Transport Studies Group

LEVELS OF ACTIVITY RELATING TO SAFER ROUTES TO SCHOOL TYPE PROJECTS AND GREEN TRANSPORT PLANS

By Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster in conjunction with Social and Transport Research Services.

Report Author: Ruth Bradshaw

Study Team: Ruth Bradshaw, Robert Lane, Graham Tanner, Diana Wofinden.

May 1998

The main focus of the review was a questionnaire survey of every local authority in England and Wales plus a sample of employers who have adopted Green Transport Plans. The information collected has been used to create a database which will feed into further research planned for the next financial year.

Safer Routes to School Type Projects
Safer Routes to School type projects have been implemented on the continent for the past two decades but it is only in the last few years that they have gained much attention in the UK. There were a few initiatives undertaken prior to the start of the Sustrans demonstration project, notably the Feet First initiative in Leicester. However, it is probably fair to say that the Sustrans project has been instrumental in raising the profile of safe routes to school and encouraging local authorities to start their own initiatives. Other organisations, such as the Pedestrians Association, have also played an important role in raising awareness about the issues associated with high levels of car use on the school journey. This is seen as being an important first step towards encouraging walking and cycling to school and it is hoped that such awareness will lead to pressure to implement physical measures.

Green Transport Plans
The recent interest in the development of GTPs in this country was initiated originally by the work in Nottingham, where both the City Council and the County Council have developed their own GTPs and are encouraging other local employers to do likewise. However, it is only really in the past eighteen months that the initiative has started to be taken up widely in other areas, prompted by a number of publications encouraging GTPs produced by organisations ranging from Transport 2000 to the CBI. Some private employers have started to develop their own GTPs independently whilst others are being encouraged by their local authority. There is now a national Association of Commuter Transport which organisations working on GTPs can join to share ideas and gain relevant advice and assistance.

The high level of interest in GTPs is also reflected in the amount of research currently being undertaken in this area. Several people are undertaking PhD research into various aspects of GTPs including their impacts on employees and their households and the role of walking in GTPs. Other research is being undertaken into employers' views about GTPs and the role that intranet travel information systems can have in reducing staff travel.

This is obviously an area which is just starting to gain attention in many places - only seven of the authorities had started their programme of implementing SRtoS prior to 1995. The increasing interest prompted by the Sustrans demonstration project which began in 1995 can be seen from the fact that almost 90% of authorities with schemes began their implementation in 1996 or later with almost half having begun in 1997.

Lack of resources almost certainly limits some authorities' ability to be as involved in this area as they would like to be. Almost half of those who answered the relevant question said that they had no budget in 1997/98 for this work and a further 15% had budgets of less than £10,000. At the other end of the scale 5 authorities had budgets of over £100,000 - the highest being £458,000 for the London Borough of Ealing.

A quarter of the authorities who had at least started the process had been successful in gaining funding for SRtoS projects from their transport budgets and two-fifths had obtained TPP funding. Authorities also listed a wide range of other sources from which they had obtained funding or sponsorship and it is clear that some authorities are obtaining funding from a wide variety of both public and private sources ranging from very local sources such as parish councils to European level funds.

The most common barriers to implementation cited were the ones that related to parental attitudes or willingness to allow their children to use modes other than the car - parental car dependence, parental fears for safety of children from traffic and parental fears for security of children from other people were each cited by around two-thirds of the authorities. However, lack of financial resources was cited by almost as many (59%) and lack of time by two-fifths.

Only around 28% of the active authorities said that they were monitoring the impacts of SRtoS type projects and half the authorities said that they had not yet done any monitoring but will do in future. The most common form of monitoring was questionnaires to pupils which three-quarters of those undertaking any monitoring were using. In many local authorities various other initiatives aimed at reducing car use for school journeys are being introduced. Traffic management near schools (e.g. calming, junctions) is the most common related initiative being used by authorities to reduce car use for the school journey. Half have already implemented this and 30% are planning to do so. Around a third of authorities are using one or more of the following initiatives: including education measures in Road Safety Officer's programme, national curriculum work and other classroom activities, leaflets aimed at parents and other members of the community and additional pedestrian crossings or patrols.

In terms of public transport provision, 61% of the authorities do no more than meet their statutory obligation to assist those living beyond the minimum walking distance. For those that did do more the most common means of subsidy was to fund a concessionary fares scheme for school children or to subsidise extra peak-hour services (10% each).

Local authorities appear to be slightly more involved in encouraging other organisations to develop GTPs than at developing them within their own organisation. About 6% of authorities have encouraged GTPs at other organisations in their area on a permanent basis, a further 6% had encouraged pilot or trial GTPs at other organisations and 23% had started the process by contacting employers. The South East is the most active region in terms of the proportion of authorities involved in encouraging other employers to adopt GTPs and Wales is the least active.

The earliest GTP initiatives identified began in 1995, when six authorities said that they began work in this area, either on their own GTP or on encouraging other employers to adopt a GTP or in both areas. Another nine authorities started their initiatives in 1996 but the largest proportion (almost 40%) started in 1997 and a fifth had only begun their initiative this year. It is evident from this just how recently most GTP initiatives have been started. It also seems likely that the increasingly high profile that GTPs have gained in the past 18 months with the launch of publications by the CBI and Transport 2000 has contributed to the sharp increase in the number of schemes begun in 1997.

As with SRtoS, authorities' involvement in GTPs is probably limited by a lack of resources. Almost three-quarters of those who answered the relevant question said that they had no budget in 1997/98 for this work. Almost half those allocated a budget said that it was less than £10,000. At the other end of the scale one County Council (Hampshire) had a budget of £100,000 (it was participating in a European project) and two other authorities (Surrey County Council and Nottingham City Council) had budgets of over £50,000. Just over a quarter of the authorities with GTP initiatives had been successful in gaining funding from their transport budgets and 15% had been successful in gaining TPP funding. Thirteen per cent had been successful in gaining funding through a sponsorship or partnership arrangement - in most cases the sponsorship or partnership related to GTPs for other organisations and not for the authority's own GTP.

The most common barrier cited both to the implementation of a GTP at the authority itself (56%) and at other organisations (42%) was lack of staff time. Lack of financial resources was cited by almost as many authorities (55%) as a barrier to the implementation of their own GTP but was less important when it came to implementing GTPs at other organisations when it was only listed by a quarter of authorities.

Twenty-five authorities had used Section 106 agreements to require GTPs as part of planning permission. Around three-quarters of these had included reduced parking provision in the agreement, just over half have required on-site cycle facilities and 40% have required pedestrian facilities.

Around a third of the active authorities said that they were monitoring the impacts of the GTP project at their own authority and around 14% said they were monitoring GTP projects at other organisations. The most common form of monitoring was employee travel surveys which had been undertaken by three-quarters of the local authorities doing any monitoring.

Around a third of the organisations contacted took their own initiative in first becoming involved in implementing a GTP and only 11% were approached by their local authority. A fifth are implementing GTPs as part of a planning agreement and 13% were prompted by action from a national organisation (e.g. Transport 2000).

One organisation said that they first started implementing their GTP in 1989 but this was unlikely to have been a full Plan at this stage. One scheme was first started in each year between 1992 and 1994 and two in 1995 but most schemes have only started since then and the majority have begun very recently. Nine schemes first started in 1996, 17 in 1997 and five so far in 1998.

By far the most common reason given for getting involved in a GTP was the need to solve parking problems with 50% of the organisations citing this as their main reason. Just under a fifth cited concern for the environment and around 10% gave their main reason as wishing to reduce congestion around their site.

Sixty per cent of the organisations had appointed a staff travel co-ordinator for staff to contact for advice about using public transport, car-sharing or cycling.

The most common measure implemented as part of a GTP was a car-sharing database which over half the organisations had implemented. Two-fifths were providing improved storage facilities for bicycles, a quarter were providing improved locker facilities for cyclists and a fifth had Bicycle User Groups. A third were charging staff for parking on-site which seems high but is probably due to the high proportion of hospitals in the sample. Charging for staff parking at hospitals is becoming increasingly common. However, very few organisations were attempting to limit the amount of parking by any means other than charging with only two reducing the number of parking spaces and two introducing other parking controls. Just over two-fifths of all the organisations surveyed had published a GTP.

Around a fifth of the organisations said that their GTP was welcomed from the start and staff participated at once but the same proportion felt that their GTP was viewed negatively and that staff were reluctant to participate. Only one felt that staff were initially hostile but have grown to accept the plan.

Only three organisations answered the question on whether there had been any financial savings as a result of implementing the GTP and only one of these gave a positive response, specifying that they had saved £13,000 from reductions in car park maintenance as it was now contracted out and the saving had been used to subsidise bus services.

There appear to be two main issues which need to be addressed if local authorities are to be encouraged to adopt such measures and if such measures are to be successful. The first is the issue of finance - almost 60% of those responding to either questionnaire felt that lack of financial resources was one of the main barriers either to implementing SRtoS type projects or to developing their own GTP. The second issue is information - for authorities themselves on what can be done, for parents and schools on how they can support SRtoS projects and for employers on the benefits of implementing GTPs.

The two issues are linked as some authorities have been very successful in forming partnerships and obtaining sponsorship or funding from a wide variety of sources and that is the sort of information that needs to be disseminated more widely to other local authorities. The information provided to local authorities should also emphasise that the costs of such initiatives, especially GTPs, are low in comparison to some other types of transport policy, especially the building of new roads or expanding of existing road space. Even for SRtoS type projects where costs may be somewhat higher than for GTP initiatives, they are still lower than the costs associated with increasing road capacity and the resulting benefits, in terms of reduced congestion, increased safety and improved environmental conditions are potentially substantial.