmentsinsomeform,yetvariousissueshavearisenindoingsowhicharedis-cussedinthenextsection. 2.5IssueswithRequiringTravelPlansforNewDevelopments232.5IssueswithRequiringTravelPlansforNewDevelopmentsPerhapsasareflectionoftherelativenoveltyofrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopments,anumberofissueshavebeenexperiencedintheirdevelopment,implementationandmonitoring.Table2.3providesasynthesisoftheissuescitedbytheliterature.Travelplansofvaryingqualityhavebeensubmittedandsubsequentlyapproved,particularlywhentheyaresolelypreparedtoseekplanningapproval.Whileclearguidancemayhelptoaddresstheproblem,theUnitedKingdomhavestillexperiencedinstancesofpoortravelplanqualitydespitetheavailabil-ityofvariousguidelines,standardsandtools(BritishStandardsInstitution2008;DepartmentforTransport2009;TransportforLondon2011a,b;Atkins2002).Whiletheliteraturesuggeststhereisanissuerelatingtotravelplanquality(Addison&Associates2008;EnochandIson2008;Melia2009;Wynne2013),noformalassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentshasbeenundertakentoidentifytheirrelativemeritsandpoten-tialareasforimprovement.Table2.3KeyissuesinrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopmentsStageKeyissuesDeveloping•Developerspaying‘lip-service’totheconcept,particularlywhenthetravelthetravelplanplanisonlypreparedtoseekplanningapproval•Lackoftravelplanningguidancespecificallyfornewdevelopmentsinsomejurisdictions•Varyingqualityoftravelplansbeingsubmittedandapproved,particularlywhereplanningassessmentofficerslacksufficientknowledgeorexperiencewithtravelplans•Travelplanconsideredtoolateinthelanduseplanningprocess•Natureofproposeddevelopmentissometimesunknown,despitethisinforma-tionbeingvitaltoinformingtheobjectives,targetsandmeasuresinatravelplanImplementing•Generallackofimplementationoftravelplanmeasuresandassociatedthetravelplanfollow-up•Lackofsuitablehandoverarrangementsfromthedevelopertotenantorpropertymanager•Inconsistencybetweentheobjectivesofthetravelplanandmotivationsofthoseresponsibleforimplementingthetravelplan•Uncertaintyoverrolesandresponsibilities•LackofownershipofthetravelplanMonitoring•Generallackofmonitoring,leadingtoalackofevidenceoftravelplanthetravelplaneffectiveness•Insufficientresourceswithinlocalgovernmenttoundertakeeffectiveenforcement•Uncertaintyinuseoflegalmechanismsforenforcingtravelplans•UncertaintyoverrolesandresponsibilitiesSourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedonAddison&Associates(2008),EnochandIson(2008),Hendricks(2008),Llewellynetal.(2014),Roby(2010c),Ryeetal.(2011a)andWynne(2013) 242TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsAlackofimplementationisconsistentlyhighlightedasakeyissueassociatedwithtravelplansfornewdevelopments.Forexample,inasurveyof69councilsintheUnitedKingdom,Addison&Associates(2008,p.66)foundthat‘lessthanhalfofthetravelplanstheyhadrequiredfornewdevelopmentshadbeenimple-mented’.Roby(2010b,p.42)statesthatthe‘lackof,orpoorimplementationofatravelplanaspartoftheplanningprocessisaproblemwiththismethodofsecur-ingtravelplans.’Inthecontextofnewresidentialdevelopments,itisworthnotingtheinherentdifficultyassociatedwithimplementation.Firstly,incontrasttothemoretradi-tionalworkplaceorschooltravelplan,residentialtravelplansarebasedonthetriporiginandthereforeneedtocaternotonlyforarangeoftripdestinations,butalsoforarangeoftrippurposes(Morrisetal.2009).Secondly,theneedtoestablishanongoingmanagementstructuretodeliveraresidentialtravelplanpresentschal-lengesasthereisoftenaweakrelationshipbetweentheresidentialproviderandtheresidentsthemselves(Enoch2012).Despitetheseissues,therehasbeennoresearchundertakentosufficientlyexploreimplementationinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Alackofmonitoringandenforcementoftravelplansfornewdevelopmentsisalsohighlightedbytheliterature.Themainreasonforthisisalackofresourceswithincouncils:Someauthoritiesstatedthatonceapprovedtheimplementationofthesetravelplanswasneithermonitorednorenforced.Resourcing(orthelackofit)ofthemonitoring,penalties,sanctionandincentivesprocesseswasseenbymanyauthoritiesasareasonfornotinclud-ingthemwithintravelplansastheyhavenoresourcestofollowthisthrough(Addison&Associates2008,p.71).Evenafteraphysicaldevelopmentiscompleted,promises,bothverbalandwritten,aboutprogramimplementationandwhatwillorwillnotbepermittedtotakeplaceinfuture,areoftenforgottenornotenforced…AgreementstoengageinTDMareoftennotfollowedovertime(SeggermanandHendricks2005,pp.61–2).TheUKDepartmentforTransport(2009)suggestthatiflocalcouncilsestablishafeeorsecureanagreedsumfortravelplanmonitoring,thiscanbepooledoveranumberofcouncilstoprovideacosteffectivesolutionforallpartiesinvolved.ThishasrecentlybeenputinpracticewithWestTrans,apartnershipofsixLondoncouncils,managingtheprocessassociatedwithmonitoringdevelopmentrelatedtravelplansinWestLondon.Amonitoringofficerpositionisfundedonafull-timebasiscollectivelyacrossthecouncils,representingthefirstgroupofcouncilsinEnglandtotakethisapproachtotravelplanmonitoring(Khagram2013a).2.6EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofTravelPlansArangeofmethodscanbeusedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftravelplans,dependingonthesizeandlocationofthesite,thetypeoftravelplan,anditsobjec-tives.Table2.4presentsasynthesisfromtheliteratureofcommonmethodsused. 2.6EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofTravelPlans25Table2.4CommonmethodsusedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftravelplansNo.MethodStrengthsLimitations1AssessmentofDeterminesrelativesuccessUnabletomeasureoutcomessuchtake-upratesofdifferentmeasures;helpsaschangesincaruseoftravelplanintargetingfuturetravelplanmeasuresmeasures2AssessmentofProvidesproxyforeffective-Unabletomeasureoutcomessuchtravelplandocu-ness;canhelptoidentifyaschangesincaruse;poorqualitymentqualityareasforimprovementtravelplancouldstillresultinasuccessfuloutcome3AssessmentofIdentifiesextentofimplementa-Unabletomeasureoutcomesleveloftravelplantionwhichmayhelpinsuchaschangesincaruse;fullimplementationexplainingoutcomesimplementationdoesnotguaranteeasuccessfuloutcome4TrendassessmentIndicateschangesinpublicDependentondataavailability;ofpublictransporttransportuseovertimedifficulttocontrolforexternalpatronagedatafactors(e.g.servicechanges,fuelprices,populationgrowth)5TravelsurveyCanhelptodeterminetransportResponseratesvary;needstobequestionnairemodalsplit,awarenessofconductedregularlyorcomparedtravelplanmeasuresandothertosecondarydataorcontrolsitesindicators6Hands-upsurveyProvidesaquickandeasyTypicallylimitedtoclassroom/methodfordeterminingtrans-schoolenvironments;concernsportmodalsplitoverreliability7FocusgroupsCanexploreimpactsoftheLimitedtosmallgroupsandtravelplanindepthwithusersgenerallyonlyprovidesqualita-ofthesitetiveinformation;canbelabourintensive8VehiclecountsProvidesanindependentmeas-Canbelabourintensive;needstoureofcaruseatthesitebeconductedregularlyorcom-paredtosecondarydataorcontrolsitestomeasureeffectiveness9Multi-modalProvidesanindependentmeas-Canbelabourintensive;needstocountsureoftransportmodalsplitbeconductedregularlyorcom-paredtosecondarydataorcontrolsitestomeasureeffectiveness10CarparkingcountsDeterminesutilisationofcarNeedstobeconductedregularlyparkingatsiteandcanhelporcomparedtocontrolsitestotoinformfuturetravelplanmeasureeffectivenessmeasures11BicycleparkingDeterminesutilisationofNeedstobeconductedregularlyorcountsbicycleparkingatsiteandcancomparedtoothersitestomeasurehelptoinformfuturetraveleffectivenessplanmeasuresSourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedonAddison(2002),Amptetal.(2009),HallingandMayes(2011),Higgins(1996),HincksonandBadland(2011),Stewart(1994),TransportforLondon(2008),TravelPlanServicesLtd(2013),TRICS(undated),Wake(2012),Wakeetal.(2010),Wiblin(2010)andWiblinetal.(2012) 262TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsMethods1–3(assessmentsoftravelplantake-up,qualityandimplementation)areunabletomeasureoutcomessuchaschangesincaruse,butnonethelesspro-videusefulindicatorstosupporttheoverallassessmentoftravelplaneffectiveness(Wakeetal.2010).Method4(trendassessmentofpublictransportpatronagedata)isdependentondataavailabilityandmayposedifficultiesincontrollingforexter-nalfactorssuchaspopulationgrowth.Method5(travelsurveyquestionnaire)isthemostcommontechniqueusedtoevaluatetravelplans,particularlyatpre-existingsites(SteerDaviesGleave2001).A‘before’travelsurveyistypicallyconductedtoprovideabaselineestimateoftravelpatternsandtoinformthedevelopmentofthetravelplan.An‘after’survey,usuallyconductedannuallythereafter,isthenusedtoassessanychangesintravelbehaviourthatmayhaveoccurred(Amptetal.2009).However,inthecontextofnewdevelopments,baselinetravelpatternsaregenerallynotavailableasthedevel-opmentisnotusuallyoccupiedorevenbuilt.Whileitispossibletoconductabeforesurveyshortlyafteroccupationofthedevelopment,travelplanmeasuresmayhavealreadybeenintroducedatthesitemakingitdifficulttomeasuretheirimpact(Stewart1994).Method6(hands-upsurvey)istypicallylimitedtoschoolsandprovidesarela-tivelysimplemethodtoestimatethetransportmodalsplit.Thereliabilityofthismethodisoftenquestionedduetostudentsbeinginfluencedbyothersinchoos-ing‘popular’transportmodes.However,apilotstudyundertakenbyHincksonandBadland(2011,p.370)showed‘100%agreementbetweenchildren’sandparents’responseswhenparentsweretelephonedthesameafternoon’.Method7(focusgroups)iscommonlyadoptedinconjunctionwithothermethods,butismoresuitedtoinformingthedevelopmentofthetravelplanatpre-existingsites,ratherthanindeterminingitseffectiveness.Thisisduetothesmallnumberofpartici-pantsthatareusuallyinvolvedandthequalitativenatureofthetechnique.Methods8–9(vehicleandmulti-modalcounts)provideanindependentmeas-ureoftripgenerationandthetransportmodalsplitatthesite.Atpre-existingsites,themeasurementsneedtobeundertakenbeforeandafterthetravelplanisintro-ducedinordertoassessitsimpact.However,atnewdevelopments,countdataisoftencomparedtosecondarydatasources,suchaspublishedvehicletripgenera-tionratesorregionaltravelsurveydata.However,datacomparabilityissuescanariseintermsofthegeographiclocation,targetpopulationanddatacollectionperiod.Intheseinstances,controlsitescanbeadoptedalthoughtheseneedtobechosencarefullytoensuretheyexhibitsimilarcharacteristicstositeswithtravelplans.Methods10–11(carandbicycleparkingcounts)canassistinevaluatingtheeffectivenessoftravelplans,butagainneedtobecomparedto‘before’measure-mentsinthecaseofpre-existingsites,ortosecondarydatasourcesorcontrolsitesinthecaseofnewdevelopments.Giventhateachmethodhasbothstrengthsandlimitations,amixedmethodsapproachisrecommendedsothatrelianceisnotplacedonasingleevaluationmeasure(Wakeetal.2010).Evaluationsoftravelplansinreducingcarusehavebeenwidelyreported.Table2.5providesasummaryofevaluationsconductedintheUnitedKingdom, 2.6EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofTravelPlans27Table2.5EvaluationsofworkplaceandschooltravelplansinreducingcaruseCountryKeyfindingsUnited•Averagereductionincaruseof18%across20workplaces(Cairnsetal.2004)Kingdom•Averagereductionincaruseof11percentagepoints(or17%)across41workplaces(BambergandMoser2007)•Averagereductionincaruseof23%across28schools,withtwoschoolsachievingareductionofmorethan50%(CairnsandNewson2006)UnitedStates•Averagereductionincaruseof15%across49employersites(TCRP1994citedinCairnsetal.2010)•Averagereductionincaruseof6.3percentagepoints(from73.5to67.2%)across5,000employersinSouthernCaliforniasubjecttoRegulationXV(YoungandLuo1995)•Averagereductionincaruseof5.5percentagepoints(from80.1to74.6%)across31employersinChicago(PaganoandVerdin1997)The•Averagereductioninvehiclekilometresof8%fortravelplanswith‘basic’Netherlandsmeasuresand20%fortravelplanswith‘luxury’measures,across40employ-ers(Ligtermoet1998citedinCairnsetal.2010)Australia•Averagereductionincaruseof5percentagepointsacross12employersinWesternAustralia,withabenefitcostratioof4.5–1(MarsdenJacobAssociates2011)•Averagereductionsincaruserangingfrom8to35%acrossmorethan200schoolsacrossdifferentstates(Moghtaderietal.2012)•Reductionsincaruseofupto15percentagepointsacrosseightprimaryschools,threeworkplacesandoneuniversityinVictoria(DepartmentofTransportundated-a,undated-b,undated-c)NewZealand•Increaseinactivetravelof5.9percentagepoints(from34.9to40.8%)across33schoolsinAuckland(HincksonandBadland2011)•Averagereductionincaruseof3.4percentagepointsacross68primaryandsecondaryschoolsinAuckland(Hincksonetal.2009)Canada•Nosignificantchangeinactivetravelacross53schools;atadisaggregatelevel,changesinactivetravelrangedfrom−26to+23%intheAMpeakperiodandfrom−24to+15%inthePMpeakperiod(Mammenetal.2013)•17%ofparentsacross103schoolsreportedlessdriving(Mammenetal.2014)SourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedoncitationswithinthetableUnitedStates,theNetherlands,Australia,NewZealandandCanada.Theevalu-ationsincorporatebothpre-existingsitesandnewdevelopmentsbutarefocusedsolelyonworkplacesandschools.Resultsvaryconsiderablybutaregenerallyintheorderofareductionincaruseof10–15%.Consistentwithotherresearchconcerningtheeffectivenessoftravelplans(Cairnsetal.2008;Miller1995;Rye1999a),EnochandRye(2006)statethatreductionsincaruseofdifferenttravelplansaregenerallyminimalwhenincludinginformation-onlymeasures,5%formainlycarpooling-relatedmeasures,8–10%fortravelplansthatincorporatefinancialincentivestousingnon-carmodes,and15%ormorefortravelplansthatincludefinancialdisincentivestocaruse(e.g.carparkingcharges).Long-termmonitoringoftravelplanshasbeenlimitedtodate.Figure2.4pre-sentsasynthesisofresultsforworkplacetravelplansfromtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,AustraliaandNewZealand.Acontinualreductionincaruse 282TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopments100%WaitakereCityCouncil(NewZealand)WalnutOrange(UK)90%Creek(US)CityofDarebin(Australia)Pleasanton(US)80%Phoenix/Maricopa(US)PleasantHill(US)BP(UK)70%Addenbrooke's(UK)60%%ofcartripsDeakinUniversity(Australia)Universityof50%Bristol(UK)40%30%198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Fig.2.4Resultsfromlong-termmonitoringofworkplacetravelplans.SourceAuthor’ssynthe-sisoftheliteraturebasedonBaker(2007),BrockmanandFox(2011),Cairnsetal.(2002),Dill(1998),HancockandNuttman(2013)andMyers(2005)(comparedtobaselinelevels)isevidentinmostcases,althoughsomesitesdidexperienceanincreaseincaruseattimesduringtheirevaluationperiod.Theremayalsobecasesoflesssuccessfulresultsthathavesimplynotbeenpublished,possiblybecauseresearcherschoosenottopublishthemorhavedifficultyinpub-lishingnegativeresults(BambergandMoser2007;Richteretal.2011).Cairnsetal.(2002,p.85)notethatthedurationofatravelplanisnotcriticaltoitssuc-cess‘…becausethemeasurescontainedinthetravelplanappeartobemoreimportantthansimplyhowlongtheorganisationhasbeenattemptingtoaddresstheproblem’.Evaluationsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentshavebeenbothlimitedinnumberandscope.Table2.6presentsasummaryofevaluationscon-ductedintheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdomandAustralia.Reductionsincarusewerefoundinmostcases;howevertheseweremostlybasedoncomparisonstosecondarydatasources(e.g.censusandregionaltravelsurveydata)thatwereinconsistentwiththeevaluationsconductedatthetravelplansites.Forexample,theevaluationswereundertakenduringdifferentyearstowhenthesecondarydatawascollected.Also,thesecondarydatagenerallycoveredallhousingtypes,yetthetravelplansitesweregenerallynotrepresentativeofallhousingtypes.Thismaythereforeleadtodifferencesincarparkingprovisionandthesocio-demo-graphiccharacteristicsofresidents,whichwillultimatelyaffectthecomparisonoftravelpatterns. 2.6EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofTravelPlans29Table2.6SummaryofevaluationsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsSitesKeyfindingsLimitations16residentialdevelopmentsVehicletripgenerationuptoPublishedvehicletripgenera-Arlington,UnitedStates60%lowerthanpublishedtionratesnotcomparableto(ArlingtonCountyCommuterratessitesintermsofgeographicalServices2013)51%ofresidentsdrovealonelocationanddatacollectiontowork,comparedtoaverageperiodsof54%forArlingtonandSitesnotrepresentativeofall64%forwiderregion(basedhousingasperregionaltravelonregionaltravelsurveysurveydata,particularlyindata)termsofcarparkingprovision8residentialdevelopments10%lesscarusethanaverageDatanotcomparableintermsLondon,UnitedKingdomforsurroundingarea(basedonofsurveyperiods:observed(WSP2014)censusdata)datacollectedin2013;censusconductedin2011Sitesnotrepresentativeofallhousingaspercensus,particu-larlyintermsofcarparkingprovisionBeddingtonZeroEnergyFossilfuelcarmileage65%Comparisonstoregionalaver-Development(BedZED)lessthannationalaverageagesmaynotbecomparableSouthLondon,United17%ofresidents’worktripsintermsofdatacollectionKingdom(BioRegionalwerebycar,comparedtoperiods2009)49%forsurroundingareaIssueofresidentialself-selectionnotaddressedgivennatureofzeroenergydevelopmentPooleQuarter43%reducedcarusecomparedImpactsoftravelplannotPoole,UnitedKingdomtopreviousplaceofresidenceadequatelyassessedasreduc-(DepartmentforTransportProportionofhouseholdstionsincarusewerelargely2005;Melia2009)withnocar(19%)similartoduetochangesinresidentialregionalaverage(18%)locationNewcastleGreatParkCarmodesharetargetof77%Nocomparisonsmadetosur-NewcastleUponTyne,Unitedmet(actualwas71%)roundingarea;basisandjusti-Kingdom(TravelPlanServicesPublictransporttargetof18%ficationfortargetsisunclearLtd2013)notmet(actualwas13%)62%increaseinbuspatronagesince2010–12QueenElizabethParkCarmodesharetargetof62%Nocomparisonsmadetosur-Guildford,UnitedKingdomnotmet(actualwas80%);yetroundingarea;basisandjusti-(DepartmentforTransportonly37%oftripsmadebycarficationfortargetsisunclear2005)assingleoccupantRouseHillCarownershipof1.6veh/ControlsuburbsnotdirectlyNewSouthWales,Australiahouseholdcomparedto2.0veh/comparableastheywere(Wiblinetal.2012)householdforcontrolsuburbs;moreestablishedandhadlessgreateruseofbus,walkingandaccessibilitytotowncentrecyclingcomparedtocontrolfacilitiessuburbsSourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedoncitationswithinthetable 302TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsTheuseofcontrolsiteswithsimilarcharacteristics,andwithdatacollectedatthesametimeasthetreatment(travelplan)sites,canbetteraccountforexter-nalfactorsandprovideamoreaccurateindicationoftravelplaneffectiveness.ThisapproachwasidentifiedbyArlingtonCountyCommuterServices(2013)asafutureresearchneedintheirevaluationoftravelplansat16residentialdevel-opmentsinArlington,UnitedStates.However,oftheevaluationspresentedinTable2.6,onlyone(RouseHill,NewSouthWales,Australia)usedacontrolgroup.Yeteveninthiscase,thetreatment(travelplan)groupwasconsideredtohavebetteraccesstotowncentrefacilitiesthanthecontrolgroup(Wiblinetal.2012),therebypotentiallyimpactinguponthelevelofcaruse.Whilethereareotherexamplesoftravelplansimplementedatnewresiden-tialdevelopments(DepartmentforTransport2005)inadditiontothoseshowninTable2.6,evaluationsofthesehaveeithernotbeenpublishedorundertakenatall.Addison&Associates(2008,p.20)notes:…therehasbeennooverarchingresearchstudytoevaluatetheeffectsofresidentialtravelplansondailycartripratesperunitormodalshareatnewdevelopments.Manyoftheresidentialtravelplanshavenotbeenmonitoredorhaveyettobefullyoperational.Morerecentworkhasconfirmedthisisstillthecase.Khagram(2013b,2014)reportsonamonitoringprogramfocusedondevelopment-relatedtravelplansinLondon.AsofSpring2013,only12outof242siteshadcompletedtheirmonitor-ingprogramwithnoresultsavailableforresidentialsites(Khagram2013b).Furthermore,noevaluationsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentshaveyetaccountedforself-selectionbiaseffects.Forexample,residentswhochoosetoliveatadevelopmentwithatravelplanmayalreadybemoredisposedtousingsustainableformsoftransport.Therefore,anydifferencesintravelbehav-iourthatareobservedwhencomparingtosecondarydataorcontrolsitescouldbetheresultofresidentialself-selectionandnotthetravelplanitself.Hence,littleresearchhasbeenundertakentoappropriatelyquantifytheeffectivenessoftravelplansinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelop-ments,withnostudiesaccountingforself-selectioneffects.2.7SuccessFactorsforTravelPlansAwiderangeofsuccessfactorsfortravelplanshavebeencitedintheliterature.AfulllistisprovidedinAppendixB.Keyfactorsthatareconsistentlyreportedinclude:•Buildingownershipandengagementinthetravelplanningprocess(HowlettandWatson2010)•Securingseniormanagementsupport(Baudains2003)•Havinganenthusiasticanddedicatedtravelplancoordinator(VanMalderenetal.2013)•Implementingasetofcomprehensivetravelplanmeasures(IsonandRye2008) 2.7SuccessFactorsforTravelPlans31•Incorporatingconstraintsoncarparking(Cairnsetal.2010)•Havingasupportivepolicyframeworkinplace(Addison&Associates2008).Theneedtobuildownershipandengagementinthetravelplanningprocessisgenerallycommontoalltravelplans.However,fornewdevelopments,Harrison(2003,p.400)cautionsthat:…travelplansareincreasinglybeingdraftedforapplicantsbyconsultants.Whilethisiswelcome,inthatabodyofknowledgeandexpertiseisbeingbuiltupbyspecialists,itcarriestheriskthatnooneintheapplicant’sorganisationhasanyparticularpersonalcom-mitmenttomakingtheplanasuccess.Indeedtheindividualwhomayfeelmostcommit-tedtothetravelplan,havingdraftedandnegotiatedit,maybetheconsultantwhowillhavenofurtherconnectionwiththesiteonceplanningpermissionhasbeengranted.Whereadeveloperisinvolvedinpreparingthetravelplan,YeatesandEnoch(2012,p.13)recognisethat‘ownershipofatravelplaninthelongtermisadif-ficultissue,particularlywherefinancialconditionsareinvolvedinregardtomoni-toring’.TheUKDepartmentforTransport(2007,p.13)advisethatthesuccessoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments‘dependsonensuringthatownershipfortheplanultimatelyrestswiththeresidentswhorecognisethebenefitsandareawarethattheplansareintheirbestinterest’.Securingseniormanagementsupportisrelevantforworkplaces,particularlywherefundingmayberequiredtoimplementinitiativesorsupportformorecon-troversialmeasuresisrequired(Baudains2003;Cairnsetal.2010;Rye1997).However,itisalsoapplicabletoschoolswheresupportfromtheschoolprincipaliscriticaltothesuccessofthetravelplan(Newsonetal.2010).Theimportanceofhavinganenthusiasticanddedicatedtravelplancoordina-toriswelldocumented(HendricksandGeorggi2007;VanMalderenetal.2013).Hendricks(2005)investigatedtheimpactoftravelplancoordinatorstylesontheeffectivenessoftravelplansandfoundthatthemoresuccessfulonestendedtohavetravelplancoordinatorswith‘influencing’and‘steady’workstyles.Rye(1997)foundthatanumberofpersonalabilitiesareparticularlyimportantifatravelplancoordinatoristobeeffective.Theseinclude,amongothers,negotiatingabilities,resilience,andanabilitytodealtactfullywithpeople.Implementingasetofcomprehensivetravelplanmeasuresthatworktogetherasanintegratedpackageisconsideredtobeanimportantcomponentofsuccess-fultravelplans,partofwhichinvolvestailoringthechoiceofmeasurestotheneedsofthesiteanditsusers(Cairnsetal.2010;FraserandAddison2002;IsonandRye2008).However,Cairnsetal.(2010,p.492)foundthattheamountofmoneyspentontravelplans‘didnotrelatedirectlytothedegreeofchangethathadbeenachieved,ortheoverall‘end’levelofcaruse…theappropriatenessofthemeasuresandoverallstrategyappearedtobemoreimportanttotravelplaneffectiveness’.Furthermore,Orski(1993,p.162)foundthat‘largeexpendituresdonotalwaysensureprogramsuccess,andlesserexpenditurescansometimesbeaseffective,ifappropriatelytargeted’.Carparkingconstraintshavealsobeencitedwidelyintheliteratureasakeysuccessfactorfortravelplans.Cairnsetal.(2010)reporttheresultsofaround20casestudiesintheUnitedKingdomwhichshowedthatworkplacesthathad 322TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsaddressedparkingachievedmorethandoublethereductionincaruseofthosethathadnot.ResearchundertakenintoemployertransportbenefitsintheUnitedStatesrevealedastrongrelationshipbetweentheprovisionoffreecarparkinganddriv-ingtowork,withfreecarparkingresultinginanincreaseof20%pointsfordriv-ingalonetoworkintheWashingtonDCregion(HamreandBuehler2014).Theneedforasupportivepolicyframeworkishighlyrelevanttotravelplansfornewdevelopments.Throughasurveyof69localcouncilsintheUnitedKingdom,Addison&Associates(2008)foundthatastrongpolicycontextwasthemostoftencited‘assisting’factorinsecuringtravelplans.TheUKDepartmentforTransport(2005,p.57)alsonote:Arobustpolicyframeworkisimportantinsupportingnegotiationstosecureresidentialtravelplans…Themorecomprehensive,integratedandexplicittheauthority’spolicyframe-workisinrelationtosustainablespatialplanningandtransportrequirementsandtheroleoftravelplans,themoreeasilyarequirementforaresidentialtravelplancanbejustified.Despitetherangeofsuccessfactorsfortravelplansthathavebeencited,effortstoquantifytheirrelativeeffectivenesshavebeenlimited.Wintersetal.(2005)developedamodeltopredictthechangeinvehicletripsatworkplacesbasedonsitecharacteristicsandthespecifictravelplanmeasuresintroduced.However,despitetheuseofdatafromseveralthousandemployersites,thebestmodelachievedarelativelylowlevelofagreementwithactualresults(thebestmodelexplainedonly21.5%ofthevariabilityinthedata;anR2valueof0.215).Theauthorsnotethatthe‘overallpooraccuracyforallthemodelscanbeattributedmoretothecomplexityofthisprobleminvolvingunpredictablehumanbehaviour’(Wintersetal.2005,p.204).Theyalsonote‘theeffectofthethreeEs—empow-erment,experience,andenthusiasm—oftheemployeetransportationcoordinator’(Wintersetal.2005,p.206),factorsthatcanbedifficulttoincorporatewithinaquantitativemodel.Similarly,Orski(1993,p.162)foundthat‘theeffectivenessof(travelplan)programsdependstoalargeextentonintangible,difficult-to-quantifyfactors:thecommitmentofseniormanagement,theaggressivenesswithwhichthepro-gramispromoted,andthestatusandvisibilityoftheEmployeeTransportationCoordinator’.Cairnsetal.(2004,p.25)alsofoundthat‘veryfewgeneralisationsthatcouldbemade’whenattemptingtoidentifywhysometravelplansaremoresuccessfulthanothers.2.8ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristoprovideareviewoftheliteratureontravelplansandtheirapplicationtonewdevelopments.Indoingso,ithascoveredthetravelplan-ningprocess,actors,geographicalcoverageandscope,issues,effectivenessandkeysuccessfactors.ResearchgapsandopportunitieshavebeenidentifiedfromtheliteraturereviewandaresummarisedinTable2.7. 2.8Conclusion33Table2.7ResearchgapsandopportunitiesSectionResearchgapsResearchopportunities2.3ActorsinvolvedintheNoresearchhasspecificallyDevelopanappreciationfortravelplanningprocessexploredtheperspectivesofthetheperspectivesofactorsdifferentactorsinvolvedintravelinvolvedintravelplanningforplanningfornewresidentialnewresidentialdevelopments,developmentsparticularlyaspectsrelatingtoimplementation(seeChap.6)2.4GeographicalcoverageThereisnounderstandingoftheExaminethescaleandassoci-andscopescaleandassociatedcharacteris-atedcharacteristicsoftravelticsoftravelplanningpracticeforplanningpracticefornewurbannewdevelopmentsinAustraliadevelopmentsusingacasestudyfromthestateofVictoria(seeChap.5)2.5RequiringtravelplansNoformalassessmentoftheUndertakeaquantitativefornewdevelopmentsqualityoftravelplanspreparedassessmentofthequalityoffornewresidentialdevelopmentstravelplanspreparedfornewhasbeenundertakenresidentialdevelopmentstohelpidentifytheirrelativemeritsandpotentialareasforimprovement(seeChap.7)Noresearchhasbeenunder-Exploretheimplementationpro-takentosufficientlyexplorecessassociatedwithtravelplansimplementationinthecontextoffornewresidentialdevelopmentstravelplansfornewresidentialtoidentifyopportunitiestodevelopmentsenhanceeffectiveness(seeChap.9)2.6Evaluatingtheeffec-Littleresearchhasbeenunder-Usingacasestudyapproach,tivenessoftravelplanstakentoappropriatelyquantifyevaluatetheimpactsoftraveltheeffectivenessoftravelplansinplansfornewresidentialdevel-reducingcaruseatnewresiden-opmentsincludingself-selectiontialdevelopments,withnostudieseffectstounderstandtheiraccountingforself-selectioneffectivenessinreducingcaruseeffects(seeChap.8)TheliteratureisrelativelysilentonthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinAustralia,apartfromafewspecificexamples(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014b;NSWGovernment2011;RAC2014;Wiblinetal.2012).Thisthesiswillhelptoclosethisgapbyassess-ingthescaleandassociatedcharacteristicsoftravelplansfornewurbandevelop-ments,usingacasestudyfromthestateofVictoria(seeChap.5).Whilepreviousresearchhasexploredtheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintravelplanning(Davisonetal.2010;EnochandIson2008;Ryeetal.2011a;YeatesandEnoch2012),nonehasbeenundertakenspecificallywithinthecontextofnewresidentialdevelopments.Thisisparticularlyrelevantgiventhedifferentimplementationchallengesassociatedwithresidentialsites.Thisthesisexplorestheseissuesfromtheperspectivesofrelevantactorsinvolvedintheprocess(seeChap.6).Relatedtothisisthelackofresearchthathassufficientlyexplored 342TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsimplementationinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thisthesiswilladdresstheseresearchgapsandindoingsowillidentifyopportu-nitiestoenhancetheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments(seeChap.9).Moreover,theeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsispoorlyunderstood.(Addison&Associates2008;Morrisetal.2009).Usingacasestudyapproach,thisthesiswilladdressthisissuebyprovidinganunderstandingoftheireffectivenessinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments,includingthequantificationofanyself-selectionbiaseffects(seeChap.8).Aquantitativeassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelop-mentswillalsobeundertakentohelpidentifytheirrelativemeritsandpotentialareasforimprovement(seeChap.7).Priortooutliningthespecificmethodologyforaddressingeachoftheresearchgaps,thisliteraturereviewcontinuesinthenextchapter,butwithashifttowardsthetheoreticalfoundationsoftheresearch.Thisincludescoverageofbothimple-mentationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.ReferencesABC.(2014).EstablishinganeffectivecommutetripreductionpolicyinMassachusetts.Massachusetts,US:ABetterCity(ABC).ACTCanada&NoxonAssociatesLimited.(2010).Workplacetravelplans:GuidanceforCanadianemployers,TransportCanada.Addison,L.(2002).Usingtheplanningprocesstosecuresustainabletransport.PaperpresentedtoEuropeanTransportConference,HomertonCollege,Cambridge,UK.Addison&Associates.(2008).Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess—Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransportandCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Ampt,E.S.,Richardson,A.J.,&Wake,D.(2009).Simpleandsuited:Guidelinesforworkplacetravelsurveys.Paperpresentedto32ndAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Auckland,NewZealand.ArlingtonCountyCommuterServices.(2013).Residentialbuildingtransportationperformancemonitoringstudy,Arlington,Virginia,US.Atkins,W.S.(2002).Workplacetravelplanevaluationtoolv2.7.DepartmentforTransport.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.imsaho.com/miscellaneous/travel_plan_evaluation_tool.asp.ATOC.(2013).Guidanceontheimplementationofstationtravelplans.UK:AssociationofTrainOperatingCompanies.Baker,L.(2007).Workplacetravelplans—Anewruleofthegame.PaperpresentedtoNewZealandPlanningInstituteandEAROPHConference,PalmerstonNorth,NewZealand.Bamberg,S.,&Moser,G.(2007).Whyareworktravelplanseffective?Comparingconclusionsfromnarrativeandmeta-analyticalresearchsynthesis.Transportation,34,647–666.Baudains,C.(2003).Environmentaleducationintheworkplace:InducingvoluntarytravelbehaviourchangetodecreasesingleoccupantvehicletripsbycommutersintothePerthCBD.PhDThesis,MurdochUniversity.BioRegional.(2009).BedZEDsevenyearson:TheimpactoftheUK’sbestknowneco-villageanditsresidents,UK.Bradshaw,R.,Lane,R.,Tanner,G.,&Wofinden,D.(1998).Levelsofacitivityrelatingtosaferroutestoschooltypeprojectsandgreentransportplans.London:UniversityofWestminsterandSocialandTransportResearchServices. References35BritishStandardsInstitution.(2008).PAS500:2008—Nationalspecificationforworkplacetravelplans,London,UK.Brockman,R.,&Fox,K.R.(2011).Physicalactivitybystealth?Thepotentialhealthbenefitsofaworkplacetransportplan.PublicHealth,125,210–216.Brög,W.,Erhard,E.,Ker,I.,Ryle,J.,&Wall,R.(2009).Evaluationofvoluntarytravelbehav-iourchange:Experiencesfromthreecontinents.TransportPolicy,16,281–292.Cairns,S.,Davis,A.,Newson,C.,&Swiderska,C.(2002).Makingtravelplanswork:Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.Cairns,S.,&Newson,C.(2006).Makingschooltravelplanswork:Effects,benefitsandsuccessfactorsatEnglishschools,AssociationforEuropeanTransportandcontributors.Cairns,S.,Newson,C.,&Davis,A.(2010).Understandingsuccessfulworkplacetravelinitia-tivesintheUK.TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,44(7),473–494.Cairns,S.,Sloman,L.,Newson,C.,Anable,J.,Kirkbride,A.,&Goodwin,P.(2004).Smarterchoices—Changingthewaywetravel.UK:DepartmentforTransport.Cairns,S.,Sloman,L.,Newson,C.,Anable,J.,Kirkbride,A.,&Goodwin,P.(2008).Smarterchoices:Assessingthepotentialtoachievetrafficreductionusing‘softmeasures’.TransportReviews,28(5),593–618.Coleman,C.(2000).Greencommuterplansandthesmallemployer:Aninvestigationintotheattitudesandpolicyofthesmallemployertowardsstafftravelandgreencommuterplans.TransportPolicy,7,139–148.Cooper,B.,&Meiklejohn,D.(2003).Anewapproachfortravelbehaviourchangeinuniversi-ties.Paperpresentedto26thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Wellington,NewZealand.Currie,G.,&Delbosc,A.(2011).Traveldemandmanagementforthesummerolympicgames.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,2245,36–48.Curtis,C.,&Holling,C.(2004).Justhow(travel)smartareAustralianuniversitieswhenitcomestoimplementingsustainabletravel?WorldTransportPolicyandPractice,10(1),22–33.Davison,L.,Enoch,M.,&Ison,S.(2010).Europeanexperienceoftravelplans:Anexpertper-spective.Paperpresentedto12thWorldConferenceinTransportationResearch,Lisbon,Portugal.DeGruyter,C.,Rao,D.,&Meiklejohn,D.(2005).Toolsfortravelbehaviourchange.Paperpre-sentedto28thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Sydney,Australia.DepartmentforTransport.(2002).Usingtheplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:Bestprac-ticeguidanceforlocalauthorities,developersandoccupiers.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.DepartmentforTransport.(2005).Makingresidentialtravelplanswork:Guidelinesfornewdevelopment,London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2007).Makingresidentialtravelplanswork,London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2009).Goodpracticeguidelines:Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.DepartmentofInfrastructure.(2008).TravelSmarttravelplanningguide,Victoria,Australia.DepartmentofTransport.(undated-a).Travelplanningcasestudy:Lovelivinglocal—CityofDarebin.Victoria,Australia:DepartmentofTransport.DepartmentofTransport.(undated-b).Travelplanningcasestudy:SchooltravelplanningontheBellarinePeninsula—CityofGreaterGeelong.Victoria,Australia:DepartmentofTransport.DepartmentofTransport.(undated-c).Travelplanningcasestudy:TransportSwinburneandcor-porateBoroondara—CityofBoroondara.Victoria,Australia:DepartmentofTransport.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.(2014a).Aguidetotheplanningsystem.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.(2014b).Planningschemes.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/planningschemes. 362TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsDiPietro,G.,&Hughes,I.(2003).TravelSMARTschools—Therereallyisabetterwaytogo!Paperpresentedto26thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Wellington,NewZealand.Dill,J.(1998).Mandatoryemployer-basedtripreduction:Whathappened?TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1618,103–110.Enoch,M.(2012).Sustainabletransport,mobilitymanagementandtravelplans.Surrey,England:AshgatePublishingLimited.Enoch,M.,&Ison,S.(2008).Expertperspectivesonthepast,presentandfutureoftravelplansintheUK:Researchreport.DepartmentforTransportandtheNationalBusinessTravelNetwork.Enoch,M.,&Potter,S.(2003).Encouragingthecommercialsectortohelpemployeeschangetheirtravelbehaviour.TransportPolicy,10,51–58.Enoch,M.,&Rye,T.(2006).Travelplans:Usinggoodpracticetoinformfuturepolicy.InB.Jourquin,P.Rietveld,&K.Westin(Eds.),Towardsbetterperformingtransportnetworks(pp.157–177).London,UK:Routledge.Ferguson,E.(2000).Traveldemandmanagementandpublicpolicy.England:AshgatePublishing.Fraser,J.,&Addison,L.(2002).Travelplans—Agreenwashoraneffectiveplanningmecha-nism.TownandCountryPlanning,275–277.Giuliano,G.,Hwang,K.,Perrine,D.,&Wachs,M.(1991).PreliminaryevaluationofregulationXVofthesouthcoastairqualitymanagementdistrict.Berkeley,California,US:UniversityofCaliforniaTransportationCenter.Guiver,J.,&Stanford,D.(2014).Whydestinationvisitortravelplanningfallsbetweenthecracks.JournalofDestinationMarketing&Management.Halling,B.,&Mayes,M.(2011).‘Workin’it—Makingsmartertravelatworksmarter!Paperpresentedto34thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Adelaide,Australia.Hamre,A.,&Buehler,R.(2014).Commutermodechoiceandfreecarparking,publictranspor-tationbenefits,showers/lockers,andbikeparkingatwork:EvidencefromtheWashington,DCRegion.JournalofPublicTransportation,17(2),67–91.Hancock,L.,&Nuttman,S.(2013).Engaginghighereducationinstitutionsinthechallengeofsustainability:Sustainabletransportasacatalystforaction.JournalofCleanerProduction,62,62–71.Harrison,J.(2003).Travelplansandtheplanningsystem.JournalofPlanningandEnvironmentLaw,397–403.Hendricks,S.(2005).Effectivenessofprogramsforworksitetripreduction:Theinfluenceoforganisationalculture.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1924,207–214.Hendricks,S.(2008).Fourchallengestoincorporatingtransportationdemandmanage-mentintothelanddevelopmentprocess.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,2046,30–36.Hendricks,S.,&Georggi,N.(2007).Documentedimpactoftransportationdemandmanagementprogramsthroughthecasestudymethod.JournalofPublicTransportation,10(4),79–98.Higgins,T.(1996).Howdoweknowemployer-basedtransportationdemandmanagementworks?Theneedforexperimentaldesign.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1564,54–59.Hill,J.(2013).Proposedmodificationstotheregionaltransportationimpactstudyguidelines—Publicmeeting,reportP-13-031.Ontario,Canada:RegionofWaterloo.Hinckson,E.,&Badland,H.(2011).Schooltravelplans:Preliminaryevidenceforchangingschool-relatedtravelpatternsinelementaryschoolchildren.AmericanJournalofHealthPromotion,25(6),368–371.Hinckson,E.,Duncan,S.,&Badland,H.(2009).Canschooltravelplanschangethewaychil-drencommute?JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport,12.Holzer,P.(2004).Attitudesofprivatedeveloperstowardstraveldemandmanagement.StudentInternshipReport,SwinburneUniversity. References37Hooi,J.(2012).Travelsmart:Youdon’thavetogotoworkalltogether.TheBusinessTimes.Howlett,R.,&Watson,T.(2010).TravelplanninginVictoria—Anewstrategicapproachtosustainingcommunities.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Ison,S.,Merkert,R.,&Mulley,C.(2014).Policyapproachestopublictransportatairports—SomedivergingevidencefromtheUKandAustralia.TransportPolicy,35,265–274.Ison,S.,&Rye,T.(2008).Theimplementationandeffectivenessoftransportdemandmanage-mentmeasures:Aninternationalperspective.Hampshire,UK:Ashgate.Jollon,M.(2013).Bestpracticesinintegratingtravelplanswiththedevelopmentapprovalpro-cess:ExamplesfromtheUSA.PaperpresentedtoPlanningInstituteofAustralia(PIA)2013NationalCongress,Canberra,Australia.Khagram,A.(2013a).Travelplanmonitoringofficerreport:Coveringautumn2012.UK:WestTrans.Khagram,A.(2013b).Travelplanmonitoringofficerreport:CoveringSpring2013.UK:WestTrans.Khagram,A.(2014).Thefivecardsthatwillensureatravelplanismorethanjustabluff.TransportXtra.Khandokar,F.,Ryley,T.,Ison,S.,&Price,A.(2013).AsurveyonhospitaltravelplansinEngland.Paperpresentedto92ndTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)AnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC.Llewellyn,R.,Tricker,R.,&Paton,D.(2014).Travelplans:Acriticalcomparisonoftheapplica-tionoflanduseplanningprocessesinEnglandandScotland.Transport,iFirst,1–13.Lopez-Aqueres,W.(1993).Conceptualframeworktostudytheeffectivenessofemployertrip-reductionprograms.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1404,55–63.Mammen,G.,etal.(2013).Activeschooltravel:AnevaluationoftheCanadianschooltravelplanningintervention.PreventiveMedicine.Mammen,G.,Stone,M.,Buliung,R.,&Faulkner,G.(2014).SchooltravelplanninginCanda:Identifyingchild,familyandschool-levelcharacteristicsassociatedwithtravelmodeshiftfromdrivingtoactiveschooltravel.JournalofTransport&Health.MarsdenJacobAssociates.(2011).EvaluationoftheTravelSmartlocalgovernmentandwork-placeprograms.Perth,Australia:WADepartmentofTransport.McFadden,H.,DeGruyter,C.,&Watson,T.(2006).Wideningthescope:DeliveryoftravelbehaviourchangeinitiativesbylocalgovernmentinVictoria.PaperpresentedtoAustralianInstituteofTrafficManagementandPlanning(AITPM)NationalConferenceMelbourne,Australia.Meiklejohn,D.,&Wake,D.(2007).Ataleoftwocities:WorkplacetravelplanprogramsinMelbourneandPerth.Paperpresentedto30thAustralasianTransportResearchForum,Melbourne,Australia.Mele,L.(2013).TDMmembershipbyCondocorporation.8July2013,EmailcommunicationtoPatFisher(CityofWaterloo,Ontario).Melia,S.(2009).PotentialforcarfreedevelopmentintheUK.PhDThesis,UniversityofWestEngland.Melia,S.,Barton,H.,&Parkhurst,G.(2013).PotentialforcarfreedevelopmentintheUK.UrbanDesignandPlanning,166(DP2),136–145.Miller,E.(1995).Truthaboutemployertripreductionprograms.TDMReview,3(2),14–16.Moghtaderi,F.,Burke,M.,&Dodson,J.(2012).Asystematicreviewofchildren’stravelbehav-iourchangeprogramsinAustralia.Paperpresentedto35thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Perth,Australia.Morris,D.,Enoch,M.,Pitfield,D.,&Ison,S.(2009).Car-freedevelopmentthroughUKcom-munitytravelplans.UrbanDesignandPlanning,162(DPI),19–27.Myers,K.(2005).Travelbehaviourchangeinitiatives:Alocalgovernment’sinnovations.Paperpresentedto28thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Sydney,Australia. 382TravelPlansandTheirApplicationtoNewDevelopmentsNewson,C.,Cairns,S.,&Davis,A.(2010).Makingschooltravelplanswork:ExperiencefromEnglishcasestudies,TransportforQualityofLife.NSWGovernment.(2011).Activetravel:Optusrelocation.Premier’scouncilforactiveliving.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.pcal.nsw.gov.au/case_studies/optus.NZTransportAgency.(2011).Workplacetravelplanguidelines.Wellington,NewZealand:NewZealandGovernment.Orski,C.K.(1993).EvaluationofemployeetripreductionprogramsbasedonCalifornia’sexpe-riencewithregulationXV.Paperpresentedto1993ITEInternationalConference.Pagano,A.,&Verdin,J.(1997).Employeetripreductionwithoutgovernmentmandates:CostandeffectivenessestimatesfromChicago.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1598,43–48.Petrunoff,N.,Rissel,C.,Wen,L.W.,Xu,H.,Meiklejohn,D.,&Schembri,A.(2013).Developingahospitaltravelplan:ProcessandbaselinefindingsfromawesternSydneyhos-pital.AustralianHealthReview,37(5),579–584.Potter,S.,&Enoch,M.(2007).Mobilitymanagementinorganisations.InJ.P.Warren(Ed.),Managingtransportenergy:Powerforasustainablefuture(pp.93–120).Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.RAC.(2014).Travelplanningfornewdevelopments:Adviceforlocalgovernments.Perth,WesternAustralia:RACMobilityBulletin#01.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://rac.com.au/.Richter,J.,Friman,M.,&Gärling,T.(2011).Softtransportpolicymeasures:Gapsinknowledge.InternationalJournalofSustainableTransportation,5(4),199–215.Roby,H.(2010a).CantravelplansescapetheplanningGhetto?’TownandCountryPlanning.Roby,H.(2010b).Usinginnovationandbusinessmodelstoanalysetheorganisationalembed-dingoftravelplans.PhDThesis,OpenUniversity.Roby,H.(2010c).Workplacetravelplans:Past,presentandfuture.JournalofTransportGeography,18,23–30.Rose,G.,&Ampt,E.(2001).Travelblending:AnAustraliantravelawarenessinitiative.TransportationResearchPartD:TransportandEnvironment,6(2),95–110.Rye,T.(1997).Theimplementationofworkplacetransportdemandmanagementinlargeorgani-sations.PhDThesis,NottinghamTrentUniversity.Rye,T.(1999a).Employerattitudestoemployertransportplans:AcomparisonofUKandDutchexperience.TransportPolicy,6,183–196.Rye,T.(1999b).Employertransportplans—Acaseforregulation?TransportReviews,19(1),13–31.Rye,T.,Green,C.,Young,E.,&Ison,S.(2011a).Usingtheland-useplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:AnassessmentofprogressinEnglandtodate.JournalofTransportGeography,19(2),235–243.Rye,T.,Welsch,J.,Plevnik,A.,&deTomassi,R.(2011b).Firststepstowardscross-nationaltransferinintegratingmobilitymanagementandlanduseplanningintheEUandSwitzerland.TransportPolicy,18,533–543.Seggerman,K.,&Hendricks,S.(2005).IncorporatingTDMintothelanddevelopmentprocess.StateofFlorida:DepartmentofTransportation.Smith,L.(2010).Schooltravelplans:Howsuccessfularethey?TrafficEngineeringandControl,189–193.SteerDaviesGleave.(2001).Take-upandeffectivenessoftravelplansandtravelawarenesscam-paigns:Finalreport.London,UK:DepartmentoftheEnvironment,TransportandtheRegions.Stewart,J.(1994).Reducingdrive-aloneratesatsmallemployersites:Costsandbenefitsoflocaltripreductionordinances—Pasadenatowerscasestudy.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1433,159–163.Sullivan,C.,&Percy,A.(2008).Evaluatingchangesassociatedwithworkplaceandschooltravelplans—Somethingold,somethingborrowed,somethingnew.Paperpresentedto31stAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),GoldCoast,Queensland,Australia. References39Thom,A.(2009).BehaviourchangetowardssustainabletravelinPerth—TheTravelSmartworkplaceprogram.PaperpresentedtoPATRECResearchForum,CurtinUniversityPerth,Australia.TransportforLondon.(2008).GuidanceforresidentialtravelplanninginLondon.London,UK:TransportforLondon.TransportforLondon.(2011a).ATTrBuTEv3userguide,London,UK.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.attrbute.org.uk/.TransportforLondon.(2011b).TravelplanningfornewdevelopmentinLondon—Incorporatingdeliveriesandservicing.UK:TransportforLondon.TravelPlanServicesLtd.(2013).Newcastlegreatparkframeworktravelplanimplementation:Annualprogressandmonitoringreport,Wakefield,UK.TRICS.(undated).UKstandardassessmentmethodfortravelplanimpacts:Advicefordevelop-ersandplanningauthorities,UK.http://www.trics.org/.VanMalderen,L.,etal.(2013).ExploringtheprofessionofmobilitymanagerinBelgiumandtheirimpactoncommuting.TransportationResearchPartA,55,46–55.Vanoutrive,T.,VanMalderen,L.,Jourquin,B.,Thomas,I.,Verhetsel,A.,&Witlox,F.(2010).Mobilitymanagementmeasuresbyemployers:OverviewandexploratoryanalysisforBelgium.EuropeanJournalofTransportInfrastructureandResearch,10(2),121–141.Wake,D.(2012).EngagingPerthworkplacesforsustainabletransport:AnevaluationoftheTravelSmartworkplaceprogram.Paperpresentedto35thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Perth,Australia.Wake,D.,Thom,A.,&Cummings,R.(2010).Evaluatingworkplacetravelplans.Paperpre-sentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Wiblin,S.(2010).Integratingtravelbehaviourchangeforworkers,shoppersandresidentsatanoutersuburbancentre.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Wiblin,S.,Mulley,C.,&Ison,S.(2012).Precinctwidetravelplans—LearningsfromRouseHillTownCentre.Paperpresentedto35thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Perth,Australia.Winters,P.,Perez,R.,Joshi,A.,&Perone,J.(2005).Worksitetripreductionmodelandman-ual.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1924,197–206.Woodruff,A.,&Hui,C.(2010).Integratingplanninginactivitycentres:Influencingchangeacrossalltravelpurposes.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Wright,L.(2005).SustainableTransport:ASourcebookforPolicy-makersinDevelopingCitiesModule3eCar-FreeDevelopment,DeutscheGesellschaftfurTechnischeZusammenarbeit(GTZ)GmbH.Eschborn,Germany:FederalMinistryforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.WSP.(2014).Doescarownershipincreasecaruse?Astudyoftheuseofcarparkingwithinresi-dentialdevelopmentsinLondon.UK:CommissionedbytheBerkeleyGroup.Wynne,L.(2013).Travelplanningandtheland-useplanningsystem:Understandingtheeffec-tivenessoftravelplanningrequirementsinNSWdevelopmentcontrolplans.UnpublishedMastersThesis,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia.Yeates,S.,&Enoch,M.(2012).Travelplansfromthedeveloperperspective.Paperpresentedto91stTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)AnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC.Young,R.,&Luo,R.(1995).Five-yearresultsofemployeecommuteoptionsinsouthernCalifornia.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1496,191–198. Chapter3TheoreticalFoundations3.1IntroductionThepreviouschapterprovidedaliteraturereviewontravelplansandtheirappli-cationtonewdevelopments.Indoingso,itidentifiedasetofresearchgapsandopportunitiesthatwillbecomethefocusofthisthesisinsubsequentchapters.Theaimofthischapteristodescribethetheoreticalfoundationsforthisresearchbyprovidingaliteraturereviewofbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory(Fig.3.1).Thesetheoriesstronglyalignwiththeresearchaimofidentifyingopportunitiestoenhancetheimplementationandsub-sequenteffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Implementationtheoryprovidesguidanceontheeffectiveimplementationofprogramsandpolicies,whichcanbedirectlyappliedtotravelplans.Bycontrast,planningenforcementtheorysuggestssuitableapproachesforachievingplanningcompliancewhichcanprovideimportantlessonsfortravelplanninginthecontextofnewdevelopments.Thetheoriesareparticularlyrelevanttotheresearchgiventheissuesassociatedwithimplementingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelop-mentsandthedifficultiesexperiencedbylocalgovernmentinenforcingthemthroughthelanduseplanningprocess.Thischapterbeginswithareviewoftheliteratureonimplementationtheory,focusingonbothtop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementation.Itthendescribesplanningenforcementtheory,coveringtwomainapproaches:systematicenforcementandfacilitativeenforcement.Thechapterconcludeswithadiscussionofthetheoreticalimplicationsforexploringtheuseoftravelplansfornewresi-dentialdevelopments.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore201741C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_3 423TheoreticalFoundationsBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSImplementationtheory,planningenforcementtheoryCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.3.1PositionofChap.3inthethesisstructure3.2ImplementationTheoryImplementationtheorydevelopedoutofthepublicpolicyfieldandprovidesvalu-ableguidanceonconditionsforeffectiveimplementationandframeworksforcon-ceptualisingthepolicyimplementationprocess(MazmanianandSabatier1981).Adistinctionisoftendrawnbetweentwofundamentallydifferentapproachestoimplementation: 3.2ImplementationTheory431.Top-downapproach:afocusonprogrameffectivenessandtheabilitytocon-trolthebehaviourofimplementersandtargetgroups(Sabatier1986)2.Bottom-upapproach:afocusonmappingthestrategiesofactorsconcernedwithaparticularpolicyissueorproblem(Elmore1979).Thissectiondescribesandcomparestheseapproachestoimplementation.3.2.1Top-downApproachtoImplementationThetop-downapproachtoimplementationemphasisestheabilityofcentrally-baseddecisionmakerstodevelopunequivocalpolicyobjectivesandcontroltheimplementationprocess(PülzlandTreib2007).SabatierandMazmanian(1980)identifiedasetof17variablesthataffecttheimplementationprocessfromatop-downperspective.ThesevariablesarepresentedasaconceptualframeworkinFig.3.2,wheretheyaregroupedintotractability,statutoryandnon-statutorycategories.The17variableswerealsosynthesisedbySabatierandMazmanian(1981)intoashorterlistofsixsufficientandgenerallynecessaryconditionsforeffectiveimplementation:1.Policyobjectivesareclearandconsistent2.Programisbasedonanadequatecausaltheory(linkbetweentheproblemandsolution)Tractabilityoftheproblem1.Availabilityofvalidtechnicaltheoryandtechnology2.Diversityoftargetgroupbehaviour3.Targetgroupasapercentageofthepopulation4.ExtentofbehaviouralchangerequiredAbilityofstatutetostructureNon-statutoryvariablesaffectingimplementationimplementation1.Incorporationofadequatecausaltheory1.Socio-economicconditionsandtechnology2.Unambiguouspolicydirectives2.Mediaattentiontotheproblem3.Financialresources3.Publicsupport4.Hierarchicalintegrationwithinandamong4.Attitudesandresourcesofconstituencygroupsimplementinginstitutions5.Supportfromsovereigns5.Decision-rulesofimplementingagencies6.Commitmentandleadershipskillof6.Recruitmentofimplementingofficialimplementingofficials7.FormalaccessbyoutsidersStages(dependentvariables)intheimplementationprocessPolicyoutputsComplianceActualimpactsPerceivedMajorofimplementingwithpolicyofpolicyimpactsofrevisioninagenciesoutputsbytargetoutputspolicyoutputsstatutegroupsFig.3.2Variablesaffectingtheimplementationprocessfromatop-downperspective.SourceSabatierandMazmanian(1980) 443TheoreticalFoundations3.Implementationprocessislegallystructuredtoenhancecompliance4.Implementingofficialsarebothcommittedandskilful5.Interestgroupsandsovereignsaresupportive6.Changesinsocioeconomicconditionsdonotunderminepoliticalsupportorcausaltheory.Thefirstthreeconditionscanbedealtwithbytheinitialpolicydecisionorreg-ulation,whereasthelatterthreeconditionsarelargelytheresultofexternalpoliticalandeconomicfactorsduringtheimplementationprocess(SabatierandMazmanian1981).Alsoinlinewiththetop-downapproach,O’Toole(1986)setoutanumberofprinciplestoguidesuccessfulimplementationbasedonareviewoftop-downmulti-actorimplementationliterature,whileGunn(1978)identifiedtenprecondi-tionsforperfectimplementation.Applicationsoftop-downimplementationtheorytotravelplanshavebeenlimitedtodate.Onlytwostudieshaveappliedthetheory,bothwithinthecon-textofworkplacetravelplans.Firstly,thesixtop-downconditionsforeffectiveimplementationdevelopedbySabatierandMazmanian(1981)wereappliedbyMarzottoetal.(2000)toexamineworkplacetravelplansmandatedbyRegulationXVintheUnitedStates.AsummaryispresentedinTable3.1.ThisapplicationhelpedtoexplainanumberofimplementationissuesassociatedwithRegulationXV,namelyalackofcommonunderstandingoftheprogram’sobjectivesandtheelectionofaconservative,anti-regulationcongress.Table3.1Assessmentofconditionsforeffectiveimplementation(SabatierandMazmanian1981)basedonworkplacetravelplansmandatedthroughRegulationXVintheUnitedStatesConditionsforeffectiveAssessmentbasedonworkplacetravelplansintheUSimplementation1.ClearandconsistentSomestatesthoughtairqualitywastheprimaryobjectiveandsoobjectivesassignedimplementationtodepartmentsoftheenvironment,othersthoughtitwastrafficcongestionandsoassignedimplementationtodepartmentsoftransport2.AdequatecausaltheoryNoteveryonebelievedinthelinkbetweencommutingandairpol-lution.RegulationXVdidnotaffectnon-workrelateddriving3.ImplementationprocessEPAhadtheauthoritytowithholdfederalhighwayfundsfromlegallystructuredtostateswhofailedtopromulgateacceptableregulations.However,enhancecomplianceprogramimplementationneverreachedthiscriticalpoint4.CommittedandskilfulFederalofficialsdisagreedwitheachother,whilestateagenciesimplementingofficialswerefrequentlyunderstaffedandfacedoppositionfromstatelegis-laturesandgovernors5.SupportofinterestQualityoflifecoalitionwasinstrumentalinformulatingthegroupsandsovereignsregulationaspartoftheCleanAirActbutprovidedlittlesupporttoagencystafftofendoffassaultsfromtheeconomicdevelopmentcoalitionduringimplementation6.Changesinsocio-Theelectionofaconservative,anti-regulationCongressin1994economicconditionsthatmadetheEPAandtheregulationeasytargetstoattackdonotunderminepoliticalsupportorcausaltheorySourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonMarzottoetal.(2000) 3.2ImplementationTheory45Secondly,thetenpreconditionsforperfectimplementationdevelopedbyGunn(1978)wereappliedbyIsonandRye(2003)toworkplacetravelplansintheUnitedKingdom(seeTable3.2).Theynotethatwhileperfectimplementa-tionisvirtuallyimpossibleintherealworld,Gunn’spreconditionsdoprovideaTable3.2Relevanceofpreconditionsforperfectimplementation(Gunn1978)toworkplacetravelplanningintheUnitedKingdomPreconditionsforperfectimplementationRelevancetoworkplacetravelplansintheUK1.Circumstancesexternaltotheimple-Externalpressures(e.g.trafficcongestion)caninmentingagencydonotimposecripplingfactmotivateanorganisationtodevelopatravelconstraintsplan2.AdequatetimeandsignificantresourcesLittlehopethatatravelplancanachievechangeifaremadeavailabletotheprogramthereisnoonetoimplementit.Financialresourcesfortravelplanscanvarywidely3.NotonlyaretherenoconstraintsinPersuadingseniormanagementthatresourcesfortermsofoverallresourcesbutalsothat,atimplementingatravelplanarerequiredcanbeaeachstageoftheimplementationprocess,challengingtasktherequiredcombinationofresourcesisactuallyavailable4.ThepolicytobeimplementedisbasedWhileclearevidenceexiststhatatravelplancanuponavalidtheoryofcauseandeffectreducethenumberofcartripstoaworkplace,littleevidenceisavailablethatoff-sitecongestioncanbereduced—thislackofevidenceofcauseandeffectmayremainabarriertotheadoptionoftravelplans5.TherelationshipbetweencauseandCauseandeffectlinkageswithinatravelplanareeffectisdirectandtherearefew,ifany,normallyrelativelysimple—thereisnogreatcom-interveninglinksplexchainofcausality6.ThereisasingleimplementingagencyTravelplancoordinatormaydependonotherwhichneednotdependuponotherorganisations,orotherdepartmentswithintheiragenciesforsuccessor,ifotheragenciesownorganisation,fortheimplementationofsomemustbeinvolved,thatthedependencyactionsrelationshipsareminimalinnumberandimportance7.Thereiscompleteunderstandingof,Organisationscangenerallyspecifyobjectivesforandagreementupon,theobjectivestobetheirtravelplan,althoughsettingtargetsmaybeachieved;andthattheseconditionspersistmoredifficultwithoutknowingwhattravelplansthroughouttheimplementationprocesshaveachievedatotherlocations8.InmovingtowardsagreedobjectivesitNatureofthetravelplanprocessnotalwaysclearlyispossibletospecify,incompletedetailappreciatedbyorganisations,partlybecausetravelandperfectsequence,thetaskstobeplansareanovelconcept.Thiscanleadtoincor-performedbyeachparticipantrectornon-specificationoftasks9.Thereisperfectcommunicationamong,Whilecross-departmentalworkinggroupsareandcoordinationof,thevariouselementsnormallysetuptoimplementandmonitortraveloragenciesinvolvedintheprogramplansinorganisations,itmaybedifficulttofullycoordinateactivitiesasthetravelplanisnormally‘driven’byoneortwodepartments10.ThoseinauthoritycandemandandTravelplansdependonvoluntarychangesintravelobtainperfectobediencebehaviour—itisimpossibleforanemployertorequireemployeestocommuteinaparticularwaySourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonIsonandRye(2003) 463TheoreticalFoundationsusefulwaytoevaluatetheimplementationprocess.Ofthetenpreconditions,IsonandRye(2003)notethatexternalcircumstances(preconditionone),causeandeffecttheory(preconditionfour),havingasingleimplementingagency(precon-ditionsix)andperfectcommunication(preconditionnine)arethemostimpor-tanttosuccessfulworkplacetravelplanning,basedontheirownexperiencewithimplementation.Whilethetop-downapproachprovidesclearguidanceonconditionsforeffec-tiveimplementation,ithasbeenarguedthatitincorrectlyassumesadirectcausallinkbetweenapolicyanditsoutcomes,withlittleregardfortheinfluenceofimplementers(PülzlandTreib2007).Thisgaverisetothebottom-upapproach,asdiscussedinthenextsection.3.2.2Bottom-upApproachtoImplementationThebottom-upapproachplacesagreaterfocusonimplementersandrecognisesthatpolicyisonlyoneinfluence,andperhapsonlyaminorone,onthebehav-iourofimplementersandsubsequenttargetgroups(Elmore1979).Akeypremisesupportingthebottom-upapproachisthatimplementers,alsotermed‘street-levelbureaucrats’,haveconsiderablediscretionattheirdisposalastohowtheyinter-pretandimplementapolicyanditisthereforeappropriatetoaccountfortheseinfluences(Lipsky1971).Forexample,street-levelbureaucratstypicallyemployanumberofcopingmechanismsandsimplificationswhenimplementingpolicyandthisisoftendonewithinadequateinformationandtoolittletimetoweighupthemeritsofeachoption(Lipsky1971).Furthermore,Sabatier(1986,p.22)statesthatimplementerscan‘oftendeflectcentrally-mandatedprogramstowardstheirownends’.Nostudieshaveexplicitlyappliedthebottom-upapproachtotravelplans.However,Marzottoetal.(2000)donotethefollowinginthecontextofworkplacetravelplansmandatedbyRegulationXVintheUnitedStates:Failuretotakeintoaccounttheprivate[bottom-up]sideofimplementationandthelink-agesbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorswillresultinpoorlyenforcedandineffectiveimplementation,fewpolicyoutputs,littlepolicyimpact,and,ultimately,unsolvedpublicproblems(Marzottoetal.2000,p.119).Furthermore,inthecontextofvoluntaryworkplacetravelplansinAustralia,Askew(2011)notesthat‘ultimately,itistheactorsthatpropelandshapethepro-cess,andtheirrolesandactivitieswithintheprocessshouldthereforebesystem-aticallyrepresented.’ThesefindingsareconsistentwithElmore(1978,p.209)whomaintainsthata‘frequentexplanationofimplementationfailuresisthatthosewhoimplementprogramsareseldomincludedindecisionsthatdeterminethecontentofthoseprograms’.Thefindingsarealsoconsistentwiththeliteraturereviewpresentedin 3.2ImplementationTheory47Chap.2ofthisthesiswhichidentifiedownershipandengagementaskeytothesuccessoftravelplans.Unlikethetop-downapproach,thebottom-upapproachisnotbasedonasetofpreconditionsforsuccessfulimplementation.Rather,practitionersgenerallyfocusonthemultitudeofactorswhointeractatthelocallevelonaparticularissueandthestrategiesusedbytheseactorsinpursuitoftheirobjectives(Sabatier1986).AccordingtoO’Toole(2007,p.147),thenumberofactorsinvolvedindeliveringagivenpolicycanaffecttheprobabilityofimplementationsuccessandthatwith‘sequentialarrangements,addingmoreorganizationalunitsinachainincreasesthenumberofpossibleroadblockstoaction.’However,thebottom-upisalsonotwithoutitslimitations.Theseincludethetendencytofocusonlyonthegoalsandstrategiesoflocalactors,andfailingtotakeintoaccounttop-downrelatedinfluences(Sabatier1986).Itisthereforeuse-fultocompareapproachestoimplementation,asdiscussedinthenextsection.3.2.3ComparingApproachestoImplementationTable3.3providesacomparisonofkeycharacteristicsofthetop-downandbot-tom-upapproachestoimplementation.Thetop-downapproachtendstotaketheperspectiveofcentralpolicymakers,withformalregulationusedtoprescribeasetofprogramoutputs.Thiscontrastswiththebottom-upapproachwhichtakestheperspectiveofdecentralisedstreet-levelbureaucrats(orlocalimplementers)whousebothformalandinformalmethodstosolveissuestolocalproblems.Akeystrengthofthetop-downapproachisitsabilitytoprovideaclearsetofconditionsforeffectiveimplementation.Theseconditionsareparticularlyusefulwhenthereisafocusonassessingtheeffectivenessofaprogram(Sabatier1986).However,applicationofthetop-downapproachislimitedinsituationswherethereisnodominantagency,butratheramultitudeofactors.Furthermore,itis‘likelytoignore,oratleastunderestimate,thestrategiesusedbystreetlevelbureaucratsTable3.3Comparisonoftop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationCharacteristicTop-downapproachBottom-upapproachPolicydecision-makerPolicymakersStreet-levelbureaucratsStartingpointStatutorylanguageSocialproblemsStructureFormalBothformalandinformalProcessPurelyadministrativeNetworking,includingadministrativeAuthorityCentralisationDecentralisationOutput/outcomesPrescriptiveDescriptiveDiscretionTop-levelbureaucratsBottom-levelbureaucratsSourcePaudel(2009) 483TheoreticalFoundationsandtargetgroupstogetaround(central)policyand/ortodivertittotheirownpur-poses(Sabatier1986,p.30).Conversely,thebottom-upapproachisabletodealwithpolicyareasinvolvingamultitudeofactors(O’Toole1986).Also,giventhefocusisnotontheattain-mentofformalpolicyobjectives,alltypesof(unintended)consequencesofapro-gramcanbeanalysed.However,thebottom-upapproachcanunderestimatetheabilityoftop-downvariablestoshapetheinstitutionalstructureinwhichindividu-alsoperate,therebyindirectlyinfluencingthegoalsandstrategiesoflocalactors(Sabatier1986).Indiscussingtherelativemeritsandlimitationsoftop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementation,PülzlandTreib(2007)notethatthereisnowgen-eralagreementamongscholarsthatimplementationislocatedonacontinuumbetweencentralauthority(top-down)andlocalautonomy(bottom-up).Theysug-gestthatthe‘preferencesofstreet-levelbureaucratsandthenegotiationswithinimplementationnetworkshavetobetakenintoaccounttothesameextentascen-trallydefinedpolicyobjectivesandeffortsathierarchicalcontrol’(PülzlandTreib2007,p.100).Inthecontextofthisthesis,thetop-downapproachisrelevantgiventhattheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsisbeingexplored.However,thebottom-upapproachisalsoapplicablegiventhemultitudeofactorsinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocess.Itisthereforeconsideredappro-priatetoutilisebothtop-downandbottom-upperspectivesforstudyingtheimple-mentationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Effortstocombinethetop-downandbottom-upapproachhaveledtothedevel-opmentoftheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework(ACF),originallyproposedbySabatier(1986).Thisstatesthatpolicysubsystems,ratherthanaspecificgovern-mentorganisation,aremoreusefulforunderstandingpublicpolicyastheyincludealloftheactorsinvolvedintheprocess(e.g.alllevelsofgovernment,privatebusi-nesses,andindividualpeople),notjustthestreet-levelbureaucratsorgovernmentalone.Thisbottom-upfocusisthencombinedwithsomeofthemoretop-downinfluences,suchassocio-economicconditionsandlegalinstruments,topaintamorebalancedpictureofthepolicyimplementationprocess(Sabatier1986).TheACFassumesthat‘actorscanbeaggregatedintoanumber(usuallyonetofour)of‘advocacycoalitions’,eachcomposedofactorsfromvariousgovernmentalandprivateorganizationswhoboth(a)shareasetofnormativeandcausalbeliefsand(b)engageinanon-trivialdegreeofco-ordinatedactivityovertime’(Sabatier1998,p.103).WhiletheACFprovidesasynthesisofthetop-downandbottom-upapproach,itisprimarilyfocusedonpolicychange(generallyassociatedwithachangeinbeliefswithincoalitions),ratherthanimplementation(Winter2007).Forthisrea-son,ithaslimitedrelevanceforunderstandingtheimplementationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentssoitisnotconsideredfurtherinthisthesis.Thissectionhasprovidedaliteraturereviewofimplementationtheory.Thenextsectionconsidersplanningenforcementtheorywhichalsoformspartofthetheoreticalfoundationsfortheresearch. 3.3PlanningEnforcementTheory493.3PlanningEnforcementTheoryPlanningenforcementtheoryhasreceivedlittleattentionintheresearchliterature(Harris2011).However,thetheorydoessuggesttwomainapproachesforachiev-ingplanningcompliance:1.Thesystematicapproach:theuniformandstrictapplicationofrules,withleg-islativemechanismsusedtodeterviolations(Prior2000)2.Thefacilitativeapproach:theuseofincentives,negotiation,educationandfos-teringofgoodworkingrelationshipstoachievecompliance(Burbyetal.1998).Thissectiondescribesandcomparesthesetwoapproachestoplanningenforce-ment.Despitetheissueswithenforcingtravelplansthroughtheplanningsystem(aspreviouslydiscussedinChap.2),planningenforcementtheoryisyettobeappliedinthecontextoftravelplans.3.3.1SystematicApproachtoPlanningEnforcementThesystematicapproachtoplanningenforcementfavourstheuseoflegislationtodeterviolationssuchasthroughsanctionsandfines.Theabilitytousesystematicenforcementisconsideredtohelpinprotectingtheintegrityoftheplanningsystem,particularlyincasesofrepeatandflagrantoffenders(Harris2010;Prior2000).Prior(2000)characterisessystematicenforcementasamodelwhichassumesthat:•Breachesofregulationsareessentiallyintended•Mostperpetratorsareawareofrequiredrulesandstandards•Thethreatofpunitivesanctionsisanessentialdeterrenttopotentialviolation•Acomprehensiveapproachtoenforcementisessential•Rulesareclearandunambiguous•Regulatorsareeffectivelyresourcedandempowered•Enforcementactionsderivefromreactionstoviolations.However,suchassumptionsoftenturnouttobeunwarranted(Burbyetal.1998;Prior2000).Thishasgivenrisetothefacilitativeapproach,asdiscussedinthenextsection.3.3.2FacilitativeApproachtoPlanningEnforcementThefacilitativeapproachiscentredonsecuringcompliance,withpunitivemeas-uresretainedasalastresort.Thisapproachfavourstheuseofincentives,nego-tiationandeducationtoassistoffenderstocomplywithregulations(Burbyetal. 503TheoreticalFoundations1998;McKay2003).Thefacilitativeapproachisbasedontheassumptionthatmostbreachesofregulationsoccurthroughignoranceandarethereforeunin-tended(McKay2003;Prior2000).Harris(2011)arguesthatthefacilitativeapproachcanbewellsuitedtosituationswhereresourcesarelimited(astheyoftenareinplanningenforcement),giventhatthisapproachislessresourceinten-sivethansystematicenforcementregimes.Throughanationalsurveyof819localgovernmentsintheUnitedStates,Burbyetal.(1998)foundthatenforcementismorelikelytobeeffectivewithafacilitativeapproach.Theirstudyidentifiedfourkeyingredientstoachievingsuc-cessfulcompliance:•Anadequatenumberoftechnicallycompetentstaff•Strongproactiveleadership•Adequatelegalsupport•Aconsistentlystrongefforttocheckbuildinganddevelopmentplans,inspectbuildinganddevelopmentsites,andprovidetechnicalassistance.InthestateofVictoria,Australia,localguidanceonplanningenforcementsug-geststhatanemphasisshouldbeplacedonobtainingcomplianceratherthanonprosecutingoffenders(PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.2007).Inlinewiththisapproach,itisalsorecommendedthattrainingofenforcementoffic-ersshouldbuildskillsinverbalandwrittencommunication,negotiationandcon-flictresolution(VictorianAuditor-General2008).3.3.3ComparingtheSystematicandFacilitativeApproachestoPlanningEnforcementAconceptualrepresentationoftheapproachestoplanningenforcementispre-sentedinFig.3.3.Thefacilitativeapproachmostlyrelatestothebottomlayerofthepyramidwhereinformation,adviceandnegotiationarekeyfeatures.Conversely,thesystematicapproachtoenforcementistypicallycharacterisedbythetopofthepyramidwherelegalactionmaybetakentoprosecuteoffenders.Inlinewiththetheoryandguidanceonplanningenforcement,mosteffortsshouldbedirectedtowardsthebottomofthepyramid,with‘prosecution’onlyusedasalastresortwhenallotheroptionsareexhausted(Burbyetal.1998;McKay2003;PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.2007).Whilethetheoryonplanningenforcementsupportstheneedforafacilitativeapproach,thereisaclearroleforsystematicenforcementtodealwithinstancesofrepeatandflagrantoffenders,andtoprotecttheintegrityoftheplanningsystem.AsnotedbyLaietal.(2007,p.540):Acompliancesystembecomesmoreeffectivewhenenforcementstrategiesarecombinedwithappropriatemanagementtactics.Whereasmanagerialproblemsolvingiseffec-tiveinhandlingmostviolations,moreproblematicfailureshavetobesolvedthrough 3.3PlanningEnforcementTheory51PROSECUTIONSystematicSubmissionapproachEnforcementStop(notices)WARNINGSVerbalWrittenBluffingFacilitativePERSUASIONapproachInformationAdviceNegotiationFig.3.3Planningenforcementpyramid.SourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonMcKay(2003)enforcementwithmeasuressuchaspenalties.Suchproceduresfordealingwithnon-com-pliancearemosteffectivewhen‘management’and‘enforcement’tacticsarecombined.Furthermore,McKay(2003,p.424)notesthebenefitsofcombiningthesys-tematicandfacilitativeapproachestoachievecompliance:…thecomplexityoftheenforcementequationissuchthatitcannotbesolvedsolelybylegislativemechanisms.Keycomponentsinitsresolutionincludeadequatenumbersoftechnicallycompetentstaff,strongproactiveleadership,rigorousmonitoringofplanningconditionsandthedeploymentofafacilitativeenforcementstrategythatfostersdevelop-ers’commitmenttocomplywithregulations.Figure3.4providesaconceptualrepresentationofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Keycharacteristicsofthetop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationareshown,alongwithkeyfeaturesofthesys-tematicandfacilitativeapproachestoenforcement.Thedashedlinesdividingtheapproachesdenotetheirconsiderationasdistinctandseparateentities.Figure3.4alsoimpliesacommonalitybetweentop-downimplementationandsystematicenforcement,usinginvertedpyramids.Withbothoftheseapproaches,animplicitassumptionismadethataregulation,onceenacted,islargelyfollowedandsuccessfullyimplemented(Prior2000;Sabatier1986).Similarly,thecomple-mentaritybetweenbottom-upimplementationandfacilitativeenforcementisalsoreflectedinFig.3.4.Theinfluenceofstreet-levelbureaucrats,typicallyassociatedwithbottom-upimplementation,hasbeennotedbyPrior(2000,p.65)inthecon-textofplanningenforcement,maintainingthat‘itisnotthelegislationpersethatdeterminesdeviantbehaviour,butrathertheperspectivesandprioritiesoftheregu-lators…andtheknowledgeandmotivationsoftheregulated.’ 523TheoreticalFoundations•Clear&consistentobjectives•Uniformapplicationofstrictrules•Adequatecausaltheory•Finesandsanctions•Implementationlegallystructured•Enforcementorders•Committed&skilfulimplementers•Courtproceedings•Interestgroup&sovereignsupport•Prosecution•Socio-economicconditions•PlanningpermitcancellationTop-downSystematicTop-downSystematicimplementationenforcementBottom-upFacilitativeimplementationenforcementBottom-upFacilitative•Goalsandstrategiesoflocalactors•Emphasisoncompliance•Influenceofstreet-levelbureaucrats•Goodworkingrelationships•Targetgroups&endusers•Educationandadvice•Ownershipandengagement•Negotiationandpersuasion•Decentralisationofauthority•Incentives•Formal&informalstructures•VerbalwarningsFig.3.4Conceptualisationofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.SourceAuthor’ssynthesis3.4ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristodescribethetheoreticalfoundationsforthisstudybyprovidingaliteraturereviewofbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforce-menttheory.Anoverviewofthetop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimple-mentationwaspresented,alongwithcoverageofthesystematicandfacilitativeapproachestoplanningenforcement.Applicationsofthetheoriestotravelplanshavebeenlimitedtodate,withonlytop-downperspectivestakentotheimplementationofworkplacetravelplans(IsonandRye2003;Marzottoetal.2000).Planningenforcementtheoryisyettobeappliedinthecontextoftravelplans.Theapplicationofthesetheoriestotravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsisneededtoassistinidentifyingopportu-nitiesforenhancingtheireffectiveness,bothintermsofapproachestotheirimple-mentationandenforcement.ThisneedisaddressedinChap.9ofthisthesis. 3.4Conclusion53Furthermore,giventhesimilaritiesbetweenimplementationtheoryandplan-ningenforcementtheory,anopportunityexiststoadvancetowardsanintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcement.ThisisdiscussedfurtherinChap.9wherethefindingsfromthisresearchstudyareassessedintermsoftheextenttowhichtheysupportsuchanintegratedtheory.ThenextchapterofthisthesisoutlinestheresearchmethodologyforaddressingtheresearchgapsidentifiedearlierinChap.2,includingapplicationofthetheoriesdescribedinthischapter.ReferencesAskew,M.(2011).Whentravelmatters:Opportunities,barriersandpolicyoptionsforwork-placetravelmanagementinSydney.Ph.D.thesis,MacquarieUniversity,Sydney.Burby,R.,May,P.,&Paterson,R.(1998).Improvingcompliancewithregulations:Choicesandoutcomesforlocalgovernment.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,64(3),324–334.Elmore,R.(1978).Organizationalmodelsofsocialprogramimplementation.PublicPolicy,26(2),185–228.Elmore,R.(1979).Backwardmapping:Implementationresearchandpolicydecisions.PoliticalScienceQuarterly,94(4),601–616.Gunn,L.A.(1978).Whyisimplementationsodifficult?ManagementServicesinGovernment,33,169–176.Harris,N.(2010).Discretionandexpediencyintheenforcementofplanningcontrols.TownPlanningReview,81(6),675–700.Harris,N.(2011).Discipline,surveillance,control:Afoucaultianperspectiveontheenforcementofplanningregulations.PlanningTheory&Practice,12(1),57–76.Ison,S.,&Rye,T.(2003).Lessonsfromtravelplanningandroaduserchargingforpolicy-mak-ing:throughimperfectiontoimplementation.TransportPolicy,10,223–233.Lai,L.,Yung,P.,Li,R.,&Ho,D.(2007).Theprivatesupplyofandpublicdemandforplanning:Compliancewithplanningconditionsintheabsenceofdirectstatutoryenforcementmeas-ures.PlanningPracticeandResearch,22(4),535–557.Lipsky,M.(1971).Street-levelbureaucracyandtheanalysisofurbanreform.UrbanAffairsQuarterly,6,391–409.Marzotto,T.,Burnor,V.,&Bonham,G.(2000).Theevolutionofpublicpolicy:Carsandtheenvironment.Colorado,US:LynneRiennerPublishersInc.Mazmanian,D.,&Sabatier,P.(1981).Effectivepolicyimplementation.LexingtonBooks,D.C.HeathandCompany,US.McKay,S.(2003).Sheriffsandoutlaws:Inpursuitofeffectiveenforcement.TownPlanningReview,74(4),423–443.O’Toole,L.(1986).Policyrecommendationsformulti-actorimplementation:Anassessmentofthefield.JournalofPublicPolicy,6(2),181–210.O’Toole,L.(2007).Interorganizationalrelationsinimplementation.InB.Peters&J.Pierre(Eds.),Handbookofpublicadministration(pp.142–152).London,UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd.Paudel,N.R.(2009).Acriticalaccountofpolicyimplementationtheories:Statusandreconsid-eration.NepaleseJournalofPublicPolicyandGovernance,25(2),36–54.PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.(2007).AguidetoplanningenforcementinVictoria,PEOA,Victoria,Australia,viewed25September2014.http://planning-enforcement.com/. 543TheoreticalFoundationsPrior,A.(2000).Problemsinthetheoryandpracticeofplanningenforcement.PlanningTheory&Practice,1(1),53–69.Pülzl,H.,&Treib,O.(2007).Implementingpublicpolicy.InF.Fischer,G.Miller&M.Sidney(Eds.),Handbookofpublicpolicyanalysis:Theory,politicsandmethods.US:Taylor&FrancisGroup.Sabatier,P.(1986).Top-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationresearch:Acriticalanalysisandsuggestedsynthesis.JournalofPublicPolicy,6(1),21–48.Sabatier,P.(1998).Theadvocacycoalitionframework:RevisionsandrelevanceforEurope.JournalofEuropeanPublicPolicy,5(1),98–130.Sabatier,P.,&Mazmanian,D.(1980).Theimplementationofpublicpolicy:Aframeworkofanalysis.PolicyStudiesJournal,8(4),538–560.Sabatier,P.,&Mazmanian,D.(1981)Theimplementationofpublicpolicy:Aframeworkofanalysis.In:D,Mazmanian,&P.Sabatier(Eds.),Effectivepolicyimplementation.US:D.C.HeathandCompany.VictorianAuditor-General.(2008).Enforcementofplanningpermits.Australia:Victoria.Winter,S.(2007).Implementationperspectives:Statusandreconsideration.InB.Peters&J.Pierre(Eds.),Handbookofpublicadministration(pp.131–141).London,UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd. Chapter4ResearchMethodology4.1IntroductionChapter2providedaliteraturereviewoftravelplansandtheirapplicationtonewdevelopments.Thisidentifiedasetofresearchgapsandopportunitiesasthefocusforsubsequentchapters.Chapter3thendescribedthetheoreticalfoundationsforthisresearch,namelyimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Thealignmentofthesetheoriestotheresearchaimwasdiscussed,particularlyinhowtheycanassistinidentifyingopportunitiestoenhancetheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Theaimofthischapteristodescribetheapproachtakentoaddresstheresearchgapsandopportunities,includingtheapplicationandintegrationofimplementa-tiontheoryandplanningenforcementtheory(Fig.4.1).Thischapterbeginswithareviewofresearchmethodsfollowedbyadescrip-tionoftheoverallresearchapproach.Limitationsoftheresearchapproacharethendiscussed.Thefinalsectionprovidesasetofconcludingremarksandsetsthesceneforsubsequentchaptersofthethesis.4.2ReviewofResearchMethodsTable4.1providesasummaryofcommonresearchmethodsintermsoftheirobjective,instrument,advantagesandlimitations.Thetypesofresearchmethodscoveredisnotintendedtobeexhaustive,butrathertohelpprovidecontextfortheresearchapproachthatwasadopted.Interviews,focusgroupsandcasestudiesaregenerallyqualitativeinnature,whilesurveysandsecondarydataanalysesaremorequantitativetechniques.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore201755C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_4 564ResearchMethodologyBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYMethods,overallapproach,limitationsResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effetivenessoftravelplansforcTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.4.1PositionofChap.4inthethesisstructureObservation,documentreviewandmixed-methodsapproachescaneithertakeaqualitativeorquantitativeformdependingonthespecificobjectivesoftheresearch(Bryman2001).AsdescribedinTable4.1,eachresearchmethodhasanumberofadvantagesandlimitations.Theextenttowhichthesearepresentcanvarydependingonthespecificcontextinwhichtheresearchisbeingundertaken. 4.2ReviewofResearchMethods57(continued)Limitations•Potentialforfacilitatorbias•Discussionmaybedominatedbyasmallnumberofparticipants•Timeconsumingtoconduct,analyseandinterpretfindings•Cannotusuallydiscusssensitivetopics•Potentialforinterviewerbias•Potentialforreflexivitybias(participantgivesanswertheythinkinterviewerwantstohear)•Timeconsumingtoconduct,analyseandinterpretfindings•Multipleinterviewsneededtoidentifyarangeofissues•Maybeintrusiveforparticipants•Timeconsumingtocollect,reviewandanalysedata•Limitedinbreadth•TypicallynotgeneralisabletoapopulationAdvantages•Groupdynamicscanofferadditionalinsightoverindividualdatacollection•Canprobeforadditionalinformation•Usefulforexploringnewtopicsandissuesindepth•Highemancipatoryeffect•Usefulforasking‘why’and‘how’questions,andforunderstandingperceptions,beliefsandopinions•Usefulforexploringissuesindepth•Canprobeforadditionalinformation•Non-verbalparticipantbehaviourcanofferadditionalinsight•Canprovidesin-depthdescriptionofparticipants’experience•HelpstoprovidesimpleexplanationorexampleofasituationResearchinstrumentDiscussionguideInterviewguideCasestudyprotocolObjectiveTounderstandarangeofopinionsonaspecificissueortoseekcommunitynormsTounderstandindividualperceptions,beliefs,feelingsandexperiencesTostudyacontemporaryphenomenonwithinareal-lifecontext(qualitative)a4.1TableSummaryofresearchmethodsResearchmethodFocusgroups(qualitative)Interviews(qualitative)Casestudies 584ResearchMethodology(continued)Limitations•Potentialforobserverbias•Participantsmayactdifferentlyiftheyknowtheyarebeingobserved•Doesnotaidunderstandingofwhyparticipantsbehavethewaytheydo•Privacyoraccessissuesmayexist•Conclusionsreachedfromdifferentcomponentsmaybeincompatible•Canberelativelyexpensiveandtimeconsumingtoconduct•Documentsmaybeoutofdate,incompleteorunavailable•Documentsmaybeinaccu-rateorbiasedtowardsselectedinformation•Canbetimeconsumingtocollect,reviewandanalyseAdvantages•Doesnotrelyonwillingnessofparticipantstoprovideinformation•Candirectlyobservewhatparticipantsdoratherthanwhattheysaytheydo•Behaviourcanbeobservedinitsnaturalsetting•Generallyunobtrusive•Providesflexibilityinaddressingtheresearchquestions•Enablestriangulationoffindingsandthereforegreaterconfidenceinresults•Overcomeslimitationsofasinglemethod•Relativelyinexpensive•Unobtrusivemethod•Canprovideinformationthatmaynotbedirectlyobservable•LongitudinalanalysesoftenpossibleResearchinstrumentObservationguideVariousCodingframeObjectiveToobservehowothersactandinteractinnaturalsettingsToexplorearesearchproblemusingmultipleresearchmethodsToidentifythemes,patternsandcommonalitiesfromexistingdocuments(qualitative/a4.1Table(continued)ResearchmethodObservation(qualitative/quantitative)Mixed-methodsquantitative)Documentreview(qualitative/quantitative) 4.2ReviewofResearchMethods59Limitations•Potentialforlowresponserates•Somequestionsmaybeinterpreteddifferentlybyothers•Unabletoprobeforadditionalinformation•Difficulttoknowiftherightpersoncompletedthequestionnaire•Self-reportingmaynotreflectactualbehaviour(socialdesirabilitybias)•Requirescarefulattentiontoquestionnairedesign•Lackoffamiliaritywithdataset•Nocontroloverdataquality•Maynotcontainallvariablesofinterest•Datamaybedifficulttoaccess-Advantages•Relativelyinexpensive•Cantargetrespondentsacrossawidegeographicalarea•Convenientforrespondentsinthattheycancompleteaquestionnairewhentheywant•Analysisisrelativelyquick•Usefulforaskingrespondents‘howmuch’,‘howoften’and‘whatproportion’typequestions•Usuallygeneralisabletoapopulation•Relativelyinexpensiveandquick•Publisheddatasourcesareusuallyofhighquality•Longitudinalanalysesoftenpossible•AnalysesacrossdifferentgeographiesareoftenpossibleResearchinstrumentQuestionnaireDataanalysistechnique/programObjectiveToelicitanswersto‘how’and‘what’questionsfromrespondentsonaparticulartopicorsetoftopicsTosupplementexistingfindingsortoexploreatopicfromadifferentangle4.1Table(continued)ResearchmethodSurvey(quantitative)Secondarydataanalysis(quantitative)2009)2001),Greenfield(2002),Hall(2008),Henninketal.(2011),Macketal.(2005)andYin(Author’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedonBryman(SourceaConsideredmoreasaresearchstrategy/approachthanaresearchmethod,butincludedinthetableforcompleteness 604ResearchMethodology4.3OverallResearchApproachTheresearchgapsandopportunitiesidentifiedinChap.2arerestatedinTable4.2.TheiralignmentwitheachresearchobjectiveidentifiedinChap.1isalsoshown.Inordertoachievetheresearchobjectives,fivekeyresearchcomponents(ortasks)wereidentified,asshowninTable4.2.Keyfindingsfromeachresearchcompo-nentarereportedthroughoutChaps.5–9.KeyinputsandoutcomesofeachresearchcomponentareshowninFig.4.2.Amixedmethodsapproachwasadoptedcomprisingsurveys,interviews,docu-mentreviewsandcasestudies.Thisapproachwasconsideredappropriateasasin-glemethodwouldnotbecapableofachievingalloftheresearchobjectivesgiventheirdiversenature.InaccordancewithTable4.1,themixedmethodsapproachovercomesthelimitationofusingasinglemethod,yetalsoenablestriangulationofthefindingsandthereforegreaterconfidenceintheresults(Bryman2001).Abriefdescriptionofeachresearchcomponentisprovidedinthefollowingsections.4.3.1ResearchComponent1:OnlineSurveyofVictorianCouncilsInaddressingresearchobjective1,thisresearchcomponentinvolvedanonlinesurveyof36(outof79)VictoriancouncilstoexaminethescaleandassociatedcharacteristicsoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria,Australia.Asurveywasconsideredtobethemostappropriatemethodforachievingtheresearchobjectivegiventhatanswersto‘howmuch’,‘howoften’and‘whatpro-portion’typequestionsweredesired(Henninketal.2011).Thesetypesofques-tionsarelesssuitedtofocusgroupsorinterviewswheretopicsareoftenmoreopinionbasedanddiscussedingreaterdepth(Macketal.2005).InaccordancewithTable4.1,thesurveymethodallowedrespondentstobetargetedacrossawidegeographicalarea,asisthecasewiththestateofVictoria.Itwasalsofavour-ableforrespondentsastheycouldcompletethesurveyatatimeandplacecon-venienttothem.Thesurveycouldalsobehostedonlinetofacilitateeaseofsurveyadministrationanddataanalysis.Surveyquestionscoveredtheextenttowhichtravelplanshadbeenrequired,reasonsforrequiring(andnotrequiring)them,planningmechanismsused,lev-elsofmonitoringundertaken,familiarityandexperiencewithtravelplans,percep-tionsofeffectiveness,andthelikelihoodofrequiringtravelplansinthefuture.Furtherdetailontheaim,methodandresultsassociatedwiththisresearchcom-ponentisprovidedinChap.5. 4.3OverallResearchApproach61(continued)ThesischapterChapter5:ThescaleoftravelplanningpracticeChapter6:ActorperspectivesChapter7:TravelplanqualityChapter8:TravelplanimpactsResearchcomponent→1.OnlinesurveyofVictoriancouncils2.Interviewswithindustryrepresentatives3.Desktopassessmentoftravelplans-4.Casestudiesofnewresidentialdevelopments→aResearchobjective1.ToexaminethescaleofpracticeinVictoria,Australia2.Togainanappreciation-fortheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintheirapplication3.Toevaluatetheirqualityandeffectiveness-Researchopportunity→Examinethescaleandassociatedcharacteristicsoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopments,usingacasestudyfromthestateofVictoriaDevelopanappreciationfortheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintravelplanning-fornewresidentialdevelopments,particularlyaspectsrelatingtoimplementationUndertakeaquantitativeassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentstohelpidentifytheirrelativemeritsandpotentialareasforimprovementUsingacasestudyapproach,evaluatetheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsincludingself-selectioneffectstounderstandtheireffectivenessinreducingcaruse-4.2TableLinkagesbetweenresearchgaps,researchopportunities,researchobjectives,researchcomponentsandthesischapters→ResearchgapThereisnounderstandingofthescaleandassociatedcharacteris-ticsoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinAustraliaIdentifiedinSect.2.4NoresearchhasspecificallyexploredtheperspectivesofthedifferentactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentsIdentifiedinSect.2.3Noformalassessmentofthequal-ityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentshasbeenundertakenIdentifiedinSect.2.5Littleresearchhasbeenundertakentoappropriatelyquantifytheeffectivenessoftravelplansin-reducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments,withnostudiesaccountingforself-selectioneffectsIdentifiedinSect.2.6 624ResearchMethodology9:OpportunitiesThesischapterChaptertoenhanceimpactsResearchcomponent→-5.Applicationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheories→aResearchobjective4.ToidentifyandassessopportunitiesforenhancingtheirimplementationResearchopportunity→Exploretheimplementa-tionprocessassociatedwith-travelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentstoidentifyopportunitiestoenhanceeffectiveness-4.2Table(continued)→ResearchgapNoresearchhasbeenundertakentosufficientlyexploreimplementationinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsIdentifiedinSect.2.5a1(Sect.1.3)andareframedinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsResearchobjectiveswereidentifiedinChap. 4.3OverallResearchApproach63Researchobjective1Researchobjective2Researchobjective3Researchobjective3(Chapter5)(Chapter6)(Chapter7)(Chapter8)•Questionnairedesign•Interviewguidedesign•Assessmentcriteria•CasestudyidentificationInputs•Contactdatabase•Contactdatabase•Existingassessmenttools•Surveyplanning&design•Surveyrecruitment•Interviewrecruitment•Copiesoftravelplans•Buildingaccessapprovals1.Onlinesurveyof2.Interviewswith3.Desktopassessment4.CasestudiesofComponentVictoriancouncilsindustryrepresentativesoftravelplansresidentialdevelopments•Scaleoftravelplanning•Industryperspectives•Bestpracticeelements•EvaluationofimpactsOutcomes•Characteristicsoftravel•Implementationchallenges•Contentanalyses•Assessmentofself-selectionplansfornewdevelopments•Implementationsolutions•Assessmentofquality•Take-upoftravelinitiativesResearchobjective4(Chapter9)•Findingsfromresearchcomponents1-4Inputs•Implementationtheory•Planningenforcementtheory5.ApplicationandintegrationofComponentimplementationandplanningenforcementtheoriesOutcomes•Opportunitiesforenhancingimplementation•IntegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementFig.4.2Researchapproachintermsofinputs,componentsandoutcomes4.3.2ResearchComponent2:InterviewswithIndustryRepresentativesInaddressingresearchobjective2,thisresearchcomponentinvolvedasetofsemi-structuredinterviewswith30industryrepresentativestodevelopanappreciationfortheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevel-opments.Industryrepresentativesthatwereinterviewedwerebasedacross20differentorganisationsinAustraliaandtheUnitedKingdom.Thetypesoforgani-sationsincludedstateandlocalgovernmentagencies,propertydevelopmentandmanagementcompanies,andconsultancies.Interviewswereconsideredtobethemostappropriatemethodforachievingtheresearchobjectiveasperceptions,beliefsandexperienceswerebeingsoughtfromindustryrepresentatives(Henninketal.2011).ThisissupportedbyTable4.1andisincontrasttoasurveywhereanswersto‘howmuch’,‘howoften’and‘whatproportion’typequestionsaretypicallyasked(Henninketal.2011).Focusgroupswerealsonotadoptedforthisresearchcomponentduetotheneedtoseekhon-estopinionsthatwouldnotbebiasedbyotherparticipants.Forexample,aprop-ertydeveloperorconsultantmaynotspeakwithfullcandourifparticipatinginafocusgroupwithagovernmentrepresentativewhoisresponsibleforapprovingtheirplanningapplication.Asemi-structuredapproachtotheinterviewswascho-sentoretainflexibility,therebyallowinggreateremphasistobeplacedonsomeoftheinterviewtopicsasrequired.Interviewdatawasanalysedusingasetofcodesthatweredevelopedinductivelybasedonkeythemesthatarosefromtheinterviewresponses. 644ResearchMethodologyInterviewtopicsfocusedspecificallyontravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opmentsthroughadiscussionoftheirbenefitsanddisadvantages,currentinvolve-ment,interactionswithotherorganisations/actors,implementationchallengesandpotentialsolutions,andfutureexpectations.Furtherdetailontheaim,methodandresultsassociatedwiththisresearchcom-ponentisprovidedinChap.6.4.3.3ResearchComponent3:DesktopAssessmentofTravelPlansInaddressingpartofresearchobjective3,thisresearchcomponentinvolvedadesktopassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentstohelpidentifytheirrelativemeritsandpotentialareasforimprove-ment.Thisincludedthedevelopmentandapplicationofaquantitativeassess-mentframeworkto29travelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinVictoria.Italsoincludedacontentanalysistoidentifykeycharacteristicsofthetravelplans.InreferencetoTable4.1,themethodadoptedforthisresearchcomponentwasasetofdocumentreviews.Thiswasconsideredthemostappropriatemethodasprocess-basedaspectsoftravelplansarenotalwaysdirectlyobservable,therebylimitedthepotentialforobservationaltechniquestobeused(Bryman2001).Furthermore,patternsandcommonalitiesinthetravelplanswerebeingassessed,whichcannoteasilybeundertakenusingotherresearchmethods.Whileasurveyorsetofinterviewscouldprovidesomeindicationofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopments,thesemethodswouldnotallowforadetailedanalysisoftravelplancontenttobemade.Furtherdetailontheaim,context,methodandresultsassociatedwiththisresearchcomponentisprovidedinChap.7.4.3.4ResearchComponent4:CaseStudiesofNewResidentialDevelopmentsInaddressingtheremainderofobjective3,thisresearchcomponentinvolvedacase-controldesignbasedonfourcasestudiesofnewresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplans,tounderstandtheireffectivenessinreducingcaruse.Matchingcontrolsites,similarinnaturetothecasestudysitesbutwithouttravelplans,wereusedasacomparisonforevaluatingtheimpactsofthetravelplans.ThecasestudyandcontrolsitesarealllocatedinMelbourne. 4.3OverallResearchApproach65Thisresearchcomponentadoptedamixed-methodsapproachusingthefollowingmethods:•Observation:multi-modalpersontripcountsateachcasestudyandcontrolsitetoprovideinformationontransportmodesharesandvehicletripgenerationrates,pluscarandbicycleparkingsurveysateachsitetoprovideinformationonparkingdemand,supplyandutilisation.•Survey:atravelsurveyofresidentsateachsitewithafocusontravelchar-acteristics,attitudesandpreferencestowardsdifferentformsoftransport,anddemographics.ThiswascombinedwithatechniqueknownasPropensityScoreMatching(PSM)toassesstheextentofself-selectionamongresidentslivingatthecasestudysites.•Secondarydataanalysis:useofpublishedvehicletripgenerationratesandregionaltravelsurveydatatoprovideasupplementarycomparisontothemulti-modalcountsandparkingsurveysconductedatthecasestudyandcontrolsites.Eachoftheseresearchmethodsindividuallycontributetowardsdevelopinganunderstandingoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansinreducingcaruseatnewresi-dentialdevelopments.Thecasestudyapproachishighlyappropriategiventhatacontemporaryphenomenonisbeingstudiedwithinareal-lifecontext(Yin2009).Morespecificallywithinthecasestudyapproach,observationisusedtoprovideinformationontravelpatternsasthiscancaptureallmovementswithinaspeci-fiedtimeperiodifdesignedappropriately,unlikeasurveywhichissubjecttonon-responsebias(Bryman2001).However,atravelsurveyofresidentsisstilldesirableasinformationontravelcharacteristics,attitudesandpreferenceswerebeingsought,datawhichisnotpossibletocollectsolelythroughobservation.Whileinterviewscouldcapturethisinformation,thenumberofresidentslivingatthecaseandcontrolsiteswouldmeanthatinformationfromonlyaverysmallproportionofresidentscouldberealisticallyattained,therebylimitingtheabilitytomakeanygeneralisationsfromthedatathatiscollected(Henninketal.2011).Finally,secondarydataanalysisisanappropriateresearchmethodgiventhatpub-lisheddata,asasecondarydatasource,isbeingusedtoprovideasupplementarycomparisontotheobservationalcounts.Furtherdetailontheaim,context,methodandresultsassociatedwiththisresearchcomponentisprovidedinChap.8.4.3.5ResearchComponent5:ApplicationandIntegrationofImplementationandPlanningEnforcementTheoriesInaddressingresearchobjective4,thisresearchcomponenttakesthefindingsfromcomponents1–4andviewsthesethroughthelensofbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Thisprocessassistsinidentifyingand 664ResearchMethodologyassessingopportunitiestoenhancetheimplementation(andsubsequenteffective-ness)oftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Inaddition,anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementisdevel-opedtoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticefornewresidentialdevelopments.Theresearchfindingsareassessedintermsoftheextenttowhichtheysupporttheintegratedtheory.Furtherdetailonthemethodandresultsassociatedwiththisresearchcompo-nentisprovidedinChap.9.4.4LimitationsoftheResearchApproachWhiletheresearchapproachiscapableofaddressingtheresearchobjectives,anumberoflimitationsneedtobeacknowledged.Firstly,theonlinesurveyofcouncilswaslimitedtothestateofVictoria.ThisisdespitethelackofknowledgeconcerningthescaleoftravelplanningfornewdevelopmentsinalljurisdictionsofAustralia(seeTable4.2).Furthermore,theabilitytogeneralisetheVictorianfindingstootherjurisdictionsofAustraliawillbelimitedgiventhatregulationoflanduseplanningistheresponsibilityofindi-vidualstatesandterritorieswhoeachhaveindependentplanningsystemsinplace(DepartmentofInfrastructureandTransport2011).However,resourceconstraintspreventedthesurveyfrombeingexpandedtoallcouncilsinAustraliaasaninten-siveperiodoftelephonecontactwasinitiallyrequiredtodetermineanappropriaterepresentativeineachcouncilwhocouldcompletethesurvey,andtothenseektheircommitmentandagreementtocompletethesurvey.Inaddition,subsequentcomponentsoftheresearchwereconductedinVictoria,soitwasimportantthateffortsweredirectedtothisgeographicalarearatherthanattemptingtoexplorealljurisdictions,potentiallyinlessdepth.Secondly,whileatotalof30industryrepresentativeswereinterviewed,thesamplewasspreadacrossarangeoforganisationtypes.Thisresultedinonlythreepropertydevelopersandthreepropertymanagersbeinginterviewedaspartofthesample.Theabilitytogeneralisetheinterviewfindingsisthereforelimited.However,theintentoftheinterviewswasnottoprovidegeneralisations,butrathertopresentasetofactorperspectivesontravelplanningfornewresidentialdevel-opments,particularlyaspectsrelatingtoimplementation.Thirdly,whileatotalof29travelplanswereusedforthedesktopassess-ment,thesewererequestedfromconsultantsandgovernmentagencyrepre-sentativeswhomayhavebeenbiasedinselectingthetravelplanstheyprovided.Furthermore,theassessmentframeworkusedwasdevelopedsolelybytheresearcher.However,thisframeworkwasbasedonasynthesisofbestpracticeelementsfromtheliterature.Inaddition,thetravelplanswereinitiallyassessedsolelybytheresearcher.Thislimitationwasovercomebyrequestinganumberoftravelplanningpractitionerstoapplytheframeworktoasubsetofthetravelplans,withinter-variabilityinscoresbeingreported. 4.4LimitationsoftheResearchApproach67Finally,anumberoflimitationswereinherentintheresearchcomponentcon-cernedwiththecasestudiesofnewresidentialdevelopments.Duetotheneedtocollectdataateachsite,onlyfourresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplanscouldbeevaluatedwithintheresourcesavailable,particularlygiventhatdatacollec-tionatmatchingcontrolsiteswasalsorequired.Clearly,moresiteswouldhelptoestablishastrongerevidencebaseconcerningtheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Furthermore,alackofrobustmonitoringdataforresidentialsiteswithtravelplans(asidentifiedinChap.2)meantthatameta-analysiswasnotpossible,despitethisbeinghighlydesirable.Ateachofthecasestudyandcontrolsites,atravelsurveyofresidentswasconductedtoassesstheextentofself-selection.Akeylimitationwasthatsurveymaterialcouldonlybedeliveredtoresidentialmailboxesaspersonalcontact(e.g.doorknocking)wasnotpermittedbythepropertymanagers.Notonlydidthispreventanyinterviewsorfocusgroupsbeingconductedwithresidents(whichwouldhavehelpedtoprovideadditionalinsightintotheirperspectivesonthetravelplanningprocess),italsoresultedinarelativelylowsurveyresponserateof14%.However,thislevelofsurveyresponsewasconsistentwithresponseratesof11–20%achievedinothersimilarstudies(Leeetal.2014).FurtherdetailonthemethodologicalissuesandlimitationsassociatedwitheachresearchcomponentisprovidedthroughoutChaps.5–9.4.5ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristodescribetheapproachforaddressingtheresearchgapsandopportunities.Indoingso,itoutlinedfivekeyresearchcomponentsandtheiralignmenttotheresearchobjectives.Theresearchcomponentsinclude:anonlinesurveyofVictoriancouncils,interviewswithindustryrepresentatives,adesktopassessmentoftravelplans,casestudiesofnewresidentialdevelopments,andtheapplicationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheories.Theuseofamixed-methodsapproachstrengthensthevalidityoftheresearchthroughenablingtriangulationofthefindings.Theapproachisparticu-larlyrelevantgiventhediversesetofresearchobjectiveswhichcannotbeachievedusingasinglemethod.Anumberoflimitationsinherentintheresearchapproachhavebeenacknowl-edged.Whilebesteffortshavebeenmadetoovercomethese,opportunitiesexisttoaddressoutstandinglimitationsinthefuture.ThisiscoveredinChap.10throughadiscussionoffutureresearchdirections.Thenextchapter(Chap.5)detailsthefirstsetofresearchresults.Itpresentsthefindingsfromtheonlinesurveyofcouncilstogaugethescaleoftravelplan-ningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinVictoria(researchobjective1).Chapter6thendescribestheinterviewfindingswhichprovideanappreciationfortheper-spectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevel-opments(researchobjective2).ThisisfollowedbyChaps.7and8whichconsider 684ResearchMethodologythequalityandeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments(researchobjective3).Throughtheapplicationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheories,Chap.9identifiesandassessesopportunitiesforenhancingtheimplementation(andsubsequenteffectiveness)oftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments(researchobjective4).ReferencesBryman,A.(2001).Socialresearchmethods.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.DepartmentofInfrastructureandTransport.(2011).Ourcities,ourfuture:Anationalurbanpol-icyforaproductive,sustainableandliveablefuture,Canberra,Australia.Greenfield,T.(2002).Researchmethodsforpostgraduates(2nded.).London,UK:Arnold.Hall,R.(2008).Appliedsocialresearch:Planning,designingandconductingreal-worldresearch.Victoria,Australia:PalgraveMacmillan.Hennink,M.,Hutter,I.,&Bailey,A.(2011).Qualitativeresearchmethods.UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd.Lee,J.S.,Zegras,C.,Ben-Joseph,E.,&Park,S.(2014).Doesurbanlivinginfluencebabyboomer’travelbehaviour?JournalofTransportGeography,35,21–29.Mack,N.,Woodsong,C.,MacQueen,K.,Guest,G.,&Namey,E.(2005).Qualitativeresearchmethods:Adatacollector’sfieldguide.NorthCarolina,USA:FamilyHealthInternational.Yin,R.(2009).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(4thed.).California,US:SAGEPublications. Chapter5TheScaleofTravelPlanningPractice5.1IntroductionChapters1–4detailedthebackgroundandapproachtotheresearch.Indoingso,theyidentifiedanumberofresearchgapsandopportunitiesandshowedhoweachofthesealignedwiththeresearchobjectivesandcomponents.ThischapterpresentsthefirstsetofresearchresultsbydetailingthefindingsoftheonlinesurveyofVictoriancouncils,correspondingtoresearchcomponent1Fig.(5.1).Table5.1detailstheresearchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwiththisresearchcomponent.Inlinewithresearchobjective1,theaimofthischapteristoexaminethescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria.Keyaspectsinclude:•Understandingtheextenttowhichtravelplanshavebeenrequiredbycouncils•Identifyingthereasonswhytravelplanshaveandhavenotbeenrequired•Identifyingmechanismsusedtorequiretravelplans•Assessingthelevelofmonitoringthathastakenplacetodate•Understandinglevelsoftravelplanfamiliarityandexperienceamongcouncilstaff•Understandingperceptionsoftravelplaneffectivenessamongcouncilstaff•Gaugingthelikelihoodofcouncilsrequiringtravelplansinthefuture.ThischapterbeginsbydescribingtheresearchmethodusedtoexaminetravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria.Theresultsarethenpre-sentedandcomparedtotheliteraturedescribedinChap.2.Thechapterconcludesbydiscussingtheimplicationsofthefindingsforfuturetravelplanningpractice.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore201769C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_5 705TheScaleofTravelPlanningPracticeBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeCHAPTER5:UnderstandingofthescaleofTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEtravelplanningpracticefornewAim,method,results,discussionurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.5.1PositionofChap.5inthethesisstructure5.2ResearchMethodInordertoexaminethescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinVictoria,aself-completionquestionnairewasdesignedandadministeredonlinetocouncils.Anonymityinsurveyresponseswasassuredsothatindividualcouncilscouldnotbeidentified.EthicsapprovalwasprovidedbytheMonashUniversity 5.2ResearchMethod71Table5.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent1Researchgap→Researchopportunity→Researchobjective→ResearchcomponentThereisnounderstandingExaminethescaleand1.Toexaminethe1.Onlinesurveyofthescaleandassociatedassociatedcharacteris-scaleofpracticeinofVictoriancharacteristicsoftravelticsoftravelplanningVictoria,AustraliacouncilsplanningpracticefornewpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinAustraliadevelopments,usingacasestudyfromthestateofVictoriaHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(MUHREC)priortoconductingthesurvey(referencenumberCF12/1205–2012000586).Asurveywasconsideredtobethemostappropriatemethodforachievingtheresearchobjectivegiventhatanswersto‘howmuch’,‘howoften’and‘whatpro-portion’typequestionsweredesired(Henninketal.2011).Thisisincontrasttofocusgroupsorinterviewswhichseektounderstandbeliefsandopinionsonpar-ticulartopics(Macketal.2005).Thesurveywashostedonlinetosimplifythesur-veyadministrationanddataanalysisprocess.Surveyquestionscoveredtheextenttowhichtravelplanshadbeenrequired,reasonsforrequiring(andnotrequiring)travelplans,mechanismsusedtorequiretravelplans,levelsofmonitoringundertaken,familiarityandexperiencewithtravelplans,perceptionsoftravelplaneffectiveness,andthelikelihoodofrequir-ingtravelplansinthefuture.Aclosingquestionwasalsoincludedtoallowrespondentstoexpressanyothercommentstheyhadabouttravelplansfornewdevelopments.AcopyofthesurveyquestionnaireisprovidedinAppendixC.All31councilsinmetropolitanMelbourneweretargetedforthesurvey,plusfiveregionalcouncils(GreaterGeelong,GreaterBendigo,Ballarat,GreaterSheppartonandLatrobe)whichrepresentthekeyregionalcentresacrossVictoria.Thisresultedinatotaltargetpopulationof36(outof79)councils,asillustratedinFig.5.2.Whiletheremainingregionalcouncilscouldalsohavebeentargetedforthesurvey,thiswasnotconsideredappropriateastravelplansaregener-allynotconsideredintheseareasatallduetotheirpredominantruralcharacter.Furthermore,the36councilstargetedforthesurveycontainthemajorityoftheVictorianpopulation,ataround84%(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014).Inordertorecruitsurveyparticipants,aninitialtelephonecallwasmadetoeachcounciltoexplainthepurposeofthesurveyandtodetermineanappropriaterepresentativewhocouldcompletethesurvey.Contactwitheachrepresentativewasthenmadetoconfirmthattheywerethemostsuitablepersontoparticipateinthesurvey.Thisprocesstookconsiderabletimeandofteninvolvedmultipletelephonecallstoeachcouncil(morethan10insomecases)beforeanappropri-aterepresentativecouldbeconfirmedandcontacted.However,thismethodwasstillpreferredoverotherrecruitmentoptions(e.g.letteroremail)astelephonecontacthelpedtoestablishcommitmentfromeachrepresentativetoparticipatein 725TheScaleofTravelPlanningPractice(a)StatesandterritoriesinAustralia(totalof8)NorthernTerritoryQueenslandWesternAustraliaSouthAustraliaNewSouthWalesAustralianCapitalTerritoryVictoria1000kmTasmania500mi(b)RegionalcouncilsinVictoria(totalof48)(c)CouncilsinmetropolitanMelbourne(totalof31)OutermetroInnermetroMiddlemetro200km50km100mi25miRegionalcouncilsnottargetedforsurveyMetropolitancouncils(alltargetedforsurvey)RegionalcouncilstargetedforsurveyMetropolitanMelbourneFig.5.2LocationofVictoriancouncilstargetedforthesurveythesurvey.Asthesurveywasadministeredonline,alinkcouldbedistributedbyemailtotheselectedrepresentativeineachcouncil.Areminderemailwassenttoeachrepresentative1weeklatertoensurecompletionofthesurvey.Thelevelofinterestinthesurveywasrelativelyhighandthereweregenerallynoissuesinseekingcommitmentfromeachrepresentativetocompletethesurveyoncecontacthadbeenestablishedwiththem.Asaresult,aresponsefromall36councilswasachieved,representinga100%responserate.Animportantearlyfinding,revealedduringthesurveyrecruitmentstage,wasthattherewaslittleconsistencyintheadministrativeunitwithineachcoun-cilthatwasresponsiblefortravelplansfornewdevelopment.Ofthe36councilssurveyed,19responses(or53%)wereprovidedbyrepresentativesintransportrelatedroles,15responses(42%)wereprovidedbyrepresentativesinplan-ningrelatedroles,andtheremainingtworesponses(5%)wereprovidedby 5.2ResearchMethod73representativesinotherroles(e.g.environmentalmanagement).Insomecases,therepresentativesoughtinputfromotherrelevantareastocompletethesurvey,high-lightingthatmorethanoneareawithinparticularcouncilsmaybeinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocessfornewdevelopments.Followingcompletionofthesurvey,theresultswereanalysedusingdescriptivestatistics.Thedatawasalsocross-classifiedandstatisticaltestswereusedtogaininsightintotheextenttowhichresponsesvariedaccordingtodifferentsegmentsofthesurveypopulation.5.3ResultsThissectionpresentstheresultsofthesurvey,inlinewitheachofthesurveyques-tionsthatwereaskedofcouncilrepresentatives.5.3.1RequirementsforTravelPlansTable5.2indicatesthenumberofVictoriancouncilsthathavepreviouslyrequiredatravelplan.Around80%ofinnerandmiddlemetropolitancouncilshaverequiredatravelplanbefore,withthisfiguredecreasingtoaround20%foroutermetropolitanandregionalcouncils.Overall,18outofthe36councilssurveyed(50%)hadpreviouslyrequiredatravelplan.Table5.3showsthenumberoftravelplansrequiredbyVictoriancouncilsbetween2010and2012.Ascanbeseen,innerandmiddlemetropolitancouncilsrequiredmoretravelplansthanoutermetropolitanandregionalcouncils.Thismaybeduetohigherratesofgreenfielddevelopmentoccurringinouterareascom-paredtoinnerandmiddlesuburbswherehigherdensityinfilldevelopmentandgreatertransportissuesareexperienced.Halfofthecouncilswhohadrequiredatravelplanbefore(equivalentto25%ofthetotalsample)hadrequiredmorethanfiveeachduring2010–12.BasedonthedatapresentedinTable5.3,itisestimatedthataround100travelplanswererequiredbyVictoriancouncilsduring2010–12.Table5.2RequirementsfortravelplansfornewdevelopmentsbyVictoriancouncilsStatusNumberofcouncilsbylocationTotalInnermetroMiddlemetroOutermetroRegionalRequired4(80%)10(83%)3(21%)1(20%)18(50%)Neverrequired–2(17%)6(43%)2(40%)10(28%)Unsure1(20%)–5(36%)2(40%)8(22%)Total5(100%)12(100%)14(100%)5(100%)36(100%) 745TheScaleofTravelPlanningPracticeTable5.3NumberoftravelplansrequiredbyVictoriancouncilsduring2010–12NumberoftravelplansNumberofcouncilsbylocationTotalrequiredInnerMiddleOuterRegionalmetrometrometro1–2–2(20%)1(33%)–3(17%)3–5––1(33%)1(100%)2(11%)6–102(50%)2(20%)1(33%)–5(28%)Morethan101(25%)3(30%)––4(22%)Unsure1(25%)3(30%)––4(22%)Total4(100%)10(100%)3(100%)1(100%)18(100%)5.3.2ReasonsforRequiringTravelPlansFigure5.3showsthatoffsettingtheimpactofprovidingreducedcarparkingwasthemostcommonreasonforrequiringatravelplanforanewdevelopment.Reducingcarparkinghasclearbenefitsforadeveloperthroughreducedcostswhichalsoactsasanimportant‘stick’inmanagingcaruseaspartofthetravelplandevelopedforthesite.100%94%90%83%80%78%70%60%56%50%40%30%22%Percentage(%)ofcouncils20%10%6%0%OffsetimpactofMitigatetransportDeliveronContributetoReduceOtherreducedcarimpactsandcouncil'stransportwiderrequirementsforparkingprovisionimprovepolicies/strategiesenvironmentalroadnetworkaccessibilityobjectivesupgradesKeyreason/motivationFig.5.3Keyreasonsforcouncilsrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopments 5.3Results755.3.3ReasonsforNotRequiringTravelPlansThesurveyresultsindicatedthataroundone-thirdofthecouncils(10outofthe36surveyed)hadnotrequiredatravelplanbefore.Themostcommonreasonforthis(statedbyfiveofthe10councils)wasthattheydidnotconsidertravelplanstobeeffectiveorappropriatefortheirlocalarea.Otherreasonsincludedthelackofanystatutoryrequirement,oranintentiontorequiretravelplansinthefuture.5.3.4MechanismsUsedtoRequireTravelPlansFigure5.4showsthataplanningpermitconditionisthemostcommonmecha-nismusedforrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopmentsinVictoria.Asrespond-entscouldindicatemorethanonemechanismtheyhaveused,verbalnegotiation(reportedbymorethanone-thirdofrespondents)mayhavebeenusedinconjunc-tionwithothermechanisms.Thisisbecauseitisunlikelythatverbalnegotiationalonewouldbeparticularlyeffectiveinensuringatravelplanisdevelopedandimplemented.Aroundone-thirdofrespondents(28%)indicatedtheuseofformalagreementsbytheircounciltorequiretravelplansfornewdevelopments.100%94%90%80%s70%60%50%39%40%30%28%22%Percentage(%)ofcouncil20%10%0%0%ConditiononVerbalnegotiationFormalagreementOtherDevelopmentplanningpermitwithdevelopercontributionplanMechanismFig.5.4Mechanismsusedbycouncilstorequiretravelplansfornewdevelopments 765TheScaleofTravelPlanningPractice5.3.5MonitoringofTravelPlansFigure5.5indicatestheleveloftravelplanmonitoringundertakenbyVictoriancouncilstodate.Around80%ofcouncilsindicatedthattheyhadnotundertakenanymonitoringofthetravelplanstheyhadrequired.Alackofcouncilresourceswasakeyreasoncitedfortherelativelylowrateofmonitoring:Themonitoringoftravelplansiscomplexanditwillrequiremoreresourcesfromcouncilstofollowuptheresultsintime[Responsefromoutermetropolitancouncilrepresentative].However,itwasalsonotedthatcouncilsarenotnecessarilyaversetomonitor-ingtravelplans,butwouldonlydosoifaparticularissuearose:Itisunlikelythatwewouldmonitortheplantoensureitisbeingimplemented,how-everifacomplaintwasreceivedinrelationtothedevelopmentandtrafficetc.,itislikelyplanningenforcementwouldensurethatallconditionsonthepermit(includingthegreentravelplan)arebeingimplemented[Responsefrommiddlemetropolitancouncilrepresentative].5.3.6FamiliarityandExperiencewithTravelPlansCouncilrepresentativeswereaskedtostatetheirleveloffamiliarityandexperi-encewithtravelplans,asreportedinFig.5.6.Whilemostoftherespondentshadsomelevelofawarenessoftravelplans(91%),onlyaroundone-third(36%)30%28%28%25%20%17%15%11%10%6%6%6%Percentage(%)ofcouncils5%0%0%NotapplicableNomonitoringNomonitoringNomonitoringSomeMosttravelAlltravelplansUnsureasnotravelandnoplanstobutmaybebutdefinitelymonitoredbutplansmonitoredplandoanysomeinfuturesomeinfuturemajorityhavemonitoredimplementationnotbeenLevelofmonitoringFig.5.5Leveloftravelplanmonitoringamongcouncils 5.3Results77Fig.5.6LevelofrespondentfamiliarityandexperiencewithtravelplansVeryawarebutnoAwarebutonlypracticalexperiencelimited25%understanding31%VeryawareandOnlyheardaboutpracticalexperiencetravelplans6%36%Neverheardabouttravelplans3%indicatedtheyhadpracticalexperienceinusingthem.PracticalexperiencewithusingtravelplansgenerallydeclinedwithdistancefromtheMelbourneCentralBusinessDistrict(CBD),withinnermetropolitancouncilsreportingthehighestproportionofrespondentswithpracticalexperience(80%),followedbymiddlemetropolitancouncils(42%),regionalcouncils(20%)andoutermetropolitancouncils(14%).5.3.7PerceivedEffectivenessofTravelPlansCouncilrepresentativeswereaskedtoindicateonafivepointlikertscale,theextenttowhichtheyagreedthatanumberofmechanisms,includingtravelplans,areeffectiveinmanagingtransportaccessatnewdevelopments.TheproportionthateitheragreedorstronglyagreedthateachmechanismiseffectiveisshowninFig.5.7.Ascanbeseen,travelplansrankedlowestofthemechanismspresentedwithonlyoneintworespondents(50%)regardingthemaseffective.Table5.4showstheextenttowhichrespondentsagreedthattravelplansareeffectiveandcross-classifiesthisbytheirfamiliarityandexperiencewithtravelplans.Intotal,64%ofthosefamiliarandexperiencedwithtravelplansagreed(orstronglyagreed)thattravelplansareeffective,comparedtoonly29%ofthosewithalimitedunderstandingofhowtravelplanswork.Az-testforthedifferencebetweenproportionsshowedthattherewasastatisticallysignificantdifferencetosuggestthatthosefamiliarandexperiencedwithtravelplansaremorelikelytoagreethattheyareeffectiveinmanagingtransportaccesstonewdevelopments(p=0.04).Table5.4alsoshowsthataroundone-thirdofrespondents(36%)felt‘neutral’towardstheeffectivenessoftravelplans.However,whencross-classified,itcan 785TheScaleofTravelPlanningPractice100%100%91%90%86%s80%70%67%58%60%50%50%40%30%20%Percentage(%)ofrespondent10%0%SafeandNewand/orMixedlandusesRoadnetwork/SufficientcarTravelplanconnectedimprovedpublicintersectionparkingtomeetwalkingandtransportupgradesdemandcyclingnetworkservicesMechanismFig.5.7MechanismsconsideredeffectiveformanagingtransportaccessatnewdevelopmentsTable5.4Extenttowhichrespondentsagreedthattravelplansareeffectiveinmanagingtransportaccessfornewdevelopments(cross-classifiedbytheirfamiliarityandexperience)ExtentofagreementthattravelRespondentfamiliarityandexperiencewithTotalplansareeffectivetravelplansFamiliarandNotfamiliarorexperiencedexperiencedAgreeorstronglyagree14(64%)4(29%)18(50%)Neutral6(27%)7(50%)13(36%)Disagreeorstronglydisagree2(9%)3(21%)5(14%)Total22(100%)14(100%)36(100%)beseenthatonly27%ofthosefamiliarandexperiencedinusingtravelplansfelt‘neutral’towardstheireffectiveness,comparedwith50%ofthosewithalimitedunderstandingofhowtravelplanswork.Despitethisfinding,az-testforthedif-ferencebetweenproportionsshowedtherewasnostatisticalsignificancetosug-gestthatthosenotfamiliarandexperiencedwithtravelplansweremoreuncertainabouttheireffectiveness(p=0.17).Inaddition,perceivedeffectivenessoftravelplanswasalsocross-classifiedbycouncillocationandthenumberoftravelplanstheyhadrequiredfornewdevel-opments.However,noclearpatternordifferencesemergedfromtheseadditionalanalyses. 5.3Results79Finally,itshouldbenotedthatuncertaintyabouttravelplaneffectivenessdidnotnecessarilycorrespondwithdisinterestintheconcept:Weareveryinterestedinexploringtheuseoftravelplansfornewdevelopments,how-everwehavenotcomeacrossanycaseswheretheyhavebeenproventobeeffective…[Responsefromoutermetropolitancouncilrepresentative].5.3.8FutureLikelihoodofRequiringTravelPlansFigure5.8showsthataroundhalfofthecouncils(51%)werelikelyorhighlylikelytorequireatravelplanforanewdevelopmentinthenext12months,whichissimilartotheproportionthathaverequiredthempreviously(50%).Thepropor-tionofcouncilsthatwerelikelyorhighlylikelytorequireatravelplaninthenext12monthsalsodeclinedwithdistancefromtheMelbourneCBD.Innermetropoli-tancouncilsweremostlikely(80%),followedbymiddlemetropolitancouncils(75%),regionalcouncils(50%)andoutermetropolitancouncils(21%).5.3.9OtherKeyIssuesAnumberofotherkeyissueswerehighlightedbycouncilsaspartofthesurvey.Theseincludedthelackofanystateplanningpolicythatissupportiveoftravelplansandconcernsabouttheeffectivenessoftravelplans:Fig.5.8LikelihoodofVictoriancouncilsrequiringHighlyunlikelyatravelplaninthenext9%12monthsHighlylikely37%Unlikely26%Unsure14%Likely14% 805TheScaleofTravelPlanningPracticeThetownplanningprocessisveryfocussedonvehicularmovementswithlittleconsidera-tiontowardsothermodes(apartfrombroadmotherhoodstatementsintheStatePlanningPolicyFramework)thereforeitisdifficulttoliaisewithsomedevelopmentsinrequestingextrainfosuchastravelplans[Responsefromoutermetropolitancouncilrepresentative].Travelplansarenoteffectivewhenimplementedbyastatutoryrequirement,likemanymanagementplans[Responsefrommiddlemetropolitancouncilrepresentative].5.4DiscussionThissectioncomparesthesurveyfindingstotheliteraturedescribedearlierinChap.2anddiscussestheimplicationsforfuturetravelplanningpractice.Itisinsightfultocomparetheresultstoaprevioussurveyconductedof388localauthoritiesintheUnitedKingdom(SteerDaviesGleave2001).Thesurveywasundertakenin2000toassessthetake-upandeffectivenessoftravelplans,andincludedacomponentontravelplansanddevelopmentcontrol.Theresultsofthissurveyshowedthat58%oflocalauthoritieshadrequiredatravelplanforanewdevelopment,comparedto50%fortheVictoriancouncilsurvey.However,thepercentagetodayintheUnitedKingdomislikelytobemuchhigherduetotheincreasedfocusontravelplansfornewdevelopmentsandtheongoingpres-enceofasupportivepolicyframework(Ryeetal.2011b).AsubsequentsurveyoflocalauthoritiesintheUnitedKingdomin2007suggestedathree-foldincreaseintravelplansbetween2001and2006,althoughitwasalsorecognisedthatmostlocalauthoritiescurrentlysecurelessthan10travelplanseachyear(Addison&Associates2008).AmorerecentsurveyconductedinScotlandin2013showedthateverylocalauthoritynowrequirestravelplansfornewdevelopments,witheachtypicallydealingwith12–15newtravelplansperyear(Llewellynetal.2014a).Formalagreementswereusedby28%ofVictorianurbancouncilstorequiretravelplansfornewdevelopments.Thiscontraststhefindingofthe2007surveyintheUnitedKingdomwhere61%oflocalauthoritiesusedthem(Addison&Associates2008)andthe2013surveyinScotlandwhere86%hadusedthemtosomeextent(Llewellynetal.2014a).FormalagreementsintheUnitedKingdomaretypicallyusedforlargerdevelopmentsastheyareconsideredtohavemore‘legalforce’andcanbeusedtosecurepaymentsassociatedwithimplement-ingandmonitoringtravelplans.However,asarguedbyHarrison(2003,p.401),‘eitherconditionsor[agreements]concerningtravelplansifproperlydrafted,areperfectlycapableofbeinglawfulandenforceable.’Around80%ofVictoriancouncilsindicatedtheyhadnotmonitoredanyofthetravelplanstheyhadrequired.ThisisincontrasttotheUnitedKingdomwhereonly21%oflocalauthoritiesreportedthattheydidnotmonitortravelplans(Ryeetal.2011a).The2013surveyconductedinScotlandshowedthat19%oflocalauthoritieshadnotundertakenanymonitoring,yetonly25%didsoeither‘always’or‘inmostcases’,withtheremainderdoingsoonly‘some-times’or‘occasionally’(Llewellynetal.2014a).Nevertheless,averydifferent 5.4Discussion81patternoftravelplanmonitoringexistsbetweenVictoriaandtheUnitedKingdom.DifficultieswithmonitoringandenforcingtravelplanshavestillbeenreportedintheUnitedKingdom(Llewellynetal.2014b;Ryeetal.2011a),alongwiththeUnitedStates(SeggermanandHendricks2005)andtheAustralianstateofNewSouthWales(Wynne2013).Findingsfromthe2007surveyintheUnitedKingdomechocommentsmadebyVictoriancouncilsregardinglimitedresources:Resourcing(orthelackofit)ofthemonitoring,penalties,sanctionsandincentivespro-cesseswasseenbymanyauthoritiesasareasonfornotincludingthemwithintravelplansastheyhavenoresourcestofollowthisthrough(Addison&Associates2008,p.71).ThelackofanystateplanningpolicythatissupportiveoftravelplanswasalsoidentifiedasakeyissuewithcurrentpracticeinVictoria.IntheUnitedKingdom,astrongpolicycontextwasthemostcited‘assisting’factorbycouncilsinsecur-ingtravelplansfornewdevelopments(Addison&Associates2008).AsupportivepolicyframeworkisalsoconsideredtobeimportantinotherEuropeancountries(Ryeetal.2011b).ThelevelofpracticalexperiencewithusingtravelplanswasnotparticularlyhighamongcouncilstaffinVictoria,yetthosewithexperienceweremorelikelytoperceivetravelplansaseffective.Addison&Associates(2008,p.78)notethata‘lackofknowledgehinderedtheeffectivenessofthetravelplanwork’intheUnitedKingdomandthat‘trainingwasseenasmuchneeded’.Finally,itisworthnotingagainthataroundhalfofthecouncilssurveyedstatedthattheywerelikelytorequireatravelplanforanewdevelopmentinthefuture.Thisclearlyindicatesanareaofcontinuedgrowthintheareaoftransportandlanduseplanning,demonstratingtheimportanceofidentifyingopportunitiestoenhancetravelplanningpracticewherepossible.Thesurveyfindingssuggestanumberofopportunitiesforenhancingfuturepractice.Examplesinclude:changingmonitoringandenforcementpractices,intro-ducingmoresupportiveplanningpolicies,anddevelopingrelevantguidancemate-rialandtrainingprograms.These,alongwithotheropportunities,arediscussedfurtherinChap.9.5.5ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristoexaminethescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinVictoria.Indoingso,itshowedthathalfofthecouncilshadpreviouslyrequiredatravelplanforanewdevelopment,primarilytooffsettheimpactofprovidinglesscarparking.Itwasestimatedthataround100travelplanswererequiredbyVictoriancouncilsduring2010–12alone.However,littlemoni-toringoftravelplanshastakenplacetodatewhich,amongothers,wasidentifiedasakeyissuebycouncils.Fromtheresultspresented,itappearsthatVictoriaisstillatasomewhatembryonicstagewithrespecttotravelplanningfornewdevelopments,whichisperhapsanalogoustotheUnitedKingdom’sposition10yearsago.Withabetter 825TheScaleofTravelPlanningPracticeunderstandingoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinVictoria,anumberofopportunitiescanbeidentifiedtomovetowardsamoreeffectiveapproach.TheseopportunitiesarediscussedinChap.9.Thesurveyfindingspresentedinthischapterhavelaidanimportantfoun-dationforfuturechaptersofthisthesis.TheyhaveshownthatwhileamodestleveloftravelplanningactivityfornewdevelopmentshasoccurredinVictoria,variousissueshavebeenexperiencedthatwarrantfurtherinvestigation.Buildinguponthesurveyfindings,subsequentchaptersofthisthesisfocusspecificallyontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thenextchapterpresentstheresultsfromaseriesofinterviewsaimedatdevelopinganappreciationfortheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintheirapplication,withaparticularfocusonimplementation.ReferencesAddison&Associates.(2008).Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess—Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransportandCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.2014.Victoriainfuture2014datatables.Australia:Victoria.http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&CurrieG(2014).‘Securingtravelplansthroughtheplanningapprov-alsprocess:AcasestudyofpracticefromVictoria,Australia’,Cities,41,partA,114–122.Harrison,J.(2003).Travelplansandtheplanningsystem.JournalofPlanningandEnvironmentLaw,no.April2003,397–403.Hennink,M.,Hutter,I.,&Bailey,A.(2011).Qualitativeresearchmethods.UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd.Llewellyn,R.,Paton,D.,&Tricker,R.,(2014a)Afterthedownturn:wherenowfortravelplansinScotland?PaperpresentedtoScottishTransportApplications&Research(STAR)confer-ence,Glasgow,Scotland.Llewellyn,R.,Tricker,R.,&Paton,D.(2014b)Travelplans:Acriticalcomparisonoftheappli-cationoflanduseplanningprocessesinEnglandandScotland,Transport,no.iFirst,1–13.Mack,N.,Woodsong,C.,MacQueen,K.,Guest,G.,&Namey,E.(2005).Qualitativeresearchmethods:Adatacollector’sfieldguide.NorthCarolina,USA:FamilyHealthInternational.Rye,T.,Green,C.,Young,E.,&Ison,S.(2011a).Usingtheland-useplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:AnassessmentofprogressinEnglandtodate.JournalofTransportGeography,19(2),235–243.Rye,T.,Welsch,J.,Plevnik,A.,&deTomassi,R.(2011b).Firststepstowardscross-nationaltransferinintegratingmobilitymanagementandlanduseplanningintheEUandSwitzerland.TransportPolicy,18,533–543.Seggerman,K.,&Hendricks,S.(2005).IncorporatingTDMintothelanddevelopmentprocess.StateofFlorida:DepartmentofTransportation.SteerDaviesGleave.(2001).Take-upandeffectivenessoftravelplansandtravelawarenesscampaigns:Finalreport.London,UK:DepartmentoftheEnvironment,TransportandtheRegions.Wynne,L.(2013).Travelplanningandtheland-useplanningsystem:Understandingtheeffec-tivenessoftravelplanningrequirementsinNSWDevelopmentControlPlans,UnpublishedMastersThesis,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia. Chapter6ActorPerspectives6.1IntroductionThepreviouschapterpresentedthefirstsetofresearchresultstoprovideanunder-standingofthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria,Australia.Indoingso,itidentifiedarangeofissueswiththeprocessofrequiringtravelplans.Thischapter,aspositionedinFig.6.1,presentsthesecondsetofresearchresultsbydetailingthefindingsfrominterviewsconductedwithindustryrepre-sentatives(researchcomponent2).Table6.1detailstheresearchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwiththisresearchcomponent.Inlinewithresearchobjective2,theaimofthischapteristogainanapprecia-tionfortheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresi-dentialdevelopments.Keyaspectsinclude:•Perceivedbenefitsandpotentialdisadvantages•Extentofindustryinvolvementandinteractionsamongstakeholders•Implementationchallengesandpotentialsolutions•Futureexpectations.Thischapterbeginsbydescribingtheresearchmethodusedtogainanappreci-ationfortheperspectivesofindustryactors.TheresultsarethenpresentedandcomparedtotheliteraturedescribedinChap.2.Thechapterconcludesbydiscuss-ingtheimplicationsofthefindingsforfuturetravelplanningpractice.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore201783C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_6 846ActorPerspectivesBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaCHAPTER6:AppreciationofperspectivesofACTORPERSPECTIVESactorsinvolvedintravelplanningAim,method,results,discussionfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.6.1PositionofChap.6inthethesisstructure6.2ResearchMethodInterviewswereconsideredtobethemostsuitableapproachforachievingtheresearchobjectiveasperceptions,beliefsandexperienceswerebeingsoughtfromindustryrepresentatives.Thisisincontrastto‘howmuch’or‘whatproportion’typequestionswhereasurveyisgenerallymoresuitable(Richardsonetal.1995). 6.2ResearchMethod85Table6.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent2Researchgap→Researchopportunity→Researchobjective→ResearchcomponentNoresearchhasDevelopanappreciation2.Togainan2.Interviewsspecificallyexploredfortheperspectivesofappreciationforwithindustrytheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintraveltheperspectivesrepresentativesthedifferentactorsplanningfornewofindustryactorsinvolvedintravelresidentialdevelopments,involvedintheirplanningfornewparticularlyaspectsapplicationresidentialrelatingtoimplementationdevelopmentsAsemi-structuredinterviewapproachwaschosentoretainflexibility,therebyallowinggreateremphasistobeplacedonsomeoftheinterviewtopicsasrequired.Theapproachchosenwasfoundtobehighlyappropriategiventhediversityofrolesamongthosethatwereinterviewed.EthicsapprovalwasprovidedbytheMonashUniversityHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(MUHREC)priortocon-ductingtheinterviews(referencenumberCF12/1205—2012000586).Inidentifyingthetargetgroupfortheinterviews,alltypesofactorsfromindustrythathavebeeninvolved,ormaybeinvolvedinthefuture,intravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentswereconsidered.Thisincludedrepresentativesfromstateandlocalgovernment,propertydevelopers,propertymanagers,andconsultants.Whilepropertydevelopersandmanagersarenottraditionallyseenasacorepartofthetransportindustry,theywereincludedgiventheircurrentandpotentialfutureinvolvementwithtravelplans.Existingindustrycontactswerefirstusedtorecruitparticipants,followedbytheadoptionofa‘snowballing’techniquewherepartici-pantsthathadalreadybeeninterviewedwereaskedtosuggestotherrepresentativesthatmaybesuitableforinterviewing(Henninketal.2011;Macketal.2005).Asmultipleinterviewsareneededtoensurearangeofviewsareheardonagiventopic(Henninketal.2011),itwasensuredthatatleastthreeinterviewswereundertakenwitheachtypeoforganisation.Intotal,20semi-structuredinterviewswereconductedwith30industryrepresentatives(someinterviewsinvolvedmorethanoneparticipant).Thepotentialforthe‘snowballing’recruitmenttechniquetointroducebiastothesamplewasacknowledged(Henninketal.2011)andthere-foreadoptedinonlyfiveoutofthe20interviews.Astravelplanningfornewresi-dentialdevelopmentsismoreestablishedinEnglandthaninAustralia,threeoftheinterviewswereheldwithtravelplanningrepresentativesfromEnglandviatele-phone(orSkype).Theremaining17interviewswereheldinpersonwithindustryrepresentativesfromAustralia.Table6.2detailstheinterviewparticipantsandtheirgeneralexperiencewithtravelplans.Mostoftheparticipantsworkedineitheratransportplanning/engi-neeringorplanningrelatedrole,withtwooftheparticipants(C6andC7)workingsolelyintravelplanningroles.Generalexperiencewithtravelplansvariedamonginterviewparticipants,withagreaterlevelofexperienceevidentamongthoseworkinginstategovernmentagenciesandconsultancies. 866ActorPerspectivesTable6.2InterviewparticipantsandtheirgeneralexperiencewithtravelplansOrganisationNumberofNumberofRoleofparticipantGeneralexperi-typeand[ID]interviewsparticipantsinorganisationencewithtraveland[ID]plansaLocal49EnvironmentalModerateGovernment[LG]SustainableDevelopment[LG1]SustainableHightransport[LG2]TransportHighplanning[LG3]StrategicModerateplanning[LG4]TransportandLowtrafficengineering[LG5]StrategicModerateplanning[LG6]StatutoryLowplanning[LG7]Planning[LG8]NoneTransportengi-Noneneering[LG9]State47StatutoryHighGovernment[SG]planning[SG1]TransportModerateplanning[SG2]StructureNoneplanning[SG3]StructureLowplanning[SG4]PlanningtribunalHighmember[SG5]PlanningtribunalHighmember[SG6]BusinessHighengagement(transport)[SG7]Property33ProjectdirectorModerateDeveloper[PD][PD1]Director[PD2]LowDevelopmentHighdirector[PD3](continued) 6.2ResearchMethod87Table6.2(continued)OrganisationNumberofNumberofRoleofparticipantGeneralexperi-typeand[ID]interviewsparticipantsinorganisationencewithtraveland[ID]plansaProperty33Stratamanage-NoneManager[PM]ment[PM1]Ownerscorpora-Nonetionmanagement[PM2]Ownerscorpora-Lowtionmanagement[PM3]Consultant[C]57Planning[C1]ModerateTransportHighplanning[C2]Projectmanage-Highment(transport)[C3]Projectmanage-Highment(transport)[C4]TransportandHightrafficengineering[C5]TravelplanningHigh[C6]TravelplanningHigh[C7]Other[O]11TransportLowplanning[O1]Total2030None=5Low=6Moderate=6High=13aGeneralexperiencewithtravelplansamonginterviewparticipantswasdefinedasfollowsNonenoexperiencewithtravelplansbeforeLowsomeawarenessbutlimitedinvolvement(lessthan2yearsexperience)Moderategoodunderstandingoftravelplanning(2–5yearsexperience)Highmorethan5yearsexperienceorsignificantexposuretotravelplansforbothexistingandnewdevelopmentsWhiletherequirementtoconductatleastthreeinterviewswitheachtypeoforganisationwasmet,extensiveeffortswererequiredtoreachthisminimumforpropertydevelopersandmanagers.Thiswasbecausetheydidnotseetrans-portasacorefunctionoftheirbusiness,particularlygiventherelativenoveltyofthetravelplanningconceptfortheresidentialdevelopmentindustry.Thisfind-inghasimplicationsfortravelplanningatnewresidentialdevelopmentsgiven 886ActorPerspectivesthatpropertydevelopersandmanagersaretypicallytheclosesttoresidentsofallindustryactorsandthereforearguablyhavethegreatestinfluenceontherelativesuccessofthetravelplan.Giventhesampleof30interviewparticipantsandthediversityoforganisationtypes,coupledwiththequalitativenatureoftheresearchapproach,theabilitytogeneralisethefindingsislimited(Bryman2001).However,theintentoftheinter-viewswasnottoprovidegeneralisations,butrathertopresentasetofactorper-spectivesontravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments,particularlyaspectsrelatingtoimplementation.TheinterviewquestionsareshowninTable6.3.Thefirsttwoquestionsfocusedonthebackgroundofinterviewparticipantswhichhelpedtobuildrapportandsetthecontextfortheremainingquestions.Theinterviewthenfocusedspecificallyontravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentsthroughadiscussionoftheirbenefitsandpotentialdisadvantages,currentinvolvement,interactionswithotherorganisa-tions/actors,implementationchallengesandpotentialsolutions,andfutureexpec-tations.Aclosingquestionhelpedparticipantsto‘fadeout’fromtheinterviewandprovideanopportunitytodiscussanythingthatwasnotcovered.Toreducethepotentialforreflexivitybias[inwhichparticipantsgiveananswertheythinktheinterviewerwantstohear(Yin2009)],anonymityofresponseswasassuredbothfromanindividualandorganisationalperspectiveandtheimportanceofrespondinghonestlywasreiteratedtoparticipants.Thisenabledparticipantstotalkopenlyabouttravelplans,therebyprovidinganaccurateandhonestsetofperspectives.Table6.3InterviewquestionsBackground1.Firstly,canyoutellmeaboutyourpositionanditsroleintheorganisation?2.Haveyouhadanygeneralexperiencewithtravelplansbefore?Benefitsandpotentialdisadvantages3.Whatdoyouseearethebenefitsoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments?4.Whatdoyouseearethepotentialdisadvantagesoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments?Currentinvolvement5.Canyoudescribeanyspecificresidentialdevelopmentsyou’vebeeninvolvedwiththathaverequiredatravelplan?6.Arethereotherorganisationsthatyou’vedealtwithbeforethroughyourinvolvementintravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments?Ifso,towhatextenthaveyouturnedtothemforassis-tanceonmattersrelatingtotravelplans?Implementationchallenges7.Whatdoyouthinkaresomeofthechallengeswithimplementingtravelplansatnewresiden-tialdevelopments?8.Whataresomeofthewaysthattheseimplementationchallengescouldbeovercome?Futureexpectations9.Whatdoyouthinkthefutureholdsfortravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments?10.Doyouhaveanyothercommentsyou’dliketomakeabouttravelplansingeneral? 6.2ResearchMethod89Onaverage,eachinterviewlastedforonehour,althoughtheserangedfrom30to90minutes.Allinterviewparticipants,exceptone,agreedtohavetheirinterviewaudio-taped.Fortheinterviewthatwasnotrecorded,additionalnotesweretakenduringandaftertheinterviewwhichweresufficientforanalysispurposes.Followingtheconductofeachinterview,theaudio-recordingwastran-scribed.Keyquoteswererecordedverbatim,withotherresponsesdocumentedinsummaryformat.Inaccordancewithguidanceonqualitativedataanalysis(Henninketal.2011),theinterviewdatawasanalysedusingasetofcodesthatweredevelopedinductivelybasedonkeythemesthatarosefromtheinterviewresponses.6.3ResultsThissectionpresentstheinterviewfindings.Industryinvolvementwithtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentsiscoveredfirst,followedbytheirperceivedbenefitsandshortcomings.Interactionsbetweenorganisations/actorsarethenpre-sented,alongwithanoverviewofkeyimplementationchallengesandpotentialresponses.Thesectionconcludeswithcoverageoffutureexpectationsandasyn-thesisoftheinterviewfindings.6.3.1IndustryInvolvementwithTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopmentsPropertymanagershadarelativelylowlevelofinvolvementwithtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments(only1outofthe3interviewparticipants[PM3]hadanyinvolvement),whilemostinterviewparticipantsfromlocalgovernment[LG1–LG7]andconsultancies[C2–C7]hadbeeninvolvedinthreeormoreresi-dentialdevelopmentsthathadrequiredatravelplan.Organisationalinvolvementwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsspannedanumberofareas.AsshowninTable6.4,morethanhalfoftheorganisa-tionsthatwereinterviewed(11outof20)hadinvolvementwithpreparing/devel-opingtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,yetonlyfiveorganisationshadinvolvementinimplementation.Furthermore,acrossall20interviews,onlytwo(whichwerebothwithconsultants)indicatedanyinvolvementwithmonitor-ingtravelplansatnewdevelopments.Bytheirverynatureasauthorities,localandstategovernmentweremorelikelytoonlyrequiretravelplans.Propertydevelopersandconsultants,ontheotherhand,weremorelikelytobeinvolvedinpreparing/developingtravelplans,andtoalesserextent,implementingthem. 906ActorPerspectivesTable6.4OrganisationalinvolvementintravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsArea/sofinvolvementNo.ofinterviewswhereresponsewasgiven*Total*statedbyinterview[LG][SG][PD][PM][C][O](N=20)participants(n=4)(n=4)(n=3)(n=3)(n=5)(n=1)Requiringtravelplans43––––7Preparing/developing113–5111Implementing––212–5Monitoring––––2–2Noinvolvement–––2––2*Morethanoneresponsecouldbegivenineachinterview[LG]=LocalGovernment;[PM]=PropertyManager[SG]=StateGovernment;[C]=Consultant[PD]=PropertyDeveloper;[O]=Other6.3.2PerceivedBenefitsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopmentsTheenvironmentalandsocialbenefitsoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelop-mentswerethemostcommonlycitedbenefits,referredtoin9outofthe20inter-views,includingall4interviewswithlocalgovernment.Reducingtheamountofspacerequiredforcarparkingwasalsocommonlycited.Interestingly,onlyonepropertydevelopercitedthisbenefit[PD3],despitethecostadvantagesthatreducedcarparkingcandeliver.However,reducedcarparkingcanalsocauseunintendedparkingproblemsonsurroundingstreetsifappropriatecontrolsarenotputinplace.Thisissuewasraisedbyallpropertymanagersinterviewed.Limitedcarparking,Icanseethesustainabilityandenvironmentalaspect,butinreality,you’vegotallofthesepeopleandwherearetheygoingtoparktheircars?Itcausesdramaandchaos[PM3].Requiringatravelplanwasseenasawaytoforcedeveloperstoconsidersus-tainabletransportissuesatnewresidentialdevelopments.Ifthecouncilhadn’tmadeusdoit,weprobablywouldn’thave,butit’sbecomingpartofthatindustrythatwe’redoingitandit’snotthatbiganimpostsowecanaffordit…soIthinkitworksquitewell[PD1].Arangeofotherbenefitswerestatedbyinterviewparticipants,includingtheabilityto:•Changeresidents’attitudes/mindsetstowardssustainabletransport[LG2,SG2]•Targetresidentsatatimeofchange[LG3,SG1,SG7,C6]•Reducecostsfordevelopers[LG6,PD3,C7]•Provideasellingfeaturefordevelopments[PD1,PD3,PM2,C1,C6] 6.3Results91•Achieveabetterdevelopmentoutcomethroughlocked-ininfrastructure[LG1,LG7,PM1]•Achievecouncil’sgoals[LG1,C6]•Encouragediversityintheoccupationofdevelopments[PD1,PD3,PM2].6.3.3PotentialShortcomingsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopmentsThelackofanyfollow-uporenforcementwasthemostcommonlycitedshort-comingoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments,referredtoin9outofthe20interviews.Consultantsweremorelikelytocitethisdisadvantage,with4outof5interviewswithconsultantsreferringtoit.Evenif[thecouncil]askedforloadsofstuffinthattravelplan,alotofthemwon’tcomebackandcheckyou’redoingit.Asaconsultantthatdeliverstravelplanning,I’dmuchratherhavecouncilsringingmeupeveryfiveminutessaying‘Haveyoudoneyoursurveyyet?Haveyoulaunchedthatbiketoworkscheme?…becausethenIcouldgobacktothe[developer]andsayyouhavetodoit.Untiltheygettoldthat,it’sreallydifficulttocon-vincethemthey’vegottodoit[C6].Alackofadequatetransportinfrastructuretosupporttravelplans,suchaspub-lictransportandsafefacilitiesforwakingandcycling,wasalsocommonlycited.Thiswasparticularlyprevalentindiscussionsrelatingtogreenfieldsitesinoutermetropolitanareas:Thelackofpublictransportinouterareasisaverysignificantconstrainttothesuccessofanytravelplan[SG2].ThelackofanygovernmentpolicyorlegislativerequirementfortravelplansinAustraliawasalsoraisedbyinterviewparticipants[LG2–LG4,LG7,LG9,SG1,SG5,SG6,PD1,PD2,C2–C5,O1].Thisincludedaninterviewwithaprop-ertydeveloper[PD1]whocommentedontheunregulatednatureoftravelplansrequiredfornewdevelopments:There’snorulesaboutthis,it’sveryunregulated.It’snotclearintermsofwhatyouhavetodoorwhyyouhavetodoit[PD1].Theissueofvaryingqualityintravelplandocumentswasraisedin6outofthe20interviews.Localandstategovernment,asreviewersandapproversoftravelplans,accountedfor5outofthe6interviewsthatraisedthisasanissue.In5ofthe20interviews,participantsfeltthattherewerenodisadvantagesassociatedwithtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.However,therewerealsosomeviewsexpressedthattheyneedtobedeliveredeffectivelyandshouldnotbereliedonasa‘silverbullet’solution.Idon’tseeanyparticulardisadvantages.Idon’tseethatthey’rethepanaceaofallills,however[PD2]. 926ActorPerspectivesArangeofotherpotentialdisadvantageswereraisedbyinterviewparticipants,including:•Developerspayinglipservicetotravelplans[LG1,LG3,SG7,C3,C6,O1]•Localcontextoftennotconsideredwhenrequiringtravelplans[PD3,PM1,C1,C2,C5–C7]•Uncertaintysurroundingresponsibilitiesforimplementation[LG2,LG3,LG5,C2,C7]•Lackofguidelinesontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments[LG4,PD1,C4]•Resourceintensivenatureofresidentialtravelplanning[LG4,PD1]•Travelplanrequirementcomingtoolateintheplanningapplicationprocess[C3,C7]•Generallackofownershipofthetravelplan[LG2,SG1,C7].6.3.4InteractionsBetweenOrganisations/ActorsInterviewparticipantswereaskedaboutotherorganisationstheyhavedealtwiththroughtheirinvolvementintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentsandtheextenttowhichtheyhaveturnedtothemforassistance.Basedonresponsestothisquestion,Fig.6.2providesanoverviewoftheinteractionsthatoccurbetweenactorsontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.AthickerlineandlargerActorinterviewedPropertyActornotinterviewedDeveloperAthickerlineandlargercircle[PD]denotesagreaternumberofBuildingmanageractorinteractionsResidentServiceproviderPropertyassociation/(e.g.carshare,Managercommitteepublictransport)[PM]Other[O]ArchitectConsultant[C]LocalGovernmentState[LG]GovernmentAdvocacygroup[SG](e.g.cycling)Fig.6.2Interactionsbetweenactorsontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.SourceAuthor’ssynthesisbasedonresponsesfrominterviewparticipantstoquestion6.Note:circlesandlinesdrawntoscaleandnormalised 6.3Results93circleinthefiguredenotesagreaternumberofactorinteractions.Thelinesandcirclesaredrawntoscaleandnormalisedtoaccountfordifferencesinthenum-berofinterviewparticipantsbyorganisationtype.Thisshowsthatconsultantsandlocalgovernment,andtoaslightlylesserextent,propertydevelopersandstategovernment,arethekeyactorscurrentlyinvolvedintheprocess.ConsistentwiththefindingspresentedearlierinTable6.4,propertymanagerscurrentlyplayarela-tivelyminorroleintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments,despitethemarguablyhavingtheclosestrelationshipwithresidentsofallindustryactors.Thismaybesymptomaticofalackoftravelplanimplementationtodate.Theinterviewresponsesalsohighlightedotheractorsinvolvedintheprocesswhowerenotinterviewed.Theseincludedarchitects,buildingmanagers,residentassociations/committees,serviceprovidersandadvocacygroups.Itisalsonotedthatotherinteractionsbetweenactorsmayexist,butwerenotstatedbyinterviewparticipants.Forexample,consultantsarelikelytodealwitharchitectsonmattersrelatingtocarandbicycleparkingfacilities.Furthermore,localgovernmentmaydealwithserviceproviderssuchascarshareoperatorsinidentifyingsuitablelocationsforcarsharingvehicles.6.3.5ChallengesAssociatedwithImplementationInterviewparticipantsraisedanumberofchallengesassociatedwithimplement-ingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.TheseareillustratedusingthewordcloudshowninFig.6.3.Thewordcloudillustratesthefrequencyatwhichresponsesweregiven.Ifaparticularresponsewasgiventwiceasmanytimesasotherresponses,thatresponsewillappeartwiceaslargeinthewordcloud.Asinterviewparticipantsdidnotgenerallyexpresscommonresponsesinpreciselythesamewayaseachother,theresponsescontainedinthewordcloudarenotpre-sentedverbatimandareinsteadbasedontheauthor’sinterpretation.Consistentwiththe‘potentialshortcomings’reportedearlier,thelackofanyenforcementand/ordifficultiesassociatedwithenforcementwasthemostcom-monlycitedimplementationchallenge,referredtoin8outofthe20interviews.Thisresponsewasmostcommonlyraisedbyconsultants,with4outofthe5consultantFig.6.3Challengeswithimplementingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Notephrasescontainedinthewordcloudarebasedontheauthor’sinterpretationofinterviewresponses 946ActorPerspectivesinterviewsreferringtoit.Difficultiesassociatedwithenforcementweregenerallyrelatedtoresourcingissueswithinlocalgovernment.Ithinkthisiswherethebiggestholeis…councilsaretheonesthatareactuallyrequiringthesethingssothey’rethelogicalenforcementbodyforthem,buttheyclearlydon’thavethefundingortheresourcestodealwiththesethings…[C5].Uncertaintyaroundwhowillimplementthetravelplanwasalsocommonlycited.Thisissueisreflectiveofanumberofotherissuesraisedbyparticipantssuchthelackofownership,andthelackofanygovernmentregulationorguidancethatwouldtypicallystipulateimplementationresponsibilities.Whethertheyactuallygetcarriedoutwhenthedevelopmentisconstructed…that’sthebigquestion,Idon’tknow…becausewedon’thaveinvolvementfromthatlaterstageonwards.Wewouldbeadvantagedifwehadinvolvementallthewaythrough,throughpreparationtoimplementation[C2].AsshowninFig.6.3,arangeofotherimplementationchallengeswereidenti-fied,includingthelackofarobustplanning/legalrequirementforresidentialtravelplans,consistentwiththepotentialshortcomingscitedearlier.There’snostateplanningpolicyfortravelplans…it’suptolocalcouncilstohavesome-thingintheirlocalpolicyframework…anditdependsonwhatthefocusofthecouncilsare[SG6].6.3.6PotentialResponsestoImplementationChallengesInterviewparticipantssuggestedarangeofpotentialresponsestothechallengesassociatedwithimplementingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.TheseareillustratedinthewordcloudshowninFig.6.4.Developingamorerobustplanning/legalrequirementfortravelplansatnewdevelopmentswasthemostcommonlycitedresponse,referredtoin6outofthe20interviews.Thewholeregulationthing;there’ssomuchscopeforthistoreallygettoaclearerpointforpeoplesothatitdoesbecomeabetteroutcomeforeveryone,andIthinkthatifthatwasthecasethenitwouldbearealplusmovingforward[PD1].Fig.6.4Potentialresponsestoimplementationchallenges.Notephrasescontainedinthewordcloudarebasedontheauthor’sinterpretationofinterviewresponses 6.3Results95However,somecautionwasexpressedinhavingarequirementthatmaybetooprescriptiveornotapplicabletoallgeographicalareas:Ifyoubetooprescriptive,youlimitoryoualmostchopofftheabilityforinnovation…Ithinkitcouldbedetrimentalinthatway[LG6].Havingthedeveloperfundtheimplementationofthetravelplanwasraisedasasuggestionin5outofthe20interviews,whichincluded2ofthe3propertydevel-opers[PD1,PD3]thatwereinterviewed.Isupposethat’soneofthekeyaspectsofagreentravelplanisensuringthatthedeveloperactuallyputshismoneywherehismouthis…[PD3].Involvingtheownerscorporationandencouragingresidentengagementintheprocesswerealsoraisedassuggestionsbyinterviewparticipants[SG6,PD2,C4,C7].Thisisparticularlyrelevantgiventhatresidentsarethetargetgroupforresi-dentialtravelplans.Thesuggestionofhavinganindependentnot-for-profitorgani-sationtohandleimplementationwasalsoraised:Icouldseethattheremightbeamarketoutthereforthat,anddeveloperswouldlikeitbecauseiftheycanjustpayacertainamount,theobligationisthenestablished,theywalkaway…Icouldseeabigadvantagetoownerscorporationswherethat’sonelessthingthattheyhavetomanage[SG5].6.3.7FutureExpectationsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopmentsWhenaskedaboutthefutureoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,mostparticipantsfelttheywereeitherheretostayorwillincreaseinfocus(statedin13outofthe20interviews).Ithinkthey’regoingtocomeintoplaymoresomovingforwardandIsupposeifyou’regoingtobereducingparkingratesandapprovingdevelopmentswithlittleornocarpark-ing…thenyouneedafall-back,whetherthat’spublictransport,travelplans,orwhateveritmightbe[C2].However,theviewthattravelplansarelikelytoreduceinscalewasexpressedin5outofthe20interviews,with3ofthesecomprisinginterviewswithconsultants.Ithinkmoreandmore,probablygreentravelplansbywayofaconditiononapermitwillprobablygobythewayside,byvirtueofthembeingchallenged[C5].6.3.8SynthesisofInterviewFindingsUsingtheinterviewresponses,anassessmentwasmadeofeachparticipant’slevelofsupportandconfidenceintheabilityfortravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentstobesuccessfullyimplementedandachievetheirdesiredoutcomes.Forexample,aninterviewparticipantwhowasconsideredtobebothhighly 966ActorPerspectivessupportiveandhighlyconfidentwouldhavecitedarangeofbenefitsassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,butlittleornodisadvantages.Inaddition,theywouldhaveseenlimitedchallengesassociatedwithimplementa-tionandexpressedaviewthattravelplansarelikelytoincreaseinfocusintothefuture.Giventhatthisassessmentofinterviewparticipantswassomewhatsubjec-tive,theresultscanonlybeconsideredasindicative.Figure6.5showsthelevelsofsupportandconfidenceamonginterviewpar-ticipantsbasedontheassessmentundertaken.Participantsgenerallyfeltsup-portiveoftheconcept,butwerenotnecessarilyallthatconfidentinit.Noclearpatternemergedbyorganisationtype,althoughlocalgovernmentrepresenta-tivesdidappeartobemoreconfidentintravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opmentsthanotherindustryrepresentatives,includingthoseworkinginstategovernment.Almosthalfofallinterviewparticipants(13outof30)seemedbothsupportiveandconfidentintravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,comparedwithonlyeightparticipantswhoappearedsupportivebutneithercon-fidentnorunconfident,andsixwhoseemedsupportivebutunconfident.Onlytwointerviewparticipants(onepropertydeveloperandoneconsultant)appearedtobebothunsupportiveandunconfidentintravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.AsummaryoftheinterviewfindingsbykeytopicisprovidedinTable6.5.LocalGovernmentConfidentinStateGovernmenttravelplanningPropertyDeveloperPropertyManagerConsultantOtherNotsupportiveSupportiveofoftravelplanningtravelplanningNotconfidentintravelplanningFig.6.5Levelsofsupportandconfidenceintravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Noteinterviewparticipantswerenotaskedtoindicatewheretheywerepositionedonthegraph;anassessmentwasmadebytheresearcherbasedonresponsesfrominterviewparticipantstoques-tions3,4,7,8and9 6.4Discussion97Table6.5SummaryofinterviewfindingsInterviewparticipantshaddiversebackgrounds,yetmostworkedinplanningorengineeringroles•Fiveoutof30participantshadnopriorexperiencewithtravelplans,although13participantsindicatedahighleveloftravelplanningexperience(fiveormoreyears)•PropertymanagersgenerallyhadlittleornoexperiencewithtravelplansTheindustryhashadlittleinvolvementwithimplementationandmonitoringtodate•Bytheirnatureasauthorities,localandstategovernmentweregenerallyonlyinvolvedinrequiringtravelplansandhadlimitedinvolvementthereafter•Involvementwasmostlyfocusedonpreparing/developingtravelplans,ratherthanimplement-ingormonitoringthemTravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentswereseentoofferawiderangeofbenefits•Mostcommonlycitedbenefitswereenvironmentalandsocialbenefits,lessspacerequiredforcarparking,andtheprocessforcingdeveloperstoconsidersustainabletransportissuesManypotentialshortcomingsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentswereidentified•Mostcommonlycitedshortcomingswerealackoffollow-uporenforcement,lackofadequatetransportinfrastructuretosupporttravelplans,lackofanygovernmentpolicy/legislativerequirementinAustralia,andavaryingleveloftravelplanquality•Infiveoftheinterviews,participantsfelttherewerenodisadvantagesassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,aslongastheyaredeliveredeffectivelyInvolvementofactorsisfocusedonasmallnumberoforganisationtypes•Consultants,localgovernment,propertydevelopersandstategovernmentarethekeyactorscurrentlyinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments•Otheractorsinvolvedintheprocess,butnotinterviewed,includearchitects,buildingmanag-ers,residentassociations/committees,serviceprovidersandadvocacygroupsImplementationwasrecognisedbyinterviewparticipantsasakeychallenge•Mostcommonlycitedchallengesincludedthelackofanyenforcement,uncertaintyaboutimplementationresponsibilities,andalackofownershipInterviewparticipantsofferedadiverserangeofpotentialsolutionstoimplementationchallenges•Mostcommonlycitedsolutionsincludeddevelopingamorerobustplanning/legalrequirement,encouragingmoreresidentengagementandownership,involvingtheownerscorporationinimplementation,andhavingthedeveloperfundtheimplementationofthetravelplan•Viewsexpressedthatanyplanninglegal/requirementshouldnotbetooprescriptiveTravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentsisexpectedtocontinueintothefuture•Mostparticipantsfeltthattravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentswereeitherheretostayorwillincreaseinfocus,althoughasmallproportionfeltthattheywouldreduceinscale6.4DiscussionThissectioncomparestheinterviewfindingstotheliteraturedescribedearlierinChap.2anddiscussestheimplicationsforfuturetravelplanningpractice.Whererelevant,comparisonsarealsomadetothefindingsfromthesurveyofVictoriancouncils,reportedinthepreviouschapter.InterviewsundertakenbyYeatesandEnoch(2012)withdevelopersintheUnitedKingdomhighlightedcostsavingsasakeybenefitoftravelplansatnew 986ActorPerspectivesdevelopments,yetonlythreeoutofthe20interviewsundertakeninthisresearch(oneeachwithlocalgovernment,apropertydeveloper,andapropertymanager)identifiedthisasabenefit.ThereasonforthisdifferenceisunclearbutmayreflectagreaterlevelofexperienceandawarenessintheUnitedKingdomofthecostsav-ingsofferedbytravelplans.Whenaskedaboutthepotentialdisadvantagesoftravelplansatnewresiden-tialdevelopments,themostcommonresponsesrelatedtoalackoffollow-uporenforcement,lackofadequatetransportinfrastructuretosupporttravelplans,lackofanygovernmentpolicy/legislativerequirement,andavaryinglevelofqualityintravelplansthatareprepared.Theissueofinsufficientenforcementisraisedbypreviousresearch(EnochandIson2008;Llewellynetal.2014)notingthatthiscanreducetheeffectivenessofthetravelplansintroduced.ItwasalsoraisedinthesurveyofVictoriancouncils(reportedinChap.5)inwhichalackofresourceswasidentifiedasakeybarriertoenforcingtravelplans.Theenforcementoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opmentsisdiscussedfurtherinChap.9.Relatedtotheissuesconcerningenforcementisthatonlytwooutofthe20organisationsthatwereinterviewedindicatedanyinvolvementwithmonitoringtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.ThisfindingisalsoconsistentwiththesurveyresultsreportedinChap.5.ThelackofanygovernmentpolicyorlegislativerequirementfortravelplansinAustraliaisincontrasttothesituationintheUnitedKingdomwherenationalplanningpolicygivesspecificreferencetorequiringtravelplansfornewdevelop-ments(Ryeetal.2011a).SimilarpoliciesatanationallevelalsoexistinSwedenandSwitzerland(Ryeetal.2011b).AsdetailedinChap.2,supportiveplanningpolicyisrecognisedasakeysuccessfactorinrequiringtravelplansfornewdevel-opments(Addison&Associates2008),withthisneedalsoidentifiedinChap.5.TheissueofvaryingtravelplanqualityisconsistentwithresearchinterviewsundertakenbyEnochandIson(2008,p.24)intheUnitedKingdomwhofoundthat‘…theincreasednumber(andvariablequality)ofconsultantsadoptingastandardised“sausagemachine”approachtotravelplanningwereseenbytheintervieweesasbeingespeciallyproblematic.’Poorerqualitytravelplansaregen-erallyexpectedtoleadtolesseffectiveimplementation,withthisissuediscussedfurtherinthenextchapter.Whilenotaspronounced,anumberofotherissuesraisedintheinterviewswerealsoconsistentwiththeliterature.Theseissuesincludedlipservicebeingpaidtotravelplansbydeveloperssolelyforthepurposeofseekingplanningapproval(Davisonetal.2010;Ryeetal.2011a),alackofguidelinesconcerningtravelplansfornewdevelopmentsingeneral(Wynne2013),theresourceintensivenatureoftravelplanswhensecuredthroughtheplanningprocess(Davisonetal.2010;Wynne2013),alackoftravelplanownership(YeatesandEnoch2012),andthetravelplanrequirementcomingtoolateintheplanningapplicationprocess(Hendricks2008).Incommentingontheissueoflipservice,Davisonetal.(2010,p.20)arguethat‘…wherethemotivationislimitedtoregulation,completingatravelplancanbecomea‘tickbox’activityandcreatepaperworkratherthaneffectiveaction.’ 6.4Discussion99Whilevariousimplementationissueswereidentified,anumberofopportuni-tiesforenhancingimplementationwerealsoproposedbyinterviewparticipants.Examplesincludedthedevelopmentofanappropriateplanningrequirement,encouragingresidentengagementandownershipintheprocess,andensuringthedeveloperfundstheimplementationofthetravelplan.These,alongwithotheropportunities,arediscussedfurtherinChap.9.Finally,theviewthattravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsareeitherheretostayorwillincreaseinfocuswasexpressedinmostoftheinterviews,consistentwiththeliterature(Davisonetal.2010;Llewellynetal.2014)andthesurveyfindingsfromChap.5.Thisdemonstratesthatresidentialtravelplansarevaluedandarelikelytocontinuetoberequiredfornewdevelopments.6.5ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristogainanappreciationfortheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments.Indoingso,aseriesofinterviewsprovidedinsightontheirperceivedbenefitsandshortcomings,extentofinvolvementandstakeholderinteractions,implementationchallengesandpotentialsolutions,andfutureexpectations.Theinterviewfindingsshowedgeneralsupportamongindustryrepresentativesfortravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments,butlimitedconfidenceintheabil-itytoimplementthemsuccessfully.Anumberofchallengeswereidentifiedwithimplementation,notleastofwhichwerethelackofenforcement,uncertaintyoverimplementationresponsibilities,andagenerallackofownership.Anumberofopportunitiestoaddressthesechallengeswereidentifiedbyinterviewparticipants.Theseopportunities,alongwithothers,areexploredfurtherinChap.9wherethetheoriesofimplementationandplanningenforcement(introducedinChap.3)areappliedtotheresearchfindingsanddevelopedfurtherintoanintegratedtheory.Theissueofvaryingtravelplanqualitywasalsoraisedbyanumberofinter-viewparticipants.Aparticularfocusisplacedonthisissueinthenextchapterthroughanassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopments.ReferencesAddison&Associates.(2008).Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess—Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransportandCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Bryman,A.(2001).Socialresearchmethods.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.Davison,L.,Enoch,M.,&Ison,S.(2010).Europeanexperienceoftravelplans:Anexpertper-spective.Paperpresentedto12thWorldConferenceinTransportationResearch,Lisbon,Portugal,July2010.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&CurrieG(2015).‘Enhancingtheimpactoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments:Insightsfromimplementationtheory’,TransportPolicy,40,24–35. 1006ActorPerspectivesEnoch,M.,&Ison,S.(2008).Expertperspectivesonthepast,presentandfutureoftravelplansintheUK:Researchreport.DepartmentforTransportandtheNationalBusinessTravelNetwork.Hendricks,S.(2008).Fourchallengestoincorporatingtransportationdemandmanage-mentintothelanddevelopmentprocess.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,no.,2046,30–36.Hennink,M.,Hutter,I.,&Bailey,A.(2011).Qualitativeresearchmethods.UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd.Llewellyn,R.,Tricker,R.,&Paton,D.(2014).Travelplans:Acriticalcomparisonoftheapplica-tionoflanduseplanningprocessesinEnglandandScotland.Transport,no.iFirst,pp.1–13.Mack,N.,Woodsong,C.,MacQueen,K.,Guest,G.,&Namey,E.(2005).Qualitativeresearchmethods:Adatacollector’sfieldguide.NorthCarolina,USA:FamilyHealthInternational.Richardson,A.J.,Ampt,E.S.,&Meyburg,A.H.(1995).Surveymethodsfortransportplanning(1stedn).EucalytpusPress.Rye,T.,Green,C.,Young,E.,&Ison,S.(2011a).Usingtheland-useplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:AnassessmentofprogressinEnglandtodate.JournalofTransportGeography,19(2),235–243.Rye,T.,Welsch,J.,Plevnik,A.,&deTomassi,R.(2011b).Firststepstowardscross-nationaltransferinintegratingmobilitymanagementandlanduseplanningintheEUandSwitzerland.TransportPolicy,18,533–543.Wynne,L.(2013).Travelplanningandtheland-useplanningsystem:Understandingtheeffec-tivenessoftravelplanningrequirementsinNSWDevelopmentControlPlans.UnpublishedMastersThesis,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia.Yeates,S.,&Enoch,M.(2012).Travelplansfromthedeveloperperspective.Paperpresentedto91stTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)AnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC.Yin,R.(2009).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(4thedn).California,US:SAGEPublications. Chapter7TravelPlanQuality7.1IntroductionThepreviouschapterpresentedthesecondsetofresearchresultstoprovideanappreciationoftheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments.Indoingso,itprovidedinsightontheirperceivedbenefitsandshortcomings,extentofindustryinvolvementandstakeholderinterac-tions,implementationchallengesandpotentialsolutions,andfutureexpectations.Oneofthekeyissuesidentifiedwasthevaryinglevelofqualityintravelplansthatarepreparedfornewdevelopments,includingresidentialsites.Thischapter,aspositionedinFig.7.1,placesafocusontravelplanqualitybydetailingthefindingsofthedesktopassessmentoftravelplans,correspondingtoresearchcomponent3.Table7.1detailstheresearchgap,opportunityandobjec-tiveassociatedwiththisresearchcomponent.Inlinewithresearchobjective3,theaimofthischapteristoevaluatethequal-ityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopments(effectivenessiscov-eredinChap.8).ThisisachievedbyassessingasampleoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinVictoriaagainstabestpracticeframework.Assessingtravelplanqualityisparticularlyrelevantfornewdevelopmentsgiventhatthoseresponsibleforimplementationmaynothavebeeninvolvedinprepar-ingthetravelplan,thereforeunderliningtheneedforatravelplanthatisbothclearandcomprehensive.Moreover,understandingthequalityoftravelplanspre-paredfornewresidentialdevelopmentscanassistinidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovement,therebyincreasingthelikelihoodthattheywillbeimplementedsuc-cessfullyandachievetheirobjectives.Thischaptercommenceswithanoverviewoftheresearchliteraturerelevanttoevaluatingtravelplanquality,whichisusedtoinformthedevelopmentofa©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017101C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_7 1027TravelPlanQualityBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsCHAPTER7:UnderstandingofthequalityofTRAVELPLANQUALITYtravelplanspreparedfornewAim,context,method,results,discussionresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.7.1PositionofChap.7inthethesisstructureframeworkforassessingthequalityofthetravelplans.Thetravelplansarethendescribedintermsoftheircontent,followedbyaquantitativeassessmentoftheirquality.Thechapterconcludesbydiscussingtheimplicationsforfuturetravelplanningpractice. 7.2ResearchContext103Table7.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent3Researchgap→Researchopportunity→Researchobjective→ResearchcomponentNoformalUndertakeaquantitative3.Toevaluate3.Desktopassess-assessmentoftheassessmentofthequalitytheirqualityandmentoftravelplansqualityoftraveloftravelplanspreparedeffectivenessplanspreparedforfornewresidentialdevel-newresidentialopmentstohelpidentifydevelopmentshastheirrelativemeritsbeenundertakenandpotentialareasforimprovement7.2ResearchContextThissectionprovidesanoverviewoftheliteraturerelatingtotravelplanqualitywhichisusedtoinformthedevelopmentofanassessmentframeworkinSect.7.3.However,giventherelativepaucityofliteratureavailableontravelplanqual-itythatisspecifictonewdevelopments,particularlyresidentialsites,thereviewdrawsuponawidersetofliteraturecoveringtravelplanqualityforbothnewdevelopmentsandpre-existingsites,regardlessoflandusetype.Firstly,andwhilenotdirectlyrelatedtotravelplans,MansfieldandHartell(2012)provideausefulframeworkforassessingtransportsustainabilityplansintheUnitedStates.Theystatethatthetenetsofplanqualityincludeavisionstate-ment,comprehensivefactbase,consistentpolicyframework,clearimplementationandmonitoringprocedures,accountabilityfortheinterdependenceofactions,andopenparticipationintheplandevelopmentprocess.Eachofthesetenetshasrel-evanceinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.MansfieldandHartell(2012)alsorecognisethatthereisno‘onesizefitsall’approachtoplandevelopment,particularlywhenaddressingcomplexandmulti-facetedissuessuchassustainability.Thisisagainrelevanttotravelplansasitisrecognisedthattheircontentneedstobetailoredtothelocalcontextandtransportneedsofasite(DepartmentforTransport2009).IntheUnitedKingdom,TransportforLondon(2011a)developedanonlinetoolcalledATTrBuTE(AssessmentToolforTravelplanReviewing,Building,TestingandEvaluation)toevaluatethequalityofincomingtravelplansaspartoftheplan-ningprocess.Thecriteriaincludedinthetool(presentedasaseriesofquestions)aredesignedtotesttheextenttowhichatravelplanhasbeenpreparedinaccord-ancewiththeirguidanceontravelplanningfornewdevelopments(TransportforLondon2011b).Atotalof11categoriesareincludedinthetool,withasetofscoredcriteriaundereachcategory.Thecategoriesrelatetobackgroundinforma-tionaboutthedevelopment,referencestopolicy,siteassessments,objectivesandtargets,travelplancoordination,measures,monitoring,enforcementandfunding.Thetravelplanneedstoscoreabove70%inordertopasstheassessment.Inaseparatesetofguidelinesondeliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess,theUKDepartmentforTransport(2009)recognisethatwithoutarobust 1047TravelPlanQualityprocessforevaluatingincomingtravelplans,thereisnobasistomakeajudge-mentastowhetherthetravelplanwillmeetitsintendedoutcomesandwillthere-forebefitforpurpose.Itisalsorecognisedthatthemethodologyusedtoevaluatethequalityofthetravelplanshouldbemadepubliclyavailablesothosepreparingtravelplansareawareofthecomponentsthatrequireparticularattention.Addison&Associates(2008)reportontheexperienceoflocalauthoritiesintheUnitedKingdominevaluatingtravelplanssubmittedaspartoftheplanningprocess.Commonaspectsthatareexaminedwhenevaluatingtravelplanqualityinclude:•Evidenceofasiteassessmentandbaselinetravelpatterninformation•Inclusionofacomprehensiverangeofmeasuresthatarerealisticandappropri-atetothesite•UseofSMARTtargets(Specific,Measurable,Achievable,RealisticandTime-based)•Commitmenttoimplementationandmonitoringwithresponsibilitiesclearlyidentified•Nominationofatravelplancoordinatorwithcontactdetailsprovided•Clearproceduresformonitoringandreviewingthetravelplanonaregularbasis.WSAtkins(2002)designedasoftwaretoolfortheUKDepartmentforTransporttoassesstheprocessandcontentofworkplacetravelplans.Thetoolprovidesascoringsystemwith14categoriesthatcoverkeyaspectsoftravelplans.Similarly,theBritishStandardsInstitution(2008)providesanumberofusefulchecksthatcanbeusedinevaluatingthequalityofaworkplacetravelplanforanewdevelop-ment.Aspectscoveredincludeaimsandobjectives,existingtransportconditions,outputandoutcometargets,commitmenttomeetingtheaimsandobjectives,andactionsthataredeliverableandfunded.InAustralia,Wakeetal.(2010)highlighttheimportanceofevaluatingthequal-ityoftravelplansagainstagoodpracticebenchmark.Theyrecommendcheck-inganumberofelementssuchascommitmenttothetravelplan,objectivesandperformancetargets,baselineinformation,feasibilityofactions,andtheframe-workproposedforimplementationandmonitoring.TravelplanguidelinesfornewdevelopmentsintheCityofDarebininVictoriastatethatitisnecessaryforthecounciltoplayaroleateachstageintheevaluationoftravelplans(PBAI2005).Apro-formaisprovidedsothatcouncilstaffcanensurethatthetravelplanmeetsvariousrequirementsattheplanningapplicationstage.VariouscouncilsintheUnitedKingdom,suchasWiltshireCountyCouncilhavealsodevelopedsimilarpro-formas(WiltshireCountyCouncil2004). 7.2ResearchContext105Table7.2SynthesisoftravelplanelementscoveredbytheliteratureTravelplanelementsLiteratureitem(seekeybelowtable)Total[A][B][C][D][E][F][G][H][I][J]BackgroundinformationTypeoflanduse/s✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓9Developmentaddress✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8Numberandtypeofexpectedusers✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8Contactdetailsoftravelplanauthor✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7Developmentsize✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7Numberofcarparkingspaces✓✓✓✓✓✓6Referencetorelevantpolicies✓✓✓✓✓✓6Benefitsoftravelplan✓✓✓✓4Developmentnameorsitename✓✓✓✓4Developmentphasing✓✓✓✓4Numberofbicycleparkingspaces✓✓✓✓4Rationalefortravelplan✓✓✓✓4Referencetorelevantagreementand/or✓✓✓✓4conditionReferencetorelevanttravelplanning✓✓✓3guidanceTimescalesforoccupation✓✓✓3ExistingconditionsEstimateofbaselinetravelpatterns✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓10Existingtransportnetworksandservices✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓10Existingtravelinitiativesavailable✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7Organisationalpoliciesandother✓✓✓✓4initiativesAmenitiesandfacilitiesinsurrounding✓✓✓3areaObjectivesandtargetsObjectivesreflectiveofsitecharacteristics✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓9Targetslinkedtoobjectives✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓9Objectivesreflectiveofrelevantpolicy✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8SMART(specific,measurable,achievable,✓✓✓✓✓✓6relevant,time-based)TravelplanmeasuresAlignmentwithobjectivesandtargets✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8Descriptionofmeasures✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8Considerationtoalltransportmodes✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8(includingdeliveries)Reflectiveofcharacteristicsandneedsof✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8siteTimescales✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7Marketingandpromotion✓✓✓✓✓✓6(continued) 1067TravelPlanQualityTable7.2(continued)TravelplanelementsLiteratureitem(seekeybelowtable)Total[A][B][C][D][E][F][G][H][I][J]TravelplanmanagementRolesandresponsibilities✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓9Commitmenttoimplementation✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8Travelplancoordinator✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓8Budgetandfundingstreamfortravelplan✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7coordinatorBudgetandfundingstreamfortravelplan✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7measuresSecuringandenforcement✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7Partnerships✓✓✓✓✓✓6Timeallocatedfortravelplancoordinator✓✓✓✓✓✓6Handoverarrangements✓✓✓✓4(e.g.fromdevelopertooccupant)MonitoringandreviewFrequency✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓10Method✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓10Timing✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓10Rolesandresponsibilities✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓9Budgetandfundingstream✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7Reportingformat✓✓✓✓✓✓6Useofresults✓✓✓✓✓5Totalelements13334439352833283425SourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedon[A]MansfieldandHartell(2012)[B]TransportforLondon(2011a)[C]TransportforLondon(2011b)[D]DepartmentforTransport(2009)[E]WSAtkins(2002)[F]BritishStandardsInstitution(2008)[G]Wakeetal.(2010)[H]PBAI(2005)[I]Addison&Associates(2008)[J]WiltshireCountyCouncil(2004)Table7.2providesasynthesisoftheelementscoveredbytheliteraturethatarerelevanttoevaluatingtravelplanquality.Themostcomprehensivesetofele-mentswerecoveredbyTransportforLondon(2011b)(columnCofTable7.2).Elementsmostcommonlycitedbytheliterature(byatleastnineoutofthetenitemsreviewed)relatedto:•Backgroundinformationonthetypeoflanduse/s•Existingtransportnetworksandservices•Baselinetravelpatterns•Objectivesthatarereflectiveofthesite’scharacteristics•Targetslinkedtoobjectives 7.2ResearchContext107•Rolesandresponsibilities(bothintermsofimplementationandmonitoring)•Method,timingandfrequencyofmonitoringandreview.Handoverarrangements(e.g.fromdevelopertooccupant)werecitedbyonlyfouritemsofliterature,despitethisbeingrecognisedasakeyfactorinensuringeffec-tiveimplementationofthetravelplan(DepartmentforTransport2009;TransportforLondon2011b).However,contactdetailsforthetravelplanauthor,whichhelptofacilitatehandoverarrangements,werereferencedbysevenofthetenliteratureitemsreviewed.Finally,giventhedifficultywithestimatingbaselinetravelpatternsatnewdevelopments(sincetheoccupierisusuallyunknownwhenpreparingthetravelplan),anassessmentoftheexistingtransportnetwork,inconjunctionwiththeuseofsecondarysurveydata(suchasthecensusandotherhouseholdtravelsurveydata),areimportantforunderstandingexistingconditions.7.3ResearchMethodThissectiondescribesthemethodthatwasusedtoassessthequalityofasetoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinVictoria,Australia.Thisincludedthedevelopmentofanassessmentframework,sourcingcopiesofthetravelplansandreviewingtheircontent,andthenapplyingtheassessmentframe-worktothetravelplans.7.3.1DevelopmentofAssessmentFrameworkTakingintoaccountthefindingsfromthereviewofrelevantliterature(presentedinSect.7.2),aframeworkwasdevelopedtoassessthequalityoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Considerationwasgiventoincludingallrelevantcriteriawhileensuringtheframeworkcouldstillbeeasilyunderstoodandapplied.Specificcharacteristicsofnewdevelopmentswereexplicitlytakenintoaccountwhendevel-opingtheframework.Forexample,theframeworkaskswhetheranestimateofexpectedtravelpatternshasbeenmade,ratherthanwhetherabaselinetravelsur-veywasundertaken,asthesite’susersareoftenunknownatthetimeofpreparingthetravelplan(DepartmentforTransport2009).Itwasalsoimportanttoensurethattheframeworkdidnotcontainanycriteriathatcouldbeopentoalternativeorcreativeinterpretation.Theaimwastodevelopaframeworkthatwouldresultinconsistentassessmentoutcomeswhenappliedbyothers.Guidancewasthereforeprovidedintheframeworkonhowscoresshouldbeassignedtoeachcriterion.TheassessmentframeworkisshowninTable7.3.Itcontainssixkeyheadings(consistentwithTable7.2)whichareexpandedouttoatotalof54specificcrite-ria.Ascoringsystemisprovidedwhichincorporatesimpliedweightingsforeachcriteriontoreflecttheirrelativeimportance,assuggestedbytheresearchliterature.Themaximumtotalscoreavailableis116points. 1087TravelPlanQualityTable7.3AssessmentframeworkAssessmentcriterionScoringBackgroundinformation1.Isrelevantbackgroundinformationaboutthedevelopmentincluded?(max7points)1.1Istheaddressofthedevelopmentprovided?No=0,yes=11.2Arethetypesoflanduse/sstated(e.g.residential,educa-No=0,yes=1tion,commercial)?1.3Isthesizeofthedevelopmentstated(e.g.no.ofresiden-No=0,yes=1tialdwellings)?1.4Arethetype/sofexpectedusersstated(e.g.residents,No=0,yes=1students,employees)?1.5Isthenumberofproposedcarparkingspacesstated?No=0,yes=11.6Isthenumberofproposedbicycleparkingspacesstated?No=0,yes=11.7Aretheexpecteddate/sofoccupationstated?No=0,yes=12.Arerelevantcontactdetailsprovided?(max5points)2.1Arecontactdetailsprovidedforthetravelplanauthor?No=0,partially=1,yes=2(Organisation,address,contactname,phonenumber,email)2.2ArecontactdetailsprovidedforthedevelopmentNo=0,partially=2,yes=3applicant?(Organisation,address,contactname,phonenumber,email)3.Istherationaleforthetravelplanclearlystated?(max6points)3.1Arereasons/motivationsforthetravelplanclearlyNo=0,yes=1stated?3.2Isreferencemadetorelevantpoliciesand/orstrategies?No=0,partially=1,yes=23.3Isreferencemadetoarelevantplanningcondition/No=0,partially=2,yes=3agreement?Existingconditions4.Hasasiteauditbeenundertakenandappropriatelydocumented?(max9points)4.1Aretheexistingtransportnetworksandservices(allNo=0,partially=2,yes=4modes)reported?4.2Areanyexistingorganisationalpolicies/initiativesspeci-No=0,yes=1,N/A=1fied(ifapplicable)?4.3Aretransportissuesandopportunitiesidentified?No=0,partially=2,yes=45.Hasanestimateofexpectedtravelpatternsbeenmade?(max8points)5.1Hasanassessmentbeenmadeofthelikelytravelbehav-No=0,partially=2,yes=4iourofexpectedusers?5.2Isreferencemadetotripgenerationestimates?No=0,yes=25.3Aresecondarydatasourcesused(e.g.censusdata)?No=0,yes=2Objectivesandtargets6.Areaclearsetofappropriateobjectivesidentified?(max6points)6.1Aretheobjectiveslinkedtorelevantpoliciesand/orNo=0,partially=1,yes=2strategies?6.2AretheobjectivesresponsivetoissuesandopportunitiesNo=0,partially=2,yes=4facingthesite?(continued) 7.3ResearchMethod109Table7.3(continued)AssessmentcriterionScoring7.Areaclearsetofappropriatetargetsidentified?(max8points)7.1AretargetsfocusedontheoutcomesofthetravelplanNo=0,yes=1(notprocessoroutputs)?7.2Aretargetslinkedtothetravelplan’sobjectives?No=0,partially=1,yes=27.3Aretargetsinformedbyexistingconditions?No=0,partially=1,yes=27.4DothetargetscontainSMARTelements?None=0,1-3elements=1,4-5(Specific,measurable,achievable,relevant,time-based)elements=27.5Aresuitableaccompanyingindicatorsidentified?No=0,yes=1Travelplanmeasures8.Isapackageofsuitablemeasuresproposed?(max13points)8.1ArethemeasuresalignedwiththeobjectivesandtargetsNo=0,partially=2,yes=3identified?8.2Isconsiderationgiventoallrelevantmodes(includingNo=0,partially=3,yes=5tripsubstitution)?8.3ArethemeasureslikelytoaddressthetransportissuesatNo=0,partially=3,yes=5thesite?9.Issufficientinformationprovidedtoguidetheimplementationofeachmeasure?(max8points)9.1Isadescriptionofeachmeasuregiven?No=0,partially=1,yes=29.2Isatimeframeforimplementingeachmeasurestated?No=0,partially=1,yes=29.3IstheresponsibilityforimplementingeachmeasureNo=0,partially=1,yes=2stated?9.4Isthecostofeachmeasurespecified?No=0,partially=1,yes=2Travelplanmanagement10.Isaclearstatementofcommitmentprovided?(max8points)10.1IscommitmentprovidedtowardsimplementingtheNo=0,partially=2,yes=4travelplan?10.2IscommitmentprovidedtowardsmonitoringandNo=0,partially=2,yes=4reviewingthetravelplan?11.Hasapersonbeenidentifiedtomanage/leadthetravelplan(e.g.travelplancoordina-tor)?(max8points)11.1Arecontactdetailsforacoordinatorprovided?No=0,partially=2,yes=4(Organisation,address,contactname,phonenumber,email)11.2IstheroleandresponsibilitiesofthecoordinatorNo=0,partially=1,yes=2clearlystated?11.3IsanestimationoftimeallocatedtothecoordinatorNo=0,partially=1,yes=2roleclearlystated?12.Aretherolesandresponsibilitiesofanyothersclearlydefined?(max5points)12.1Isaworking/steeringgroupidentified?No=0,yes=112.2Arepartnershipswithotherstakeholdersidentified?No=0,yes=112.3Arehandoverarrangements(e.g.applicanttooccupant)No=0,partially=1,yes=3clearlystated?(continued) 1107TravelPlanQualityTable7.3(continued)AssessmentcriterionScoring13.Isasufficientbudgetincludedwithfundingstreamsidentified?(max8points)13.1IsasufficientbudgetassociatedwiththetravelplanNo=0,partially=1,yes=2coordinatorpostspecified?13.2IsasufficientbudgetassociatedwiththetravelplanNo=0,partially=1,yes=2measuresspecified?13.3IsasufficientbudgetassociatedwithmonitoringandNo=0,partially=1,yes=2reviewspecified?13.4Isjustificationgivenfortheallocatedbudget?No=0,partially=1,yes=214.Isaplanforcommunicationsincluded?(max3points)14.1Arecommunicationupdateswiththesite’susersNo=0,yes=1proposed?14.2Istheuseofbranding/slogansproposed?No=0,yes=114.3AreeventsproposedtoraisetheprofileofthetravelNo=0,yes=1plan(e.g.launchevent)?Monitoringandreview15.Isaclearprocessformonitoringandreviewingthetravelplanincluded?(max14points)15.1Isthetimingandfrequency(e.g.annual)ofmonitoringNo=0,partially=1,yes=2andreviewspecified?15.2AreresponsibilitiesforundertakingmonitoringandNo=0,partially=1,yes=2reviewstated?15.3IsthecostassociatedwithmonitoringandreviewNo=0,partially=1,yes=2specified?15.4Isthemethodofdatacollectionspecified(e.g.survey,No=0,partially=1,yes=2counts)?15.5Isthetypeofinformationtobesoughtspecified(e.g.No=0,partially=1,yes=2transportmodeshares)?Figure7.2showshowthepointsareallocatedacrosseachofthekeyheadingsincludedintheassessmentframework.Inordertoreflecttheimportanceoftheprocessthroughwhichthetravelplanismanagedanddelivered,aswellastheactualmeasuresproposedinthetravelplans,agreaterpercentageofpointsareallocatedtothesecomponents(28and18%respectively)comparedwithotherkeyareasintheassessmentframework(12–15%each).7.3.2SourcingofTravelPlansCopiesoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinVictoriainthelastfiveyearswereinitiallysourcedfromcouncils.Asthetravelplandocu-mentsarenormallyinthepublicdomainduringtheplanningapplicationprocess, 7.3ResearchMethod111Fig.7.2AllocationofpointsbykeyheadingsusedintheassessmentframeworkMonitoring&reviewBackgroundinfoTotalof14pointsTotalof19points(12%ofmaxscore)(15%ofmaxscore)ExistingconditionsTotalof17pointsTravelplanmanagement(15%ofmaxscore)Totalof32points(27%ofmaxscore)Objectives&targetsTotalof14points(12%ofmaxscore)TravelplanmeasuresTotalof21points(18%ofmaxscore)noconfidentialityconcernswereraisedwhensourcingthetravelplans.However,duetorepresentativesinsomecouncilsexpressingdifficultywithsearchingfortravelplanswithintheirinternaldatabases,variousconsultants(authorsofthetravelplans)andtheVictorianDepartmentofTransportwerealsocontactedwitharequestfortravelplanspreparedinthelast5years.Overall,atotalof29travelplanspreparedspecificallyfornewresidentialdevelopmentsweresourced,yetthisrequiredconsiderableeffortinvolvingmultipleremindersforassistance.Travelplanspreparedonlyinlast5yearswerewererequestedtofacilitatecooperationandreducethelevelofburdenforrepresentativesfromcouncils,con-sultanciesandtheVictorianDepartmentofTransport.Regardlessofthis,mosttravelplansthatweresourcedhadbeenpreparedinlateryears,suggestedlimitedactivitymorethan5yearsago.Forexample,48%ofthetravelplanssourcedhadbeenpreparedin2011–12,comparedto29%in2009–10,andonly16%in2007–08(theremaining7%oftravelplanswerenotdated).Chapter5showedthataround100travelplanshadbeenrequiredinVictoriainthe2-yearperiodbetween2010and2012.Assumingthatthisrepresentedapproximatelyhalfofthetravelplansrequiredinthelast5years(consistentwiththefindingthat48%ofthosesourcedhadbeenpreparedduring2011–12),itcanbeestimatedthataround200travelplanshavebeenrequiredinthelast5years.Therefore,the29travelplansusedinthequalityassessmentwouldrepresentabout15%ofalltravelplansinthelast5years.Asthecouncilsurvey(reportedinChap.5)didnotrequestinformationaboutthenumberoftravelplansrequiredbylandusetype,itisnotpossibletoestimatethetrueproportionoftravelplansusedinthequalityassessmentthatwerespecifictonewresidentialdevelopments.However,atotalof29travelplanswasconsideredanadequatesampleforassessmentpurposes. 1127TravelPlanQuality7.3.3ReviewofTravelPlanContentThecontentofeachtravelplanwasreviewed.Adatabasewascreatedtorecordeachtravelplan’skeyattributessuchasdevelopmentcharacteristicsandtravelplanmeasures.7.3.4ApplicationoftheAssessmentFrameworkEachofthe29travelplanswereanalysedusingtheassessmentframeworkbyassigningascoreagainsteachcriterion.Thisprocesstookaround30minpertravelplan.Followingthis,threeAustraliantravelplanningpractitionerswereaskedtoseparatelyapplytheframeworktoasubsetofthetravelplansthathadalreadybeenreviewedbytheresearcher.Thishelpedtodeterminethelevelofcon-sistencyintheframeworkwhenappliedbyothers.Thesubsetoftravelplansthatwerereviewedbythepractitionersincludedthelowest,highestandaveragescor-ingtravelplan,asinitiallyassessedbytheresearcher.7.4ResultsTheresultsarepresentedintwomainparts.Thefirstpartprovidesasummaryofthecontentofthetravelplanswhilethesecondpartpresentstheresultsofthequalityassessment.7.4.1ContentSummary7.4.1.1AuthorshipandDocumentLengthConsultantspreparedallofthetravelplans,withtheexceptionofahousingpro-vider/managerwhopreparedonetravelplan.Thepredominantservice/disciplineofthetravelplanauthorsisshowninTable7.4.Trafficengineeringconsultanciespreparedmorethanhalf(59%)ofthetravelplans.Theaveragelengthofthetravelplandocumentswas11pages,althoughthisrangedfrom1to38pages.7.4.1.2LandUseTypeandLocationAllofthetravelplanssourcedwerefornewresidentialapartmentbuildings.However,aroundtwo-thirds(69%)includedotherlandusesaspartoftheirdevelopment 7.4Results113Table7.4TravelplanauthorshipPredominantservice/disciplineoforganisationalNumberoftravel%oftravelplansplanauthorplansTrafficengineering1759Townplanning414Architecture310Transportplanning27EnvironmentallySustainableDesign(ESD)27Housingprovision/management13Total29100Table7.5Travelplansbydevelopmentlocation(basedonsampleusedinassessment)DevelopmentlocationNumberoftravelplans%oftravelplansInnermetropolitanMelbourne1759MiddlemetropolitanMelbourne931OutermetropolitanMelbourne27RegionalVictoria13Total29100applicationandwerethereforeclassifiedas‘mixed-use’.Inallofthesecasesthough,theotherlandusescomprisedonlyaveryminorpartoftheoveralldevelopment.Therefore,eachofthedevelopmentswerestillpredominantlyresidential.Acommonexamplewasadevelopmentwithretailatgroundfloorbutseveralstoreysofresiden-tialapartmentsabove.Theremaining(31%)travelplansthatweresourcedwerepreparedsolelyfornewresidentialdevelopmentsandthereforedidnotincludeanyotherlanduses.Table7.5showsthatdevelopmentslocatedininnermetropolitanMelbourneaccountedformorethanhalf(59%)ofthetravelplansthatweresourced.ThemiddlemetropolitanareasofMelbourneaccountedforasmallerproportion(31%)withsomeminorrepresentationfromoutermetropolitanMelbourne(7%)andregionalVictoria(3%).ThespatialdistributionofthedevelopmentsisshowninFig.7.3.Mostdevelopments(around85%)werelocatedwithina10kmradiusoftheMelbourneCentralBusinessDistrict(CBD),withgoodaccesstopublictransport,walkingandcyclingnetworks.Chapter5showedthatapproximately80%ofinnerandmiddlemetropolitancouncilsinMelbournehavepreviouslyrequiredatravelplanforanewdevelop-ment,comparedwithonly20%fromoutermetropolitanMelbourneandregionalVictoria.Thisfindinggenerallycorrespondstothe29travelplansthatweresourced,suggestingtheyarebroadlyrepresentativeofVictoriaintermsoftheirdevelopmentlocation. 1147TravelPlanQualityOutermetroInnermetroMiddlemetroMelbourneCBDDevelopmentwithtravelplan0km30Fig.7.3DevelopmentsinmetropolitanMelbournewithtravelplans(basedonsample)7.4.1.3TravelPlanMeasuresTable7.6indicatesthetypeandnumberofmeasurescontainedinthetravelplans.Onaverage,eachtravelplancontainedaround11measures,withinformationandinfrastructurebasedinitiativesmakingupmorethanhalf(57%)ofthetotalmeasures.Table7.7providesafulllistofactualmeasurescontainedinthetravelplans.Newresidentkits,containinglocalinformationonsustainabletransportoptions,werethemostcommonmeasureproposed(by93%oftravelplans).Bicycleparkingwasalsorelativelycommon(includedin90%oftravelplans).However,Table7.6TypesofmeasuresincludedinthesampleoftravelplansTypeofAveragenumberofmeasurespertravel%ofmeasuresintravelplansmeasureplanInformation3.533Infrastructure2.624Incentive1.817Program1.716Other1.110Total10.7100 7.4Results115Table7.7FulllistofindividualmeasuresincludedinthesampleoftravelplansTravelplanmeasureNumberoftravelplansthat%oftravelplansthatincludeincludemeasuremeasureProgramsEvents(e.g.RidetoWorkDay)1241BicycleUserGroup(BUG)1138Carpoolingprogram828Cyclingcomputer-based621programPedometer-basedwalking621programBikebuddyscheme(pairing310newriderswithexperiencedriders)Walkingschoolbus27Personalisedjourneyplanning13InformationNewresidentskit2793Maps2379Noticeboard/information2069displayOnlineinformation1448Publictransporttimetables1345Newstaffinductionkit310Newsletters27InfrastructureBicycleparking2690Carsharingservice1138Directionalsignage931Showers724Changefacilities724Carparkingmanagement517(e.g.priorityparking)Lockers414Bicyclefleet414Hybridcars13IncentivesFreeordiscountedpublic2483transportticketsDiscountsfromlocalshops828(e.g.bicycleretailer)Umbrellas621Carsharingmembership414Freeorsubsidisedbicycle414Cyclinginsurancecover27(continued) 1167TravelPlanQualityTable7.7(continued)TravelplanmeasureNumberoftravelplansthat%oftravelplansthatincludeincludemeasuremeasureFreewalker/cyclistbreakfasts13Guaranteedridehome13Sustainabletransport27allowancesParkingcash-out13OtherInvestigating/lobbyingforinfra-1034structureimprovementsBicyclerepairtoolkit621Marketing/communications828Teleconferencingfacilities27Videoconferencingfacilities13Bicyclecouriersforlocal13deliveriesOn-sitebicyclemaintenance13servicebicycleparkingisalreadyarequirementundertheVictorianPlanningProvisionsforresidentialdevelopmentsoffourstoreysormore(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2012).Othercommontravelplanmeasuresincludedfreeordiscountedpublictransporttickets(83%oftravelplans)andmaps(79%oftravelplans).Itisalsonotedthatsomenon-residentialtravelplanmeasureswereincludedduetothemixed-usenatureofmostdevelopments.Examplesofsuchmeasuresincludednewstaffinductionkits,lockersandteleconferencingfacilities.Thesemeasuresweregenerallyassociatedwithretailandofficeusesthatweretypicallylocatedonthegroundfloorofthedevelopments.7.4.2AssessmentResults7.4.2.1OverviewAsummaryoftheresults,intermsofthelowest,highestandaveragescoringtravelplan(outofthe29travelplans)isprovidedinTable7.8.Acrossalltravelplans,47%ofthemaximumpossiblescoreisachievedonaverage.Thelowestscoringtravelplanachievedonly22%ofthemaximumpossiblescore,withdeficienciesrelatingtoobjectivesandtargets,travelplanmanagementprocesses,andmonitor-ingandreviewmechanisms.Whilethehighestscoringtravelplanaddressedmostofthesedeficiencies,therewasstillscopeforimprovingtheprocessformanaging 7.4Results117Table7.8SummaryoftheassessmentresultsAssessmentcriterion%ofmaximumpossiblescoreLowestscoringHighestscor-AveragetravelplaningtravelacrossallplantravelplansBackgroundinformation1.Isrelevantbackgroundinformationaboutthe868672developmentincluded?2.Arerelevantcontactdetailsprovided?8080663.Istherationaleforthetravelplanclearlystated?05047Sub-total567262Existingconditions4.Hasasiteauditbeenundertakenandappropriately5610067documented?5.Hasanestimateofexpectedtravelpatternsbeen07533made?Sub-total298851Objectivesandtargets6.Areaclearsetofappropriateobjectives010056identified?7.Areaclearsetofappropriatetargetsidentified?08851Sub-total09353Travelplanmeasures8.Isapackageofsuitablemeasuresproposed?46100749.Issufficientinformationprovidedtoguidethe387568implementationofeachmeasure?Sub-total439071Travelplanmanagement10.Isaclearstatementofcommitmentprovided?0381311.Hasapersonbeenidentifiedtomanage/leadthe132519travelplan?12.Aretherolesandresponsibilitiesofanyothers06028clearlydefined?13.Isasufficientbudgetincludedwithfunding0014streamsidentified?14.Isaplanforcommunicationsincluded?06731Sub-total33119Monitoringandreview15.Isaclearprocessformonitoringandreviewing07145thetravelplanincluded?Sub-total07145TOTAL226947=0–20%;=21–40%;=41–60%;=61–80%;=81–100% 1187TravelPlanQualitythedeliveryofthetravelplan.Furthermore,thehighestscoringtravelplanachievedonly69%ofthemaximumpossiblescore.Therefore,ifapplyingthe70%‘pass’criterionusedinTransportforLondon’sATTrBuTEtool(TransportforLondon2011a),noneoftheVictoriantravelplansthatwereassessedwouldreceivea‘pass’.7.4.2.2KeyStrengthsKeystrengthsofthetravelplansincluded:•Provisionofbackgroundinformation:thiswasgenerallydocumentedappro-priately,withrelevantcontactdetailsprovidedforfollowuppurposes.•Detailprovidedaboutthesiteaudit:existingtransportnetworksandservices,pluskeytransportissuesandopportunities,weresufficientlydetailedandrel-evanttoeachsite.•Appropriatenessoftravelplanmeasures:measuresweremostlytailoredtotheneedsofeachsite,withsufficientinformationprovidedtoguidetheirimplementation.7.4.2.3KeyAreasforImprovementKeyareasidentifiedtoimprovethequalityofthetravelplansinclude:•Estimatingexpectedtravelpatterns:whilefutureusersofaproposeddevel-opmentareoftenunknownatthetimeofpreparingatravelplan,thisdoesnotprohibitanindicativeassessmenttobemadebasedontheexistingtrans-portnetworkandservicesandtheuseofcensusdata(whichincludesjourneytoworkandcarownershipdata)orVictorianhouseholdtravelsurveydata,bothofwhicharefreelyavailableonline(AustralianBureauofStatistics2011;DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2010).•Specifyinghowthetravelplanwillbemanaged:whiletheexactrolesofindi-vidualsmaybeunknownatthetimeofpreparingthetravelplan,thisdoesnotprecludethespecificationofrequiredroles.Inaddition,acommitmentfromthedevelopercanbemade,particularlyintermsoffundingtowardsimplementingandmonitoringthetravelplan.•Outliningclearprocessesformonitoringandreview:cleardetailsonhowthetravelplanwillbemonitoredandreviewedarerequiredtoenablethistobeundertakeneffectively.Thiscanincludedetailsrelatingtotiming,frequency,responsibilities,costandmethod.Itcanalsospecifywhattypeofdatawillbecollected,andhowitwillbereportedandused.7.4.2.4DistributionofScoresFigure7.4presentsacumulativefrequencydistributionofthescoresachievedacrossthe29travelplansthatwerereviewed.Thefigureshowsthat15ofthe29 7.4Results119100%90%80%70%70%60%65%60%50%55%50%40%45%40%30%35%30%20%25%20%%ofmaximumpossiblescoreachieved10%0%051015202530CumulativenumberoftravelplansassessedFig.7.4Cumulativefrequencydistributionofmaximumpossiblescoresachievedtravelplansachieved50%orlessofthemaximumpossiblescore.Overall,thedistributionisrelativelylinearindicatingaconsistentspreadofscores.7.4.2.5ScoresbyTravelPlanAuthorshipItisalsoworthreflectingonwhethertravelplanqualitydifferedaccordingtothedisciplineofthetravelplanauthor.Table7.9presentsasummaryofaveragescoresbytravelplanauthorshipshowingthattownplanningconsultanciespro-ducedthehighestqualitytravelplans,whilearchitecturalfirmsproducedthelow-estqualitytravelplans.Whiletheseresultsarebasedonarelativelysmallsample,thedifferenceintheaveragescoreoftravelplanspreparedbytownplanningcon-sultanciesandallothertravelplanauthorswasstatisticallysignificant(p<0.05).Furthermore,thedifferenceintheaveragescoreoftravelplanspreparedbyarchi-tecturalfirmsandallothertravelplanauthorswasalsostatisticallysignificant(p<0.05).7.4.2.6ScoresbyTravelPlanDocumentLengthTherelationshipbetweentravelplanqualityanddocumentlengthwasalsoassessed,asshowninFig.7.5.Longertravelplandocumentsweregenerallyasso-ciatedwithhigherscoresandwerethereforedeemedtobeofhigherquality.Yet 1207TravelPlanQualityTable7.9AveragescoresbytravelplanauthorshipPredominantserviceofferedbyNumberoftravelAveragescoreof%ofmaximumorganisationalauthorplanstravelplanspossiblescoreaTownplanning467.8b58Transportplanning268.559EnvironmentallySustainable253.045Design(ESD)Trafficengineering1754.146Housingprovision/152.044managementArchitecture339.0b33Total31Averageacrossallauthorship55.347categoriesaMaximumpossiblescoreundertheassessmentframeworkis116pointsbDifferencebetweenthisscoreandtheaveragescoreofallothertravelplansisstatisticallysig-nificant(p<0.05)100%Lineofbestfit(incl.twooutliers),R2=0.4490%Lineofbestfit(excl.twooutliers),R2=0.3980%Outliers70%60%50%40%30%20%%ofmaximumpossiblescoreachieved10%0%0510152025303540Travelplandocumentlength(numberofpages)Fig.7.5Scoresbytravelplandocumentlengthafterremovingtwooutliersfromtheanalysis(travelplansthatwereconsiderablylongerthanothers),qualitydeclinedslightlyfortravelplandocumentsofmorethan15pages.However,thesefindingsshouldbeinterpretedwithcautionduethemodestlevelofstatisticalcorrelation(R2)achieved,rangingfromonly0.39–0.44. 7.4Results121Table7.10ComparisonofscoresamongtravelplanningpractitionersTravelplanreviewerScorefor1stScorefor2ndScorefor3rdAveragetravelplantravelplantravelplanscoreTravelplanningpractitioner117368646.3Travelplanningpractitioner231637456.0Travelplanningpractitioner323466143.3Researcher26608155.7Average24.351.375.550.3Coefficientofvariation(CV)0.240.250.140.13IntraclassCorrelationCoefficient(ICC)=0.86;levelofvariabilityconsideredacceptableifICC>0.807.4.2.7ConsistencyinApplyingtheAssessmentFrameworkTocheckthelevelofconsistencyinapplyingtheframework,scoresfromthethreetravelplanningpractitionerswhoappliedtheframeworktoasubsetofthetravelplansarepresentedinTable7.10.Therearetwokeyobservationstonotefromthistable.Firstly,therankingoftravelplans(fromlowesttohighestscores)isconsist-entamongeachtravelplanreviewer.Secondly,thevariabilityinscoresforeachtravelplanappearstoberelativelylowasscoresdonotdepartsubstantiallyfromthemean.Anexceptiontothishoweverwouldbethesecondtravelplanwherescoresrangedfrom36to63(averageof51.3).Noclearpatternemergedintermsofspecificcriteriathatwerescoreddiffer-entlybyreviewersforagiventravelplan.However,scoresforthesecondtravelplanshowedthelargestdifferencesforcriteriarelatingto‘travelplanmanage-ment’,inparticularwhetherastatementofcommitmentwasprovidedinthetravelplan(criteria10.1and10.2inTable7.3).Togainabetterunderstandingofwhetherthelevelofvariabilityinscorescanbeconsideredacceptable,atestfor‘inter-raterreliability’wasundertaken.Inter-raterreliabilityreferstotheextenttowhichtwoormoreraters(orinthiscase,thetravelplanreviewers)agreewhenrating/scoringthesamesetofitems(inthiscase,travelplans)(Wuensch2007).TheIntraclassCorrelationCoefficient(ICC)providesameasureofinter-raterreliabilityandgenerallyrangesfrom0to1,withascoreofmorethan0.80indicatinganacceptablelevelofagreementbetweenraters(Grahametal.2012).ForthescorespresentedinTable7.10,anICCof0.86wasachieved.Thisprovidesconfidencethattheassessmentframeworkcanresultinasufficientlysimilaroutcomewhenappliedbydifferentpractitioners.7.5DiscussionTheresultsofthequalityassessmenthaveshownthattravelplansfornewresiden-tialdevelopmentsinVictoriaaremostlybeingpreparedbyconsultants,reflectingtheinterviewfindingsreportedinChap.6.Whilethismaybeappropriatedueto 1227TravelPlanQualitythespecificskillsrequired,itmayalsoimpactuponthelevelof‘buy-in’andown-ershipofthetravelplanbythedeveloper.Thisisparticularlyrelevantsinceowner-shipofatravelplanisdeemedcriticaltoitssuccess(HowlettandWatson2010).However,Victoriaiscertainlynotaloneinthissituation,withHarrison(2003)pro-vidinganaptdescriptionofthisissueinthecontextoftheUnitedKingdom:…travelplansareincreasinglybeingdraftedforapplicantsbyconsultants.Whilethisiswelcome,inthatabodyofknowledgeandexpertiseisbeingbuiltupbyspecialists,itcarriestheriskthatnooneintheapplicant’sorganisationhasanyparticularpersonalcom-mitmenttomakingtheplanasuccess.Indeedtheindividualwhomayfeelmostcom-mittedtothetravelplan,havingdraftedandnegotiatedit,maybetheconsultantwhowillhavenofurtherconnectionwiththesiteonceplanningpermissionhasbeengranted(Harrison2003,p.400).Furthermore,ifaplanningconditiononlyrequiresthesubmissionofatravelplanwithoutanyminimumqualitystandard,asisthecaseinVictoria,travelplansthatscorerelativelylowontheassessmentmaybeapprovedintheircurrentformastheywouldstilltechnicallymeettherequirementsoftheplanningcondition.Intheseinstances,theremaynotbeasufficientlevelofincentiveforadevelopertoproposeamorecomprehensivetravelplan.Theresultsoftheassessmentshowedthatonly47%ofthemaximumpossiblescorewasachievedonaverage.Considerablescopethereforeexiststoimprovethequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopments.Forexample,agreaterfocuscouldbeplacedonspecifyinghowthetravelplanwillbeman-agedandimplementedbeyondoccupationofthedevelopment.Inaddition,proac-tiveuseofanassessmentframeworkbycouncilstoevaluatethequalityoftravelplans,withtheprocessmadetransparenttopropertydevelopersfromtheoutset,wouldhelptoincreasethelikelihoodthatthetravelplanswillbeimplementedsuccessfullyandachievetheirobjectives.These,alongwithotheropportunitiesforenhancement,arediscussedfurtherinChap.9.Itisalsoworthnotingthelimitationsthatexistintheassessmentframework.Firstly,whileinformedbytheresearchliteratureandadaptedtolocalconditions,thescoringsystemwasdevelopedsolelybytheresearcher.Inreality,theremaybesomedifferenceinopiniononthemagnitudeofscoressetforparticularcriteria.Secondly,whilethetestforinter-raterreliabilitywasconsideredacceptable,thewordingofcriteriarelatingto‘travelplanmanagement’couldberefinedtoenableamoreconsistentinterpretationbytravelplanningpractitioners.Thirdly,asrecog-nisedbyMansfieldandHartell(2012),theresearchmethodislimitedtoinforma-tioncontainedinthetravelplandocumentsthatwerereviewedandthereforedoesnotcaptureundocumentedbutrelevantpractices.Despitetheselimitations,theapplicationoftheframeworkhashighlightedanumberofkeyareasforimprovingthequalityoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,whichcanultimatelycontributetowardsenhancingtheireffectiveness. 7.6Conclusion1237.6ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristoevaluatethequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thiswasachievedbyquantitativelyassessing29travelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinVictoriaagainstabestpracticeframework.Resultsoftheassessmentshowedthatgreatereffortsneedtobeplacedintoestimatingexpectedtravelpatternsoffutureusers,specifyinghowthetravelplanwillbemanagedappropriately,andoutliningclearerprocessesformonitoringandreviewingthetravelplan.Usingtheseandotherfindingsfromtheresearch,Chap.9discussesanumberofopportunitiesforenhancingthequalityandsubsequenteffec-tivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thenextchapterdevelopsourunderstandingoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,basedonasetofcasestudysiteslocatedinMelbourne.ReferencesAddison&Associates.(2008).Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess—Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransportandCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.AustralianBureauofStatistics.(2011).Censusofpopulationandhousingdata.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/census.BritishStandardsInstitution.(2008).PAS500:2008—Nationalspecificationforworkplacetravelplans.London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2009).Goodpracticeguidelines:Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.(2010).Victorianintegratedsurveyoftravelandactivitydata.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.(2012).VictoriaPlanningProvisions(VPP).RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/vpps.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&CurrieG(2014).‘MethodologyforEvaluatingQualityofTravelPlansforNewDevelopments’,TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.2417,46–57.Graham,M.,Milanowski,A.,&Miller,J.(2012).Measuringandpromotinginter-rateragree-mentofteacherandprincipalperformanceratings.US:CenterforEducationCompensationReform(CECR).Harrison,J.(2003).Travelplansandtheplanningsystem.JournalofPlanningandEnvironmentLaw,April2003,397–403.Howlett,R.,&Watson,T.(2010).TravelplanninginVictoria—anewstrategicapproachtosustainingcommunities.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Mansfield,T.&Hartell,A.(2012).InstitutionalizingsustainabilityattheStateDOTLevel:Aquantitativeassessmentoftransportationsustainabilityplanquality.PaperpresentedtoTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)2012AnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC.PBAI.(2005).Guidelinesfortheapplicationandimplementationoftravelplansfornewdevel-opmentinDarebin.Victoria,Australia:CityofDarebin. 1247TravelPlanQualityTransportforLondon.(2011a).ATTrBuTEv3UserGuide,London,UK.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.attrbute.org.uk/.TransportforLondon.(2011b).TravelplanningfornewdevelopmentinLondon—incorporatingdeliveriesandservicing.UK:TransportforLondon.Wake,D.,Thom,A.&Cummings,R.(2010).Evaluatingworkplacetravelplans.Paperpre-sentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.WiltshireCountyCouncil.(2004).DevelopmentrelatedtravelplansinWiltshire:Goodpracticeguide.WSAtkins.(2002).WorkplaceTravelPlanEvaluationToolv2.7.DepartmentforTransport.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.imsaho.com/miscellaneous/travel_plan_evaluation_tool.asp.Wuensch,K.(2007).Inter-RaterAgreement.NorthCarolina,US:DepartmentofPsychology,EastCarolinaUniversity, Chapter8TravelPlanImpacts8.1IntroductionThepreviouschapterpresentedthethirdsetofresearchresultstoprovideanunderstandingofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelop-ments.Indoingso,itassessedasetoftravelplansagainstabestpracticeframe-workdevelopedinaccordancewiththeliterature.Thischapter,aspositionedinFig.8.1,focusesontheeffectivenessoftravelplansbyevaluatingtheirimpactsatasetofcasestudysites,correspondingtoresearchcomponent4.Table8.1detailstheresearchgap,opportunityandobjec-tiveassociatedwiththisresearchcomponent.Inlinewithresearchobjective3,theaimofthischapteristoevaluatetheeffec-tivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments(qualitywascoveredinChap.7).Keyaspectscoveredinclude:•Vehicletripgenerationrates•Transportmodeshares•Carandbicycleparkingutilisation•Awarenessanduseoftravelplanmeasures•Residentialself-selectioneffects.Thischapterbeginsbyprovidingsomeadditionalresearchcontextthroughalit-eraturereviewofresidentialself-selection.Inthecontextofthisresearch,residen-tialself-selectionmayoccurwhereresidentschoosetoliveor‘self-select’intoadevelopmentwithatravelplanbecauseitisconsistentwiththeirexistingattitudesandpreferencestowardsmoresustainableformsoftransport.Therefore,anydif-ferencesintravelbehaviourthatareobservedwhencomparingtosecondarydataorcontrolsitesmaybesimplyduetoself-selectioneffectsandnotthetravelplanitself.Followingtheliteraturereviewofresidentialself-selection,thischapter©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017125C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_8 1268TravelPlanImpactsBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsCHAPTER8:UnderstandingoftheTRAVELPLANIMPACTSeffectivenessoftravelplansforAim,context,method,results,discussionnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.8.1PositionofChap.8inthethesisstructuredescribestheresearchmethodsusedtoevaluatetheimpactsoftravelplans,includ-ingresidentialself-selectioneffects,atasetofcasestudysites.Thisisfollowedbytheresults,alongwithadiscussionoftheirimplicationsforfuturetravelplanningpractice. 8.2LiteratureReviewofResidentialSelf-selection127Table8.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent4Researchgap→Researchopportunity→Researchobjective→ResearchcomponentLittleresearchhasUsingacasestudy3.Toevaluate4.Casestudiesofbeenundertakentoapproach,evaluatethetheirqualityandnewresidentialappropriatelyquantifyimpactsoftravelplanseffectivenessdevelopmentstheeffectivenessoffornewresidentialtravelplansinreducingdevelopmentsincludingcaruseatself-selectioneffectsnewresidentialtounderstandtheirdevelopments,withnoeffectivenessinreducingstudiesaccountingforcaruseself-selectioneffects8.2LiteratureReviewofResidentialSelf-selectionThissectionpresentsanoverviewoftheliteraturerelatingtoresidentialself-selec-tionwhichprovidescontextforassessingthisphenomenoninthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.TheliteratureconcerningotheraspectsrelatingtotheevaluationoftravelplaneffectivenesswaspreviouslycoveredinChap.2(seeSect.2.6)soisnotpresentedhere.Whileresidentialself-selectionisyettobeinvestigatedinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,researchintocarfreehousingsuggeststhatself-selectionmaycontributetoalowerrateofobservedcaruse(Broaddus2010;Melia2009;Meliaetal.2013).Forexample,Meliaetal.(2013)foundthatpotentialdemandforcarfreehousingintheUnitedKingdomisconcentratedamong‘carfreechoosers’(thoselivingwithoutacarbychoice),whoaremorelikelytobeyounger,livinginsinglepersonhouseholdsandlocatedininnercityareas.However,despitethepotentialforself-selectionatcarfreedevelopments,thecontributionthatitmakestowardslowerratesofobservedcaruseisyettobequantified.AdetailedreviewundertakenbyMokhtarianandCao(2008)discussesmeth-odsforassessingresidentialself-selection,rangingfromdirectquestioningtostructuralequationmodelling.ThisworkwasprogressedbyCaoetal.(2009)throughareviewofempiricalfindingsfrom38studiesthatinvestigatedresiden-tialself-selectioninthecontextofthebuiltenvironment.Theyfoundthatwhilevirtuallyeverystudyreportedastatisticallysignificantinfluenceofthebuiltenvironmentontravelbehaviouraftercontrollingforself-selection,the‘practi-calimportanceofthatinfluencewasseldomassessed’(Caoetal.2009,p.359).Whereitwasassessed,theyfoundthatresidentialself-selectionaccountedfor10–42%ofthevariationintravelbehaviour.Morerecently,atechniqueknownasPropensityScoreMatching(PSM)hasbeenappliedtoexplicitlyquantifytherelativecontributionsthatthebuiltenviron-mentandself-selectionhavemadeontravelbehaviour(Caoetal.2010;Leeetal. 1288TravelPlanImpacts2014).PSMinvolvesmatchingeachobservationinthetreatmentgroupwithanalmostidenticalobservationinthecontrolgroup,basedontheirpropensityscore(CaliendoandKopeinig2008).Inthecontextofresidentialself-selection,thepro-pensityscorerepresentstheprobabilityofresidinginthetreatmentgroupbasedonasetofattitudinal,preferenceanddemographicalcharacteristics(Caoetal.2010;Leeetal.2014;MokhtarianandCao2008;Naess2009).Theaveragedifferenceintravelbehaviourbetweenmatchedpairsthenrepresentstheeffectofthetreatment,aftercontrollingforself-selection.InapplyingPSMtoregionaltravelsurveydatafromNorthCarolina,Caoetal.(2010)foundthatthebuiltenvironmentgenerallyplaysamoreimportantroleininfluencingdrivingbehaviourthanresidentialself-selection.Whencompar-ingdrivingbehaviourbetweenresidentslivinginurbanareascomparedtothoseinotherareas,self-selectionwasfoundtoaccountfor15–24%ofvehiclemilesdrivenperday.Inanotherstudy,Leeetal.(2014)usedPSMtoassesstravelbehaviouramongurbanandsuburbanbabyboomersinBostonfindingaverysmallself-selectioneffect(1–7%)onautomobilecommuting,recreationalnon-motorisedtravelandutilitariantrips.However,forpublictransportcommuting,theyfoundamuchlargercontributionofself-selectionof43%,suggestingthepresenceofatransit-orientedbabyboomermarketsegment.8.3ResearchMethodsThissectiondescribesthemethodsusedtoevaluatetheimpactsoftravelplansatasetofcasestudysiteslocatedinMelbourne,whichincludesanassessmentofresidentialself-selection.Atotaloffourcasestudysiteswithtravelplanswereadopted,termedas‘case’sites.Foreachcasesite,amatching‘control’sitewaschosenthathadsimilarcharacteristicsbutnotravelplan.Whileadditionalsiteswouldhelptoprovideastrongerunderstandingoftravelplaneffectiveness,onlyfourcasesitesandfourcontrolsitescouldbeevaluatedwithintheresourcesavail-able,particularlygiventhatexistingdataontravelpatternswasnotavailableforanyofthesites.Specificdatacollectiontechniquesadoptedateachcaseandcontrolsiteincluded:•Multi-modalpersontripcounts:toprovideinformationonvehicletripgen-erationratesandtransportmodesharesateachsite.•Carandbicycleparkingutilisationsurveys:toprovideinformationonpark-ingdemand,supplyandutilisationateachsite.•Residenttravelsurvey:tounderstandlevelsofawarenessandtake-upoftravelplanmeasuresamongresidents,andtoinformtheassessmentofresidentialself-selection. 8.3ResearchMethods129EthicsapprovalwasprovidedbytheMonashUniversityHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(MUHREC)priortocollectingdataatthesites(referencenumberCF12/1205—2012000586).Adescriptionofthecaseandcontrolsitesisprovidedbelow.Furtherdetailisthenprovidedonthedatacollectionundertakenateachsite,alongwiththetech-niquesusedtoanalysethedata.8.3.1DescriptionofCaseandControlSitesOnlyfournewresidentialdevelopmentscouldbefoundinMelbournethatwerebuiltandoccupiedwithtravelplansthathadbeenimplemented,soallofthesewereselectedascasesites.Theselectionofmatchingcontrolsitesinvolvedacon-siderablenumberofsitevisitsanddiscussionswithpropertymanagerstoensuretheywereappropriate.Whileoptionsforcontrolsiteswillalwaysbelimitedtowhatisavailable,besteffortsweremadetoensuresiteswerematchedontheirlocation,averagedwellingsize,on-sitecarparkingprovision,proportionofowner-occupiers,andtheyearthatoccupationcommenced.ThelocationofeachcaseandcontrolsiteisshowninFig.8.2.Eachcontrolsitewaswithinatmost200mofitscorrespondingcasesite,therebyprovidingasimilarlevelofaccesstotransportnetworksandservices.Allofthecaseandcon-trolsitesweremulti-storeyapartmentbuildings,generallylocatedwithinfivekilo-metresofMelbourne’sCBD,withgoodaccesstopublictransport,walkingandcyclingnetworks.KeycharacteristicsofthecaseandcontrolsitesaredetailedinTable8.2.Therateofon-sitecarparkingwassubstantiallyloweratcasesites3and4thantheircorrespondingcontrolsites.However,inthesecases,reducedcarparkingwasafeatureofthetravelplans.Similarly,therateofon-sitebicycleparkingwasnotnecessarilyconsistentbetweencaseandcontrolsitesasthesefacilitiesweretyp-icallyprovidedaspartofthetravelplan.Theproportionofresidentsthatwereowner-occupiersateachpairedcaseandcontrolsitewasrelativelysimilar(withtheexceptionofcase-control4)aswastheaveragedwellingsizeandyearthatoccupationcommenced.Inaddition,eachsitehadsimilarcarparkingarrangements,inthaton-sitecarparkingspaceswereallocatedtoindividualdwellings,withthecostbuiltintothepurchasepriceofeachdwelling.Theonlyexceptiontothiswascasesite4whichdidnotprovideanyon-sitecarparkingaspartofitstravelplan.Aseachcontrolsitewaswithinatmost200mofitscorrespondingcasesite,on-streetparkingrestrictionswerealsosimilarbetweencaseandcontrolsites. 1308TravelPlanImpactsCasesite4AustraliaBrunswickControlsite41000kmMelbourne500miControlsite3MelbourneCasesite3Controlsite2CBDControlsite1Casesite2SouthSouthMelbourneYarraCasesite12km1miFig.8.2LocationofcaseandcontrolsitesinMelbourne,Australia8.3.2DataCollectionandAnalysis8.3.2.1Multi-modalpersontripcountsMulti-modalpersontripcountswereconductedatthesitesfromMarchtoMay2014,outsideofschoolandpublicholidays.Toensurecomparability,dataforagivencasesitewascollectedatpreciselythesametimeasitscorrespondingcon-trolsite.Thecountsinvolvedrecordingthenumberofpeopleenteringandleav-ingeachaccesspointofeachsite,bytransportmode,onaTuesday(7am–9am),Thursday(7am–9am)andSaturday(10am–1pm)withinthesamesingleweek.Peopleaccessingthesitesbycarbutparkingonthestreetwererecordedasfarasobservable.Thetimingofthemulti-modalcountscorrespondedtopeaktravelperiodsinMelbourneandcapturedbothcommuteandnon-commutetrips(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2010).However,thesedidnotrepre-sent‘true’multi-modalcountsinthattheywereconductedateachbuildingaccess 8.3ResearchMethods131Table8.2KeycharacteristicsofthecaseandcontrolsitesSiteIDCharacteristicCasesiteControlsiteKeytravelplanini-(travelplan)(notravelplan)tiativesatcasesiteCase-Control1Dwellings(average242(1.4)54(1.5)•BicyclefleetSiteslocatedbedrooms/dwelling)(20bicycles)approx150mCarspaces(averagecar167(0.7)43(0.8)•On-sitecarsharingapartspaces/dwelling)vehiclewithfreemembershipBicyclespaces66(0.3)17(0.3)•Newresident(averagebicyclespaces/kitcontainingdwelling)localtransport%owner-occupiers(%)1520informationYearofoccupation20102013•Freeweeklypub-commencementlictransportticket•Transportinformationonbuildingwebsite•Onlineforumfororganisingcarpooling•UmbrellasatlobbytoencouragewalkingCase-Control2Dwellings(average282(1.7)156(1.9)•3on-sitecarSiteslocatedbedrooms/dwelling)sharingvehiclesapprox40mCarspaces(averagecar268(1.0)158(1.0)withfreeapartspaces/dwelling)membership•TransportBicyclespaces80(0.3)129(0.8)informationon(averagebicyclespaces/buildingwebsitedwelling)•Freemembership%owner-occupiers5050toMelbourneYearofoccupation20132013BikeSharecommencementCase-Control3Dwellings(average124(1.5)45(1.3)•Additionalon-siteSiteslocatedbedrooms/dwelling)bicycleparkingapprox190mCarspaces(averagecar97(0.8)57(1.3)•Reductioninapartspaces/dwelling)on-sitecarparking•NewresidentBicyclespaces110(0.9)18(0.4)kitcontaining(averagebicyclespaces/localtransportdwelling)information%owner-occupiers(%)3035•FreeweeklyYearofoccupation20132012publictransportcommencementticket•Freemembershiptocarsharingservice•Transportinformationdisplayinlobby(continued) 1328TravelPlanImpactsTable8.2(continued)SiteIDCharacteristicCasesiteControlsiteKeytravelplanini-(travelplan)(notravelplan)tiativesatcasesiteCase-Control4Dwellings(average24(1.7)34(1.8)•Additionalon-siteSiteslocatedbedrooms/dwelling)bicycleparkingapprox200mCarspaces(averagecar0(0.0)40(1.2)•Noon-sitecarapartspaces/dwelling)parking•CarsharingBicyclespaces(average62(2.6)15(0.4)vehiclewithfreebicyclespaces/dwelling)membership%owner-occupiers(%)4015•12hfreeuseofYearofoccupation20132011carsharingservicecommencementperresident•After-rideshowerfacilitiesadjacenttobicycleparking•Buildingusersguidecontainingtransportinformationpointandthereforecouldnotdeterminewhetherapersonusedpublictransport.Therefore,observedwalkingtripswereassumedtoincorporateanyonwardtripsmadebypublictransport.Multiplesurveyorswererequiredtocollectdataatthesites(uptosixatanygivenpointintime).Thiswasduetothepresenceofmultipleaccesspointsthatcouldnotbeobservedfromasinglelocation,alongwiththeneedtocollectdataatagivencasesiteatthesametimeasitscorrespondingcontrolsite.Thisresourcerequirementwassupportedby16undergraduatecivilengineeringstudentsfromMonashUniversity,whoassistedwithdatacollectionatthesitesaspartofatai-loredassignmentforoneoftheirtransportengineeringunits.Table8.3detailsthetotalnumberofpersontrips,acrossalltransportmodes,observedateachcaseandcontrolsiteduringthesurveyperiods.Atleast100persontripswererecordedateachsiteintotal,withcloseto1,000persontripsobservedatsomeofthelargersites.Thenumberofpersontripsobservedperdwellingwassimilaracrossallcasesites(3.5tripsperdwelling)whencomparedtoallcontrolsites(3.4tripsperdwelling).However,persontripratesdidvarybetweenindividuallypairedcaseandcontrolsites.Thereasonforthisisunknownbutmaybereflectiveofvariationsinresidentialoccupancyrates.Acrossallsites,morethan3,300persontripswereobserved,providingasuitablebasisfromwhichanassessmentoftravelcharacteristicscouldbemade.Followingtheconductofthemulti-modalpersontripcounts,avehiclepeakhourforeachsitewasdeterminedbasedonthelargestnumberofvehicletripsthatwereobservedonaweekday(eitheraTuesdayorThursday)andSaturday.ThenumberofpeakhourvehicletripswasthendividedbythenumberofdwellingstoderiveavehicletripgenerationrateforeachsiteforanaverageweekdayandSaturday.Acomparisonofvehicletripgenerationratesbetweencaseandcontrol 8.3ResearchMethods133Table8.3Totalpersontrips(alltransportmodes)observedatcaseandcontrolsitesSiteIDTotalTotalnumberofpersontripsobservedTotaldwellingsTuesdayThursdaySaturdayTotaltripspersontrips(7am–9am)(7am–9am)(10am–1pm)observedobserved/dwellingCase-control1(CC1)Casesite2422322294659263.8Controlsite545254431492.8Case-control2(CC2)Casesite2822252314579133.2Controlsite1561701582806083.9Case-control3(CC3)Casesite1241111221994323.5Controlsite453930361052.3Case-control4(CC4)Casesite243128411004.2Controlsite343124691243.6Sub-totalCasesites6725996101,1622,3713.5Controlsites2892922664289863.4Grandtotal9618918761,5903,3573.5siteswasthenundertaken.Inaddition,supplementarycomparisonswerealsomadetopublishedvehicletripgenerationrates.Theseincluded:•InstituteofTransportationEngineers(ITE)2008ratesforhigh-riseapartmentsbasedondatafromtheUnitedStates(InstituteofTransportationEngineers2008)•RoadsandTrafficAuthority(RTA)2002rateforhighdensityresidentialflatsbasedondatafromtheAustralianstateofNewSouthWales(RoadsandTrafficAuthority2002)•RoadsandMaritimeServices(RMS)2013ratesforhighdensityresidentialflatsbasedondatafromSydney,Australia(Roads&MaritimeServices2013).Transportmodeshareswerealsocalculatedforeachsiteforanaverageweekdayfrom7am–9am(basedonthedatacollectedontheTuesdayandThursday)andforaSaturdayfrom10am–1pm.Thedifferenceintheaveragetransportmodesharesbetweenthecaseandcontrolsiteswasthencalculated.Statisticaltestswerealsoconductedtodeterminewhetherthedifferencesinmodeshareswerestatisti-callysignificant.Inaddition,theaveragecardrivermodeshareobservedateachsitewascom-paredtoregionaltravelsurveydatafortherelevantlocalgovernmentareaofeachsite(fortripsto/fromhomeduringthesametimeperiods),asasupplementarypointofcomparison.Theregionaltravelsurveydatawasbasedonthe2009–10VictorianIntegratedSurveyofTravelandActivity(VISTA),ahouseholdtravel 1348TravelPlanImpactssurveyconductedinthestateofVictoria(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2010).Whileacomparisoncouldhavealsobeenunder-takenagainstjourneytoworktripsfromthe2011Census(AustralianBureauofStatistics2011a),thiswasnotconsideredtobeappropriategiventhatnon-worktripswerealsoobservedatthecaseandcontrolsitesduringthetimesatwhichthemulti-modalpersontripcountswereconducted.8.3.2.2CarandBicycleParkingUtilisationSurveysAcountofthetotaldemandandsupplyofcarandbicycleparkingfacilitiesonaTuesdayandThursday(at7am)wasconductedateachsite,correspondingtothesameweekdaysinwhichthemulti-modalpersontripcountswereundertaken.Formalapprovaltoconductthecarandbicycleparkingutilisationsurveyswassoughtinalettertothepropertymanagerofeachsite.TheletterwaspreparedonMonashUniversityletterheadandwassignedbytheresearcher’ssupervisor.Acopyoftheletter(withidentifyingfeaturesremoved)isprovidedinAppendixD.Followingreceiptoftheletter,eachpropertymanagergaveapprovaltoconductthesurveysontheconditionthatthesurveyorswouldbeaccompaniedbyabuild-ingmanagerorcaretakerlocatedatthesiteduringworkinghours.Whileitwouldhavebeenpreferabletoconducttheparkingsurveysearlierinthedaytocorrespondwithpeaktimes(e.g.before5am,duetotheresidentialnatureofthesites),thiswasnotpossibleduetothetimeatwhichthebuildingmanagersandcaretakersstartedtheirworkingday.However,asdatawascollectedatagivencasesiteatthesametimeasitscorrespondingcontrolsite,thiswasnotconsideredtocauseanymajorcomparabilityissues.Itisalsonotedthatthesur-veysdidnotincludeacountofbicyclesstoredwithinindividualapartmentsoracountofresidents’carsparkedoutsideofthebuilding(i.e.on-street).Thesurveysthereforeonlyconsideredon-sitecarandbicycleparkingfacilities.Aswiththemulti-modalpersontripcounts,the16civilengineeringundergrad-uatestudentssupportedtheresourcingrequirementforthecarandbicycleparkingutilisationsurveysaspartoftheirtailoredassignmentforoneoftheirtransportengineeringunits.Followingtheconductofthecarandbicycleparkingutilisationsurveys,therateofcarandbicycleparkingdemandateachsitewasdetermined.Thiswasequivalenttothelargestnumberofobservedcarsandbicyclesparkedon-site(onaTuesdayandThursday),dividedbythetotalnumberofdwellings.Thenumberofobservedcarsandbicyclesparkedwasalsodividedbythetotalsupplyofon-sitecarandbicyclespacestodeterminethelevelofutilisationofparkingfacilitiesateachsite.Thedifferencesinparkingdemandandutilisationratesbetweenthecaseandcontrolsiteswerethencalculated.Statisticaltestswereconductedtounder-standthelevelofstatisticalsignificanceinthedifferencesthatwereobserved. 8.3ResearchMethods1358.3.2.3ResidentTravelSurveyAself-completionquestionnairewasalsodevelopedandadministeredanony-mouslytoresidentslivingatthecaseandcontrolsitesduringMay2014.Atotalof19questionswereincludedthatcoveredtripfrequencybymodeandpurpose,carandbicycleownership,attitudesandpreferencestowardsdifferenttransportmodes,anddemographics.Nomentionofthetravelplanwasmadetoavoidanypotentialbiasassociatedwiththosewhomightbemorelikelytorespondtothesurveybecausetheychangedtheirtravelbehaviourinaccordancewiththeinten-tionsofthetravelplan.However,aquestionaskedrespondentsabouttheiraware-nessanduseoftravelinitiativesthatmaybeavailableattheirbuilding,someofwhichformedpartofthetravelplan.AcopyofthequestionnaireisprovidedinAppendixG.Thesurveywashostedonline,withalink(URL)developedforeachsitealongwithaQuickResponse(QR)codeforresidentswishingtocompletethesurveyusingasmartphone.Hardcopiesofthequestionnaireweremadeavailabletores-identsuponrequest.Aprizedrawforcompletingthesurveywasofferedintheformofa$250retailvoucher.Thiswaschosenovertheuseofmultiplevouch-erstotallingthesameamount(e.g.10×$25)giventhatindividualstendtoplaceagreaterfocusonthevalueofaprizeratherthantheprobabilityofwinning(KahnehamandTversky1979).Whilethesurveywasanonymous,respondentshadtoprovidesomebasiccontactdetailsforfollow-uppurposes(firstnameonly,plusanemailaddressorphonenumber)iftheywishedtobeeligiblefortheprizedraw.Formalapprovaltoconductthetravelsurveywassoughtfromthepropertymanagerofeachsiteaspartofthesameletterthatrequestedaccesstoconductthecarandbicycleparkingutilisationsurveys(acopyoftheletterisprovidedinAppendixD).Approvalwasconditionedondeliveringthetravelsurveymaterialduringbusinesshoursonlyduetosecurityaccessarrangementsatmostsites.Inaddition,surveymaterialcouldonlybedeliveredtoeachmailboxaspersonalcontact(e.g.doorknocking)wasnotpermittedbythepropertymanagers.Thesur-veymaterialcomprisedapre-notificationletter,thenasurveypostcard(containingtheURLandQRcode)delivered3dayslater,followedbyareminderpostcarddelivered1weekafterthesurveypostcard.Allsurveymaterialwasprofession-allydesignedandincludedtheUniversitybranding.Copiesofthepre-notificationletterandsurveypostcardareprovidedinAppendixEandFrespectively.Thereminderpostcardwasthesameastheinitialsurveypostcardwiththeexceptionofastickerthatwasplacedonthefrontsidetoremindresidentsoftheclosuredatefortheprizedraw.Pre-notificationlettersandsurveypostcardswereplacedwithinindividuallyaddressedenvelopestoincreasethechancetheywouldbeopened.Reminderpostcardswerenotplacedinenvelopesordeliveredtomailboxesrequesting‘nojunkmail’(whichcomprisedonly3.5%oftotalmailboxes).Buildingmanagersattwositesassistedinfurtherpromotingthesurveythroughposters,electronicdisplays,andanemailtoresidents. 1368TravelPlanImpactsTable8.4ResidenttravelsurveyresponsesCharacteristicCasesitesControlsitesAllsitesTotaldwellings672289961Totaloccupieddwellingsa564237801Totalcompletesurveyresponsesviahardcopy000viaURL6046106viaQRcode5510Total6551116SurveyresponsesviaQRcode(%)7.79.88.6Surveyresponserate(%)11.521.514.5aBasedonestimatesprovidedbyproperty/buildingmanagersateachsiteTable8.4detailsthenumberofsurveyresponsesreceived.Atotalof116com-pleteresponseswerereceivedfrom801occupieddwellings,providingaresponserateof14.5%.Thisisconsistentwithresponseratesof11–20%achievedinsimi-larstudies(Leeetal.2014).Itisalsoworthcomparingthistoan8%responserateachievedbytheVictorianGovernmentinapilotsurveyofresidentslivinginhigh-riseapartmentbuildingsinMelbournein2009,wherethesecurenatureofbuildingsprecludedpersonalcontactwithrespondents(Roddis2014,personalcommunication).AccessingsecureapartmentbuildingshasbeenreportedasachallengeevenwhenconductingtheAustralianCensus(AustralianBureauofStatistics2011b)despiteresidentparticipationbeingcompulsoryundertheCensusandStatisticsAct1905(AustralianGovernment2006).Table8.4showsthataminority(around9%)ofsurveyrespondentsusedtheQRcodewhilemost(91%)manuallytypedtheURLintoawebbrowser.Nohardcopiesofthequestionnairewererequestedbyresidents.RespondentsthatusedtheQRcodecompletedthesurveyinlesstime(averageof6.8min)comparedtothosewhomanuallytypedintheURL(averageof9.0min).Thisdifferenceinsur-veycompletiontimewasstatisticallysignificant(p=0.03)andprovidessupporttowardsconsideringtheuseofQRcodesinfuturetravelsurveys.WhilenotshowninTable8.4,siteswherebuildingmanagershelpedtopromotethesurveyachievedahigherresponserate(16.6%)comparedtothosewithoutbuildingmanagementsupport(12.4%).Thisdifferenceinresponserateswasstatisticallysignificant(p=0.05).Mostrespondents(93%)providedtheircontactdetailstobeeligiblefortheprizedraw,therebyindicatingthepotentialimportanceofthisincentiveinattractingsurveyresponses.Toassessbroadrepresentativenessofthesurveysample,Table8.5providesacomparisonofthesampletotherelevantlocalareapopulationsfromthe2011Census.Thelocalareapopulationsarelimitedtoresidentslivinginapartmentbuildingsoffourormorestoreystoprovidecomparabilitywiththesurveysample.Theaveragehouseholdsizeandproportionofrentinghouseholdsinthesamplewasgenerallyrepresentativeofthelocalareapopulation.Whilegreatervariationis 8.3ResearchMethods137Table8.5ComparisonofresidentsurveysampleandlocalareapopulationacharacteristicsCharacteristicSouthYarraSouthMelbourneBrunswickSurveyLocalareaSurveyLocalareaSurveyLocalareasamplebpopulationsamplecpopulationsampledpopulationTotalhouseholds363,147471,80133913Averagehousehold1.591.731.961.841.881.83sizeRentinghouseholds867165657669(%)Carownership0carhouseholds(%)5032173035321carhouseholds(%)3951595450512+carhouseholds111724161517(%)Averagecars/0.610.851.130.880.820.87householdGenderMale(%)564846492953Female(%)445254517147Age20–39years(%)89536755916940–59years(%)1120132061360yearsormore(%)0191315310IncomeLessthan$300per3211628023week(%)$300–$599perweek17162151317(%)$600–$999perweek171918142220(%)$1,000–$1,499per311931192823week(%)$1,500ormoreper332533243818week(%)aSourceAustralianBureauofStatistics(2011a);localareapopulationfiguresarelimitedtoapart-mentbuildingsoffourormorestoreystoprovidecomparabilitywiththesurveysamplebCorrespondstocase-control1cCorrespondstocase-control2dCorrespondstocase-control3and4observedforothercharacteristics,thisisnotofconcerngiventhetargetpopulationwashighlyselectivebyonlyconsideringresidentslivingatparticularapartmentbuildings.Followingtheconductoftheresidenttravelsurvey,thedatawasanalysedusingdescriptivestatisticstounderstandthelevelofawarenessanduseoftravelplanmeasuresamongrespondentslivingatthecasesites.Descriptivestatisticswere 1388TravelPlanImpactsalsousedtounderstandreporteddifferencesintravelbehaviourbetweenrespond-entslivingatthecasesitesandcontrolsites.Statisticaltestswerethenconductedtounderstandthelevelofstatisticalsignificanceinthedifferencesreportedbyrespondents.PropensityScoreMatching(PSM)wasthenusedtoassesstheextentofself-selectionamongresidentslivingatthecasesites.ThegeneralprocessthatwasadoptedisillustratedinFig.8.3.RESIDENTTRAVELSURVEYDATADEVELOPMENTOFBINARYLOGITMODEL•Independentvariables:attitudes,preferences,demographics•Dependent(binary)variable:casesite=1,controlsite=0ESTIMATIONOFPROPENSITYSCORES•Calculationoflogitvalueforeachcaseandcontrolrespondent•Probabilityofeachrespondentlivingatacasesite=propensityscoreMATCHINGOFRESPONDENTSBASEDONPROPENSITYSCOREPropensityscoresofMatchingalgorithms:Propensityscoresofcasesiterespondents•Nearestnneighbourcontrolsiterespondents0.93•Caliperofx%0.850.43tolerance0.160.380.420.710.910.880.700.750.340.660.670.920.830.220.760.810.91Matchedrespondentshavesimilarattitudes,preferencesanddemographicsPSMchecksnotsatisfiedPROPENSITYSCOREMATCHING(PSM)CHECKSVisualcomparisonofpropensityscoredistributionStatisticallysignificantdifferencesincovariatemeansCaseControlCaseDifferencesNOTControlstatisticallysignificant•Attitudes•Attitudes•Preferences•Preferences•Demographics•DemographicsNo.ofrespondentsPropensityscorePSMcheckssatisfiedAVERAGETREATMENTEFFECT(ATE)ANDSELF-SELECTIONEFFECT(SSE)•ATE=averagedifferenceintravelbehaviourbetweenmatchedrespondents•SSE=observeddifferenceintravelbehaviouramongunmatchedrespondentsminusATEFig.8.3Propensityscorematching(PSM)process 8.3ResearchMethods139ThePSMtechniqueinvolvedfirstlydevelopingabinarylogitmodeltopredicttheprobabilityofaresidentlivingatacasesitebasedonasetofattitudinal,pref-erenceanddemographicvariables.Thesevariableswerechoseninlightoftheirrecognitionaskeysourcesofself-selectionandtheiruseascontrolsinself-selec-tionstudies(Caoetal.2010;MokhtarianandCao2008;Naess2009).Topredicttheprobabilityofaresidentlivingatacasesite,alogitvaluewasfirstrequiredforeachrespondent.Thiswascalculatedasthesumofeachbinarylogitmodelcoefficientmultipliedbythevalueoftherespectiveindependentvari-ableforeachrespondent,asfollows:logiti=β0+β1xi1+β2xi2+···+βkxik(8.1)Theoddsofarespondentlivingatacasesitecouldthenbecalculatedusingthelogitvalue:oddslogiti(8.2)i=eTheprobabilityofarespondentlivingatacasesite,denotedasPSi,alsoknownasthepropensityscorewhichrangesfrom0to1,couldthenbecalculatedbasedontheodds:oddsiPSi=(8.3)1+oddsiEachcasesiterespondentwasthenmatchedwithacontrolsiterespondentbasedonhavingasimilarpropensityscore.Matchedrespondentsthereforehadsimilarattitudes,preferencesanddemographics,andthereforeasimilarpropensitytoliveatacasesite.InaccordancewithPSMguidance,matchingwasbasedonthelogoddsofthepropensityscoresothatthedensityofscoreswouldbewellspreadandaconsistentbandwidthcouldbeused(Heinrichetal.2010).ThematchingprocesswascarriedoutusingStata13,astatisticalsoftwarepackage.Previousstudieshaveoptedforarelativelyhighleveloftoleranceinthematchingprocessbyspecifyingamaximumdifferenceinthepropensityscore,referredtoasthe‘caliper’,of0.01(Caoetal.2010;Leeetal.2014).Therefore,acaliperof0.01wasinitiallyadopted,althoughacaliperof0.02wasalsotested.However,bothofthesemethodsresultedinasignificantnumberofunmatchedrespondentsbeingdiscardedfromtheprocessgiventherelativelysmallsampleavailable.Matchingwasthereforeundertakenatalowertolerancelevelusingthe‘nearestfiveneighbours’algorithm,inaccordancewithguidanceonPSM(Heinrichetal.2010).Thisinvolvesmatchingcasesiterespondentswiththeweightedaverageofthenearestfivecontrolsiterespondents.Thebenefitofusingthismethodinthecaseofsmallsamplesisgenerallyconsideredtooutweightheimpactofanysamplingerrorthatisintroduced(Heinrichetal.2010).Matchingwasalsoundertakenusingthenearestthreeneighboursandthenearestfourneigh-bours.However,thenearestfiveneighbourswasfoundtobemostappropriatewiththesamplesizethatwasavailable.Toensurethematchingprocesswasadequate,anumberofcheckswereunder-takeninlinewithPSMguidance(CaliendoandKopeinig2008;Heinrichetal.2010). 1408TravelPlanImpactsFirstly,visualcomparisonsofthepropensityscoredistributionbetweencaseandcon-trolsiterespondentswereundertakentoensuretherewassufficientoverlapbetweenthedistributions.Secondly,differencesincovariate(independentvariable)meansbetweencaseandcontrolsiterespondentsweretestedforstatisticalsignificancetoensuretheywereadequatelybalancedbetweenthetwogroups.TheaveragedifferenceintravelbehaviourbetweenmatchedrespondentswasthencalculatedtorepresenttheAverageTreatmentEffect(ATE),orinotherwords,theeffectofthetravelplanafterself-selectionistakenintoaccount.TheSelf-SelectionEffect(SSE)wasthencalculatedastheaverageoftheObservedDifference(OD)intravelbehaviouramongunmatchedrespondents,minustheAverageTreatmentEffect(ATE).8.4ResultsThissectionpresentstheresultsassociatedwiththedatacollectionandanalysisundertakenforeachsite.Thisincludesanassessmentof:•Vehicletripgenerationrates(basedonthemulti-modalpersontripcountdata)•Transportmodeshares(basedonthemulti-modalpersontripcountdata)•Carandbicycleparkingutilisation(basedontheparkingutilisationsurveydata)•Awarenessanduseoftravelplanmeasures(basedontheresidenttravelsurveydata)•Residentialself-selection(basedontheresidenttravelsurveydata).8.4.1VehicleTripGenerationRatesThevehicletripgenerationrateobservedateachcaseandcontrolsiteisshowninFig.8.4(averageweekdayAMpeakhour)andFig.8.5(Saturdaypeakhour).Forcomparativepurposes,publishedvehicletripgenerationratesavailablefromtheInstituteofTransportationEngineers(ITE),RoadsandTrafficAuthority(RTA)andRoadsandMaritimeServices(RMS)arealsoshown.WiththeexceptionoftheSaturdaypeakhourvehicletripgenerationrateforcasesite1,allcasesiteshadalowervehicletripgenerationratebothonweekdaysandSaturdayswhencomparedtotheircorrespondingcontrolsites.Inaddition,thepublishedvehicletripgenerationratesarenotonlyhigherthaneachcasesite,butalsohigherthanalmostallcontrolsites.Therefore,thedifferenceinvehicletripgenerationrateswouldhavebeengrosslyoverestimatedifpublishedrateshadbeenassumedtoapplyintheabsenceofanycontrolsites.Thereareanumberofreasonswhythepublishedvehicletripgenerationratesaremostlyhigherthanthoseatthecaseandcontrolsites.Firstly,whilethetypeofdwelling(inthiscase,highdensityapartments)isaccountedfor,thepublished 8.4Results1410.45CaseControlITE(2008)RTA(2002)RMS(2013)0.400.350.300.250.200.150.10WeekdayAMpeakhourvehicletrips/dwelling0.050.00Case-Control1(CC1)Case-Control2(CC2)Case-Control3(CC3)Case-Control4(CC4)Fig.8.4Comparisonofvehicletripgenerationrates—averageweekdayAMpeakhour0.45CaseControlITE(2008)RMS(2013)0.400.350.300.250.200.150.10Saturdaypeakhourvehicletrips/dwelling0.050.00Case-Control1(CC1)Case-Control2(CC2)Case-Control3(CC3)Case-Control4(CC4)Fig.8.5Comparisonofvehicletripgenerationrates—Saturdaypeakhourratesarebasedonsurveydatafromaverylimitedsampleofsites(aslittleasfivesitesfortheITESaturdaypeakhourrate)andthereforemaynotberepresentative.Secondly,thepublishedratesarebasedonsitesfromdifferentlocationsthanthecaseandcontrolsitesandarethereforeunlikelytohaveasimilarleveloftransport 1428TravelPlanImpactsnetworkandserviceprovision.Thirdly,withtheexceptionoftheRMSrates,thepublishedratesarebasedonsurveysconductedover20yearsago,whicharelikelytohaveobserveddifferenttravelpatternsfromtoday.8.4.2TransportModeSharesTheproportionofpersontripsundertakenasacardriver(termedasthecardrivermodeshare)observedateachcaseandcontrolsiteisshowninFig.8.6(averageweekday,7am–9am)andFig.8.7(Saturday,10am–1pm).Forcomparativepur-poses,theaveragecardrivermodesharefortherelevantlocalgovernmentarea(fortripsto/fromhomeduringthesametimeperiods)isalsoprovided,basedonVictorianhouseholdtravelsurveydatafrom2009–10(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2010).Withtheexceptionoftheweekdaypatternatcasesite2,allcasesiteshadalowercardrivermodeshareonbothweekdaysandSaturdayswhencomparedtotheircorrespondingcontrolsites.Despitecasesite4havingnoon-sitecarparking,cardrivertripswerestillmadetoandfromthissitethroughtheuseofon-streetcarparking.Alsoofnoteisthattheaveragecardrivermodesharesacrossthelocalgovernmentareasarenotonlyhigherthaneachcasesite,butalsohigherthaneachcontrolsite.Therefore,thedifferenceinthecardrivermodesharewouldhavebeengrosslyoverestimatediftheaveragemodesharesforeachlocalgovernmentareahadbeenassumedtoapplyintheabsenceofanycontrolsites.60%CaseControlAverageforlocalgovtarea2009-1050%40%30%20%10%Cardrivermodeshare,weekday7am-9am0%Case-Control1(CC1)Case-Control2(CC2)Case-Control3(CC3)Case-Control4(CC4)Fig.8.6Comparisonofcardrivermodeshares—averageweekday7am–9am 8.4Results14360%CaseControlAverageforlocalgovtarea2009-1050%40%30%20%10%Cardrivermodeshare,Saturday10am-1pm0%Case-Control1(CC1)Case-Control2(CC2)Case-Control3(CC3)Case-Control4(CC4)Fig.8.7Comparisonofcardrivermodeshares—Saturday10am–1pmThereareanumberofreasonsforthehighercardrivermodeshareaverageforeachlocalgovernmentarea.Firstly,thelocalgovernmentareaaveragesarebasedonhouseholdtravelsurveydatawhichaccountsforalltypesofhousing(notjustapartments)andisthereforelikelytoencompassdifferentratesofcarparking,aswellasvariationintermsofthesocio-demographiccharacteristicsofresidents,whencomparedtothecaseandcontrolsites.Secondly,thespecificlocationofthecaseandcontrolsitesmaynotberepresentativeofaveragetransportnetworkandserviceprovisionfortheentirelocalgovernmentarea.Thirdly,thehouseholdtravelsurveydatawascollectedin2009–10whilethedataforthecaseandcontrolsiteswascollectedin2014.Since2009–10,generalimprovementstopublictrans-port,walkingandcyclinginfrastructuremayhaveinfluencedcaruse.AcomparisonofaveragetransportmodesharesacrossallcaseandcontrolsitesisprovidedinTable8.6.Onanaverageweekday(7am–9am),theaveragecardrivermodesharewas14%pointsloweratthecasesitesthanthecontrolsites.Furthermore,theaveragemodeshareforwalkingwas11%pointshigheratthecasesitesthanthecontrolsites,whiletheaveragemodeshareforcyclingwas3%pointshigher.Allofthesedifferenceswerestatisticallysignificant(p-valuesrang-ingfrom0.00to0.01).OnaSaturday(10am–1pm),theaveragemodeshareforcardrivertripswas9%pointsloweratthecasesites,whiletheaveragemodeshareforwalkingwas7%pointshigher.Bothofthesedifferenceswerealsosta-tisticallysignificant(p-valuesrangingfrom0.00to0.01).NodifferenceintheaveragemodeshareforcyclingonaSaturdaywasobservedbetweenthecaseandcontrolsites.Asthecountswereonlyconductedattheplaceofresidence,public 1448TravelPlanImpactsTable8.6ComparisonofaveragetransportmodesharesacrossallcaseandcontrolsitesTransportAverageweekday(7am–9am)Saturday(10am–1pm)modeCaseControlDifferencep-valueCaseControlDifferencep-value(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)Caras22.736.6–13.90.00***21.930.7–8.80.00***driverCaras4.14.2–0.20.4613.711.2+2.50.10*passengerWalkinga63.652.3+11.30.00***60.953.8+7.00.01***Cycling8.65.2+3.40.01***1.11.10.00.48Otherb1.01.7–0.60.112.43.2–0.80.19Total100.0100.0100.0100.0*Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsitesissignificantat90%confidencelevel**Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsitesissignificantat95%confidencelevel***Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsitesissignificantat99%confidencelevelaIncludesonwardtripsbypublictransportascountswereconductedonlyattheplaceofresidencebIncludestaxi,motorcycle/scooterandtrucktransporttripscouldnotbeobserved.However,giventheproximityofthesitestopublictransport,itislikelythatthemodeshareforwalkingwouldhaveincorpo-ratedmostonwardtripsmadebypublictransport.8.4.3CarandBicycleParkingUtilisationTable8.7providesacomparisonofon-sitecarandbicycleparkingdemandatthecaseandcontrolsites.Onaverage,thecontrolsitesexhibitedahigherlevelofcarparkingdemandandalowerlevelofbicycleparkingdemandthanthecasesites(statisticallysignificant,p-value=0.00).Atanindividualpairedcase-controllevel,whilebicycleparkingdemandwasconsistentlyloweracrossallcontrolsites,carparkingdemandwasalsolowerattwoofthecontrolsites(1and2).Table8.8presentsacomparisonofon-sitecarandbicycleparkingutilisationatthecaseandcontrolsites.Onaverage,thecasesiteshadahigherrateofbothcarandbicycleparkingutilisation,reflectingagreaterlevelofspaceefficiency(statis-ticallysignificant,p-values=0.00and0.01).Table8.8alsoshows(forbothcaseandcontrolsites)thatbicycleparkingisinmostcasesclosetoorovercapacitywhilecarparkingismostlyundercapacity.Thismayleadtosomeresidentshav-ingtostoretheirbicycle/swithintheirapartmentandnotinthecommonbicyclestoragearea,meaningthattheactualnumberofbicyclesperdwellingcouldbehigherthanthatshowninTable8.7. 8.4Results145Table8.7Comparisonofon-sitecarandbicycleparkingdemandatcaseandcontrolsitesSiteIDCarsparkedperdwellingBicyclesparkedperdwellingCaseControlDifferencep-valueCaseControlDifferencep-valueCase-Control10.400.370.030.340.330.300.030.33(CC1)Case-Control20.750.620.130.00***0.440.390.050.16(CC2)Case-Control30.510.62−0.110.100.690.490.200.01**(CC3)Case-Control40.00a0.59−0.590.00***1.460.560.900.00***(CC4)Average0.420.55−0.130.00**0.730.430.300.00****Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsiteissignificantat90%confidencelevel**Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsiteissignificantat95%confidencelevel***Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsiteissignificantat99%confidencelevelaNocarparkingisprovidedatcasesite4Table8.8Comparisonofon-sitecarandbicycleparkingutilisationatcaseandcontrolsitesSiteIDCarparkingutilisationBicycleparkingutilisationCaseControlDifferencep-valueCaseControlDifferencep-value(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)Case-5947120.08*12094260.00***Control1(CC1)Case-7961180.00***155471080.00***Control2(CC2)Case-6549160.03**77122−450.00***Control3(CC3)Case-n.a.a50n.a.an.a.a56127−710.00***Control4(CC4)Average6852160.00***1029840.01***Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsiteissignificantat90%confidencelevel**Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsiteissignificantat95%confidencelevel***Differencebetweencaseandcontrolsiteissignificantat99%confidencelevelaNocarparkingisprovidedatcasesite48.4.4AwarenessandUseofTravelPlanMeasuresResidentswereaskedabouttheirlevelofawarenessanduseofvarioustravelini-tiativesthatmaybeavailableattheirapartmentbuilding.Table8.9providesasummaryoftheresults.Withtheexceptionoftransportinformationinthebuild-ingusersguide,thecommonbicyclestoragearea,andcarsharingvehiclesonthestreet,useofexistingtravelinitiativeswasrelativelylowacrossallsites(around 1468TravelPlanImpactsTable8.9AwarenessanduseoftravelinitiativesamongsurveyrespondentsTravelinitiativeAware,used(%)Aware,notused(%)Notaware(%)CasesitesTransportinformationinbuilding60400usersguideaCommonbicyclestoragearea51436Carsharingvehicleonstreeta40600Freemembershiptocarshare114545Carsharingvehicle/sinbuildingcar95338parkTransportinformationinnewresi-91477dentskitTransportinformationonbuilding’s71380websiteDisplayinlobbycontainingtransport7787informationaFreepublictransportticketsfornew7093residentsBicyclefleetinbuildingcarparka43264Onlineresidentforumfororganising42175carpoolingaCommonshowerfacilitiesa01000FreemembershiptoMelbourneBike05347ShareaUmbrellasatreception/lobbyarea0793ControlsitesCommonbicyclestoragearea374320Transportinformationonbuilding’s3097websiteNotepercentagesarebasedonlyonsiteswhererespectiveinitiativesareinplaceaInitiativeofferedonlyatonesite10%orless).Awarenessofexistingtravelinitiativeswasalsolowinsomecases,particularlyinitiativesrelatingtotransportinformationonthebuilding’swebsite,freepublictransportticketsfornewresidents,andumbrellasatthereception/lobbyarea.However,itisnotedthatuseofthecommonbicyclestorageareaisgreateratthecasesites(51%)thanthecontrolsites(37%).Thisdifferencewasfoundtobestatisticallysignificantatthe90%confidencelevel(p=0.07).8.4.5ResidentialSelf-selectionUsingtheresultsfromtheresidenttravelsurvey,Table8.10providesasummaryoftravelbehaviourcharacteristics,inadditiontotravelrelatedattitudesandprefer-ences,amongrespondentsresidingatthecaseandcontrolsites. 8.4Results147Table8.10CharacteristicsofsurveyrespondentsresidingatthecaseandcontrolsitesCharacteristicCasesitesControlsitesDifferencep-valueStatistical(n=65)(n=51)powera(%)FrequencyofusingtransportmodebytrippurposebWork—publictransport3.162.980.180.3319.7Work—walk1.001.19−0.190.2922.9Work—cardriver1.061.52−0.460.1245.6Work—carpassenger0.500.360.140.2132.6Work—bicycle0.880.380.500.04**70.3Shopping—public1.651.71−0.060.4213.9transportShopping—walk2.982.410.570.04**67.8Shopping—cardriver1.402.00−0.600.04**68.9Shopping—carpassenger1.031.14−0.110.3419.0Shopping—bicycle0.740.310.420.02**78.1Carownership0carhouseholds(%)35.429.46.00.2527.31carhouseholds(%)50.849.11.70.4313.62+carhouseholds(%)13.821.5−7.70.1442.6Averagecars/household0.781.00−0.220.06*58.3Bicycleownership0bicyclehouseholds(%)41.643.2−1.60.4313.41bicyclehouseholds(%)24.629.4−4.80.2824.32+bicyclehouseholds33.827.46.40.2329.2(%)Averagebicycles/1.020.880.140.2230.8householdAttitudesandpreferencescIprefertotravelbycar—2.802.82−0.020.9211.6wheneverpossibleItisimportantthatIhave3.514.08−0.570.03**83.3myownallocatedcarparkingspaceathomeOthersmaythinkIhad1.661.78−0.120.4927.5afinancialdifficultyifIdidnothaveacarIprefertotakepublic3.513.490.020.9411.7transportthantravelbycar—wheneverpossible(continued) 1488TravelPlanImpactsTable8.10(continued)CharacteristicCasesitesControlsitesDifferencep-valueStatistical(n=65)(n=51)powera(%)Iprefertouseabicycle2.742.590.150.5325.8thantravelbycar—wheneverpossibleIliketolivewhereIhave4.494.470.020.8713.0shopswithinwalkingdistanceofmyhomeaAcceptablelevelofstatisticalpowerisconsideredtobe80%(Cohen1988)b0=never(0%ofthetime)to5=almostalways(80–100%ofthetime)c1=stronglydisagreeto5=stronglyagree*Significantat90%confidence;**Significantat95%confidenceConsistentwiththemulti-modalpersontripcountdata,casesiterespond-entsreportedalowerfrequencyofcardrivertripsthancontrolsiterespondents.Casesiterespondentsalsoreportedamostlyhigherfrequencyoftripsbynon-cardrivermodes(publictransport,walk,carpassenger,andbicycle)thancontrolsiterespondents.Whiledifferencesintravelfrequenciesbymodebetweencaseandcontrolsiterespondentswereobserved,thesewereonlystatisticallysignificantinsomecases(bicycletripsforwork;walk,cardriverandbicycletripsforshop-ping).Thisislikelytobeduetotherelativelysmallsamplesizegiventhestatisti-callysignificantdifferencesthatwereobservedintransportmodesharesthroughthemulti-modalpersontripcounts.Consistentwiththecarparkingutilisationsurveys,casesiterespondentsreportedlowercarownership(0.78carsperhousehold)comparedtocontrolsiterespondents(1.00carsperhousehold).Thisdifferencewasstatisticallysignificant(p=0.06).Anumberofcommentsweremadebycasesiterespondentsthatsup-portedtheconceptoflowercarownership:Movingherehasbeenlifechanging.Isoldmycarwithglee-keenforthesavingsandthelifestylechange…Evenformyson-walkingorridingtoschoolwithhimhaschangedthewayweinteract-significantlyimprovingthequalityofourtimetogether-withalotlessrushing-whichisgoodforeveryoneIbelieve[Casesiteresident,female30to39yearsold].Iammorethanhappytogowithoutavehicleinexchangeforfairlypricedpublictrans-portoptions.IutiliseGoGet[carsharing]extensivelyandhavenodesiretoeverownavehicleagain[Casesiteresident,male30to39yearsold].Onaverage,casesiterespondentsreportedhigherbicycleownership(1.02bicy-clesperhousehold)comparedtocontrolsiterespondents(0.88bicyclesperhouse-hold),howeverthisdifferencewasnotstatisticallysignificant(p=0.22).Thelackofstatisticalsignificanceislikelytobeduetothelimitedsamplesizeoftheresidenttravelsurveygiventhatthebicycleparkingutilisationsurveysshowedastatisticallysignificantdifferenceinaveragebicycleparkingdemandbetweenthecaseandcontrolsites. 8.4Results149Verylittledifferenceintravelrelatedattitudesandpreferenceswerereportedbycaseandcontrolsiterespondents.Thismaysuggestthatalimitedamountofself-selectionamongcasesiteresidentshasoccurredgivensomestatisticallysig-nificantdifferencesintravelcharacteristicsbetweencaseandcontrolsiterespond-ents.However,controlsiterespondentsweremorelikelytoagreethathavinganallocatedcarparkingspaceisimportant(agreementratingof4.08vs.3.51outof5),withthisdifferencebeingstatisticallysignificant(p=0.03).Despitethepresenceofsomestatisticallysignificantdifferencesinreportedtravelcharacteristicsamongcaseandcontrolsiterespondents,thelevelof‘statisti-calpower’basedonthet-testsundertakenwasinsufficienttodetectadifferenceduetothelimitedsamplesizeavailable.Cohen(1988)suggeststhatanacceptablelevelofstatisticalpoweris80%.However,asshowninTable8.10,thelevelofstatisticalpowerachievedislowerthan80%forallvariablesexceptone(attitudesrelatingtocarparking).Thiscallsforcautionwheninterpretingtheresults.Table8.11presentsthebinarylogitmodelwhichwasusedtoestimatetheprobabilityofaresidentlivingatacasesitegivenasetofattitudinal,preferenceanddemographicvariables.Asthelogitmodelisapredictionmodelusedonlytoextractthepropensityscore,thestatisticalsignificanceofindependentvariablesandanymulticollinearityisnotaconcern(Caoetal.2010).Table8.11Binarylogitmodelforthechoiceofresidingatacasesite(vs.acontrolsite)Independentvariable(covariate)CoefficientStandarderrorp-valueConstant3.223.260.32AttitudesandpreferencesPrefertotravelbycar0.000.270.99Importanttohavecarparkingspace−0.210.190.28Financialdifficultywithoutcar−0.140.230.54Prefertotakepublictransport−0.080.270.78Prefertousebicycle0.130.190.49Likeshopswithinwalkingdistance−0.220.340.52DemographicsHouseholdsize−1.110.400.01***Yearslivingatcurrentresidence1.220.460.01***Housingtenure−0.390.540.47Employmentstatus−0.500.480.30Educationstatus0.450.430.29Income0.520.370.15Age−0.100.240.69Gender0.270.460.57N=116Log-likelihoodatzero=−79.56Log-likelihoodatconvergence=−65.82PseudoR-square=0.17***Significantat99%confidence 1508TravelPlanImpactsThepropensityscorematchingprocesswascarriedoutusingStata13.Toensurethematchingprocesswasadequate,acomparisonofthepropensityscoredistributionforcaseandcontrolsiterespondentsisshowninFig.8.8.Ascanbeseen,thedistributionsarerelativelysimilaraftermatchingwiththe‘nearestfiveneighbours’algorithm.Whilematchingatahigherleveloftolerance,suchasa0.01or0.02caliper,canfurtherimprovethelevelofagreementbetweenthedis-tributions,asillustratedbyFig.8.8c,d,asignificantandunacceptablelossinthesampleoccursasmanyrespondentscannotbematched.Acomparisonofthedifferencesincovariate(independentvariable)meansbetweencaseandcontrolsiterespondentsbeforeandaftermatchingwasalsoundertaken,asshowninTable8.12.Priortomatching,thedifferenceinmeansissignificantforthreecovariates(importanttohavecarparkingspace,house-holdsize,yearslivingatcurrentresidence).However,nosignificantdifferencesexistaftermatching.Thisprovidesevidencethatrespondentshavebeenmatchedappropriatelybasedonasufficientlysimilarsetofattitudes,preferencesanddemographics.Followingthematchingofcaseandcontrolrespondents,theAverageTreatmentEffect(ATE)andSelf-SelectionEffect(SSE)couldbecalculated.Therelativecontributionsofthetravelplanandself-selectionwasestimatedasproportionsoftheObservedDifference(OD)intravelbehaviour,asshowninTable8.13.Here,transportmodesareonlyincludedwheresignificantdifferencesintheirtripfre-quenciesbetweencaseandcontrolrespondentswerereported,despitethelack(a)Unmatched(n=116)(b)Matchedusingnearestfiveneighbours(n=116)14Case14Case12Control12Control101088664422NumberofrespondentsNumberofrespondents000.050.200.350.500.650.800.950.050.200.350.500.650.800.95PropensityscorePropensityscore(c)Matchedusingcaliperof0.02(n=64)(d)Matchedusingcaliperof0.01(n=60)14Case14Cases12Controls12Control101088664422NumberofrespondentNumberofrespondent000.050.200.350.500.650.800.950.050.200.350.500.650.800.95PropensityscorePropensityscoreFig.8.8Distributionofpropensityscoresforthecaseandcontrolsitesunderdifferentmatchingalgorithms 8.4Results151Table8.12ComparisonofcovariatemeansbetweencaseandcontrolsiterespondentsbeforeandaftermatchingIndependentUnmatchedmeansMatchedmeansvariableCaseControlDifferencep-valueCaseControlDifferencep-value(covariate)sitessitessitessitesAttitudesandpreferencesaPreferto2.802.82−0.020.922.842.85−0.010.94travelbycarImportant3.514.08−0.570.03**3.713.79−0.080.76tohavecarparkingspaceFinancial1.661.78−0.120.491.731.85−0.120.52difficultywithoutcarPreferto3.513.490.020.943.583.68−0.100.62takepublictransportPrefertouse2.742.590.150.532.732.590.140.56bicycleLikeshops4.494.470.020.874.424.350.070.65withinwalk-ingdistanceDemographicsHousehold1.662.00−0.340.01***1.711.650.060.57size(no.people)Yearsliving0.960.620.340.01**0.750.680.070.59atcurrentresidence(no.years)Housing0.720.76−0.040.620.710.710.001.00tenurebEmployment1.431.49−0.060.701.511.430.080.62statuscEducation0.510.310.190.180.360.51−0.150.34statusdIncomee2.081.940.140.422.132.050.080.64Agef2.822.84−0.030.902.852.89−0.040.87Genderg0.570.550.020.830.560.550.010.91a1=stronglydisagreeto5=stronglyagreeb0=notrenting,1=rentingc0=notemployed,1=casual/part-time,2=full-timed0=notattending,1=part-time,2=full-timee0=negative/nilincome,1=$100–$799perweek,2=$800–$1499perweek,3=$1500+perweekf1=19yearsorless,2=20to29years,3=30to39years,4=40to49years,5=50to59years,6=60to69years,7=70yearsormoreg0=male,1=female**Significantat95%confidence;***Significantat99%confidence 1528TravelPlanImpactsTable8.13Relativecontributionsofthetravelplanandself-selectionontravelbehaviourFrequencyofObserveddif-Averagetreat-Self-selectionContributionContributionusingtransportference(OD)bmenteffecteffect(SSE)doftravelplanofself-selec-modebytrip(ATE)c(ATE/OD)(%)tion(SSE/OD)purposea(%)Work—car−0.46−0.35−0.117624driverWork—bicycle0.50**0.45*0.059010Shopping—0.57**0.480.098416walkShopping—−0.60**−0.35−0.255842cardriverShopping—0.42**0.32*0.107624bicyclea0=never(0%ofthetime)to5=almostalways(80–100%ofthetime)bRepresentsunmatcheddifferenceinfrequencyofusingtransportmodebetweencaseandcon-trolrespondentscRepresentsmatcheddifferenceinfrequencyofusingtransportmodebetweencaseandcontrolrespondentsdEqualtoObservedDifference(OD)minusAverageTreatmentEffect(ATE)*Significantat90%confidence;**Significantat95%confidenceofstatisticalpower(refertoTable8.10).Whilethedifferenceinworktripfre-quencyasacardriverwasnotstrictlysignificant(p=0.12),itisstillincludedinTable8.13giventhatreducingtheuseofthistransportmodeisakeyfocusoftravelplans.Table8.13showsthat,dependingonthetransportmodeandtrippurpose,self-selectionhaspotentiallycontributed10–42%oftheobserveddifferenceintravelbehaviourbetweenthecaseandcontrolsites.Thisimpliesthatthetravelplanshavestillmadeacontributiontothedifferenceintravelbehaviour(intheorderof58–90%)afteraccountingforself-selection.However,asindicatedinTable8.13,theATEresultsarestatisticallysignificantforbicycletripsonly.Furthermore,thelackofstatisticalpowerpresentedearliermeansthatitisnotpossibletobeconfi-dentabouttheresultsintheabsenceofalargersamplesize.However,thefindingsdemonstratethatitispossibletoquantifytheextentofself-selectionassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,givenasufficientsamplesize.8.5DiscussionTheresultshaveshownthattheaverageweekday(7am–9am)modeshareforcardrivertripswas14%pointsloweratresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplans(casesites)comparedtosimilarresidentialdevelopmentswithouttravelplans(controlsites).Thisresultisconsistentwithotherstudiesthathaveassessedtheeffectivenessofschoolandworkplacetravelplans.Forexample,Cairnsetal. 8.5Discussion153(2004)foundanaveragereductionincardrivertripsofatleast14%pointsfromworkplacetravelplansintheUnitedKingdom,whileHowlettandWatson(2010)showedreductionsofaround10–15%pointsfromschoolandworkplacetravelplansimplementedinVictoria,Australia.Throughacomprehensivereviewoftravelplanningimpacts,Enoch(2012a)foundthat‘cartripscanbecutbyupto30%inexceptionalcircumstances,butthatareductionofbetween5and15%ismoreusualatthesite/organisationlevel’.Keytothesuccessoftravelplansisthedegreetowhichspecificinitiativesaretailoredtotheneedsofthesiteanditsusers(Cairnsetal.2004).However,duetotherelativelysmallnumberofresidentialdevelopmentsevaluatedaspartofthisresearch,itisdifficulttoinferwhysomecasesitesexperiencedlowerlevelsofcarusethanothers,relativetotheircorrespondingcontrolsites.Despitethis,oneclearreasonthatdidstandoutwasthelevelofcarparkingprovision.Casesites1and2hadaverysimilarlevelofcarparkingprovisiontotheircorrespondingcon-trolsites(generallywithin10%),yetoverall,caruseatthesecasesiteswasonlymarginallylowerthantheircontrolsites.Incontrast,therateofcarparkingprovi-sionatcasesite3was40%lessthanitscontrolsite(aspartofitstravelplan)andthedifferenceincarusewassignificant(around20%points).Furthermore,nocarparkingwasprovidedatcasesite4(aspartofitstravelplan)andthedifferenceincarusewasalsosignificant(upto35%pointsonweekdays).Thisresultiscon-sistentwiththatofCairnsetal.(2004)whofoundthatworkplaceswhoaddressedcarparkingaspartoftheirtravelplanachievedareductionincartripsofmorethan24%comparedtoonly10%forthosenotaddressingthisaspect.Resultsfromthecarandbicycleparkingutilisationsurveysshowedalowerlevelofcarparkingdemandandahigherlevelofbicycleparkingdemandatthecasesiteswhencomparedtothecontrolsites.Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththeaimoftravelplansinsupportingmoresustainabletravel(Enoch2012a;Rye2002b).However,bicycleparkingacrossallsiteswasgenerallyclosetoorovercapacity,whilecarparkingwasgenerallywellundercapacity.Thisfindinghasimportantimplications,notonlyforgovernmentinstipulatingrequirementsforparkingprovisionatresidentialdevelopments,butalsoforpropertydevelopersgiventherelativecostsofprovidingcarparkingversusbicycleparking.Previousstudieshavereportedreductionsincaruseassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,yetthesehavegenerallybeenbasedoncom-parisonstosecondarydatasources(ArlingtonCountyCommuterServices2013;BioRegional2009;DepartmentforTransport2005;WSP2014).Thefindingsreportedinthischapterhaveshownthatinalmostallcases,theaveragelevelofcarusebasedonsecondarydatasourceswasnotonlyhigherthanthecasesitesbutalsohigherthanthecontrolsites.Keyreasonsforthiswereduetoinconsist-enciesbetweenthesecondarydataandthecase/controlsitedata,particularlyintermsoftheirgeographicallocations,housingtypesanddatacollectionperiods.Previousstudiesthathaveonlymadecomparisonstosecondarydatasourcesmaythereforebeoverestimatingtheimpactoftravelplaninterventions.Evenintheabsenceofatravelplan,differencesinpublishedvehicletripgenerationratesofmorethan40%havebeenobservedattransitorienteddevelopments(Arrington 1548TravelPlanImpactsandCervero2008).Thefindingsthereforeclearlyillustratethevalueofusingcon-trolsiteswhenevaluatingtheimpactsoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelop-ments.However,indoingso,thepracticalityoffindingsuitablecontrolsitesandalsoresourcingthecollectionofdataatthesesitesneedstobeconsidered.Theresultsfromtheresidenttravelsurveyindicatedarelativelylowlevelofuse,andinsomecases,awarenessoftravelinitiativesavailableatthecaseandcontrolsites.Consistentwithbestpracticeguidanceonresidentialtravelplanning(DepartmentforTransport2005),thishighlightstheneedforrenewedeffortstobedirectedtowardsactivelypromotingtravelplanswheretheyhavebeenintro-duced,notonlyuponoccupation,butalsoonanongoingbasistoensureawarenesslevelsaremaintained.Thisisparticularlyrelevantgiventhecontinualturnoverofnewresidentsovertime.OpportunitiesforenhancingtheimplementationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsarediscussedfurtherinChap.9.InapplyingPropensityScoreMatching(PSM)totheresidentsurveydata,itwasestimatedthatresidentialself-selectionpotentiallyaccountsfor10–24%oftheobserveddifferenceintravelbehaviourbetweencaseandcontrolsiteresidents.However,inthecaseofshoppingtripsundertakenasacardriver,thecontributionofself-selectionispotentiallymuchgreaterat42%.Coincidentally,thisfullrangeof10–42%matchesapreviousreviewof38studiesbyCaoetal.(2009)whichalsofoundthatself-selectioncontributed10–42%ofthevariationintravelbehav-iour,albeitinthecontextofthebuiltenvironment.Giventhepotentialforresiden-tialself-selectionatsiteswithtravelplans,futurehousingandplanningpoliciesshouldgiveconsiderationtothesepreferenceswhereappropriate.Finally,itisworthnotingtwokeylimitationsofthefindingsreportedinthischapter.Firstly,onlyfourresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplanswereevalu-atedduetoresourcelimitations.Ideally,moresiteswouldhelptoestablishastrongerbaseevidencebaseregardingresidentialtravelplaneffectiveness,par-ticularlyindeterminingtherelativeeffectivenessofdifferenttravelplanmeas-ures.Secondly,despitebesteffortstoattractasufficientresponserate,thesamplesizeavailablefromtheresidenttravelsurveylimitedtheabilitytomakeanyfirmjudgementsabouttheextentofresidentialself-selectionduetoalackofstatisticalpower.Despitethis,thefindingsdemonstratetheabilitytoquantifytheextentofself-selectionassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.8.6ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Indoingso,arangeofdatacollectiontechniqueswereundertakenatfourcasesites(newresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplans)andfourmatchingcontrolsites(similarresidentialdevelopmentswithouttravelplans)inMelbourne,Australia.Whilealackofstatisticalpowerlimitedtheabil-itytoconfidentlymeasuretheextentofself-selectionassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,observationalcountsandsurveysrevealeda 8.6Conclusion155statisticallysignificantreductioninobservedcaruseatthecasesiteswhencom-paredtothecontrolsites.Thefindingshavehighlightedanumberofimportantimplicationsforevaluat-ingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Firstly,theuseofsuitablecontrolsitescanhelptoovercomecomparabilityissuesassociatedwithsecondarydatasources.Secondly,thepotentialforresidentialself-selectiondem-onstratestheimportanceofcontrollingforthisphenomenontoavoidoverstatingtheimpactsoftravelplans.Thenextchaptertakesthefindingsfromthischapter,alongwithChaps.5–7,toidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheimplementationandsubsequentimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thisisachievedthroughtheappli-cationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheories.ReferencesArlingtonCountyCommuterServices.(2013).Residentialbuildingtransportationperformancemonitoringstudy.Virginia,US:Arlington.Arrington,G.,&Cervero,R.(2008).TCRaPreport128:EffectsofTODonhousing,parkingandtravel.Washington,D.C.,US:TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies.AustralianBureauofStatistics.(2011).Censusofpopulationandhousingdata.RetrievedSeptember25,2014fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/census.AustralianBureauofStatistics.(2011b).Reflectinganation:Storiesfromthe2011Census.Australia:Canberra.AustralianGovernment.(2006).Censusandstatisticsact1905.Australia:Canberra.BioRegional.(2009).BedZEDsevenyearson:TheimpactoftheUK’sbestknowneco-villageanditsresidents.UK.Cairns,S.,Sloman,L.,Newson,C.,Anable,J.,Kirkbride,A.,&Goodwin,P.(2004).Smarterchoices—changingthewaywetravel.UK:DepartmentforTransport.Caliendo,M.,&Kopeinig,S.(2008).Somepracticalguidancefortheimplementationofpropen-sityscorematching.JournalofEconomicSurveys,22(1),31–72.Cao,X.,Mokhtarian,P.,&Handy,S.(2009).Examiningtheimpactsofresidentialself-selectionontravelbehaviour:Afocusonempiricalfindings.TransportReviews,29(3),359–395.Cao,X.,Xu,Z.,&Fan,Y.(2010).Exploringtheconnectionsamongresidentiallocation,self-selection,anddriving:Propensityscorematchingwithmultipletreatments.TransportationResearchPartA,44(10),797–805.Cohen,J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehavioralsciences(2nded.).Hillsdale,NewJersey,US:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.DepartmentforTransport.(2005).Makingresidentialtravelplanswork:Guidelinesfornewdevelopment.London,UK.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.(2010).Victorianintegratedsurveyoftravelandactivitydata.RetrievedSeptember25,2014,fromhttp://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&Currie,G.(InPress).‘TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:MeasuringSelf-SelectionEffectstoBetterUnderstandTravelBehaviourImpacts’.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.2564.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&Currie,G.(2015).‘UnderstandingTravelPlanEffectivenessforNewResidentialDevelopments’.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.2537,126–136. 1568TravelPlanImpactsEnoch,M.(2012).Sustainabletransport,mobilitymanagementandtravelplans.Surrey,England:AshgatePublishingLimited.Heinrich,C.,Maffioli,A.,&Vazquez,G.(2010).Aprimerforapplyingpropensity-scorematch-ing:Impact-evaluationguidelines,TechnicalNotesNo.IDB-TN-161,Inter-AmericanDevelopmentBank.InstituteofTransportationEngineers.(2008).Tripgeneration(8thed.).US:WashingtonD.C.Kahneham,D.,&Tversky,A.(1979).Prospecttheory:Ananalysisofdecisionunderrisk.Econometrica,47(2),263–291.Lee,J.S.,Zegras,C.,Ben-Joseph,E.,&Park,S.(2014).Doesurbanlivinginfluencebabyboomer’travelbehaviour?JournalofTransportGeography,35,21–29.Melia,S.(2009).PotentialforcarfreedevelopmentintheUK.PhDthesis,UniversityofWestEngland.Melia,S.,Barton,H.,&Parkhurst,G.(2013).PotentialforcarfreedevelopmentintheUK.UrbanDesignandPlanning,166(DP2),136–145.Mokhtarian,P.,&Cao,X.(2008).Examiningtheimpactsofresidentialself-selectionontravelbehaviour:Afocusonmethodologies.TransportationResearchPartB,42,204–228.Naess,P.(2009).Residentialself-selectionandappropriatecontrolvariablesinlanduse:Travelstudies.TransportReviews,29(3),293–324.Roads&MaritimeServices.(2013).Guidetotrafficgeneratingdevelopments:Updatedtrafficsurveys.Australia:NewSouthWalesGovernment.RoadsandTrafficAuthority.(2002).Guidetotrafficgeneratingdevelopments.Australia:NewSouthWales.Rye,T.(2002).Travelplans:Dotheywork?TransportPolicy,9,287–298.WSP.(2014).Doescarownershipincreasecaruse?Astudyoftheuseofcarparkingwithinresi-dentialdevelopmentsinLondon,CommissionedbytheBerkeleyGroup,UK.Howlett,R.,&Watson,T.(2010).TravelplanninginVictoria—anewstrategicapproachtosus-tainingcommunities.inPaperPresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia. Chapter9OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpacts9.1IntroductionThischapter,aspositionedinFig.9.1,takesthefindingsfromChaps.5–8andviewsthesethroughthelensofbothimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory(introducedearlierinChap.3).Anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforce-mentisthendeveloped,correspondingtoresearchcomponent5.Table9.1detailstheresearchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwiththisresearchcomponent.Inlinewithresearchobjective4,theaimofthischapteristoidentifyandassessopportunitiesforenhancingtheimplementation(andsubsequentimpacts)oftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thisisachievedthroughtheapplicationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheories.Thischapterisstructuredasfollows.Implementationtheoryisfirstappliedtotheresearchfindingsusingbothtop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimple-mentation.Planningenforcementtheoryisthenappliedwithconsiderationgiventobothsystematicandfacilitativeapproaches.Anintegratedtheoryofimplemen-tationandenforcementisthenpresentedtoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticefornewresidentialdevelopments.Aspartofthis,theextenttowhichtheresearchfindingssupporttheintegratedtheoryisassessed.Thechapterconcludeswithasummaryoftheopportunitiesforenhancingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017157C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_9 1589OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsCHAPTER9:UnderstandingofhowtheOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSimplementationprocesscanbeApplicationandintegrationoftheories,discussionenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSFig.9.1PositionofChap.9inthethesisstructureTable9.1Researchgap,opportunityandobjectiveassociatedwithresearchcomponent5Researchgap→Researchopportunity→ResearchResearchcomponentobjective→NoresearchhasbeenExploretheimplementa-4.Toidentify5.Applicationandintegrationundertakentosuffi-tionprocessassociatedandassessofimplementationandplan-cientlyexploreimple-withtravelplansfornewopportunitiesningenforcementtheoriesmentationinthecontextresidentialdevelopmentsforenhancingoftravelplansfornewtoidentifyopportunitiestheirimple-residentialdevelopmentstoenhanceeffectivenessmentation 9.2ApplicationofImplementationTheory1599.2ApplicationofImplementationTheoryImplementationtheorywasintroducedinChap.3,coveringboththetop-downandbottom-upapproach.Thissectionappliesthistheorytotheresearchfindings.Basedonthis,opportunitiesforenhancingtheimpactoftravelplansfornewresi-dentialdevelopmentsareidentifiedanddiscussed.9.2.1ApplicationoftheTop-downApproachtoImplementationTable9.2detailstheresearcher’sassessmentoftheextenttowhicheachofthesixtop-downconditionsdevelopedbySabatierandMazmanian(1981)foreffectiveimplementationaremetinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opmentsinAustralia.Theassessmentwasundertakenbasedontheresearchfind-ings,mostlyfromChaps.5and6.TheconditionsdevelopedbySabatierandMazmanian(1981)wereusedinpreferencetoothertop-downapproaches(e.g.Gunn1978)giventheirextensiveexposuretoempiricaltestinginthepublicpolicyfield(Parsons1995;Sabatier1986).AsshowninTable9.2,conditions1and5aremostlysatisfied,asresidentialtravelplanningobjectivesaregenerallywellestablishedandgovernmentagenciesarerelativelysupportiveoftheconcept(asevidencedinChaps.6and7).However,significantgapsexistinmeetingconditions2and3,primarilyduetoinsufficientmonitoringandenforcementoftravelplans,combinedwiththelackofanyrobustplanningorlegalrequirement(asreportedinChaps.5and6).Figure9.2illustratesthesamesetofinformationbutalsoprovidesacompari-sontoEngland.ThisassessmentdrawsupontheresponsesfromEnglishrepre-sentativeswhowereinterviewed,(asdetailedinChap.6),butisalsobaseduponrelevantliteraturespecifictoEngland(Addison&Associates2008;DepartmentforTransport2005;Enoch2012;EnochandIson2013;Morrisetal.2009;Ryeetal.2011a).AsshownbyFig.9.2,theconditionsforeffectiveimplementa-tionaregenerallymettoagreaterextentinEnglandwhereaNationalPlanningPolicyFrameworkisinplacethatissupportiveoftravelplans(DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment2012)andtheuseoflegalagreements(knownassection106agreements)aremorecommonlyusedtosecuretravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess(Ryeetal.2011a).Inaddition,Englandhasalongerhistoryofresidentialtravelplanningandthereforepresumablyagreaterlevelofexperiencewithimplementation.OneconditionunderwhichEnglanddoesnotperformaswellasAustraliaiscondition6(changesinsocio-economicconditionsthatdonotunderminepoliticalsupportorcausaltheory).Thisdifferenceisattrib-utedtotheUKgovernmentscalingbacktheirsupportfortravelplansfollowingtheelectionofamoreconservativegovernmentin2010(EnochandIson2013). 1609OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsTable9.2Extenttowhichtop-downconditionsforeffectiveimplementationaremetinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinAustraliaTop-downconditionsofExtenttowhichDiscussioneffectiveimplementationaconditionismetb1.Clearandconsistent+Objectivesrelatingtoreducedcaruseobjectivesaregenerallywellestablished.However,theobjectivesofsomeactorsmaydifferaccordingtotheirspecificgoals,e.g.somedevelopersmaysimplywishtoseekplanningapproval2.Adequatecausaltheory–Insufficientmonitoringandenforcement(establishmentofthelinkofresidentialtravelplanshasledtoalackbetweentheproblemandofevidenceregardingtheireffectiveness.solution)However,thelinkbetweenincreasingcartrafficbroughtaboutbynewresidentialdevelopmentsandthemeasuresavailabletooffsetthisarewellrecognised3.Implementationprocess--Limitedresourceswithinlocalgovernmentlegallystructuredtotoenforceresidentialtravelplans,combinedenhancecompliancewiththelackofanyrobustplanningorlegalrequirementhasadverselyaffectedimple-mentationandthereforecompliance4.Committedandskilful±Someactorsinvolvedinresidentialtravelimplementingofficialsplanninghaveexperiencewithimplementa-tion,althoughmostareonlyinvolvedinrequiringorpreparingresidentialtravelplans5.Supportofinterest+Industryrepresentativesaregenerallygroupsandsovereignssupportiveoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsalthoughtheyhavelimitedconfidencethattheycanbeimplementedsuccessfully.Localgovernmentappeartobemoresupportivethanothertypesoforganisations6.Changesinsocio-±Requirementsforresidentialtravelplansmayeconomicconditionsthatbevulnerabletochangesinfuturegovern-donotunderminepoliticalmenttransportpolicy,yettheyhavemanagedsupportorcausaltheorytosustainanumberofgovernmentpolicychangestodateaBasedonSabatierandMazmanian(1981)bBasedonresearcher’sassessment;interpretationofratingsasfollows++VeryHigh+High±Moderate-Low--VeryLowWhileFig.9.2showsthattheconditionsforeffectiveimplementationaregen-erallymettoagreaterextentinEngland,theliteraturesuggeststhattravelplanimplementationstillremainsanissueinEngland(Ryeetal.2011a).ThiswasalsoconfirmedbytheEnglishrepresentativeswhowereinterviewed.Thisgapbetween 9.2ApplicationofImplementationTheory1611.ClearandconsistentobjectivesVeryHigh6.Changesinsocio-Higheconomicconditionsthat2.AdequatecausaltheorydonotunderminepoliticalModeratesupportorcausaltheoryLowVeryLow3.Implementationprocess5.Supportofinterestlegallystructuredtoenhancegroupsandsovereignscompliance4.CommittedandskilfulimplementingofficialsAustraliaEnglandFig.9.2Extenttowhichtop-downconditionsforeffectiveimplementationaremetinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinAustraliaandEnglandtheoryandpracticepresentsanopportunitytoidentifyotherconditionsthatmaybeimportantfortheeffectiveimplementationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Firstly,theroleofenforcement,whilerelatedtocondition3(imple-mentationprocesslegallystructuredtoenhancecompliance),couldbemademoreexplicitgiventhattravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentstypicallyariseoutofaplanningrequirement.Secondly,whilecondition4considersthecom-mitmentandskillofimplementingofficials,therolethatdedicatedfundingplaysinsupportingtheprovisionofadequateresourcesforimplementationneedstobeacknowledged.Theseadditional‘conditions’areconsideredlaterinthischapterindevelopinganintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcement.However,therolesandpreferencesof‘implementers’alsoneedtobetakenintoaccountgiventheirabilitytoaffecttheimplementationprocess.Theseareconsiderednextthroughtheapplicationofthebottom-upapproach.9.2.2ApplicationoftheBottom-upApproachtoImplementationO’Toole(2007,p.147)suggeststhatthenumberofactorsinvolvedindeliveringagivenpolicycanaffecttheprobabilityofimplementationsuccessandthatwith‘sequentialarrangements,addingmoreorganizationalunitsinachainincreasesthenumberofpossibleroadblockstoaction’.Inapplyingthistheory,Fig.9.3depictsthekeyactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments, 1629OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsderivedfromChap.6,asaseriesoflinksinachain.Thekeyphasesinvolvedinthedeliveryofresidentialtravelplanningarealsoshownwithimplementationrepre-sentedasjustonestepintheprocess,albeitavitalone.Ascanbeseen,thetargetgroupthatcomprisesresidentsisalongwayfromtheinitialgovernmentdecisiontorequirethetravelplan.Eachsubsequentlinkinthechainisthereforecrucialtoensuringthetravelplanisthenprepared,implementedandmonitored.However,thereisoftena‘break’inthechainfollowingpreparationofthetravelplan.Thisissupportedbythefindingthatimplementationandmonitoringhasreceivedlittleattention(evidencedbyChaps.5–7),withpropertymanagershavinghadlittleornoinvolvementintheprocessthusfar(asdetailedinChap.6).Elmore(1978,p.209)arguesthata‘frequentexplanationofimplementationfailuresisthatthosewhoimplementprogramsareseldomincludedindecisionsthatdeterminethecontentofthoseprograms’.Thishasparticularrelevancefortheimplementationoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentsinthatgovern-mentagenciesaretypicallyresponsibleforframingthetravelplanrequirement,withdevelopersandtheirconsultantsinvolvedinidentifyingthemeasurestobeimplemented(asevidencedbyChap.6).Propertyandbuildingmanagersarethenleftwiththetravelplantoimplement,despitethemhavingnopriorinvolvementinitsdevelopment.9.2.3OpportunitiestoEnhancetheImpactsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopmentsBasedontheapplicationofimplementationtheory,anumberofopportunitieshavebeenidentifiedtoenhancetheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Theseinclude:•Ensuringplanningrequirementsaresoundandsupportedbyrelevantplanningpolicies•Developingastrongerindustryfocusforresidentialtravelplanning•Facilitatinggreaterownershipandengagementintheresidentialtravelplanningprocess•Improvingthequalityofresidentialtravelplans•Developingguidancematerialthatistailoredtonewresidentialdevelopments•Providingregulartrainingopportunitiesandforumsforsharingknowledge.Eachoftheseopportunitiesisnowdiscussedinturn.9.2.3.1EnsuringPlanningRequirementsareSoundandSupportedbyRelevantPlanningPoliciesPlanningrequirementsforresidentialtravelplansneedtobeclearlyspecifiedtoensuretheyareinterpretedcorrectly,instigateanappropriatelevelofparticipation 9.2ApplicationofImplementationTheory163RequiringthetravelplanPreparingthetravelplanImplementingandmonitoringTargetgroupFig.9.3Keyactorsinthetravelplanningprocessfornewresidentialdevelopmentsintheprocess,andfacilitateanintendedoutcome.Theyalsoneedtobeappliedconsistentlytoensuretheprocessisequitableforpropertydevelopers.However,asidentifiedinChap.6,planningrequirementsforresidentialtravelplansalsoneedtobesufficientlyflexiblesothatlocationspecificcircumstancescanbetakenintoaccount.Inlinewiththetop-downapproachandtheresearchfindingsfromChaps.5and6,planningrequirementsforresidentialtravelplansalsoneedtobesupportedbyrel-evantplanningpolicies.ThelackofanystateornationalplanningpolicyinAustraliathatissupportiveoftravelplanscontraststhatoftheUnitedKingdom,SwedenandSwitzerland,whererelevantplanningpoliciesareinplaceatthenationallevel(Ryeetal.2011b).AsoutlinedinChap.2,supportiveplanningpolicyisrecognisedasakeysuccessfactorinrequiringtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments(Addison&Associates2008;DepartmentforTransport2005).9.2.3.2DevelopingaStrongerIndustryFocusforResidentialTravelPlanningDevelopingastrongerindustryfocusforresidentialtravelplanningwouldhelptodealwiththelimitedamountofexperienceinimplementation,asidentifiedinChap.6.Independentthirdparties,forexampleasnot-for-profitassociations,couldbeestablishedtosupporttheimplementationandmonitoringofresidentialtravelplans.Thesethirdpartiescouldbefundedbydeveloperstoincluderegu-larmonitoringreportstolocalgovernmentonprogressandoutcomes.Thiswouldalsoprovidetheopportunitytoensurethatimplementationistailoredtoreflectthecharacteristicsofresidentialdevelopmentsandtheirassociatedmanagementstructures.9.2.3.3FacilitatingGreaterOwnershipandEngagementintheResidentialTravelPlanningProcessInlinewiththebottom-upapproachtoimplementation,greaterownershipandengagementcouldbefacilitatedthroughtheinvolvementof‘implementers’,suchaspropertyandbuildingmanagers,earlierinthetravelplanningprocess.Wherepossible,thoseresponsibleforimplementationshouldbeinvolvedindeveloping 1649OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsthetravelplansothattheyhaveastrongersenseofownershipwhenimplementingthetravelplan.ThisapproachisconsistentwiththetravelplanningsuccessfactorsoutlinedinChap.2andalsoreflectsthesuggestionsmadebyinterviewpartici-pantsreportedinChap.6.9.2.3.4ImprovingtheQualityofResidentialTravelPlansToincreasethelikelihoodofsuccessfulimplementation,thequalityofresidentialtravelplanscanbeimproved.Chapter7showedthatgreaterattentionshouldbedirectedtowardsestimatingtheexpectedtravelpatternsofresidents,specifyinghowthetravelplanwillbemanagedandimplemented(includingkeyresponsi-bilitiesandfunding),andoutliningclearprocessesformonitoringandreview.Tofacilitatetheseimprovements,councilsandotherrelevantauthoritiescouldseekgreaterinvolvementfromexperiencedpractitioners(sourcedin-houseorexter-nally)toreviewandsubsequentlyimprovethequalityofresidentialtravelplanspriortograntingplanningapproval.Thesereviewswouldneedtobecognisantofthedifferencesassociatedwithresidentialtravelplanssuchasthepresenceofdif-ferentmanagementstructuresandtheneedtocaterforarangeoftrippurposesanddestinations.Involvementfrompropertyandbuildingmanagersatthisstagemayalsohelptoensurethatthemeasuresproposedwithinthetravelplansarebothrea-sonableandappropriate.Wherepossible,theprocessusedtoassessthequalityofresidentialtravelplansshouldbemadetransparenttothoseinvolvedinpreparingthetravelplans,suchaspropertydevelopers.Thiscanalsobemadepossiblethroughthedevelopmentofguidancematerial.9.2.3.5DevelopingGuidanceMaterialThatisTailoredtoNewResidentialDevelopmentsDespitetheexcellentrangeoftravelplanningguidanceavailable,particularlyintheUnitedKingdom(DepartmentforTransport2009;TransportforLondon2011b),limitedinformationisavailableonapplyingtravelplanningprinciplestoresidentialsites(Morrisetal.2009).Thisisofparticularnotegiventhedifferencesassociatedwithresidentialtravelplanscomparedtothemoretraditionalwork-placeandschooltravelplans.Thereisonlyoneguidelinecurrentlyavailableontravelplanningspecificallyfornewresidentialdevelopments(DepartmentforTransport2005),althoughismostlytailoredtotheUnitedKingdom.Guidancematerialthereforeneedstobedevelopedandtailoredtonewresidentialdevelopmentsforotherjurisdictions,includingAustralia.ThiswasraisedintheinterviewsreportedinChap.6,alongwiththeneedtoprovidesufficientguidanceonimplementationresponsibilities,includingfundingofthetravelplan.Guidancematerialshouldalsohighlighttheneedtoactivelypromotetravelplansbeyonddevelopmentoccupation,giventhe 9.2ApplicationofImplementationTheory165turnoverofnewresidentsovertime.OngoingpromotionisalsoimportantgiventhefindingsfromChap.8whichshowedrelativelylowawarenessofsometravelplaninitiativesatthecasesites.Theneedforguidancematerialisfurtherevidencedbythefindingsofthecoun-cilsurvey(Chap.5)whichrevealedarelativelylowlevelofpracticalexperienceintravelplanningamongcouncilrepresentatives.Guidancematerialshouldthere-foresupportcouncilsinrequiringtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,includingmethodsforassessingtheirquality.9.2.3.6ProvidingRegularTrainingOpportunitiesandForumsforSharingKnowledgeTheprovisionofregulartrainingopportunitiestobuildcapacityoftheindustryiscriticaltothesuccessfuldeliveryofresidentialtravelplans.Thisisparticularlyimportantforpropertymanagers,shouldtheybecomemoreinvolvedintheimple-mentationofresidentialtravelplans.Trainingopportunitiesforcouncilrepresenta-tiveswouldalsobebeneficialgiventheirlimitedpracticalexperienceintravelplanning,asidentifiedinChap.5.Aspartofanycapacitybuildingeffort,forumsdeliveredthrougharangeofmediumswillbecrucialforsharingknowledgeandexperiencesamongindustrypractitioners.Wherepossible,trainingprogramsshouldalsoincorporatetheuseofrelevanttravelplanningguidance(Ryeetal.2011a).9.3ApplicationofPlanningEnforcementTheoryPlanningenforcementtheorywasintroducedearlierinChap.3,coveringboththesystematicandfacilitativeapproach.AconceptualrepresentationoftheseapproachesusingtheplanningenforcementpyramidispresentedagaininFig.9.4.Thissectionappliesplanningenforcementtheorytotheresearchfindings.Basedonthis,opportunitiesforenhancingtheimpactoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelop-mentsareidentifiedanddiscussed.However,beforedoingso,someadditionalcontextisprovidedintermsoftheoptionsavailableforrequiringandenforcingtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsthroughthelanduseplanningandapprovalsprocess.9.3.1ContextTravelplansaregenerallyrequiredfornewdevelopments(includingresiden-tialsites)bywayofaplanningconditionorformalagreement.Basicprincipleshavebeenestablishedaroundthevalidityofplanningconditions.Eachcondi-tionmustbereasonableandrelevant,fulfilaplanningpurpose,accuratelyconveyitsintendedeffect,andavoiduncertaintyandvagueness.Inaddition,planning 1669OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsPROSECUTIONSystematicSubmissionapproachEnforcementStop(notices)WARNINGSVerbalWrittenBluffingFacilitativePERSUASIONapproachInformationAdviceNegotiationFig.9.4Planningenforcementpyramid.SourceAuthor’sadaptationbasedonMcKay(2003)conditionsmustbeenforceable(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014).Formalagreementsgenerallyariseoutofplanninglegislationandcanberegisteredoverthetitleofthelandandbecomebindinguponfutureowners(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014).Optionsavailabletolocalgovernmentforenforcingplanningconditionsandformalagreementsrangefromnegotiationandofficialwarnings,toenforce-mentordersandcourtproceedings(DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure2014),therebyencompassingalllayersoftheplanningenforcementpyramidshowninFig.9.4.Whileplanningconditionsaregenerallyintendedtobemetpriortooccupation,theycanbeenforcedatanytimebeyondoccupationofthedevelopment(PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.2007).9.3.2ApplicationoftheSystematicApproachtoPlanningEnforcementThesystematicapproachtoplanningenforcementisconcernedwiththeuniformandstrictapplicationofrules.Legislativemechanisms,suchassanctionsandfines,aretypicallyusedtodeterviolations(Prior2000).AsoutlinedbyPrior(2000),systematicenforcementassumesthat:•Breachesofregulationsareessentiallyintended•Mostperpetratorsareawareofrequiredrulesandstandards 9.3ApplicationofPlanningEnforcementTheory167•Thethreatofpunitivesanctionsisanessentialdeterrenttopotentialviolation•Acomprehensiveapproachtoenforcementisessential•Rulesareclearandunambiguous•Regulatorsareeffectivelyresourcedandempowered•Enforcementactionsderivefromreactionstoviolations.Giventherelativelackofenforcementoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelop-mentstodate,itisdifficulttodeterminewhichoftheaboveassumptionsapplyinpractice.However,thereissufficientevidencetosuggestthatanumberoftheassumptionsareunlikelytobevalid.Forexample,thegenerallackofguidancematerialmeansthat‘rules’arenotnecessarily‘clearandunambiguous’,ashigh-lightedbyapropertydeveloperwhowasinterviewed(seeChap.6):There’snorulesaboutthis,it’sveryunregulated.It’snotclearintermsofwhatyouhavetodoorwhyyouhavetodoit[PD1].Inaddition,theresultsofthecouncilsurveyreportedinChap.5suggestthatlocalgovernment,asregulators,arenot‘effectivelyresourcedandempowered’.OneofthekeyreasonsreportedbyVictoriancouncilsfortherelativelylowrateofmonitoringwasalackofresources.Thisfindingisalsoconsistentwithsimilarsur-veysoflocalauthoritiesundertakenintheUnitedKingdom(Addison&Associates2008;Llewellynetal.2014).Thesystematicapproachalsoassumesthat‘enforce-mentactionsderivefromreactionstoviolations’.However,itmaybequestionableastowhetheracomplaintwouldarisefrominactionofatravelplan,particularlyifawarenessoftravelplaninitiativesislow(aswasidentifiedinChap.8)oriftherearenoperceivedtrafficandparkingissuesatthedevelopment.Despiteevidencetosuggestthatthesystematicapproachmaynotbeentirelyappropriateforenforcingtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,thethe-oryonplanningenforcementrecommendsitsuseasalastresortwhenallotheroptionsareexhausted.Thisisconsiderednecessarytoprotecttheintegrityoftheplanningsystem,particularlyindealingwithinstancesofrepeatandflagrantoffenders(Burbyetal.1998;Harris2010;McKay2003).Giventhelimitedapplicabilityofsystematicenforcementtoresidentialtravelplans,itisappropriatetoconsidertheapplicabilityofthefacilitativeapproachtoplanningenforcement.9.3.3ApplicationoftheFacilitativeApproachtoPlanningEnforcementThefacilitativeapproachtoplanningenforcementfavourstheuseofincentives,negotiationandeducationtoassistoffenderstocomplywithregulations(Burbyetal.1998;McKay2003).Itisbasedontheassumptionthatmostbreachesofregulationsoccurthroughignoranceandarethereforeunintended(McKay2003;Prior2000).Thefacilitativeapproachisconsideredtobewellsuitedtosituations 1689OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactswhereresourcesforenforcementarelimitedastheapproachislessresourceinten-sivethansystematicenforcementregimes(Harris2011).Giventhattravelplansarearelativelynewconceptforthepropertydevelop-mentindustry,withlimitedtrainingandguidancematerialcurrentlyavailable,aneducationalstyleofenforcementconsistentwiththefacilitativeapproachwouldappeartobeappropriate.Thismethodisalsoconsistentwithguidanceavailableonplanningenforcementwhichemphasisestheneedtoobtaincomplianceoverprosecutingoffenders(PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.2007).Thelessresourceintensivenatureoffacilitativeenforcementwouldalsoappearfavourablegiventhelackofcouncilresourcescurrentlyavailableforplanningenforcement,asidentifiedinChaps.5and6.9.3.4OpportunitiestoEnhancetheImpactsofTravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopmentsBasedontheapplicationofplanningenforcementtheory,anumberofopportuni-tieshavebeenidentifiedtoenhancetheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Theseinclude:•Adoptingamorepro-activeandfacilitativestyleofenforcementbutretainingtheoptiontoemployasystematicapproachifneeded•Ensuringanadequatenumberoftechnicallycompetentstaffareavailableforenforcement•Incorporatingbestpracticeelementsofenforcementintotrainingandguidancematerial•Extendingtrainingopportunitiestoenforcementofficers.Eachoftheseopportunitiesisnowdiscussedinturn.9.3.4.1AdoptingaMorePro-activeandFacilitativeStyleofEnforcementbutRetainingtheOptiontoEmployaSystematicApproachifNeededAfacilitativeapproachshouldbeadoptedtoenforcetravelplansfornewresiden-tialdevelopments,inlinewiththetheoryandguidanceonplanningenforcement.Educationandadviceshouldformkeyelementsofthisapproachgiventhattravelplansarearelativelynewconceptforthepropertydevelopmentindustry.Thiswouldalsohelptoensurethattravelplanningisviewedinapositivelightandnotnecessarilyseenasaburden.However,theoptiontoemploysystematicenforce-mentmethods,suchassanctionsandfines,shouldstillberetainedtodealwithanyrepeatandflagrantoffenders,andtoprotecttheintegrityoftheplanningsystem. 9.3ApplicationofPlanningEnforcementTheory169Planningenforcementisgenerallyundertakeninresponsetopubliccomplaints(PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.2007).However,asalackoftravelplanimplementationmaynotnecessarilyresultinpubliccomplaints,ashiftfromareactivetopro-activeenforcementculturewillberequired.Indoingso,thisapproachwillultimatelyhelptoboostimplementationratesassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.9.3.4.2EnsuringanAdequateNumberofTechnicallyCompetentStaffareAvailableforEnforcementWhilethefacilitativeapproachtendstorequirelessresourcesthansystematicenforcementregimes,thereisstillaneedtoensureanadequatenumberoftechni-callycompetentstaffareavailableforenforcement(Burbyetal.1998).However,theresponsibilityforenforcingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopmentsshouldnotliesolelywithenforcementofficersincouncils.Othercouncilrepre-sentativesinvolvedinrequiringtravelplans,suchasplannersandtrafficengineers,canalsobeinvolvedinenforcement,particularlygiventhatanemphasisshouldbeplacedonprovidingeducationandadviceontravelplanningmatters.9.3.4.3IncorporatingBestPracticeElementsofEnforcementintoTrainingandGuidanceMaterialTrainingandguidancematerialontravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsshouldreflectbestpracticeelementsofenforcement,particularlyfeaturesofthefacilitativeapproachandhowtheycanbeappliedtotheenforcementoftravelplans.Includingthisinformationintrainingandguidancematerialwillbecomeparticularlyrelevantshouldothercouncilrepresentativesbecomemoreinvolvedinenforcement.9.3.4.4ExtendingTrainingOpportunitiestoEnforcementOfficersTrainingopportunitiesrelatingtotravelplanningshouldextendtoenforcementoffi-cerstoensuretheyarefamiliarwithtravelplansandthetypesofenforcementstylesthatareappropriate.Moreover,trainingshouldincludeacomponentonenforcement,withanemphasisonbuildingnecessaryskillsinverbalandwrittencommunication,negotiation,andconflictresolution(VictorianAuditor-General2008).9.3.4.5OtherOpportunitiesWhilenotdirectlyrelatedtoplanningenforcement,theresearchfindingsfromChap.8suggesttwoadditionalopportunitiesforenhancingtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,albeitinthecontextofmonitoring.Firstly,giventhat 1709OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsdatacomparabilityissuesmaybeexperiencedwhenusingsecondarydatasources,controlsitesshouldbeusedwherepossibletoprovideamoreaccurateindicationoftravelplaneffectiveness.Secondly,thepotentialforresidentialself-selectionsuggeststhat,wherepossible,thisphenomenonshouldbecontrolledforinfutureevaluationstoavoidoverstatingtheimpactsoftravelplans.9.4TowardsanIntegratedTheoryofImplementationandEnforcementThissectionpresentsthedevelopmentofanintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementtoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticefornewresidentialdevel-opments.Thisincludesanassessmentoftheextenttowhichtheresearchfindingssupporttheintegratedtheory.Figure9.5providesaconceptualrepresentationofexistingimplementationthe-oryandplanningenforcementtheory,aspresentedearlierinChap.3.Keycharac-teristicsofthetop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationareshown,alongwithkeyfeaturesofthesystematicandfacilitativeapproachestoenforce-ment.Thedashedlinesdividingtheapproachesdenotetheirconsiderationasdis-tinctandseparateentities.Ratherthansolelytakingatop-downorbottom-upapproachtoimplementa-tion,theapplicationofimplementationtheorytotheresearchfindingshasshownthatbothapproacheshavemeritinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresiden-tialdevelopments.Thetop-downapproachprovidedaclearsetofconditionsforassessingimplementationbutwasnotabletosufficientlyaccountfortherolesandpreferencesofvariousactorsinvolvedintheprocess,aswaspossiblewiththebottom-upapproach.Itisthereforeappropriatethatthetop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationarecombinedwhenstudyingtheimplementationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.ThisapproachisconsistentwiththefindingsofPülzlandTreib(2007)whonotethatthereisnowgeneralagree-mentthatimplementationislocatedonacontinuumbetweencentralauthority(top-down)andlocalautonomy(bottom-up).Theysuggestthatthe‘preferencesofstreet-levelbureaucratsandthenegotiationswithinimplementationnetworkshavetobetakenintoaccounttothesameextentascentrallydefinedpolicyobjectivesandeffortsathierarchicalcontrol’(PülzlandTreib2007,p.100).Inasimilarmanner,ratherthansolelytakingasystematicorfacilitativeapproachtoenforcement,theapplicationofplanningenforcementtheorytotheresearchfindingshasshownthatbothapproacheshavearoletoplay.Whilethefacilitativeapproachwasfoundtobemoreappropriateforenforcingtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,theoptiontoemploysystematicmethodswasalsoseenasimportant,albeitasalastresorttodealwiththepossibilityofrepeatandflagrantoffenders,andtoprotecttheintegrityoftheplanningsystem.Thiscombinedapproach,withaskewtowardsfacilitativeenforcement,alignswiththe 9.4TowardsanIntegratedTheoryofImplementationandEnforcement171•Clear&consistentobjectives•Uniformapplicationofstrictrules•Adequatecausaltheory•Finesandsanctions•Implementationlegallystructured•Enforcementorders•Committed&skilfulimplementers•Courtproceedings•Interestgroup&sovereignsupport•Prosecution•Socio-economicconditions•PlanningpermitcancellationTop-downSystematicTop-downSystematicimplementationenforcementBottom-upFacilitativeimplementationenforcementBottom-upFacilitative•Goalsandstrategiesoflocalactors•Emphasisoncompliance•Influenceofstreet-levelbureaucrats•Goodworkingrelationships•Targetgroups&endusers•Educationandadvice•Ownershipandengagement•Negotiationandpersuasion•Decentralisationofauthority•Incentives•Formal&informalstructures•VerbalwarningsFig.9.5Conceptualisationofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheorytheoryandguidanceonplanningenforcement(Burbyetal.1998;Harris2010;McKay2003;PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.2007).Inapplyingtop-downimplementationtheorytotheresearchfindings,threeadditionalconditionsforeffectiveimplementationwereidentified,reflectingagapbetweenexistingtheoryandpractice.Thefirstconditionrelatedtotheroleofenforcementandhowthiscouldbemademoreexplicitgiventhattravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentstypicallyariseoutofaplanningrequirement.Byintegratingimplementationtheorywithplanningenforcementtheory,thiscondi-tioncanbeconsideredasanexplicit,yetintegratedelementofthetravelplanningprocess.Thesecondconditionrelatedtotherolethatdedicatedfundingplaysinsupportingtheprovisionofadequateresourcesforimplementingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Thisconditioncanbeaddedasa‘seventh’top-downconditionofeffectiveimplementation,giventhatfundingisusuallyallo-catedinatop-downmanner.Thethirdandlastadditionalconditionrelatedtotherolesandpreferencesofimplementersinthetravelplanningprocess.Bycombin-ingthetop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementation,thisconditioncanbeincorporated. 1729OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpacts•Clear&consistentobjectives•Uniformapplicationofstrictrules•Adequatecausaltheory•Finesandsanctions•Implementationlegallystructured•Enforcementorders•Committed&skilfulimplementers•Courtproceedings•Interestgroup&sovereignsupport•Prosecution•Socio-economicconditions•Planningpermitcancellation•DedicatedfundingCombinedtop-Facilitativedownandbottom-Enhancedtravelapproachtoupapproachtoplansfornewenforcementwithimplementationresidentialsystematicmethodsdevelopmentsusedasalastresort•Goalsandstrategiesoflocalactors•Emphasisoncompliance•Influenceofstreet-levelbureaucrats•Goodworkingrelationships•Targetgroups&endusers•Educationandadvice•Ownershipandengagement•Negotiationandpersuasion•Decentralisationofauthority•Incentives•Formal&informalstructures•VerbalwarningsFig.9.6ConceptualisationofintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementBasedonthesechanges,anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforce-mentispresentedconceptuallyinFig.9.6,withcirculararrowsusedtodenotetheintegrationoftheseelements.Figure9.6alsoshowshowthetop-downandbottom-upapproachtoimplementationiscombined,withtheinclusionof‘dedi-catedfunding’asanadditionaltop-downcondition.Thefacilitativeapproachisalsocombinedwiththesystematicapproach,albeitwithastrongerfocusonthefacilitativestyleofenforcement.Here,featuresofthesystematicapproachhavebeen‘greyedout’toreducetheiremphasis,inlinewiththedesiretoemploythesemethodsonlyasalastresort.Inaddition,thesimilaritiesbetweentop-downimple-mentationandsystematicenforcement,andbottom-upimplementationandfacili-tativeenforcement,areindicatedbydashedarrows,notingthatdifferencesarestillinherentintheirfundamentalpurpose.Byintegratingimplementationandenforcement,travelplanningfornewres-identialdevelopmentscanbeenhancedthroughimprovementstoboththequal-ityandconsistencyofimplementation.Ashighlightedbythisdiscussion,theresearchfindingshaveshownsupportforanintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcement.Theneedtocombinetop-downandbottom-upapproachesto 9.4TowardsanIntegratedTheoryofImplementationandEnforcement173implementationhasbeenevidenced,ashastheimportanceofretainingsystem-aticmethodswhileprimarilyadoptingafacilitativeapproachtoenforcement.Furthermore,theneedtoconsiderimplementationandenforcementasaninte-gratedapproachtotravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentshasalsobeensupportedbytheresearchfindings.9.5ConclusionTheaimofthischapteristoidentifyandassessopportunitiesforenhancingtheimplementation(andsubsequentimpacts)oftravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opments.Indoingso,implementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheorywereappliedtotheresearchfindings.Anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementwasthendevelopedtoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticefornewresidentialdevelopments.Inapplyingimplementationtheorytotheresearchfindings,anumberofoppor-tunitieswereidentifiedforenhancingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresi-dentialdevelopments.Intheshortterm,theseopportunitiesinclude:facilitatinggreaterownershipandengagementintheprocessthroughearlierinvolvementof‘implementers’,improvingthequalityofresidentialtravelplanspriortograntingplanningapproval,developingtailoredguidancematerial,andprovidingregulartrainingopportunitiesandforumsforsharingknowledgeamongpractitioners.Inthelongerterm,thedevelopmentofsoundplanningrequirements,withsufficientflexibilitytotakeintoaccountlocalcircumstances,willhelptoprovidegreaterclarityintherequirementsfortravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Thiswillneedtobebackedbythedevelopmentofastrongerindustryfocusforresidentialtravelplanning,withrecognitionofthediversesetofactorscurrentlyinvolvedintheprocess.Applicationofplanningenforcementtheorytotheresearchfindingshasalsoidentifiedopportunitiesforenhancingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresiden-tialdevelopments.Intheshorttermtheseinclude:adoptingamorepro-activeandfacilitativestyleofenforcementyetretainingtheoptiontoemployasystematicapproachifneeded,incorporatingbestpracticeelementsofenforcementintotrain-ingandguidancematerial,andextendingtrainingopportunitiestoenforcementofficers.Inthelongerterm,thereisaneedtoensureanadequatenumberoftech-nicallycompetentstaffareavailableforenforcement,includingtheinvolvementofothercouncilrepresentativeswhereappropriate.AsummaryoftheopportunitiesforenhancingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsispresentedinTable9.3.Actingontheseopportuni-tiesisimperativeforenhancingtravelplanningatnewresidentialdevelopments.ThisneedisfurthersupportedbythesurveyfindingsreportedinChap.5inwhichhalfofthecouncilsindicatedtheywerelikelytocontinuetorequiretravelplans.ItisalsosupportedbytheinterviewfindingsreportedinChap.6inwhichthe 1749OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsTable9.3SummaryofopportunitiesforenhancingimpactsEnhancementareaOpportunitiesandpotentialactionsTimeframeOwnershipand•FacilitategreaterownershipandengagementintheShorttermengagementtravelplanningprocessthroughearlierinvolvementof‘implementers’Travelplanquality•ImprovethequalityofresidentialtravelplansbyShorttermassessingthemagainstabestpracticeframeworkpriortograntingplanningapproval•Seekgreaterinvolvementfromexperiencedpractitionerstoreviewandsubsequentlyimprovetravelplanquality•EnsuretheassessmentprocessismadetransparenttoallpartiesGuidanceandtraining•DevelopguidancematerialthatistailoredtonewShorttermresidentialdevelopmentsandincorporatesbestpracticeinenforcement•Provideregulartrainingopportunitiesforsharingknowledgeamongindustrypractitioners,includingenforcementofficersEnforcementstyles•Adoptamorepro-activeandfacilitativestyleShorttermofenforcementbutretaintheoptiontoemployasystematicapproachifneededEvaluation•UsecontrolsiteswherepossibletoprovideamoreShorttermaccurateindicationoftravelplaneffectiveness•Controlforresidentialself-selectioneffectswherepossibletoavoidoverstatingtheimpactsofresidentialtravelplansPlanningrequirements•EnsureplanningrequirementsaresoundandLongtermsupportedbyrelevantplanningpolicies,withsufficientflexibilitysothatlocationspecificcircumstancescanbetakenintoaccountIndustryfocusand•DevelopastrongerindustryfocusforresidentialLongtermcapacitytravelplanning,potentiallythroughtheinvolvementofnot-for-profitassociations•Ensureanadequatenumberoftechnicallycompetentstaffareavailableforenforcement,includingothercouncilrepresentativesmajorityofindustryrepresentativesfeltthattravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opmentsareeitherheretostayorwillincreaseinfocus.Thischapterhasdiscussedtheapplicationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheorytoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticeinthecontextofnewresidentialdevelopments.Considerationofbothtop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementation,afacilitativestyleofenforcementwithsystematicmeansadoptedifneeded,andtheintegrationofimplementationandenforcement,willhelptoimproveboththequalityandconsistencyoftravelplansthatareimplementedatnewresidentialdevelopmentsinthefuture. 9.5Conclusion175Thenextandfinalchapterofthisthesispresentsasetofconclusionstotheresearch.Thisincludesasummaryofkeycontributionsanddirectionsforfutureresearch.ReferencesAddison&Associates.(2008).Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess—Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransportandCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Burby,R.,May,P.,&Paterson,R.(1998).Improvingcompliancewithregulations:Choicesandoutcomesforlocalgovernment.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,64(3),324–334.DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.(2012).Nationalplanningpolicyframe-work,London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2005).Makingresidentialtravelplanswork:Guidelinesfornewdevelopment,London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2009).Goodpracticeguidelines:Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure.2014.Aguidetotheplanningsystem,viewed25September2014.http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&Currie,G.(2014).‘Securingtravelplansthroughtheplanningapprovalsprocess:AcasestudyofpracticefromVictoria,Australia’,Cities,41,partA,114–122.DeGruyter,C.,Rose,G.,&Currie,G.(2015).‘Enhancingtheimpactoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments:Insightsfromimplementationtheory’,TransportPolicy,40,24–35.Elmore,R.(1978).Organizationalmodelsofsocialprogramimplementation.PublicPolicy,26(2),185–228.Enoch,M.(2012).Sustainabletransport,mobilitymanagementandtravelplans.Surrey,England:AshgatePublishingLimited.Enoch,M.,&Ison,S.(2013).Travelplans:Awayforward?ProceedingsoftheInstitutionofCivilEngineers:UrbanDesignandPlanning,166(DP2),126–135.Gunn,L.A.(1978).Whyisimplementationsodifficult?ManagementServicesinGovernment,33,169–176.Harris,N.(2010).Discretionandexpediencyintheenforcementofplanningcontrols.TownPlanningReview,81(6),675–700.Harris,N.(2011).Disciplinesurveillance,control:Afoucaultianperspectiveontheenforcementofplanningregulations.PlanningTheory&Practice,12(1),57–76.Llewellyn,R.,Paton,D.,&Tricker,R.(2014).Afterthedownturn:WherenowfortravelplansinScotland?PaperpresentedtoScottishTransportApplications&Research(STAR)confer-ence,Glasgow,Scotland.Mazmanian,D.,&Sabatier,P.(1981).Effectivepolicyimplementation.US:LexingtonBooks,D.C.HeathandCompany.McKay,S.(2003).Sheriffsandoutlaws:Inpursuitofeffectiveenforcement.TownPlanningReview,74(4),423–443.Morris,D.,Enoch,M.,Pitfield,D.,&Ison,S.(2009).Car-freedevelopmentthroughUKcom-munitytravelplans.UrbanDesignandPlanning,162,19–27.O’Toole,L.(2007).Interorganizationalrelationsinimplementation.InB.Peters&J.Pierre(Eds.),Handbookofpublicadministration(pp.142–152).London,UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd.Parsons,W.(1995).Publicpolicy:Anintroductiontothetheoryandpracticeofpolicyanalysis.Glos,UK:EdwardElgarPublishing.PlanningEnforcementOfficersAssociationInc.(2007).AguidetoplanningenforcementinVictoria,PEOA,Victoria,Australia,viewed25September2014.http://planning-enforcement.com/. 1769OpportunitiestoEnhanceImpactsPrior,A.(2000).Problemsinthetheoryandpracticeofplanningenforcement.PlanningTheory&Practice,1(1),53–69.Pülzl,H.,&Treib,O.(2007).Implementingpublicpolicy.InF.Fischer,G.Miller&M.Sidney(Eds.),Handbookofpublicpolicyanalysis:Theory,politicsandmethods.US:Taylor&FrancisGroup.Rye,T.,Green,C.,Young,E.,&Ison,S.(2011a).Usingtheland-useplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:AnassessmentofprogressinEnglandtodate.JournalofTransportGeography,19(2),235–243.Rye,T.,Welsch,J.,Plevnik,A.,&deTomassi,R.(2011b).Firststepstowardscross-nationaltransferinintegratingmobilitymanagementandlanduseplanningintheEUandSwitzerland.TransportPolicy,18,533–543.Sabatier,P.(1986).Top-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationresearch:Acriticalanalysisandsuggestedsynthesis.JournalofPublicPolicy,6(1),21–48.TransportforLondon.(2011).TravelplanningfornewdevelopmentinLondon—incorporatingdeliveriesandservicing.UK:TransportforLondon.VictorianAuditor-General.(2008).Enforcementofplanningpermits.Australia:Victoria. Chapter10Conclusions10.1IntroductionThisthesishasexploredtheuseoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Theresearchundertakenhasprovidedanumberoforiginalcontributionstoknowledgeinthisfield,aspresentedinpreviouschapters.Thischapter,aspositionedinFig.10.1,concludesthethesisbyprovidingasummaryofkeyfindingsandcontributionstodemonstratehowtheresearchaimandobjectiveshavebeenmet.Implicationsfortheoryandpracticearealsodis-cussed.Acritiqueoftheresearchapproachisthenpresented,followedbyadis-cussionoffutureresearchdirections.10.2SummaryofKeyFindingsandContributionsAsdescribedinChap.1,theaimofthisresearchwas:ToassesstheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsandtoidentifyopportunitiestoenhancetheireffectivenessAnumberofresearchobjectiveswerealsoidentifiedinChap.1askeystepsrequiredtomeettheresearchaim.Inthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,thesewere:1.ToexaminethescaleofpracticeinVictoria,Australia2.Togainanappreciationfortheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintheirapplication3.Toevaluatetheirqualityandeffectiveness4.Toidentifyandassessopportunitiesforenhancingtheirimplementation.Table10.1providesasummaryofkeyfindingsandcontributionsofthisthesis,includingtheiralignmenttoeachoftheresearchobjectives.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017177C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6_10 17810ConclusionsBackgroundandapproachCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER2:TRAVELPLANSANDTHEIRAPPLICATIONTONEWDEVELOPMENTSCHAPTER3:THEORETICALFOUNDATIONSCHAPTER4:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYResultsanddiscussionOriginalcontributionstoknowledgeUnderstandingofthescaleofCHAPTER5:travelplanningpracticefornewTHESCALEOFTRAVELPLANNINGPRACTICEurbandevelopmentsinVictoriaAppreciationofperspectivesofCHAPTER6:actorsinvolvedintravelplanningACTORPERSPECTIVESfornewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofthequalityofCHAPTER7:travelplanspreparedfornewTRAVELPLANQUALITYresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingoftheCHAPTER8:effectivenessoftravelplansforTRAVELPLANIMPACTSnewresidentialdevelopmentsUnderstandingofhowtheCHAPTER9:implementationprocesscanbeOPPORTUNITIESTOENHANCEIMPACTSenhancedtoimproveoutcomesConclusionsCHAPTER10:CONCLUSIONSKeyfindingsandcontributions,implications,critique,futureresearchdirectionsFig.10.1PositionofChap.10inthethesisstructureAnunderstandingofthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevel-opmentsinVictoriawasprovidedinChap.5,correspondingtoresearchobjec-tive1.ThisshowedthathalfofthesurveyedcouncilsinVictoriahadpreviouslyrequiredatravelplanforanewdevelopment,witharound100travelplansrequiredduring2010–12alone. 10.2SummaryofKeyFindingsandContributions179(continued)Keyfindings%)had•HalfoftheVictoriancouncilssurveyed(50previouslyrequiredatravelplanforanewdevelopment,primarilytooffsettheimpactofprovidinglesscarparking•Around100travelplanshadbeenrequiredduring2010–12,mostlyininnerandmiddlemetropolitanareas%ofcouncilshadnotmonitoredanyofthe•Around80travelplanstheyhadrequired%)ofthecouncilswerelikelytorequire•Aroundhalf(51atravelplanforanewdevelopmentinthefuture•Theindustryhashadlittleinvolvementwithimplementingandmonitoringtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentstodate;mostinvolvementhasbeenfocusedonpreparing/developingtravelplans•Actorsaregenerallysupportivebuthavelimitedconfidenceintheabilitytoachievesuccessfulimplementation•Challengesassociatedwithimplementingtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsincludealackofenforcement,uncertaintyaboutimplementationresponsibilities,andalackofownership•Potentialsolutionstoimplementationchallengesincludedevelopingamorerobustplanning/legalrequirement,encouragingmoreresidentengagement,andhavingthedeveloperfundtheimplementationofthetravelplanOriginalcontributiontoknowledgeAnunderstandingofthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewurbandevelopmentsinVictoria,Australia(Chap.5)Anappreciationfortheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments(Chap.6)a10.1TableSummaryofkeyfindingsandcontributionsResearchobjective1.ToexaminethescaleofpracticeinVictoria,Australia2.Togainanappreciationfortheperspectivesofindustryactorsinvolvedintheirapplication 18010Conclusions(continued)%ofthemaximumpossiblescoreforKeyfindings•Travelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentshavebeenpreparedpredominantlybyconsultants•Onaverage,only47travelplanqualitywasachieved,suggestingconsiderablescopeexistsforimprovingthequalityoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments•Keyareasidentifiedtoimprovetravelplanqualityincludetheestimationofexpectedtravelpatterns,specifyinghowthetravelplanwillbemanagedandimplemented,andoutliningclearerprocessesformonitoringandreviewam–9am)weekdaymodeshareforcardriver•Average(7-%pointsloweratnewresidentialdeveloptripswas14mentswithtravelplanscomparedtosimilarresidentialdevelopments(controlsites)withouttravelplans•Relyingsolelyoncomparisonstosecondarydatasources-toassesstravelplaneffectivenesscanleadtoanoverestimationoftravelplanimpactsduetoinconsistenciesingeographicallocationsanddatacollectionperiods•Relativelylowuse,andinsomecases,awarenessoftravelplaninitiativeswasreportedbyresidents•Residentialself-selectionpotentiallyaccountedfor10–42%oftheobserveddifferenceintravelbehaviourOriginalcontributiontoknowledgeAnunderstandingofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevelopments(Chap.7)Anunderstandingoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments(Chap.8)a10.1Table(continued)Researchobjective3.Toevaluatetheirqualityandeffectiveness 10.2SummaryofKeyFindingsandContributions181Keyfindings•Short-termenhancementsincludegreaterownershipandengagementof‘implementers’,improvementstotravelplanquality,provisionofguidancematerialandtraining,andpro-activeandfacilitativeenforcement•Long-termenhancementsincludesoundplanningrequirements,astrongerindustryfocusforresidentialtravelplanning,andanadequatenumberoftechnicallycompetentstaffavailableforenforcement•Anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcement,withconsiderationtobothtop-downandbottom-upimplementation,andfacilitativeandsystematicenforcement,canhelptoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticeOriginalcontributiontoknowledgeAnunderstandingofhowtheimplementationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentscanbeenhancedtoimproveoutcomes(Chap.9)a10.1Table(continued)Researchobjective4.ToidentifyandassessopportunitiesforenhancingtheirimplementationaResearchobjectivesareframedinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments 18210ConclusionsAnappreciationfortheperspectivesofactorsinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopmentswasprovidedinChap.6,correspondingtoresearchobjective2.Thisshowedgeneralsupportfortravelplansatnewresidentialdevel-opmentsbutlimitedconfidenceintheabilitytoimplementthemsuccessfully.Italsohighlightedanumberofchallengesandpotentialsolutionsassociatedwithimplementation.Anassessmentofthequalityoftravelplanspreparedfornewresidentialdevel-opmentswasprovidedinChap.7,correspondingtoresearchobjective3.Thisshowedthatconsiderablescopeexiststoimprovetravelplanquality,particularlyinestimatingexpectedtravelpatternsoffutureusers,specifyinghowthetravelplanwillbemanagedandimplemented,andoutliningclearerprocessesformoni-toringandreviewingthetravelplan.AnassessmentoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansinreducingcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopmentswasprovidedinChap.8(alsocorrespondingtoresearchobjective3).Itrevealedthatcaruseatnewresidentialdevelopmentswithtravelplanswasabout14%pointslowerthanmatchedcontrolsites.Italsoprovidedsomepreliminaryevidencetosuggestthatresidentialself-selectioncanpotentiallycontribute10–42%oftheobserveddifferenceintravelbehaviourassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Anunderstandingofhowtheimplementationoftravelplansfornewresiden-tialdevelopmentscanbeenhancedwasprovidedinChap.9,correspondingtoresearchobjective4.Applicationofimplementationtheoryandplanningenforce-menttheoryhelpedtoidentifyanumberofshortandlongtermopportunitiestoenhanceimpacts.Anintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementwasalsodevelopedtoguidefuturetravelplanningpracticefornewresidentialdevelopments.Infulfillingeachoftheresearchobjectives,theoverallresearchaimhasbeenmet.Thiswasachievedthroughassessingtheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresi-dentialdevelopments(Chap.8).Inaddition,basedonthefindingsfromChaps.5–8,opportunitieswereidentifiedtoenhanceeffectivenessthroughtheapplicationandintegrationofimplementationandplanningenforcementtheories(Chap.9).Inprovidingtheseoriginalcontributionstoknowledge,thisresearchhasaddedtotheexistingliteratureconcerningtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.However,ithasalsoprovidedanimportanttheoreticalcontributionbyintegrat-ingimplementationtheoryandplanningenforcementtheory.Here,thetop-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationwerecombined,with‘dedicatedfunding’incorporatedasanadditionaltop-downconditionforeffectiveimplemen-tation.Further,thefacilitativeandsystematicapproachestoplanningenforcementwerecombined,withanemphasisplacedonthefacilitativestyleofenforcement.Thelinkbetweenimplementationandplanningenforcementwasalsodepictedtoillustratetheirinterrelationshipaspartofthetravelplanningprocess.Thistheo-reticalcontributionhelpstofurtherourunderstandingofimplementationandenforcementinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,butalsofacilitatesawiderunderstandinginthecontextoftravelplansmoregenerally. 10.3ImplicationsforTheoryandPractice18310.3ImplicationsforTheoryandPracticeGiventhefindingspresentedinthisthesis,itisappropriatetoreflectontheirimplicationsfortheoryandpractice.Inconsideringthetheoryfirst,theresearchfindingssuggestthattheimplementationoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevel-opmentscannotbeviewedsolelyfromatop-downorbottom-upperspective.Bothapproachesneedtobeconsideredwhenplanning,administeringandevaluatingtheimplementationprocess.Theresearchfindingsalsohighlighttheimportanceofconsideringplanningenforcementtheoryinthecontextoftravelplansthathavebeenrequiredfornewresidentialdevelopments.Here,afacilitative/educationalstyleofenforcementshouldbeemphasised,withsystematicmethodsretainedasalastresort.Inaddition,theintrinsiclinkbetweenimplementationandenforcementmeansthatthetheoriesunderlyingtheseelementsshouldbeconsideredinaninte-gratedmanner,ratherthanseparately.Doingsowillhelptoensurethatboththequalityandconsistencyofimplementationisimproved.Theresearchfindingsalsohaveanumberofimplicationsforpractice.First,sufficientresourceswillberequiredfromgovernmentandpropertydeveloperstoactontheopportunitiesidentifiedinChap.9forenhancingtravelplaneffective-ness.Deliveringontheseopportunitiesisparticularlyimportantgiventheexpecta-tionamongindustryactorsthattravelplanswillcontinuetoberequiredfornewresidentialdevelopmentsinthefuture.Shouldtheseopportunitiesnotberealised,existingissueswillcontinuetoremain,therebylimitingthepotentialoftravelplanninginthecontextofnewresidentialdevelopments.Second,aspartofenhancingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,localgovernmentwillneedtobecomemoreinvolvedinthetravelplanningprocess.Aparticularfocuswillneedtobeplacedonundertakingamoresystematicassessmentoftravelplanqualitypriortograntingplanningapproval.Thisislikelytorequirecoordinationbetweendifferentadministrativeunitswithincouncils,suchasstatutoryplanningandtransport/trafficengineering,toensuresuitableinputisprovidedattheplanningapplicationstage.Ashifttowardsamorepro-activecultureofplanningenforcementwillalsoneedtotakeplace.Thisisparticularlyrelevantinthecontextoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelop-mentsgiventhatalackofimplementationmaynotnecessarilyresultinpubliccomplaints.Third,buildingthecapacityoftheindustrytodelivereffectivetravelplanningwilltakeconsiderabletimewhichneedstobeacknowledged.Thiswillrequirestrongleadershipfromgovernmenttodevelopsoundplanningrequirementsbackedbysufficientopportunitiesfortraining,includingtheprovisionofclearguidelines.Trainingandguidelineswillneedtogivesufficientattentiontoimple-mentation,giventhatthisstepinthetravelplanningprocessistypicallyfacedwithgreaterdifficultiesthanotheraspects.Greaterinvolvementfrompropertymanag-ersinimplementation,andpreferablyalsoinpreparingresidentialtravelplans,willalsotakeconsiderabletimegiventhattransporthasnottraditionallyfeaturedasacorefunctionoftheirbusiness. 18410ConclusionsFourth,intheabsenceofsuitablecontrolsites,cautionwillneedtobeappliedwhenusingonlysecondarydataasacomparatorforevaluatingtheimpactsoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Suchcomparisonsmayoveres-timateimpactsduetoinconsistenciesingeographicallocationsanddatacollec-tionperiods,asevidencedbyChap.8.Therefore,wherefutureevaluationsarelimitedtosecondarydatacomparisons,thiswillneedtobeclearlyacknowledged.Furthermore,thepotentialforself-selectiontocontributetoobserveddifferencesintravelbehaviourwillalsoneedtobeacknowledged,ifnotcontrolledfor,toavoidoverstatingtheimpactsoftravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Finally,giventhefindingthattravelplanscancontributetosignificantlylowercaruseatnewresidentialdevelopments,theirroleshouldberecognisedasanimportantelementofTDMandtransportpolicymoregenerally.Thisisparticu-larlyrelevantforcitiesexperiencingtransportpressuresassociatedwithincreasingdemandfornewhousingdevelopments.10.4CritiqueWhilethisthesishasprovidedanumberoforiginalcontributionstoknowledge,itisalsosubjecttoanumberoflimitations.InconsideringthesurveyofcouncilsreportedinChap.5,thiswaslimitedtothestateofVictoriadespitealackofunderstandingconcerningthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinotherstatesofAustralia,aswellasothercountries.Furthermore,thesurveydidnotincludeaquestionaboutthetypesoflandusethattravelplanshavebeenrequiredfor.Inhindsight,thisinformationwouldhavebeenvaluablegiventhefocusofsubsequentchaptersthatwerespe-cifictonewresidentialdevelopments.Whilebesteffortsweremadetointerviewarangeofindustryrepresenta-tives,onlythreepropertydevelopersandthreepropertymanagerswereabletoberecruited,asreportedinChap.6.Theseactorsprovedparticularlydifficulttorecruitastransportisnotseenasacorefunctionoftheirbusiness.Includingmorepropertydevelopersandpropertymanagersinthesamplewouldhavemostlikelyprovidedricherinsightontheperspectivesoftheseactors.Theframeworkusedtoassessthequalityofthetravelplans,asreportedinChap.7,wasdevelopedsolelybytheresearcher.Whilethiswasbasedonbestpracticeelementsreportedintheliterature,somepractitionersmaybeoftheopin-ionthatcertaincriteriashouldbeassignedhigher(orlower)impliedweightingsthanthosespecified.However,giventhefocuswasontherelativestrengthsofthetravelplansandtheirareasforimprovement,ratherthanthefinalscorealone,thislimitationisnotconsideredtopresentanymajorissues.Anotherlimitationhow-everwasthatthetravelplanssourcedfortheassessmentmaynothavebeenrepre-sentativeofalltravelplansintermsoftheirquality.ThecasestudiesreportedinChap.8involvedonlyfournewresidentialdevel-opmentswithtravelplans.Thiswasduetotheconsiderableamountofresources 10.4Critique185requiredfordatacollectionateachofthecaseandcontrolsites.Inaddition,theresidenttravelsurveydidnotattractasufficientsamplesizeforstatisticalpowerrequirementstobemet.Thislimitedtheabilitytomakeanydefinitivestatementsaboutthemagnitudeoftheself-selectioneffect.Overall,exploringeachresearchcomponentingreaterdetailwouldhavepro-videdadditionalinsightontheresearchfindings.However,doingsowithintheresourcesavailablewouldhavecompromisedtheresearchscope,potentiallylead-ingtoasmallernumberofresearchcomponents.Forexample,councilsfromotherstatesinAustraliacouldhavebeenincludedinthesurveytoofferabroaderper-spectiveandallowforcross-jurisdictioncomparisonsbutthismayhavemeantnotundertakinganyinterviewswithindustryrepresentatives,therebylimitingtheunderstandingofotheractors’perspectives.Similarly,assessingthequalityofagreaternumberoftravelplanswouldhaveprovidedagreaterappreciationoftheirrelativestrengthsandareasforimprovement,butmayhaveresultedinhavingtoreducethescopeofthecasestudies,therebylimitingtheunderstandingoftravelplanimpacts.Afinallimitationisthegeographicalcontextinwhichthisresearchwasunder-taken.TheresearchfindingsarebasedonexperiencefromtheAustralianstateofVictoriaandmaythereforedifferinotherjurisdictions.Inparticular,thesite-spe-cificnatureoftravelplanningmeansthatthelocalcontextshouldalwaysbecon-sidered.Despitethis,thefindingshavewidergeographicalimplicationsgiventhattravelplansareusedinotherstatesandcountries.10.5FutureResearchDirectionsBasedonthelimitationsidentifiedintheprevioussection,itisnowpossibletosuggestanumberofavenuesforfutureresearch.ExaminingthescaleoftravelplanningpracticefornewdevelopmentsinotherstatesofAustraliaandothercountrieswouldhelptoprovideabroaderperspectiveofcurrentpracticeandofferadditionalinsightthroughcross-jurisdictioncompari-sons.TheresearchmethoddetailedinChap.5couldbereplicatedforthispurpose.However,itwouldbedesirabletoincludeanadditionalquestiontodeterminethenumberoftravelplansrequiredbylandusetype.Furthermore,giventhatdiffer-entplanningsystemsareusedineachstateofAustraliaandinothercountries,theplanningcontextwouldalsoneedtobetakenintoaccountwhenassessingandcomparingresultsacrossjurisdictions.Thereisaneedtoalsodevelopastrongerunderstandingoftheperspectivesofpropertydevelopersandmanagersinvolvedintravelplanningfornewresiden-tialdevelopments.Thesestakeholdersrepresentkeyactorsintheprocesssoitisimportantthattheirperspectivesarewellunderstoodsothatfuturepracticecanbefurtherenhanced.Morecouldalsobedonetorefinetheframeworkusedforassessingtravelplanqualitybytakingintoaccountthecollectiveviewsoftravelplanningpractitioners, 18610Conclusionsperhapsthroughtheuseofa‘Delphi’survey.Thiswouldhelptoensurethatthecriteriaandscoringsystemusedintheassessmentframeworkalignswiththepreferencesofindustryrepresentativesinvolvedintravelplanning.Assessingthequalityoftravelplanspreparedinotherjurisdictionswouldalsobeusefulforgainingastrongerunderstandingofbestpractice.Anotherkeyareaforfutureresearchinvolvesbuildingupastrongerevidencebaseoftheeffectivenessoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments,notonlyinthestateofVictoriabutalsoinotherjurisdictionsacrossAustraliaandinterna-tionally.Wherepossible,controlsitesshouldbeusedascomparatorsinpreferencetosecondarydatatoavoidoverstatingtheimpactsoftravelplans.Relatedtothisistheneedtodevelopastrongerquantitativeunderstandingoftheextentofself-selectionassociatedwithtravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopments.Surveysatadditionalsiteswouldhelptoprovidealargersamplesizesothatestimatesofself-selectioncanbemadewithagreaterlevelofstatisticalconfidence.Whilenotbasedonaspecificlimitationofthisstudy,futureresearchcouldalsolooktoassesstherelativemeritsofdifferentapproachesforimplementingtravelplansatnewresidentialdevelopments.Thiswouldhelptoestablishanunderstand-ingofwhichmethodsofimplementationaremostappropriateunderdifferentcontexts.Thereisalsoaneedtoempiricallytesttheintegratedtheoryofimplementationandenforcementbyapplyingitinpracticetotravelplanningfornewresidentialdevelopments.Theintegratedtheorycouldalsobeusedmorebroadlybyapplyingittoothersectors,suchasthosewhereminimumstandardsarecrucial.Inclosing,thisthesishasexploredtheuseoftravelplansfornewresidentialdevelopmentsbyassessingtheireffectivenessandidentifyingopportunitiestoenhancetheireffectiveness.Actingontheseopportunitieswillhelptoimprovethewayinwhichtravelplansaredeveloped,implementedandmonitoredatnewresidentialdevelopmentsintothefuture,ultimatelysupportingagreateruptakeofmoresustainableformsoftransport. AppendixACommonTravelPlanMeasuresTravelplanmeasureDescription/commentWalkingHomezonefeaturesSharedspaceswithtrafficcalmingmeasures,particularlyrelevantforresidentialtravelplans(DepartmentforTransport2005)On-sitefacilitiesandservicesExamplesincludebankingfacilities,postoffices,cafesandshops.Reducestheneedtotravelbycarbyfacilitatingwalkingtolocaldestinations(Giulianoetal.1991)PedestrianinfrastructureimprovementsExamplesincludeupgradedfootpaths,newlinks,crossingfacilitiesandimprovedlighting(CairnsandNewson2006;Coleman2000;WoodruffandHui2010)PedometerprogramOftenlinkedtoawebsitetotrackdailysteps.MostsuitableforworkplacesUmbrellasforrainydaysCanfacilitatewalkingovercaruseforshorttrips(Cairnsetal.2010)WalkingschoolbusGenerallylimitedtoprimaryschoolstudents(PeddieandSomerville2005)CyclingBicyclecouriersCanreduceamountofcar/truckrelateddeliveries(MAX2009a)BicycleendoftripfacilitiesIncludessecureparking,showers,changingroomsandlockers(Rye2002b)BicyclefleetorbicycleshareschemeApplicabletoworkplaces,universitiesandresiden-tialsites(Balsas2003;Wiblin2010)BicycleloanschemeInterestfreeloansorfreebicyclestoparticipants(Cairnsetal.2010;Rye2002b)BicyclerepairserviceEitheron-siteormobileservice(Cairnsetal.2010)(continued)©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017187C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 188AppendixA:CommonTravelPlanMeasures(continued)TravelplanmeasureDescription/commentBicycletrainingRelevanttoschools(Hansenetal.2012)andwork-places(Myers2005)BicycleusersgroupRelevanttoworkplacesandresidentialsites(Coleman2000;Harrison2003)CyclinginfrastructureimprovementsExamplesincludenew/upgradedcyclingpaths,newon-roadmarkings,crossingfacilitiesandimprovedlighting(CairnsandNewson2006;Coleman2000;WoodruffandHui2010)PublictransportDiscountedorfreepublictransportCommoninbothworkplacesandresidentialsitestickets(Myers2005;Rye1999b),butalsofoundinuni-versities(CooperandMeiklejohn2003;CurtisandHolling2004)NeworupgradedpublictransportUsuallyonlyfoundatrelativelylargesitesandservicestypicallyfundedthroughdevelopercontributionsfornewdevelopments.MayincludestopupgradesatsmallersitesShuttlebusCommoninworkplaces,oftenasalinktonearbyrailservices(Cairnsetal.2010)CarparkingParkingcash-outTypicallylimitedtoworkplaceswhereanemployeecanreceivethecashvalueofaparkingspaceinlieuofusingthatparkingspace(Green1995;Potteretal.1999)ParkingchargesandrestrictionsCommonlyappliedtorestrictcaruse.Foundtoworkwellincombinationwithfinancialincentivestouseothermodes(Cairnsetal.2010;Coleman2000;RyeandIson2005)ParkingpermitpoliciesCommonexampleinvolvesnotprovidingparkingpermitsforthoselivingclosetothesite(Cairnsetal.2010;RyeandIson2005;Wakeetal.2010)UnbundledparkingParkingsoldseparatelytoahomeoroffice(forexample)tobetterreflectparkingdemand(DepartmentforTransport2005)UseofrevenueraisedfromparkingExampleincludes‘ring-fencing’thefundsobtainedchargesandusingtheseforimplementingsustainabletransportmeasuresaspartofatravelplan(RyeandIson2005)CarpoolingCarpoolmatchingprogramCommoninworkplacesanduniversities(Balsas2003;DeGruyteretal.2005)DiscountedorfreeparkingforUsuallylimitedtoworkplacesanduniversitiescarpoolers(Giulianoetal.1991)(continued) AppendixA:CommonTravelPlanMeasures189(continued)TravelplanmeasureDescription/commentGuaranteedridehomeprogramSuchprogramsrarelyusedinpracticebuthighlyvaluedasaformof‘insurance’ifridehomefallsthrough(BermanandRadow1997;Coleman2000)PrioritycarpoolparkingUsuallylimitedtoworkplacesanduniversities(Cairnsetal.2010;Thom2009)CarsharingCarsharingserviceCommoninresidentialdevelopmentstoreducecarownershipbutalsoapplicabletoworkplacesforbusinessrelatedtrips(DepartmentforTransport2005;Wiblin2010)FreeordiscountedcarsharingNormallylimitedtoresidentialsitestoencouragemembershiptheuptakeofcarsharingMarketingandpromotionEventsExamplesincludeatravelplanlaunchaswellasregulareventssuchasRidetoWorkDay(HincksonandBadland2011;Wiblin2010;WoodruffandHui2010)InductionsessionsTransportinformationtypicallyprovidedfornewstaffatworkplaces(DepartmentforTransport2005)InformationprovisionExamplesincludepublictransporttimetables,mapsandwebsites(Cairnsetal.2010)MarketingandpromotionGeneralmarketingofthetravelplananditsbenefits(Cairnsetal.2010;Rye2002b)WelcomepacksFornewresidentsoremployees,withinformationontransportoptionsaswellasincentives,e.g.freepublictransportticket(CooperandMeiklejohn2003;Myers2005)FinancialincentivesRewardschemesForusersofmoresustainabletransportmodes(Myers2005;Potteretal.1999)SustainabletransportallowancesExamplesincludebicycleandpublictransportmile-ageallowance(Cairnsetal.2010;Coleman2000)TaxincentivesCanreducecostofusingmoresustainabletransportmodes(EnochandRye2006)DiscountsatlocalretailersEncourageslocalshopping,particularlybywalking(Balsas2003;EnochandRye2006)VanpoolsubsidiesFundingtoassistwithongoingoperationofvan-pools(Balsas2003;EnochandRye2006)TravelplanmanagementLocaltravelplangroupmembershipCanprovideasupportivenetworkforthedeliv-eryandmonitoringoftravelplans(Enoch2012a;Enochetal.2007;RatioConsultantsPtyLtd1991)(continued) 190AppendixA:CommonTravelPlanMeasures(continued)TravelplanmeasureDescription/commentTravelplancoordinatorRecognisedasakeycomponentofanytravelplan(Balsas2003;Wiblinetal.2012)TravelplanworkinggroupProvidessupporttothetravelplancoordinatorinthedeliveryandmonitoringofthetravelplanandassistswithestablishingorganisationalcommitment(Enoch2012a)WorkingpracticesTeleconferencingfacilitiesCaneliminatetheneedforsomeworkrelatedtrips(Enoch2012b)VideoconferencingfacilitiesCaneliminatetheneedforsomeworkrelatedtrips(Enoch2012b;Wake2012)FlexitimeTimeinlieuwhichcanreducecommutingtrips(Giulianoetal.1991;Potteretal.1999)TelecommutingWorkingfromhomewhichcanreducecommutingtrips(Cairnsetal.2010;Rye1999b)CompressedworkingweeksCommonexampleis80hworkedin9days,with1leavedaytakenperfortnight.Canreducecommut-ingtrips(Giulianoetal.1991;Potteretal.1999)StaggeredworkhoursCanreducelocalisedcongestion,e.g.atkeyentrance/exitpoints(Giulianoetal.1991)OtherCurriculumprogramEducationabouttravelplansaswellasroadsafety(CairnsandNewson2006;DiPietroandHughes2003;HowlettandWatson2010;PeddieandSomerville2005)EarlybellforstudentsStudentswhowalk,cycleorcatchpublictrans-portcanleaveschool10minearly(PeddieandSomerville2005)Eco-drivingcoursesPromotessmootherdrivingpracticesandlessfueluse(MAX2009b)LobbyingforinfrastructureorserviceTravelplanprovidesstrongevidencebaseforimprovementsimprovementsneeded(Cairnsetal.2010;Rye2002b;Wiblinetal.2012)SourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedoncitationswithinthetableNoteMeasureswereplacedintoonecategoryonlydespitesomebeingapplicabletomorethanonecategory AppendixBSuccessFactorsforTravelPlansSuccessfactorRelativeCommentsimportanceOwnershipandengagementVeryhighOftenachievedthroughthetargetgroupdevelopingthetravelplaninaccordancewiththeirowndirec-tions(CairnsandNewson2006;HowlettandWatson2010)SeniormanagementsupportVeryhighIncludesleadingbyexample,par-ticularlyinworkplaces(Baudains2003;Cairnsetal.2010;Rye1997)andschools(Newsonetal.2010)EnthusiasticanddedicatedtravelVeryhighWidelycitedintheliteratureplancoordinator(Hendricks2005;HendricksandGeorggi2007;Rye1997;VanMalderenetal.2013)ComprehensivetravelplanVeryhighMeasuresthatworktogetherasanmeasuresintegratedpackageandaretailoredtotheneedsofthesite(Cairnsetal.2010;IsonandRye2008;MAX2009a)ConstraintsoncarparkingVeryhighWidelysupportedbytheliterature(Balsas2003;Bianco2000;Cairnsetal.2010;HamreandBuehler2014)SupportivepolicyframeworkVeryhighParticularlyrelevantwhenrequir-ingtravelplansfornewdevelop-ments(Addison&Associates2008;DepartmentforTransport2005;Enoch2012a).(continued)©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017191C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 192AppendixB:SuccessFactorsforTravelPlans(continued)SuccessfactorRelativeCommentsimportanceClearobjectivesandtargetsHighNeedstoincludeagreementonobjectivesandtargetsbyallrelevantparties(Addison2002;CairnsandNewson2006;Cairnsetal.2010;Wakeetal.2010)PartnershipsHighParticularlywithrelevantgovern-mentagencies(ATOC2013;BlackandSchreffler2010;WoodruffandHui2010)DemonstrationofbenefitsHighParticularlyrelevanttoemploy-ers(DeGruyteretal.2005;Roby2010)CombinationofincentivesandHighAlsoreferredtoas‘carrots’anddisincentives‘sticks’or‘push’and‘pull’mea-sures(Addison2002;Cairnsetal.2010,2004;EnochandRye2006)DedicatedfundingHighParticularlyforimplementationpurposes,butalsoformonitoring(Baslington2008;Cairnsetal.2004;Davisonetal.2010;Wiblinetal.2012).ClearrolesandresponsibilitiesHighParticularlyimportantforimple-mentationpurposes(Addison2002;DepartmentforTransport2008;Wakeetal.2010)TaxincentivesHighKeyexampleistheremovaloftaxpenaltiesonemployersubsidiesfortravelplanmeasures(Davisonetal.2010;Potteretal.1999;Rye1999a).AppropriatemonitoringHighExamplesinclude:usingconsistenttechniquessurveymethodsandquestionstoenablevalidcomparisons(Amptetal.2009);takingdirectmeasure-mentssuchasbicycleandcarparkingcounts(SullivanandPercy2008);monitoring‘process’factorssuchasparticipationratesandawarenesslevels(Wake2012);andinthecaseofnewdevelopments,linkingmonitoringtofinancialsanctions(Grantetal.2012)(continued) AppendixB:SuccessFactorsforTravelPlans193(continued)SuccessfactorRelativeCommentsimportanceWorkinggroupsModerateCanassistthetravelplancoordina-torwithimplementationandhelptoestablishcommitmentfromvariouspartsofanorganisation(Baudains2003;Rye1997)LocaltravelplangroupsModerateProvidesforumforcapacitybuilding,networking,trainingandsharingbestpractice(Enochetal.2007;Tyleretal.2007)FlexibilityModerateThetravelplanshouldbea‘living’documentandongoingprocess,particularlyfornewdevelopmentswheretheoccupant/smaybeunknown(Addison2002)‘Hard’infrastructuremeasuresModerateHelpstocomplementand‘lock-in’thebenefitsoftravelplans(Cairnsetal.2008)Training,guidelinesandresourcesModerateImportantthatthesearelocation-specificandtailoredtothetypeoftravelplanbeingconsidered(Addison2002;DepartmentforTransport2002)TravelplanintroducedearlyModerateRelevanttonewdevelopments;conceptshouldbeintroducedbeforetheplanningapplicationislodged(DepartmentforTransport2005,2007;MAX2009a)IntegrationwithtransportModerateRelevanttonewdevelopmentsassessments(EastSussexCountyCouncil2008;FraserandAddison2002;TransportforLondon2010)AssessmentoftransportcontextModerateNeedstoconsideraspectsbothexternal(e.g.publictransportser-vices)andinternal(e.g.workplacetravelpolicies)tothesite(Smith2010;Wakeetal.2010)EconomicdevelopmentModerateAppliesmostlytonewdevelop-ments(Rye2002a)Mediacoverage/otherrecognitionLowCanassistinenhancingmotiva-tion,triggeringnewactivityandsustaininginterest(CairnsandNewson2006)SourceAuthor’ssynthesisoftheliteraturebasedoncitationswithinthetableNote‘Relativeimportance’ratingbasedontheauthor’sassessmentoftheliterature;itisacknowledgedthatthisratingmayvarydependingonlocalcircumstances AppendixCCouncilSurveyQuestionnaire1.Towhatextentdoyouagreethatthefollowingmechanismsareeffectiveinmanagingtransportaccessfornewdevelopments?MechanismStronglyDisagreeNeutralAgreeStronglydisagreeagreeUpgradingthesurroundingroadnetworkand/orintersectionsProvidingsufficientcarparkingtomeetdemandProvidingnewand/orimprovedpublictransportservicesProvidingasafeandconnectedwalkingandcyclingnetworkIncorporatingamixoflandusestopotentiallyreducethelengthandnumberoftripsDevelopingandimplementingatravelplantoencouragetheuseofmoresustainabletransportmodesOther(pleasestate):___________________2.Hasyourcouncileverrequiredatravelplanforanytypeofnewdevelopment?YesNo(gotoquestion7)Unsure(gotoquestion8)©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017195C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 196AppendixC:CouncilSurveyQuestionnaire3.Howmanynewdevelopmentshasyourcouncilrequiredatravelplanforinthelasttwoyears?None1–23–56–10Morethan10Unsure4.Foranynewdevelopmentsinyourmunicipalitythathaverequiredatravelplan,whatlevelofmonitoringhastakenplacetodeterminewhetheractionsinthetravelplanarebeingimplemented?NotapplicableasnoimplementationhastakenplaceyetNomonitoringhastakenplaceyetandtherearenoplanstodoanymonitoringNomonitoringhastakenplaceyetbuttheremaybesomemonitoringinthefutureNomonitoringhastakenplaceyetbuttherewilldefinitelybesomemonitoringinthefutureSometravelplanshavebeenmonitoredbutthemajorityhavenotbeenmonitoredyetMosttravelplanshavebeenmonitoredAlltravelplanshavebeenmonitoredtodateUnsure5.Whichofthefollowingmechanismshavebeenusedbyyourcounciltorequireatravelplanforanewdevelopment(tickallthatapply)?ConditiononplanningpermitSection173agreementDevelopmentcontributionplanVerbalnegotiationwithdeveloperOther(pleasestate):____________________________________________________Unsure AppendixC:CouncilSurveyQuestionnaire1976.Whatarethekeyreasons/motivationsforyourcouncilrequiringtravelplansfornewdevelopments(tickallthatapply)?Mitigatetransportimpactsandimproveaccessibility(gotoquestion8)Reducerequirementsforroadnetworkupgrades(gotoquestion8)Offsetimpactsofprovidingreducedlevelsofcarparking(gotoquestion8)Contributetowiderenvironmentalobjectives(gotoquestion8)Provideasellingfeaturefornewdevelopments(gotoquestion8)Deliveroncouncil’stransportpoliciesand/orstrategies(gotoquestion8)Other(gotoquestion8)Unsure(gotoquestion8)7.Whyhasyourcouncilneverrequiredatravelplanforanynewdevelopment(tickallthatapply)?LittleornoawarenessofthetravelplanconceptTravelplansnotconsideredtobeeffectiveorappropriateforthelocalareaPlanningtorequiretravelplansfornewdevelopmentsinthefutureOther(pleasestate):______________________________________________________Unsure8.Whichofthefollowingbestdescribesyourleveloffamiliarityandexperiencewithtravelplans?Ihadneverheardabouttravelplanspriortothissurvey(gotoquestion10)IhaveheardabouttravelplansbeforebutdonotunderstandhowtheyworkinpracticeIamawareoftravelplansbutonlyhavealimitedunderstandingofhowtheyworkinpracticeIamveryawareofwhattravelplansarebutdonothaveanypracticalexperienceinusingthemIamveryawareofwhattravelplansareandhavepracticalexperienceinusingthem 198AppendixC:CouncilSurveyQuestionnaire9.Whatisthefuturelikelihoodthatyourcouncilwillrequireatravelplanforanewdevelopmentinthenext12months?HighlyunlikelyUnlikelyUnsureLikelyHighlylikely10.Forcross-classificationpurposesonly,pleaseindicatethelocationofyourcouncil:Innermetropolitan(Maribyrnong,Melbourne,PortPhillip,Stonnington,Yarra)Middlemetropolitan(Banyule,Bayside,Boroondara,Darebin,GlenEira,HobsonsBay,Kingston,Manningham,Monash,MooneeValley,Moreland,Whitehorse)Outermetropolitan(Brimbank,Cardinia,Casey,GreaterDandenong,Frankston,Hume,Knox,Maroondah,Melton,M’tonPeninsula,Nillumbik,Whittlesea,Wyndham,YarraRanges)Regional(anycouncilnotlistedintheabovecategories)11.Ifyouhaveanyothercommentsinrelationtotransportplanningfornewdevelopments,particularlywithrespecttotravelplans,pleaseprovidetheminthespacebelow: AppendixDLettertoPropertyManagers©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017199C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 AppendixEPre-NotificationLetter©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017201C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 AppendixFResidentSurveyPostcardFrontBack©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017203C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 AppendixGResidentSurveyQuestionnaire1.Howmanypeopleusuallyliveinyourhousehold,includingyourself?Numberofpeople2.Howlonghaveyoubeenlivingatyourcurrentaddress?YearsMonths3.Doyoucurrentlyrentatyourpresentaddress?YesNo4.Whatisyourcurrentemploymentstatus?Selectoneoptiononly.Employedfull-time(35hormoreperweek)Employedpart-time(lessthan35hperweek)EmployedonacasualbasisNotcurrentlyemployed(gotoquestion6)©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017205C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 206AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire5.Sinceyouhavebeenlivingatyourcurrentaddress,howdoyoutraveltoyourcurrentworkplace/s?Pleaseprovidearesponseforeachmethodoftransport.MethodofNeverRarelyOccasionallySometimesMostlyAlmosttransportalways0%ofUpto20–40%of40–60%of60–80%80–100%thetime20%thetimethetimeofthetimeoftheofthetimetimePublictrans-port(train,tramorbus)WalkonlyCar—asthedriverCar—asapassengerBicycleMotorcycleorscooterTaxiAeroplaneDonottravel(e.g.workfromhome)Other6.Areyoucurrentlyenrolledataneducationalinstitution(e.g.school,university,TAFE)?No(gotoquestion8)Yes,primaryorsecondaryschoolYes,full-timeatuniversityorTAFEYes,part-timeatuniversityorTAFEYes,atadifferenteducationalinstitution AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire2077.Sinceyouhavebeenlivingatyourcurrentaddress,howdoyoutraveltoyourcurrenteducationalinstitution/s?Pleaseprovidearesponseforeachmethodoftransport.MethodofNeverRarelyOccasionallySometimesMostlyAlmosttransportalways0%ofUpto20–40%of40–60%60–80%80–100%thetime20%ofthetimeofthetimeofthetimeofthetimethetimePublictransport(train,tramorbus)WalkonlyCar—asthedriverCar—asapassengerBicycleMotorcycleorscooterTaxiAeroplaneDonottravel(e.g.onlinecourse)Other8.Sinceyouhavebeenlivingatyourcurrentaddress,howdoyoutravelwhenyougototheshops(e.g.supermarket,bakery,otherretail)?Pleaseprovidearesponseforeachmethodoftransport.MethodofNeverRarelyOccasionallySometimesMostlyAlmosttransportalways0%oftheUpto20–40%of40–60%of60–80%80–100%time20%thetimethetimeofthetimeofthetimeofthetimePublictransport(train,tramorbus) 208AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaireMethodofNeverRarelyOccasionallySometimesMostlyAlmosttransportalways0%oftheUpto20–40%of40–60%of60–80%80–100%time20%thetimethetimeofthetimeofthetimeofthetimeWalkonlyCar—asthedriverCar—asapassengerBicycleMotorcycleorscooterTaxiDonottravel(e.g.onlineshopping)Other9.Howmanycarsareownedorusedbyyourhousehold?Excludeanycarsharevehicles(e.g.GoGet)Numberofcars(ifnone,gotoquestion11)10.Wherearethesecar/susuallyparkedatnight?(Responseoptionstailoredtositecontext)WithintheresidentialbuildingcarparkOnthestreetCommercialcarparkOtherlocation11.Howmanybicyclesareownedorusedbyyourhousehold?ExcludeanybicyclesthatarepartofMelbourneBikeShareNumberofbicycles(ifnone,gotoquestion13) AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire20912.Wherearethesebicycle/susuallyparkedatnight?(Responseoptionstailoredtositecontext)CommonbicyclestorageareaIndividualstoragecageCarparkspaceWithinyourresidentialunitorbalconyOutsidethebuildingsomewhereOtherlocation13.Towhatextentdoyouagreewiththefollowingstatements?StatementStronglyDisagreeNeutralAgreeStronglydisagreeagreeIprefertotravelbycar—when-everpossibleItisimportantthatIhavemyownallocatedcarparkingspaceathomeOthersmightthinkIhadafinancialdifficultyifIdidnothaveacarIprefertotakepublictransportratherthantravelbycar—wheneverpossibleIprefertouseabicycleratherthantravelbycar—wheneverpossibleIliketolivewhereIhaveshopswithinwalkingdistanceofmyhome14.Pleaseindicateyourawarenessanduseofthefollowingtravelinitiativeswhichmaybeavailableatyourresidentialbuilding.(Responseoptionstai-loredtositecontext)TravelinitiativeNotawareofitorAware,buthaven’tAwareandhavedoesn’texistusedituseditCommonbicyclestorageareaBicyclefleetinbuild-ingcarpark 210AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaireTravelinitiativeNotawareofitorAware,buthaven’tAwareandhavedoesn’texistusedituseditFreemembershiptoMelbournebikeshareGogetcarsharingvehicleinbuildingcarparkFreemembershiptogogetcarshareTransportinforma-tiononbuilding’swebsiteOnlineresidentforumfororganisingcarpoolingTransportinforma-tioninnewresidentskitFreepublictrans-portticketsfornewresidentsUmbrellasatrecep-tion/lobbyarea15.Howusefulwouldyoufindthefollowingtravelinitiativesatyourresidentialbuilding?(Responseoptionstailoredtositecontext)StatementNotatallSlightlyModeratelyVeryExtremelyusefulusefulusefulusefulusefulMorecarparkingspacesCarparkingsold/rentedseparatelytoreducecostsforthosenotneedingaparkingspaceAsharedcarthatcanberentedoutbythehour(maintainedbyathirdparty) AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire211StatementNotatallSlightlyModeratelyVeryExtremelyusefulusefulusefulusefulusefulAdiscountedpublictrans-portticket(Myki)Moreloca-tionstosafelystoreyourbicycle/sAnon-sitebicyclemaintenanceserviceAninforma-tionscreeninthefoyerdisplayingcurrenttram,trainandbusdeparturetimesInformationaboutyourtransportoptions,includingtimetablesandmapsToenableustocompareoursamplewithpopulationstatisticsobtainedfromthemostrecentCensus(2011),wewouldlikeyoutoanswerthesameincomeques-tionthatwasaskedintheCensus.16.Whatwasthetotalofallwages/salaries,governmentbenefits,pensions,allowancesandotherincomethatyouusuallyreceive?Selectoneoptiononly.Donotdeduct:tax,superannuationcontributions,healthinsurance,amountssalarysacrificed,oranyotherautomaticdeductions.$2,000ormoreperweek($104,000ormoreperyear)$1,500–$1,999perweek($78,000–$103,999peryear)$1,250–$1,499perweek($65,000–$77,999peryear)$1,000–$1,249perweek($52,000–$64,999peryear)$800–$999perweek($41,600–$51,999peryear)$600–$799perweek($31,200–$41,599peryear) 212AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire$400–$599perweek($20,800–$31,199peryear)$300–$399perweek($15,600–$20,799peryear)$200–$299perweek($10,400–$15,599peryear)$100–$199perweek($1–$10,399peryear)NilincomeNegativeincome17.Whatisyourage?19yearsorless20–29years30–39years40–49years50–59years60–69years70yearsormore18.Areyoumaleorfemale?MaleFemale AppendixG:ResidentSurveyQuestionnaire21319.Doyouhaveanycommentsinrelationtotravelinyourlocalarea?IfyouwouldliketogointothedrawtowinaColesMyergiftcardworth$250,pleaseprovideyourfirstnameandacontactablephonenumberORemailaddressbelow.Pleasenotethatthesedetailswillnot,underanycircumstances,beusedforanypurposeotherthancontactingthesuccessfulprizewinner.FirstnamePhonenumberORemailaddressThankyoufortakingthetimetocompletethissurvey.Theresultswillhelpshapefuturetransportplanningforresidentialapartmentbuildings.Pleaseplaceyourcompletedsurveyinthereplypaidenvelopeprovidedandensurethisispostmarkedby18May2014. ReferencesAddison,L.(2002).Usingtheplanningprocesstosecuresustainabletransport.PaperpresentedtoEuropeanTransportConference,HomertonCollege,Cambridge,UK.Addison&Associates.(2008).Deliveringtravelplansthroughtheplanningprocess—Researchreport.London,UK:DepartmentforTransportandCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Ampt,E.S.,Richardson,A.J.,&Wake,D.(2009).Simpleandsuited:Guidelinesforworkplacetravelsurveys.Paperpresentedto32ndAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Auckland,NewZealand.ATOC.(2013).Guidanceontheimplementationofstationtravelplans.UK:AssociationofTrainOperatingCompanies.Balsas,C.(2003).Sustainabletransportationplanningoncollegecampuses.TransportPolicy,10,35–49.Baslington,H.(2008).Schooltravelplans:Overcomingbarrierstoimplementation.TransportReviews,28(2),239–258.Baudains,C.(2003).Environmentaleducationintheworkplace:InducingvoluntarytravelbehaviourchangetodecreasesingleoccupantvehicletripsbycommutersintothePerthCBD.PhDthesis,MurdochUniversity.Berman,W.,&Radow,L.(1997).TraveldemandmanagementintheUSA:Context,lessonslearnedandfuturedirections.EnergyPolicy,25(14–15),1213–1215.Bianco,M.(2000).Effectivetransportationdemandmanagement:Combiningparkingpricing,transitincentives,andtransportationmanagementinacommercialdistrictofPortland,ore-gon.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1711,46–54.Black,C.,&Schreffler,E.(2010).Understandingtransportdemandmanagementanditsroleindeliveryofsustainableurbantransport.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,2163,81–88.Cairns,S.,&Newson,C.(2006).Makingschooltravelplanswork:Effects,benefitsandsuccessfactorsatEnglishschools.AssociationforEuropeanTransportandContributors.Cairns,S.,Newson,C.,&Davis,A.(2010).Understandingsuccessfulworkplacetravelinitia-tivesintheUK.TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,44(7),473–494.Cairns,S.,Sloman,L.,Newson,C.,Anable,J.,Kirkbride,A.,&Goodwin,P.(2004).Smarterchoices—Changingthewaywetravel.UK:DepartmentforTransport.Cairns,S.,Sloman,L.,Newson,C.,Anable,J.,Kirkbride,A.,&Goodwin,P.(2008).Smarterchoices:Assessingthepotentialtoachievetrafficreductionusing‘softmeasures’.TransportReviews,28(5),593–618.Coleman,C.(2000).Greencommuterplansandthesmallemployer:Aninvestigationintotheattitudesandpolicyofthesmallemployertowardsstafftravelandgreencommuterplans.TransportPolicy,7,139–148.©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2017215C.DeGruyter,TravelPlansforNewResidentialDevelopments:InsightsfromTheoryandPractice,SpringerTheses,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2092-6 216ReferencesCooper,B.,&Meiklejohn,D.(2003).Anewapproachfortravelbehaviourchangeinuniver-sities.Paperpresentedto26thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Wellington,NewZealand.Curtis,C.,&Holling,C.(2004).Justhow(travel)smartareAustralianuniversitieswhenitcomestoimplementingsustainabletravel?WorldTransportPolicyandPractice,10(1),22–33.Davison,L.,Enoch,M.,&Ison,S.(2010).Europeanexperienceoftravelplans:Anexpertper-spective.Paperpresentedto12thWorldConferenceinTransportationResearch,Lisbon,Portugal.DeGruyter,C.,Rao,D.,&Meiklejohn,D.(2005).Toolsfortravelbehaviourchange.Paperpre-sentedto28thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Sydney,Australia.DepartmentforTransport.(2002).Usingtheplanningprocesstosecuretravelplans:Bestprac-ticeguidanceforlocalauthorities,developersandoccupiers.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.DepartmentforTransport.(2005).Makingresidentialtravelplanswork:Guidelinesfornewdevelopment,London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2007).Makingresidentialtravelplanswork,London,UK.DepartmentforTransport.(2008).Theessentialguidetotravelplanning.London,UK:DepartmentforTransport.DiPietro,G.,&Hughes,I.(2003).TravelSMARTSchools—Therereallyisabetterwaytogo!Paperpresentedto26thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Wellington,NewZealand.EastSussexCountyCouncil.(2008).Guidanceontravelplansfornewdevelopment.Enoch,M.(2012a).Sustainabletransport,mobilitymanagementandtravelplans.Surrey,England:AshgatePublishingLimited.Enoch,M.(2012b).Travelplans—opportunitiesforICT.Paperpresentedto6thACMworkshoponnextgenerationmobilecomputingfordynamicpersonalisedtravelplanning(sensetrans-port’12).LakeDistrict,UK:LowWoodBay.Enoch,M.,&Rye,T.(2006).Travelplans:Usinggoodpracticetoinformfuturepolicy.InB.Jourquin,P.Rietveld,&K.Westin(Eds.),Towardsbetterperformingtransportnetworks(pp.157–177).London,UK:Routledge.Enoch,M.,Zhang,L.,&Ison,S.(2007).Unlockingthepotentialofsitebasedmobilitymanage-mentthroughlocaltravelplangroups.WorldTransportPolicyandPractice,13(2),23–39.Fraser,J.,&Addison,L.(2002).Travelplans—Agreenwashoraneffectiveplanningmecha-nism.TownandCountryPlanning,275–277.Giuliano,G.,Hwang,K.,Perrine,D.,&Wachs,M.(1991).PreliminaryevaluationofregulationXVofthesouthcoastairqualitymanagementdistrict.Berkeley,California,US:UniversityofCaliforniaTransportationCenter.Grant,M.,Rooney,K.,&Suter,S.(2012).Integratedtraveldemandmanagementintotrans-portationplanning:Bestpracticesnationwide.PaperpresentedtoTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)2012AnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC.Green,K.(1995).LookingbeyondECO:Alternativestoemployer-basedtripreduction.PolicyStudyNo.185,ReasonFoundation.Hamre,A.,&Buehler,R.(2014).Commutermodechoiceandfreecarparking,publictranspor-tationbenefits,showers/lockers,andbikeparkingatwork:EvidencefromtheWashington,DCRegion.JournalofPublicTransportation,17(2),67–91.Hansen,D.,Peart,J.,&John,G.(2012).Engagingyoungminds.Addressingschooltravelchal-lengesthroughinnovation.Paperpresentedto35thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Perth,Australia.Harrison,J.(2003).Travelplansandtheplanningsystem.JournalofPlanningandEnvironmentLaw,397–403.Hendricks,S.(2005).Effectivenessofprogramsforworksitetripreduction:Theinfluenceoforganisationalculture.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1924,207–214. References217Hendricks,S.,&Georggi,N.(2007).Documentedimpactoftransportationdemandmanagementprogramsthroughthecasestudymethod.JournalofPublicTransportation,10(4),79–98.Hinckson,E.,&Badland,H.(2011).Schooltravelplans:Preliminaryevidenceforchangingschool-relatedtravelpatternsinelementaryschoolchildren.AmericanJournalofHealthPromotion,25(6),368–371.Howlett,R.,&Watson,T.(2010).TravelplanninginVictoria—Anewstrategicapproachtosustainingcommunities.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Ison,S.,&Rye,T.(2008).Theimplementationandeffectivenessoftransportdemandmanage-mentmeasures:Aninternationalperspective.Hampshire,UK:Ashgate.MAX.(2009a).WPD—MaxLupo:Guidelinesfortheintegrationofmobilitymanagementwithlanduseplanning.SixthFrameworkProgramme,EuropeanCommission.MAX.(2009b).WPDIntegratingmobilitymanagementandlanduseplanning:Compendiumofsitebasedmobilitymanagementmeasures(D5).SixthFrameworkProgramme,EuropeanCommission.Myers,K.(2005).Travelbehaviourchangeinitiatives:Alocalgovernment’sinnovations.Paperpresentedto28thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Sydney,Australia.Newson,C.,Cairns,S.,&Davis,A.(2010).Makingschooltravelplanswork:ExperiencefromEnglishcasestudies,TransportforQualityofLife.Peddie,B.,&Somerville,C.(2005).Travelbehaviourchangethroughschooltravelplanning:Modeshiftandcommunityengagement—Resultsfrom33schoolsinVictoria.Paperpresentedto28thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Sydney,Australia.Potter,S.,Rye,T.,&Smith,M.(1999).Taxandgreentransportplans:AsurveyofUKexperi-ence.TransportPolicy,6,197–205.RatioConsultantsPtyLtd.(1991).Tripreductionordinancefeasibilitystudy.Australia:VicRoadsinassociationwithGreenhouseUnitandEnergyVictoria.Roby,H.(2010).CantravelplansescapetheplanningGhetto?TownandCountryPlanning.Rye,T.(1997).Theimplementationofworkplacetransportdemandmanagementinlargeorgan-isations.PhDthesis,NottinghamTrentUniversity.Rye,T.(1999a).Employerattitudestoemployertransportplans:AcomparisonofUKandDutchexperience.TransportPolicy,6,183–196.Rye,T.(1999b).Employertransportplans—Acaseforregulation?TransportReviews,19(1),13–31.Rye,T.(2002a).Public-privatepartnershipinsecuringmobilitymanagementthroughtheland-useplanningprocess:AreviewofexamplesfromtheUKandBenelux.PaperpresentedtoEuropeanConferenceonMobilityManagement(ECOMM),Gent,Belgium.Rye,T.(2002b).Travelplans:Dotheywork?TransportPolicy,9,287–298.Rye,T.,&Ison,S.(2005).OvercomingbarrierstotheimplementationofcarparkingchargesatUKworkplaces.TransportPolicy,12,57–64.Smith,L.(2010).Schooltravelplans:Howsuccessfularethey?TrafficEngineeringandControl,189–193.Sullivan,C.,&Percy,A.(2008).Evaluatingchangesassociatedwithworkplaceandschooltravelplans—Somethingold,somethingborrowed,somethingnew.Paperpresentedto31stAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),GoldCoast,Queensland,Australia.Thom,A.(2009).BehaviourchangetowardssustainabletravelinPerth—TheTravelSmartworkplaceprogram.PaperpresentedtoPATRECResearchForum,CurtinUniversityPerth,Australia.TransportforLondon.(2010).Transportassessmentbestpracticeguidancedocument.London,UK:TransportforLondon.Tyler,S.,Enoch,M.,&Zhang,L.(2007).Settinguplocaltravelplangroups:Thefutureofworkplacetravelplanninginurbanconurbations?ExamplesfromLondon.Paperpresentedto86thTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)AnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC,US.VanMalderen,L.,Jourquin,B.,Pecheux,C.,Thomas,I.,VanDeVijver,E.,Vanoutrive,T.,etal.(2013).ExploringtheprofessionofmobilitymanagerinBelgiumandtheirimpactoncom-muting.TransportationResearchPartA,55,46–55. 218ReferencesWake,D.(2012).EngagingPerthworkplacesforsustainabletransport:AnevaluationoftheTravelSmartworkplaceprogram.Paperpresentedto35thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Perth,Australia.Wake,D.,Thom,A.,&Cummings,R.(2010).Evaluatingworkplacetravelplans.Paperpre-sentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Wiblin,S.(2010).Integratingtravelbehaviourchangeforworkers,shoppersandresidentsatanoutersuburbancentre.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.Wiblin,S.,Mulley,C.,&Ison,S.(2012).Precinctwidetravelplans—learningsfromRouseHillTownCentre.Paperpresentedto35thAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Perth,Australia.Woodruff,A.,&Hui,C.(2010).Integratingplanninginactivitycentres:Influencingchangeacrossalltravelpurposes.Paperpresentedto33rdAustralasianTransportResearchForum(ATRF),Canberra,Australia.