TravelSmart in Lancashire
TravelSmart in Lancashire Final Report on the Individualised Travel Marketing Campaigns in Preston, South Ribble and Lancaster (2006-07)
Report for Lancashire County Council September 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
INTRODUCTION This report Other Reports Structure of this report
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background Aims and objectives The TravelSmart Individualised Travel Marketing process Target areas and populations Project management Project timetable
3 3 3 4 5 9 10
3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
PREPARATIONS FOR THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGNS Introduction Information materials Incentives and rewards Further services Local field offices Call centre
11 11 11 12 14 16 16
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN PRESTON AND SOUTH RIBBLE Introduction Contact and segmentation phase Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information Convincing Phase Summary
16 18 18 21 26 27
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN LANCASTER, TORRISHOLME AND MORECAMBE Introduction Contact and segmentation phase Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information Convincing Phase Summary
27 27 27 30 34 35
6 6.1 6.2 6.3
EVALUATION Introduction Travel behaviour surveys Analysis
36 36 36 42
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5
1 1 1 2
7 7.1 7.2
CONCLUSIONS Introduction Key outcomes
ANNEXES
68 68 69
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lancashire’s first TravelSmart®1 Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM) programme, conducted across a total target population of 50,000 households in Preston, South Ribble, and Lancaster during 2006-07, was successful in increasing levels of walking, cycling and public transport use, leading to significant reductions in car travel. By offering households personalised information and advice on the alternatives to private car travel and incentives to try them out, six separate ITM campaigns activated some of the significant potential for behaviour change existing across the target areas, as highlighted by extensive baseline surveys conducted in spring 2006. A detailed evaluation of the TravelSmart programme measured average increases in use of sustainable travel modes among the target populations ranging from 11 to 36%, generating relative reductions in car driver trips of between 10 and 14%. The total annual saving in vehicle kilometres was approximately 62.6 million vkm, leading to annual CO2 reductions of around 13,000 tonnes. The evaluation also provided strong evidence that the effects of TravelSmart were sustained for up to 18 months. The programme of six ITM campaigns and travel behaviour research (consisting of baseline, interim and final surveys) was delivered by Sustrans and partners Socialdata under contract to Lancashire County Council. The work was focused on two ‘package areas’: Preston and South Ribble, where it formed part of the County Council’s EU-funded CIVITAS SUCCESS project; and Lancaster (including Morecambe), where it was designed to support other local transport schemes, notably the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) programme.
1
TravelSmart is registered by Sustrans as a trade mark in the UK
i
At the time of its launch in early 2006, Lancashire’s TravelSmart programme was the largest household travel behaviour change programme of its kind in the UK, helping to consolidate the County Council’s position as one of the country’s most innovative transport planning authorities. The aim of the programme was to reduce levels of car use by promoting walking, cycling and use of public transport among residents of the two packages area. The specific objectives were as follows: •
To define suitable target areas in Preston and South Ribble, and in Lancaster district, to provide a total ITM target population of 50,000 households
•
To develop for each area a package of information, incentives and other services to promote walking, cycling and public transport;
•
To offer this package of information, incentives and other services to the target population in each area, and to fulfil all requests received using the TravelSmart ITM technique (see below); and
•
Using a series of household surveys, to evaluate the effects of this intervention against a range of performance indicators relating mainly to personal travel behaviour using.
The programme was co-ordinated by a working group consisted of Sustrans, Socialdata and Lancashire County Council. This group was responsible for finalising the overall project design and developing the marketing package for each of the six stages of the ITM programme. Further inputs from Lancaster City Council and South Ribble District Council, in particular to the development of the marketing package, were sought as required.
ii
Alongside published bus and rail timetables, local cycling and walking guides and information on community transport, the marketing package assembled for each ITM campaign included two resources developed specifically for TravelSmart®: stop-related bus timetables and a series of local travel maps. A programme of home advice sessions, together with targeted incentives (including a four-week ‘test ticket’ to for local bus services), was also developed to provide participating households with an opportunity to trial one or more alternative modes. Finally, a separate package of materials on responsible driving was assembled for distribution to selected households that were not interested in the main offer of information on sustainable travel options. Each TravelSmart campaign was conducted using the dialogue-based ITM technique, offering households the opportunity to choose travel information and support from the range of resources available to meet their individual needs. The postal and telephone contact was managed throughout the process by Socialdata from its Bristol operations centre while Sustrans established a series of local field offices, staffed by locally-recruited teams to undertake door-to-door canvassing, packing and delivery of the personalised information packs and home visits. The ITM campaigns were conducted according to the following timetable: Preston and South Ribble May – July 2006
Lancaster district
Stage 1.1: South Ribble
Sept – Dec 2006
Stage 2.1: Torrisholme
May – July 2007
Stage 1.2: Preston East
Stage 2.2: Lancaster City
Sept - Dec 2007
Stage 1.3: Preston West
Stage 2.3: Morecambe
iii
The overall responses to the six ITM campaigns are summarised in the flowchart below. This shows that of the total initial target population of 50,232 households, 87% responded to a combination of telephone and door-to-door contact, and were segmented into groups according to their current travel patterns and willingness to participate in the TravelSmart campaign. Of these, 61% were interested in receiving personalised information and advice on walking, cycling and/or public transport and 11% were regular users of these sustainable travel modes with no need for further support. The remaining 28% were not interested in taking part.
Following this initial contact and the subsequent offer of advice etc to those interested, personalised TravelSmart packs containing a total of more than 190,000 items of information, rewards and incentives were delivered to a total of 19,454 households across the six target areas. In general, the most frequently requested information materials were the local travel maps, walking guides and stop-specific bus timetables. Following the offer of further advice and support to selected households, a total of more than 500
iv
home visits were also conducted by trained advisers on walking, cycling and/or public transport. A further 5,479 information packs on responsible driving were sent to households not interested in the main TravelSmart offer, bringing the total number of delivered packages to nearly 25,000, reaching nearly half of the initial target population. The TravelSmart programme was evaluated using a series of detailed travel behaviour surveys, conducted as follows: 1. Baseline surveys across all ITM target areas (March-May 2006) 2. Interim surveys to measure the effects of the first two ITM campaigns in South Ribble and Torrisholme (January - April 2007) 3. A series of final surveys across all ITM target areas to measure the effects of the remaining ITM campaigns in Preston East and West, Lancaster City and Morecambe, and to assess the durability of changes measured by the interim surveys in South Ribble and Torrisholme (April - June 2008) The travel behaviour surveys included separate control groups to measure ‘background’ changes not associated with TravelSmart®. This enabled the analysis to take into account any external influences, e.g. changes in the weather (including seasonal effects), major events affecting the highway network. The charts below show the changes in travel behaviour measured across the ITM target populations in Preston and Lancaster (with control group effects taken into account). The relative reductions in car driver trips of 10 and 14% are within the range observed in other TravelSmart programmes across the UK. The analysis indicates that in each case the greatest modal shift occurred from car driver trips to walking. However there were also significant gains in public transport use and (in particular in Lancaster where TravelSmart built on the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town programme) levels of cycling.
v
Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person per year) (Preston)
Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person/year) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
vi
Further analysis of the travel survey data shows that: •
The behaviour changes were achieved without any significant constraint on daily mobility (i.e. activities, number of trips, distances travelled) among the target populations;
•
Despite increases in the use of ‘slower’ sustainable travel modes, there was no significant change in daily time spent travelling among the target population;
•
Modal shift occurred at all times of the day and for all types of journey.
The final surveys also provided an opportunity to assess the longer term effects of ITM in South Ribble and Torrisholme. The interim evaluations conducted in 2007 indicated relative reductions in car driver trips in South Ribble of 13% and in Torrisholme of 12%. The charts overleaf show the mode choice data (% of all trips) measured by the final surveys among the South Ribble and Torrisholme target populations, and compares those from the 2007 interim evaluation2. This indicates that the changes measured a few months after each ITM campaign were broadly sustained a year later. The effects of all six stages of Lancashire’s TravelSmart programme are summarized in the table below: Target area
Target population (households)
Relative change in car driver trips
Relative change in trips by sustainable modes
Additional daily exposure to active travel (mins)
Annual reduction in vehicle km (millions)
Estimated annual reduction in CO2 emissions (tonnes)
South Ribble
10,700
-13%
+36%
2
18.2
3,800
Torrisholme
8,500
-12%
+16%
4
7.5
1,600
Preston
14,518
-10%
+11%
2
10.5
2,200
Lancaster City & Morecambe
16,501
-14%
+19%
5
26.4
5,500
Totals
62.6
13,000
2
Unlike the interim evaluations which included use of a control group, the 2008 data reflect mode choice across the ITM target populations without any adjustment for ‘background changes’ elsewhere.
vii
Longer-term effects of ITM in South Ribble
Longer-term effects of ITM in Torrisholme
viii
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This report
This report has been prepared by Sustrans in co-operation with Socialdata to review the implementation and outcomes of the TravelSmart®3 Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM) programme conducted in Lancashire in 2006-07. It is the final deliverable of Sustrans’ contract with Lancashire County Council for the provision of behavioural research and personalised travel planning4 in Lancashire. This contract started in January 2006 and will terminate upon the County Council’s acceptance of this report5. The report is intended primarily for Lancashire County Council as the client for this work. However, as agreed at inception, rights to the use of this report and data contained herein will be shared by the client, Sustrans and Socialdata for the purposes of further developing TravelSmart in the UK. 1.2
Other reports
Throughout the project, Sustrans and Socialdata have provided a number of field reports reviewing the implementation of each ITM campaign and the travel behaviour surveys. The two other key deliverables were a detailed report, submitted in October 2006, on the findings of the baseline travel behaviour research and two interim evaluation reports, submitted in September 2007, analysing the effects on travel behaviour of the first two ITM campaigns conducted during spring and autumn of 2006. This report summarises the data provided in the field reports for all six ITM campaigns and baseline, interim and final evaluation surveys. However the analysis of the final evaluation surveys presented here focuses on the effects of the four later ITM campaigns which previously have not been evaluated. For a detailed evaluation of the first two ITM campaigns, readers should refer to the interim evaluation reports submitted in September 2007.
3
TravelSmart is registered by Sustrans as a trade mark in the UK The term Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM) is used in preference to personalised travel planning throughout this report 5 Subject to the County Council’s agreement to bring forward the contract end date of 31st January 2009 4
1
1.3
Structure of this report
Although the report should be read as a whole, each main section is designed to provide readers with a stand-alone account of the project background, methodology or outcomes, as follows: •
Section 2 provides a description of the project, including the background to the Lancashire TravelSmart programme, the principles and key elements of the ITM process; the aims and objectives; and project management arrangements;
•
Section 3 reviews the work done by all project partners to prepare for the ITM campaigns;
•
Section 4 reviews the implementation of the three TravelSmart campaigns in Preston and South Ribble, and summarises the responses from the target populations and services delivered at each stage of the ITM process;
•
Section 5 repeats the previous section, but for the three TravelSmart campaigns conducted in Lancashire district;
•
Section 6 provides a detailed evaluation of the four later ITM campaigns and assesses the longer term effects of the first two (previously evaluated by the interim surveys); and
•
Section 7; presents a series of key conclusions based on the project outcomes, including a comparison with other TravelSmart projects which have taken place in the UK.
2
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
Background
In September 2005, Lancashire County Council invited tenders for a programme of behavioural research and personalised travel planning in two ‘package areas’, Preston and South Ribble, and Lancaster (including Morecambe). The Preston and South Ribble package was to form part of the County Council’s EU-funded CIVITAS SUCCESS project while in Lancaster, the work was intended to build upon other local transport schemes, notably the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) programme. In January 2006, Sustrans and partners Socialdata were commissioned to undertake the work, using behavioural research and Individualised Travel Marketing techniques which had provided the foundation for their successful TravelSmart programme. At the time, this was the largest household travel behaviour change programme of its kind in the UK, helping to consolidate Lancashire’s position as one of the country’s most innovative transport planning authorities6. 2.2
Aims and objectives
The aim of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme was to reduce levels of car use among the target populations by promoting walking, cycling and use of public transport. The specific objectives were: •
To define suitable target areas in Preston and South Ribble, and in Lancaster district, to provide a total ITM target population of 50,000 households
•
To develop for each area a package of information, incentives and other services to promote walking, cycling and public transport;
6
The Lancashire TravelSmart programme has since provided one of the major case studies for a comprehensive study commissioned by the Department for Transport into the effectiveness of personalised travel planning: Making Personalised Travel Planning Work (2007)
3
•
To offer this package of information, incentives and other services to the target population in each area, and to fulfil all requests received using the TravelSmart ITM technique (see below); and
•
To evaluate the effects of this intervention against a range of performance indicators relating mainly to personal travel behaviour.
2.3
The TravelSmart Individualised Travel Marketing process
The TravelSmart ITM process has been developed and proven over many years as a highly successful tool for changing travel behaviour. Pioneered by Socialdata during the 1990s, the technique has since been applied in more than 250 projects targeting a total of more than three million people worldwide. In the UK, the TravelSmart programme run by Sustrans and Socialdata is currently targeting a total of more than 75,000 households in four locations (including three large-scale projects) with the offer of personalised travel information and support. The ITM process was developed by Socialdata as a result of detailed research showing that poor information and lack of motivation were important barriers preventing greater use of walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to car travel. It is now well-recognised that while good infrastructure is needed to provide better alternatives to the car, the full potential for modal shift towards more sustainable travel cannot be realised unless people are well-informed about the options and motivated to use them. The TravelSmart ITM process, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, involves three key stages each based on personal contact with the households in the target area. This creates a dialogue which motivates people to consider and review their own travel behaviour in the context of their own lifestyle situations. People who are interested in changing are supported and encouraged, but the choice is always left to the individual. This process enables people to make voluntary (often small) individual changes which add up to make a significant difference to community-wide travel patterns. The same Individualised Marketing technique has been successfully applied by Socialdata in Australia to promote domestic water efficiency. Other 4
TravelSmart -related programmes have included the use of health-related marketing materials and promoted other forms of physical activity alongside sustainable travel. Figure 2.1
2.4
Individualised Travel Marketing process
Target areas and populations
2.4.1 Definition of target areas The original project brief specified that the ITM programme (and associated behavioural research) should be focused on two distinct target areas: Preston and South Ribble; and Lancaster district. At inception, it was further agreed that the programme should be focused on more heavily populated parts of these areas in order to capture the greatest potential for behaviour change. The resulting six target areas are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. These were known as Preston East, Preston West and South Ribble; and Torrisholme, Lancaster City and Morecambe.
5
Figure 2.2
Preston (West and East) and South Ribble target areas
6
Figure 2.3
Lancaster, Torrisholme and Morecambe target areas
7
2.4.2 Selection of target populations At inception it was further agreed that: 1) The total target population of 50,000 households should be evenly split between the two areas; and 2) A target population of 25,000 households should be defined for each area in a way that maximised cost-effectiveness in the delivery of ITM As the ITM target population of 25,000 households was less than the actual number of households in each area, there was a need to select households from within each target area to form the target population for each stage of the ITM programme. The main criterion used in this selection process was the availability of telephone contact details on the basis that this would enable higher levels of participation to be achieved (for example through use of telephone motivation at different stages of the ITM process) for the same overall resource input. Table 2.5: Summary data on target areas and populations Target area
Households in target area7
Target population
% of target area households in ITM target population
South Ribble
27,159
10,713
39.4%
Preston East
30,234
7,518
24.9%
Preston West
23,710
7,000
29.5%
Torrisholme
13,954
8,500
60.9%
Lancaster City
14,457
8,501
58.8%
Morecambe
16,561
8,000
48.3%
The project database was assembled by Socialdata on this basis using households listed on AFD, a commercially available database of private 7
Derived from Census 2001
8
residential addresses. Once the supply of households with available telephone contact details was exhausted, the project database for each target area was topped up with other households selected at random from AFD. Table 2.5 summarises the resulting target populations for each stage of the ITM programme in relation to the total population of each target area. 2.5
Project management
The project was co-ordinated by a working group, which consisted of Sustrans, Socialdata and Lancashire County Council. Meeting around six times per year over the course of the programme, this group was responsible for finalising the overall project design and, for each of the six stages of the ITM programme, developing the marketing package and reviewing progress with the fieldwork. Further inputs from Lancaster City Council and South Ribble District Council, in particular to the development of the marketing package, were sought as required. As lead contractor to Lancashire County Council, Sustrans was responsible for day-to-day project management and reporting, as well as development of the marketing package for each stage of the ITM programme. Sustrans also managed the local ITM fieldwork, conducting door-to-door contact, deliveries and co-ordination of home visits from a series of field offices around the city. Socialdata undertook postal and telephone contact, database management and quality control from its Bristol operations centre. Lancashire County Council supplied local travel information materials and incentives in liaison with providers including local bus operators.
9
2.6
Project timetable
The overall timetable for the ITM programme and behavioural research was defined at inception as shown in Table 2.6. Table 2.6: Project timetable Preston and South Ribble March-May 2006 May – July 2006
Baseline travel behaviour research ITM Stage 1.1: South Ribble ITM Stage 2.1: Torrisholme
Sept – Dec 2006 January - April 2007
Lancaster district
Interim evaluation surveys
May – July 2007
ITM Stage 1.2: Preston East
ITM Stage 2.2: Lancaster City
Sept - Dec 2007
ITM Stage 1.3: Preston West
ITM Stage 2.3: Morecambe
April - June 2008
Final evaluation surveys
10
3 PREPARATIONS FOR THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGNS 3.1
Introduction
The aim of each TravelSmart campaign was to offer participating households a wide range of high-quality information, advice and support on local options for using sustainable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport). With support from Lancashire County Council, Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council and other local partners, Sustrans co-ordinated the assembly of a marketing package consisting of printed information materials, incentives and rewards, and personal advice sessions (home visits). 3.2
Information materials
A range of information materials was assembled on local options for walking, cycling and public transport, as well as other services. The principal sources of these materials were Lancashire County Council, Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council, Sustrans and the local public transport operators. A checklist of available materials was developed and reviewed according to the following broad criteria: •
Relevance to local travel needs of households in the target area;
•
Consistency with the overall aims of the TravelSmart campaign; and
•
Availability in the quantities required and within project time-scales.
All of the materials selected for use in each of the ITM campaigns were listed on the TravelSmart order forms specifically designed for each campaign (see Annex A). The form included the offer of a small incentive (see following section) to encourage households to respond quickly.
11
3.2.1 Local travel map With the support of the local authorities, Sustrans produced a local travel map for the target area of each campaign, showing integrated information on local cycling, walking and public transport options (see Annex B).
3.2.2 Personal journey plan The offer of a personal journey plan, downloaded from the Traveline North West journey planner, was included under the public transport section of the order form. The item was described as follows: •
Personal Journey Plan: A personal itinerary showing how to make a journey of your choice within Lancashire by public transport. (Please fill out the back of this form)
The back page of the order form was designed to capture the same information about the user’s requirements as the Traveline North West internet journey planner.
3.2.3 Pledge Card By pledging on the TravelSmart order form to use environmentally friendly travel options more often, households could qualify for a TravelSmart Pledge Card. The Pledge Card entitled households to discounts at local cycle and outdoor shops in Lancaster, Morecambe, Preston and South Ribble. These discounts were established by Sustrans with local retailers and included savings on servicing, accessories and new bikes. The Pledge Card also included a 20% discount on all orders placed by phone with the Sustrans shop. 3.3
Incentives and rewards
Sustrans sourced a range of incentives and rewards to support the ITM campaigns:
12
•
TravelSmart®-branded calico shopping bags and folders in which to package materials and facilitate deliveries;
•
TravelSmart®-branded personal FM radios to encourage a quick response to the order form; and
•
TravelSmart®-branded pens and travel alarm clocks to reward regular walkers, cyclists and public transport users to confirm their travel behaviour.
The items used during the TravelSmart campaigns are summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Rewards and incentives Item
To whom offered
Why offered
How offered
Calico shopping bag
All households ordering materials from the customer order form
To package materials and facilitate deliveries
During home deliveries
Information folder
All households ordering materials from the customer order form
To provide a ‘wrapper’ for households to store their information
During home deliveries
Personal FM radio
All households receiving a customer order form
To encourage quick response to order form
On customer order form
Travel alarm clock and Parker rollerball pen
Households identified as regular users of sustainable travel modes
To reward regular users and reinforce travel behaviour
On separate order form, giving choice of two items
Pledge card
All households receiving a customer order form
To offer discounts at local outdoor and cycle shops (including good going partners)
On customer order form
Incentives offered as part of the further services are discussed separately in the following section.
13
3.4
Further services
A package of 'further services' was developed and offered on the TravelSmart order forms as a means of providing further support and encouragement to households with a particular interest in making greater use of sustainable travel modes. These services were provided in the form of a home visit advice session and were geared towards people currently making little or no use of the travel modes concerned. Households could receive a home visit with a local adviser on cycling, walking and public transport. The TravelSmart order forms8 carried the following text to allow households to sign up for these further services9:
TravelSmart Plus: Your household may be eligible for a personal advice session with one of our local experts on public transport, cycling and/or walking in your area. Select one (or more) of the options below and we’ll be in touch to arrange a home visit to suit your needs. You’ll be surprised at the opportunities available. • Choose the bus – get the most out of public transport with the help of one of our specialist advisers, including tips on all the best ticket deals and a chance to try out local services. • Choose cycling – get going on two wheels with the help of one of our cycling advisers, including advice on the best local routes, a bike ‘health check’ and the limited offer of a free cycle trip computer. • Choose walking – put your best foot forward with the help of one of our walking experts, including advice on the best local routes, health information and the limited offer of a free pedometer. Various partners were involved in providing the public transport further services for the ITM campaigns (see Table 3.2)
8
Only households that were not regular bus users were sent this version of the order form. The text used on the South Ribble and Torrisholme order forms differed slightly from that on subsequent forms. Due to relatively low uptake in South Ribble and Torrisholme, a more detailed description of the further services was added for the later ITM campaigns.
9
14
Table 3.2: Home visit providers and test tickets offered Target area
Home visit provider
South Ribble
Stagecoach,
Fishwicks
Ticket type offered and
Four week ‘test ticket’
Lancashire United Preston East
Member of Lancashire County
Four week ‘test ticket’10
Council transport team Preston West
Member of Lancashire County
Four week ‘test ticket’ 11
Council transport team Torrisholme
Stagecoach
Four week ‘test ticket’12
Lancaster
Stagecoach
Four week ‘test ticket’13
Stagecoach
Four week ‘test ticket’ 14
Morecambe
and
Heysham
For Choose cycling, a local Sustrans cycling adviser was able to provide households with personal advice, a bike health check and the offer of a free cycle trip computer. For Choose walking, households could receive personal advice and route planning from a local Sustrans walking adviser, as well as the offer (and setup) of a free Step-O-Meter to help measure their progress.
10
Preston Bus, Stagecoach, JFS and Lancashire United were all involved in the offer of the four week ‘test ticket’ 11 As for Preston East 12 In addition to Stagecoach, Travellers Choice, Battersby Silver Grey and Kirby Lonsdale Minicoaches were also involved in the offer of a four-week test ticket 13 As for Torrisholme 14 As for Torrisholme
15
3.5
Local field offices
All face-to-face contact with households in the target population (including canvassing, deliveries and home visits) was conducted from a series of local field offices set up for each stage of the ITM programme. Subject to the availability of suitable accommodation, these temporary offices were established by Sustrans in rented premises with good access to the target area by foot and cycle. The following field offices were used for each TravelSmart campaign: South Ribble:
Penwortham Community Centre, Kingsfold Drive
Torrisholme:
Skerton Community Centre, Slyne Road
Preston East:
Preston YMCA, Samuel Street
Lancaster City:
St Leonard’s House, St Leonard’s Gate
Preston West:
St Margaret’s Parish Hall, Ingol
Morecambe:
West End Community Centre
Teams of field staff were recruited locally for each of the ITM campaigns, to work on a variety of roles including household canvassing, packing, deliveries, data entry and home visit advice. These teams were trained and managed by local Sustrans project officers, supported by specialist staff based in Bristol. Total staff numbers at each field office ranged between 10 and 30 according to the scale of the operation and the availability of each team member. 3.6
Call centre
Socialdata managed the telephone contact process, together with the mailing of all announcement letters, order forms and gift lists, from their UK operations centre in Bristol. A team of experienced staff carried out telephone contact and motivation, including booking of home visit sessions. Customer satisfaction and quality control checks were also conducted by Socialdata from Bristol, together with the mailing out of information on
16
responsible driving to households that were not interested in the main TravelSmart offer.
17
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN - PRESTON AND SOUTH RIBBLE 4.1
Introduction
This section summarises the implementation of three TravelSmart campaigns in Preston (East and West) and South Ribble. It reviews the activities conducted, and the responses from the target populations during the three main phases of the ITM process: Contact and Segmentation, Service (Confirmation, Motivation and Information) and Convincing15. 4.2
Contact and Segmentation Phase
The aim of the Contact and Segmentation Phase was to make direct contact with as many private residential households as possible in the target population(s), and to segment them into groups for the later phases of the ITM process. The South Ribble and Preston West target populations consisted entirely of households with available telephone details, while in Preston East the target population included a small proportion (13%) of households without available telephone contact details. Separate contact strategies were used for each of these groups. Households with available telephone details were sent an announcement letter explaining the purpose of the project. This was followed by a phone call to establish the household’s current usage of sustainable travel modes and level of interest in receiving information on walking, cycling and/or public transport. Households without available telephone details were also sent an announcement letter. For these ‘non-telephone’ households, this was followed by door-to-door contact in place of phone contact. Households contacted in this way were also segmented into ‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’ Groups according to their responses to a series of questions asked on the doorstep.
15
Detailed accounts of the implementation of each ITM campaign were provided earlier in a series of field reports.
18
Up to five attempts were made to contact non-telephone households. In cases where someone was clearly at home but did not answer the door, a card was delivered to inform the household about the project and that a member of staff would call again. During door-to-door contact in Preston East, the first part of the Service Phase was also carried out, i.e. households were offered a range of personalised information listed on the order form (see following section). In total, after phone and door-to-door contacts were complete in each of the three stages, a total of 23,118 households (92% of the initial 25,231 households) were successfully contacted and segmented into Interested, Regular User and Not Interested (‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’) Groups (see Table 4.1).
19
Table 4.1
Contact and Segmentation Phase Households
Total Households
25,231
Contacted / segmented Households (total)
23,118
92
Contacted / segmented Households (%) Comprising: Group ‘I’ households interested in receiving information (not including regular public transport users, but including regular walkers and cyclists)
9,937
43%
Group ‘R with’ households with at least one person in the household using environmentally friendly modes (including public transport) regularly and with an information wish
3,852
17%
Group ‘R without’ households with at least one person in the household who regularly uses environmentally friendly modes, (public transport, walking or cycling), but did not require further information
2,512
11%
Group ’N’ households who did not wish to participate, had no interest or were unable to use environmentally friendly modes
6,817
29%
20
4.3
Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information
The aim of this phase was to offer information and support to households contacted during the ITM process according to their specific needs. A comprehensive list of information on walking, cycling and public transport (referred to as the order form) was sent to households identified as Group ‘I’ or Group ‘R with’. An offer of a small incentive (a personal FM radio) was included on the order form to encourage households to return their requests promptly. In the Confirmation Phase, all households in Group ‘R’ (with or without information needs) and those in Group ‘I’ that regularly walked or cycled were offered a TravelSmart®-branded gift as a way of confirming their behaviour. This offer was made on a separate mail-back order form. The outcomes of this Confirmation Phase are detailed in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. These show that a total of 5,291 rewards were delivered, 2,138 to households in Group ‘I’16, 2,041 to Group ‘R with’ and 1,112 to Group ‘R without’. Of the total rewards delivered, 2,311 were pens and 2,980 alarm clocks.
16
Group ‘I’ includes households with regular use of walking and/or cycling which are therefore eligible for a reward.
21
Table 4.2
Confirmation Phase (Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’) I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,937
3,852
13,789
Households with wish for reward
2,138
2,041
4,179
951
881
1,832
Travel Alarm Clock
1,187
1,160
2,347
Households with no wish for reward
6,388
1,322
7,710
Total Response
8,526
3,363
11,889
Response Rate
86%
87%
86%
Parker Rollerball Pen
Table 4.3
Confirmation Phase (Group ‘R without’) R without Total Households
2,512
Households with wish for reward
1,112
Parker Rollerball Pen
479
Travel Alarm Clock
633
Households with no wish for reward
145
Total Response
1,257
Response Rate
50%
22
During the Motivation and Information Phase, households successfully segmented into Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ received order forms by post. Motivation phone calls were made to households not returning their forms within a specific time period. As shown in Table 4.4, a total of 13,789 households were included in the Motivation and Information Phase. Of these 86% (11,872 households) responded by completing the order form either in their own time at home, on the doorstep, or over the phone, and a total of 8,475 requested information.
Table 4.4
Motivation and Information Phase I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,937
3,852
13,789
Households with information wish
5,948
2,527
8,475
Households with no wish for information
2,561
836
3,397
Total Respondents
8,509
3,363
11,872
Response Rate
86%
87%
86%
Table 4.5 summarises the quantities of information materials and incentives delivered during the three TravelSmart ITM campaign. All items were included in personalised packs on the basis of requests made via the order form. These packs, together with the rewards for regular users, were delivered almost entirely by bike and on foot, with a small proportion done by post. The local travel maps and bus stop timetables created specifically for TravelSmart were among the most popular items of information requested in all three campaign areas, but in South Ribble the most frequently requested item was a leaflet on ‘health walks’ in the area.
23
Table 4.5
Information materials and incentives delivered I
R with
Total
62,023
26,521
88,544
Items per participating household17
6.4
6.9
6.5
Items per pack18
10.6
10.5
10.6
General Materials: Local Travel Maps
4,688
2,068
6,756
Public Transport Information (Total)
28,177
13,489
41,666
Cycling Information (Total)
13,609
4,996
18,605
Walking Information (Total)
9,883
3,529
13,412
Pledge Card (Total)
2,096
800
2,896
Other Information (Total)
1,607
663
2,270
Incentives (Personal FM Radio – Total)
1,963
976
2,939
Total items
Separately to the main Service Phase, a pack of information materials on responsible driving was sent to 3,784 households in Group ‘N’. This pack consisted of the TravelSmart local travel map; Transport Direct and Safer Driving Tips cards and Think! Speed, Shared Wheels and Cutting Car Use leaflets. The remaining households in Group ‘N’ were not sent this information because their responses to the Contact Phase suggested this service would be inappropriate (e.g. households with strong data confidentiality concerns; very aged and/or infirm occupants; or long-term absence).
17
Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ included in the motivation and information phase. 18 Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ receiving a pack.
24
4.4
Convincing Phase
The Convincing Phase aims to further encourage people to make environmentally friendly travel choices more frequently by offering additional personal advice and support. These ‘further services’ were included on the order form under the heading of TravelSmart Plus. A total of 1,012 households expressed an interest in TravelSmart Plus (see Table 4.6). These households were telephoned to explain the offer of a home visit conducted by an adviser on walking, cycling and/or public transport19. As a result, 269 households booked a total of 424 home visits. Of these, 363 were successfully conducted.
Table 4.6
Further service requests and home visits
Total Households Households interested in further services
I
R with
Total
9,937
3,852
13,789
737
275
1,012
516 456 346
274 275
516 730 621
215
54
269
73 121 152
31 47
73 152 199
55 111 124
36 37
55 147 161
Number of potential home visits by type: Public Transport Cycling Walking Households booking one or more home visits Number of booked home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking Number of conducted home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking
19 Households already using public transport regularly were not offered public transport further services.
25
4.5
Summary
The requests received and deliveries made during all three stages of the TravelSmart programme in Preston and South Ribble are summarised in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 below. In total, deliveries containing 93,835 items of information and rewards were made to a total of 9,587 households. Each delivery was packed in a project-branded bag with information materials held in a TravelSmart folder.
Table 4.7
Total requests I
R with
R without
Total
Total requested rewards
2,138
2,041
1,112
5,291
Total requested information materials
62,023
26,521
-
88,544
Total requested further services
1,180
454
-
1,634
Total requests
65,341
29,016
1,112
95,469
Table 4.8
Households receiving deliveries I
R with
R without
Total
-
-
1,112
1,112
Information only
3,810
486
-
4,296
Information and reward
2,138
2,041
-
4,179
Total deliveries
5,948
2,527
1,112
9,587
Reward only
26
5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN LANCASTER, TORRISHOLME AND MORECAMBE 5.1
Introduction
This section summarises the implementation of three TravelSmart campaigns in Lancaster City, Torrisholme and Morecambe. It reviews the activities conducted, and responses from the target populations during the three main phases of the ITM process: Contact and Segmentation, Service (Confirmation, Motivation and Information) and Convincing20. 5.2
Contact and Segmentation Phase
The aim of the Contact and Segmentation Phase was to make direct contact with as many private residential households as possible in the target population(s), and to segment them into groups for the later phases of the ITM process. The target populations consisted of varying proportions of households with and without available telephone details. Separate contact strategies were used for each of these groups. Overall households with available telephone contact details accounted for 62.5% of the total target population for Lancaster, Torrisholme and Morecambe. These were sent an announcement letter explaining the purpose of the project. This was followed by a phone call to establish the household’s current usage of sustainable travel modes and level of interest in receiving information on walking, cycling and/or public transport. Households without available telephone details were also sent an announcement letter. For these ‘non-telephone’ households, this was followed by door-to-door contact in place of phone contact. Households contacted in this way were also segmented into ‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’ Groups according to their responses to a series of questions asked on the doorstep.
20
Detailed accounts of the implementation of each ITM campaign were provided earlier in a series of field reports.
27
Up to five attempts were made to contact non-telephone households. In cases where someone was clearly at home but did not answer the door, a card was delivered to inform the household about the project and that a member of staff would call again. During door-to-door contact, the first part of the Service Phase was also carried out, i.e. households were offered a range of personalised information listed on the order form (see following section). In total, after phone and door-to-door contacts were complete in each of the three stages, a total of 20,326 households (81% of the initial 25,003 households) were successfully contacted and segmented into Interested, Regular User and Not Interested (‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’) Groups (see Table 5.1).
28
Table 5.1
Contact and Segmentation Phase Households
Total Households
25,001
Contacted / segmented Households (total)
20,326
81%
Contacted / segmented Households (%) Comprising: Group ‘I’ households interested in receiving information (not including regular public transport users, but including regular walkers and cyclists)
9,252
46%
Group ‘R with’ households with at least one person in the household using environmentally friendly modes (including public transport) regularly and with an information wish
3,449
17%
Group ‘R without’ households with at least one person in the household who regularly uses environmentally friendly modes, (public transport, walking or cycling), but did not require further information
2,478
12%
Group ’N’ households who did not wish to participate, had no interest or were unable to use environmentally friendly modes
5,147
25%
29
5.3
Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information
The aim of this phase was to offer information and support to households contacted during the ITM process according to their specific needs. A comprehensive list of information on walking, cycling and public transport (referred to as the order form) was sent to households identified as Group ‘I’ or Group ‘R with’. An offer of a small incentive (a personal FM radio) was included on the order form to encourage households to return their requests promptly. In the Confirmation Phase, all households in Group ‘R’ (with or without information needs) and those in Group ‘I’ that regularly walked or cycled were offered a TravelSmart®-branded gift as a way of confirming their behaviour. This offer was made on a separate mail-back order form. The outcomes of this Confirmation Phase are detailed in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. These show that a total of 5,313 rewards were delivered, 2,545 to households in Group ‘I’21, 1,867 to Group ‘R with’ and 901 to Group ‘R without’. Of the total rewards delivered, 2,209 were pens and 3,104 alarm clocks.
21
Group ‘I’ includes households with regular use of walking and/or cycling which are therefore eligible for a reward.
30
Table 5.2
Confirmation Phase (Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’) I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,252
3,449
12,701
Households with wish for reward
2,545
1,867
4,412
Parker Rollerball Pen
1,105
719
1,824
Travel Alarm Clock
1,440
1,148
2,588
Households with no wish for reward
5,701
1,321
7,022
Total Response
8,246
3,188
11,434
Response Rate
89%
92%
90%
Table 5.3
Confirmation Phase (Group ‘R without’) R without Total Households
2,478
Households with wish for reward
901
Parker Rollerball Pen
385
Travel Alarm Clock
516
Households with no wish for reward
816
Total Response
1,717
Response Rate
69%
31
During the Motivation and Information Phase, households successfully segmented into Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ received order forms by post. Motivation phone calls were made to households not returning their forms within a specific time period. As shown in Table 5.4, a total of 12,701 households were included in the Motivation and Information Phase. Of these 90% (11,434 households) responded by completing the order form and a total of 8,966 requested information.
Table 5.4
Motivation and Information Phase I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,252
3,449
12,701
Households with information wish
6,238
2,728
8,966
Households with no wish for information
2,008
460
2,468
Total Respondents
8,246
3,188
11,434
Response Rate
89%
92%
90%
Table 5.5 reviews the quantities of information materials and incentives delivered during the TravelSmart ITM campaign. All items were included in personalised packs on the basis of requests made via the order form. These packs, together with the rewards for regular users, were delivered almost entirely by bike and on foot, with a small proportion done by post. The local travel maps created specifically for TravelSmart were the most popular items of information requested in Morecambe and Torrisholme while in Lancaster City, the Walking for All guide was the most frequently requested item. The bus stop timetables, also developed specifically for TravelSmart by Lancashire County Council, were also requested by at least half of all households receiving information in the three campaign areas. Separately to the main Service Phase, a pack of information materials on responsible driving was sent to 1,697 households in Group ‘N’. This pack consisted of the TravelSmart local travel map; Transport Direct and Safer 32
Driving Tips cards and Think! Speed, Shared Wheels and Cutting Car Use leaflets. The remaining households in Group ‘N’ were not sent this information because their responses to the Contact Phase suggested this service would be inappropriate (e.g. households with strong data confidentiality concerns; very aged and/or infirm occupants; or long-term absence).
Table 5.5
Information materials and incentives delivered I
R with
Total
65,835
28,610
94,445
Items per participating household
7.1
8.2
7.4
Items per pack23
10.5
10.4
10.4
General Materials: Local Travel Maps
3,973
1,823
5,796
Public Transport Information (Total)
25,714
12,740
38,454
Cycling Information (Total)
19,746
6,904
26,650
Walking Information (Total)
8,919
3,634
12,553
Pledge Card (Total)
2,571
1,126
3,697
Other Information (Total)
2,299
944
3,243
Incentives (Personal FM Radio – Total)
2,613
1,439
4,052
Total items 22
22
Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ included in the motivation and information phase. 23 Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ receiving a pack.
33
5.4
Convincing Phase
The Convincing Phase aims to further encourage people to make environmentally friendly travel choices more frequently by offering additional personal advice and support. These ‘further services’ were included on the order form under the heading of TravelSmart Plus. A total of 877 households expressed an interest in TravelSmart Plus (see Table 5.6). These households were telephoned to explain the offer of a home visit conducted by an adviser on walking, cycling and/or public transport24. As a result, 158 households booked a total of 196 home visits. Of these, 145 were successfully conducted.
Table 5.6
Further service requests and home visits
Total Households Households interested in further services
I
R with
Total
9,252
3,449
12,701
617
260
877
457 462 188
259 253
457 721 441
123
35
158
45 67 42
21 21
45 88 63
33 51 27
18 16
33 69 43
Number of potential home visits by type: Public Transport Cycling Walking Households booking one or more home visits Number of booked home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking Number of conducted home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking 24
Households already using public transport regularly were not offered public transport further services.
34
5.5
Summary
The requests received and deliveries made during all three stages of the TravelSmart programme in Lancaster district are summarised in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 below. In total, deliveries containing 99,758 items of information and rewards were made to a total of 9,867 households. Each delivery was packed in a project-branded bag with information materials held in a TravelSmart folder.
Table 5.7
Total requests
Total requested rewards Total requested information materials Total requested further services Total requests
Table 5.8
I
R with
R without
Total
2,545
1,867
901
5,313
65,835
28,610
-
94,445
686
339
-
1,025
69,066
30,816
901
100,783
Households receiving deliveries I
R with
R without
Total
-
-
901
901
Information only
3,684
861
-
4,545
Information and reward
2,554
1,867
-
4,421
Total deliveries
6,238
2,728
901
9,867
Reward only
35
6
EVALUATION
6.1
Introduction
As set out in the original project brief, the outcomes of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme were measured against a range of performance indicators focusing mainly on changes in personal travel behaviour. In common with most other TravelSmart programmes, the key component of the monitoring and evaluation framework was a set of detailed travel behaviour surveys, conducted before and after the ITM campaign. This following section focuses on the evaluation of outcomes using these travel behaviour surveys. However it is worth noting that these surveys were supplemented by further evaluation of ITM campaign outputs, reported on during the course of the project. These were: •
Responses from the target populations to each phase of each ITM campaigns (as summarised in Sections 4 and 5);
•
Customer satisfaction, based on the results of separate postal surveys conducted among participating households;
•
Comments collected from households during the ITM campaign, and compiled as ‘Quotes of the Day’; and
•
Quality control checks on a sample of households receiving information from the ITM campaign.
6.2
Travel behaviour surveys
6.2.1 Survey objectives and design As specified in the original project brief, a series of surveys was designed to provide a robust measure of the changes in travel behaviour associated with the TravelSmart programme. The key indicators of interest to Lancashire County Council were changes in mode choice (measured in trips per person per year) and the resulting changes in distances travelled by private car. In order to meet these requirements, the survey design consisted of:
36
1. Baseline travel behaviour surveys across all ITM target areas;25 2. A series of interim evaluation surveys to measure the effects of the first two ITM campaigns in South Ribble and Torrisholme; and 3. A series of final evaluation surveys across all ITM target areas to measure the effects of the remaining ITM campaigns in Preston East and West, Lancaster City and Morecambe, and to assess the durability of any changes measured by the interim surveys in South Ribble and Torrisholme The detailed findings of the interim surveys were reported in September 2007. This section focuses on the findings of the final surveys in relation mainly to the effects of the TravelSmart campaigns in Preston East and West, Lancaster City and Morecambe. It also presents an assessment of the longer term effects of ITM in South Ribble and Torrisholme based on the findings of the final surveys. 6.2.2 Survey method The New KONTIV® survey method has been developed over many years by Socialdata and applied successfully in travel behaviour research and the evaluation of ITM programmes in more than 15 countries world-wide, including most previous TravelSmart projects in the UK. For each household, the survey consists of a household questionnaire and a set of individual travel diaries for each of its members for a nominated day of the week. The survey sample includes households completing travel diaries for all seven days of the week. To ensure a high response rate a pre-paid return envelope is provided with the survey and in cases where surveys are not returned this is followed with further motivation by post and telephone. The survey aims to collect information on all trips26 to all out-of-home destinations on a nominated travel day for each household. The customer focus of the questionnaire design and individualised approach in the 25
The findings of these baseline surveys (which included in-depth research into attitudes and the potential for change) were the subject of a separate report delivered in summer 2006. 26 The subsequent analysis of day-to-day mobility excludes trips of more than 100km (a very small percentage of personal trips) to avoid skewing any distance-related indicators.
37
introductory mailing and subsequent motivation ensures high response rates and reliable results. The procedure for each of the surveys is as follows: i)
Mailing of an official announcement letter (bearing the Lancashire County Council logo and an official signatory) to all households in the gross sample;
ii) Mailing of survey forms and official covering letter (as above) to all households in the gross sample; iii) Households contacted by phone (if possible) on their nominated travel day to motivate them to respond to the survey; iv) Mailing of an official reminder letter to all households from whom a response had not been received after one week; v) Mailing of a second reminder letter (on Socialdata headed paper and signed by the Socialdata project manager) to non-responding households a further week later; vi) A new mailing of the questionnaire to non-responding households (including those without available telephone numbers); and vii) Reminder telephone calls to non-responding households each week to offer support in completing the forms and to motivate them to return them. As a result of this customer-friendly questionnaire design and survey process, Socialdata typically achieve response rates ranging from 60 to 80% for these behavioural surveys. The willingness of respondents to co-operate at this level is an excellent indicator of the quality of both the survey design and the data provided. 6.2.3 Sampling strategy In order to provide a robust measure of the effects of each TravelSmart campaign, the key elements of the sampling strategy for the surveys were as follows: 38
•
Separate samples were drawn from the TravelSmart target population and from a control area that was not subject to ITM over the same timeframe (see following section).
•
In order to reflect the ITM target populations, the samples for the Preston and South Ribble surveys were drawn at random from residential households with available telephone records, while in Lancaster the samples also included households without available telephone records.
•
To further ensure the data were representative of each target population, the target group samples for the after surveys included a proportional share of households which chose not to participate in the ITM campaign.
•
Minimum sample sizes for both target and control groups (i.e. the number of complete survey responses) were designed to provide statistically significant results27.
6.2.4 Control groups The travel behaviour surveys included separate control groups to measure ‘background’ changes not associated with TravelSmart®. This enabled the analysis to take into account any external influences, e.g. changes in the weather (including seasonal effects), major events affecting the highway network. The table below sets out which areas were used as the control for each evaluation of Lancashire’s TravelSmart programme. As discussed at inception, the choice of control areas was limited because of the area-wide coverage of the ITM programme. As a result, for the evaluation of the later stages of TravelSmart (Preston East and West; and Lancaster City and Morecambe) the control group samples were drawn from South Ribble and Torrisholme respectively, the target areas for the first two stages of the TravelSmart programme.
27
The statistical significance resulting from these surveys is explained further in Annex D.
39
Table 6.1
Control areas for the evaluation
ITM target area
Control area
South Ribble
Preston East and West
Preston East
South Ribble
Preston West
South Ribble
Torrisholme
Lancaster City and Morecambe
Lancaster City
Torrisholme
Morecambe
Torrisholme
While it is possible that travel behaviour in these two areas was still undergoing change at the time of the final surveys as a result of their respective ITM campaigns (conducted two years and 18 months previously), this was not felt to be a sufficient reason to disqualify them for use as a control. 6.2.5 Survey implementation The final evaluation surveys were implemented between April and June 2008. The responses from target and control groups for both sets of surveys are shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below. Sample sizes and response rates for all the surveys (baseline, interim and final) are shown in Annex C.
40
Table 6.2
Sample sizes (persons) and response rates (%) for the final surveys in Preston and South Ribble
Total
Preston West
Preston East
South Ribble
(Target)
(Target)
(Control)
Gross sample
2,850
1,000
1,000
850
Sample loss*
242
108
76
58
Adjusted sample
2,608
892
924
792
Total respondents
1,743
580
601
562
Response rate
67%
65%
65%
71%
* Sample loss: House unoccupied, householder moved away, deceased, etc.
Table 6.3
Sample sizes (persons) and response rates (%) for the final surveys in Lancaster City and Morecambe
Total
Lancaster
Morecambe
Torrisholme
(Target)
(Target)
(Control)
Gross sample
3,600
1,200
1,200
1,200
Sample loss*
401
100
145
156
Adjusted sample
3,199
1,100
1,055
1,044
Total respondents
1,863
634
600
629
Response rate
58%
58%
57%
60%
* Sample loss: House unoccupied, householder moved away, deceased, etc.
41
6.3
Analysis
6.3.1 Introduction This section reviews the analysis of the before and after surveys in Preston East and West, and in Lancaster City and Morecambe. It also presents an assessment of the durability of changes associated with the earlier TravelSmart campaigns in South Ribble and Torrisholme, as measured by the 2007 interim surveys. In each case, the analysis of the surveys data was designed to show changes in key mobility indicators attributable to the TravelSmart intervention. This involved a comparison of behavioural data from the target and control group samples in the baseline and after surveys. A summary of this methodology, including the statistical procedures used to account for changes in the data due to sampling factors or external influences, is given in Annex D. The basic measure used for this analysis was the average number of trips per person per year on the grounds that this gives the best overall picture of personal travel behaviour, as opposed to average distances per person per year, the results for which would be skewed by the very small number of long trips. The main indicators selected for the evaluation were as follows: •
Trips per person per year by main mode28;
•
Personal daily mobility (including trip rates, distances travelled and trip purposes);
•
Time spent travelling per person per day by main mode, and total daily exposure to walking and cycling; and
•
Car use measured by actual usage, number of trips, travel time, distance travelled and average occupancy per private car per day.
28
The main mode of a trip is defined as the mode used for the greatest length of the trip.
42
A series of three second-tier indicators are also used to show the effect of TravelSmart on mode choice by trip purpose, time of day, gender and age group. For the purposes of this evaluation, a trip is defined as a one-way course of travel having a single main activity as its purpose. The number of trips per person per year was calculated on the standard formula that on average, a person will spend 341 days of the year at home. This takes into account the days that a person travels away, for example on holiday or business. The charts in the following sections use ‘Without TravelSmart®’ and ‘With TravelSmart®’ to represent the changes in the ITM target group ‘before’ and ‘after’ the implementation of the TravelSmart programme, taking into account the effects of external influences measured across the rest of the city (control group). It is important to note that the following results show the changes in travel behaviour that were achieved across the whole target population including those in the ‘N’ (‘Not Interested’) group and non-respondent households.
43
6.3.2 Changes in travel behaviour (Preston East and Preston West) The net effect of TravelSmart on mode choice among the two ITM target populations in Preston is summarised in Figure 6.4. This shows the percentage of trips by main mode, with and without TravelSmart®, as measured by a comparison of the after survey (‘With TravelSmart®’) with the before survey (‘Without TravelSmart®’). This comparison takes into account changes measured in the control group that did not receive TravelSmart®. The share of car as driver trips was reduced from 44% to 39%, with corresponding increases in walking, cycling and public transport. Figure 6.4
Changes in percentage of trips by main mode (Preston)
44
Figure 6.5 expresses the changes in mode choice in terms of trips per person per year and shows the relative changes achieved by the TravelSmart intervention. It shows that the 10% reduction in car as driver trips was achieved by switching 43 trips per person per year to other modes, i.e. an average across the target population of less than one trip per person per week. Among the sustainable travel modes, walking saw the biggest gains in absolute terms with an additional 23 trips per person per year being made on foot, an increase of 11%. However public transport also gained an additional 12 trips per person per year (a relative increase of 9%), while cycling saw a 35% relative growth from a low baseline level. Figure 6.5
Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person/year) (Preston)
45
As shown in Figure 6.6, there were no significant changes in personal daily mobility as a result of the TravelSmart intervention. This confirms that while TravelSmart clearly influenced how people travel (see above), it had no significant impact on the number of activities they undertake on a daily basis, their daily travel demand (measured by number of trips and distances travelled), or (despite the shift from car travel to more sustainable modes) on time spent travelling. Figure 6.6 Changes in personal mobility (per person/day) (Preston)
46
Figure 6.7 provides an analysis of trips by purpose, without and with TravelSmart®. This shows that on the whole TravelSmart had little effect on the type of trips being undertaken by residents in the Preston target populations. The proportion of commuting trips remained constant at around one fifth of all trips, with shopping and leisure remaining the largest trip generators accounting together for more than half of all trips. Figure 6.7
Changes in trip purpose (%) (Preston)
47
The changes in car use for day-to-day trips shown in Figure 6.8 reflect the reduction in car as driver trips. This shows reductions in the share of cars used each day (77% to 71%), trips (from 2.3 to 2.1), duration of use (from 40 to 38 minutes), and distances travelled (from 21.4 to 19.9 km). Average car occupancy remained at 1.5 people per trip. Figure 6.8
Changes in car usage (per car/day) (Preston)
48
Figure 6.9 shows the changes in car distances travelled in more detail. The number of cars owned by households in the target population fell from 16,400 to 16,100, the distance travelled per car per day for day-to-day trips29 reduced from 21.4 to 19.9 km, resulting in a net saving of 10.5 million car km per year, a relative reduction of 9%. Figure 6.9
29
Changes in car distances travelled (Preston)
As stated earlier, this analysis excludes the small proportion of trips over 100km.
49
Figure 6.10a shows the total time spent travelling per person per day by mode, without and with ITM. This analysis includes all trip stages e.g. walking to a bus stop or from car park to final destination. It shows an increase in the overall time spent travelling by active travel modes (i.e. walking and cycling) from 21 to 23 minutes. Figure 6.10a Changes in travel time by mode (Preston)
Over the course of a year, the effect of ITM would be to increase the total exposure to active travel from 119 to 129 hours per person (see Figure 6.10b). This 8% increase is likely to make a small but significant contribution to increasing overall levels of physical activity amongst the target population. Figure 6.10b
Changes in total active travel time (per person/year in hours (Preston)
50
The following three charts show how the increases in use of sustainable travel modes and the reductions in car driver trips achieved by TravelSmart were distributed by time of day, age and gender groups, and trip purpose. For the purposes of this analysis, trips by sustainable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport) are aggregated and compared with car driver trips. TravelSmart resulted in an overall 11% increase in use of sustainable travel modes for all trip purposes (increasing from a set baseline of 100 to 111). The overall reduction in car driver trips of 10% is shown by the change from a baseline of 100 to 90. Figure 6.11 shows that the use of sustainable travel modes increased throughout the day with the greatest relative increase occurring after 7pm. However the greatest relative reductions in car driver trips occurred between 9am and 3pm. Overall this analysis demonstrates that TravelSmart contributed to reducing car traffic and increasing active travel, to a greater or lesser extent, during the evening peak and off-peak periods of the day. Figure 6.11 Changes in mode choice by time of day (%) (Preston)
51
The distribution of travel behaviour change by age and gender achieved by TravelSmart is shown in Figure 6.12. Increases in walking, cycling and use of public transport were measured throughout the age and gender groups, with the most significant relative growth occurring in people aged over 60. The greatest reductions in car driver trips were in both males and females aged between 20 and 59. Figure 6.12 Changes in mode choice by age and gender (%) (Preston)
52
Figure 6.13 shows the effect on mode choice for different types of trips. Increases in sustainable travel modes were apparent for all trip purposes, except for leisure where there was a slight decline. The greatest relative increase was for shopping and personal business trips. Reductions in car driver trips were focused on shopping/personal business and leisure trips. Figure 6.13 Changes in mode choice by trip purpose (%) (Preston)
53
6.3.3 CO2 reductions The evaluation provides for an estimate of the annual reductions in CO2 emissions accrued as a result of the TravelSmart campaigns in Preston. Based on a UK fleet average factor30, the reduction of 10.5 million car kilometres (Figure 6.9) would result in annual savings of around 2,200 tonnes of CO2. Figure 3.12 CO2 reductions (Preston)
Reduction in car kilometres (per year)
10.5m
Reduction in CO2 emissions (per year)
2,200 tonnes
6.3.4 Long-term effects in South Ribble A set of interim surveys conducted in spring 2007 measured changes in travel behaviour associated with the TravelSmart campaign carried out in South Ribble between May and July of the previous year. This evaluation was the subject of a separate report delivered in September 2007. As they included a sample of households from the target population, the final surveys (conducted in spring 2008) provide an opportunity to assess the longer term effects of ITM in South Ribble.
30
207.5 g CO2 per vehicle km, from: Guidelines to DEFRA’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, DEFRA 2007.
54
Figure 6.14 shows mode choice measured by the final survey among the South Ribble target population and compares this with data from the 2007 interim evaluation31. This indicates that the gains in walking have been constant, and that the changes measured a few months after the ITM campaign were sustained. It also showed that there had been a continued increase in cycling and public transport trips a year on. Figure 6.14 Longer-term effects of ITM in South Ribble
31
The interim evaluation used a control group drawn from Preston East and Preston West, while the 2008 data reflect mode choice in the South Ribble target group without any adjustment for ‘background changes’ elsewhere.
55
6.3.5 Changes in travel behaviour (Lancaster City and Morecambe) The net effect of TravelSmart on mode choice among the Lancaster City and Morecambe target populations is summarised in Figure 6.15. This shows the percentage of trips by main mode, with and without TravelSmart®, as measured by a comparison of the after survey (‘With TravelSmart®’) with the before survey (‘Without TravelSmart®’). This comparison takes into account changes measured in the control group that did not receive TravelSmart®. The share of car as driver trips was reduced from 42% to 36%, with corresponding increases in walking, cycling and public transport. Figure 6.15 Changes in percentage of trips by main mode (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
56
Figure 6.16 expresses the changes in mode choice in terms of trips per person per year and shows the relative changes achieved by the TravelSmart intervention. It shows that the 14% reduction in car as driver trips was achieved by switching 59 trips per person per year to other modes, i.e. an average across the target population of a little more than one trip per person per week. Among the sustainable travel modes, walking saw the biggest gains in absolute terms with an additional 48 trips per person per year being made on foot, an increase of 18%. However public transport also gained an additional six trips per person per year (a relative increase of 7%), while cycling saw a 69% relative growth from a low baseline level. Figure 6.16 Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person/year) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
57
As shown in Figure 6.17, there were no significant changes in personal daily mobility as a result of the TravelSmart intervention. This confirms that while TravelSmart clearly influenced how people travel (see above), it had no significant impact on the number of activities they undertake on a daily basis, their daily travel demand (measured by number of trips), or (despite the shift from car travel to more sustainable modes) on time spent travelling. There is only a slight reduction of distances travelled, reflecting the reduced distances travelled by car. Figure 6.17 Changes in personal mobility (per person/day) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
58
Figure 6.18 provides an analysis of trips by purpose, without and with TravelSmart®. This shows that on the whole TravelSmart had little effect on the type of trips being undertaken by residents in the Lancaster and Morecambe target population. The proportion of commuting trips remained the same at around one fifth of all trips, with shopping and leisure remaining the largest trip generators accounting together for more than half of all trips. Figure 6.18 Changes in trip purpose (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
59
The changes in car use for day-to-day trips shown in Figure 6.19 reflect the reduction in car as driver trips. This shows reductions in the share of cars used each day (74% to 66%), trips (from 3.0 to 2.6), duration of use (from 52 to 45 minutes), and distances travelled (from 31 to 26 km). A slight increase in average car occupancy was measured, from 1.4 to 1.5 people per trip. Figure 6.19 Changes in car usage (per car/day) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
60
Figure 6.20 shows the changes in car distances travelled in more detail. While the number of cars owned by households in the target population remained unchanged at 16,500, the distance travelled per car per day for day-to-day trips32 reduced from 31.2 to 26.5 km, resulting in a net saving of 26.4 million car km per year, a relative reduction of 15%. Figure 6.20 Changes in car distances travelled (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
32
As stated earlier, this analysis excludes the small proportion of trips over 100km.
61
Figure 6.21a shows the total time spent travelling per person per day by mode, without and with ITM. This analysis includes all trip stages e.g. walking to a bus stop or from car park to final destination. It shows an increase in the overall time spent travelling by active travel modes (i.e. walking and cycling) from 23 to 28 minutes. Figure 6.21a Changes in travel time by mode (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
Over the course of a year, the effect of ITM would be to increase the total exposure to active travel from 128 to 155 hours per person (see Figure 6.21b). This 21% increase is likely to make a significant contribution to increasing overall levels of physical activity amongst the target population. Figure 6.21 Changes in total active travel time (per person/year in hours) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
62
The following three charts show how the increases in use of sustainable travel modes and the reductions in car driver trips achieved by TravelSmart were distributed by time of day, age and gender groups, and trip purpose. For the purposes of this analysis, trips by sustainable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport) are aggregated and compared with car driver trips. TravelSmart resulted in an overall 19% increase in use of sustainable travel modes for all trip purposes (increasing from a set baseline of 100 to 119). The overall reduction in car driver trips of 14% is shown by the change from a baseline of 100 to 86. Figure 6.22 shows that the use of sustainable travel modes increased throughout the day with the greatest relative increase occurring between 5am and 9am (i.e. the morning peak). Reductions in car driver trips were evenly spread throughout the day. Overall this analysis demonstrates that TravelSmart in Lancaster and Morecambe contributed to reducing car traffic and increasing active travel at both peak and off-peak periods of the day. Figure 6.22 Changes in mode choice by time of day (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
63
The distribution of travel behaviour change by age and gender achieved by TravelSmart is shown in Figure 6.23. Increases in walking, cycling and use of public transport were measured throughout the age and gender groups, with the most significant relative growth occurring in males aged 20-59, followed by people over the age of 60. The greatest reductions in car driver trips were in females aged between 20 and 59. Figure 6.23 Changes in mode choice by age and gender (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
64
Figure 6.24 shows the effect on mode choice for different types of trips. Increases in sustainable travel modes were apparent for all trip purposes, except for shopping/personal business where it remained constant. In contrast to Preston (where shopping trips saw the greatest change), the greatest relative increase was for work and other trips. By some margin, the greatest reductions in car driver trips were recorded for work journeys. Figure 6.24 Changes in mode choice by trip purpose (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
65
6.3.6 CO2 reductions The evaluation provides for an estimate of the annual reductions in CO2 emissions accrued as a result of the TravelSmart campaigns in Lancaster City and Morecambe. Based on a UK fleet average factor33, the reduction of 26.4 million car kilometres (Figure 6.20) would result in annual savings of around 5,500 tonnes of CO2. Figure 3.12 CO2 reductions (Lancaster City and Morecambe)
Reduction in car kilometres (per year)
26.4m
Reduction in CO2 emissions (per year)
5,500 tonnes
6.3.7 Long-term effects in Torrisholme The interim surveys conducted in spring 2007 measured changes in travel behaviour associated with the TravelSmart campaign carried out in Torrisholme between September and November of the previous year. This evaluation was the subject of a separate report delivered in September 2007. As they included a sample of households from the target population, the final surveys (conducted in spring 2008) provide an opportunity to assess the longer term effects of ITM in Torrisholme.
33
207.5 g CO2 per vehicle km, from: Guidelines to DEFRA’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, DEFRA 2007.
66
Figure 6.25 shows mode choice measured by the final survey among the South Ribble target population and compares this with data from the 2007 interim evaluation34. This indicates that, despite a slight erosion of the gains in walking, the changes measured a few months after the ITM campaign were broadly sustained a year later. Figure 6.25 Longer-term effects of ITM in Torrisholme
34
The interim evaluation used a control group drawn from Lancaster City and Morecambe, while the 2008 data reflect mode choice in the Torrisholme target group without any adjustment for ‘background changes’ elsewhere.
67
7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1
Introduction
The aim of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme was to promote greater use of sustainable and active travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport) as alternatives to car travel among a total target population of 50,000 households in South Ribble, Preston and Lancaster. In order to achieve this aim, the following components were put in place: •
The design of a coherent and attractive marketing offer consisting of local transport information of relevance to each of the six target areas;
•
The identification of project partners and other organisations to provide information materials in sufficient quantity and at the right time to support the ITM campaigns;
•
The development of new information resources to complement existing materials, notably a series of local travel maps and stop-specific bus timetables
•
The recruitment of local staff and personnel from partner organisations to implement the fieldwork, providing an effective knowledge base and adding value as a community initiative; and
•
The application of the proven TravelSmart ITM technique, with supporting project management systems, adapted where appropriate to local conditions.
The success of the campaign in achieving this aim is measured ultimately by the responses of the target population, in particular the willingness of households to participate in the TravelSmart campaign; the volume of information and other services requested; and the resulting changes in travel behaviour. This section reviews the key outcomes of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme under these broad headings.
68
7.2
Key outcomes
7.2.1 Travel behaviour change The travel behaviour surveys conducted before and after the TravelSmart campaigns show significant increases in levels of walking, cycling and use of public transport as modes of day-to-day travel, leading to major reductions in car use. The key indicators measured by each evaluation are summarised in the Table 7.1 below alongside the outcomes of other recent TravelSmart programmes elsewhere in the UK. Table 7.1
Summary of key changes attributed to TravelSmart®
Location
Date
Target population (households)
Relative change in car as driver trips
Relative change in trips by sustainable modes
Lancashire South Ribble
2006
10,700
-13%
+36%
Torrisholme
2006
8,500
-12%
+16%
Preston
2007
14,518
-10%
+11%
Lancaster & Morecambe
2007
16,501
-14%
+19%
Peterborough (Stage 1)
2005
6,500
-13%
+20%
Peterborough (Stage 2 & 3)
2006
11,756
-10%
+12%
Worcester (Stage 1)35
2005
6,300
-12%
+20%
Worcester (Stage 2.1)14
2006
4,775
-13%
+17%
Worcester (Stage 2.2)14
2007
3,830
-11%
+21%
Inverness
2007
1,500
-13%
+19%
Doncaster (Bessacarr)
2005
2,275
-13%
+29%
Gloucester (Barton, Tredworth, White City)
2005
4,050
-13%
+17%
Elsewhere in the UK
35
These projects used a streamlined evaluation methodology.
69
In Preston, the evaluation measured an overall 8% increase in the total time spent walking and cycling each day (equivalent to an average of two additional minutes per person), while in Lancaster City and Morecambe the increase in exposure to active travel was 21% (five minutes per person per day). The reductions in car distances travelled were 10.5 million vehicle km in Preston and 26.4 million in Lancaster City and Morecambe. As a result of the behaviour change across all six target populations, the total annual savings in car distances travelled amounted to 62.6 million vehicle km, leading to annual reductions in CO2 emissions of around 13,000 tonnes. The Lancashire evaluations suggest that in each case the greatest modal shift occurred from car driver trips to walking. However there were also significant gains in public transport use and (in particular in Lancaster where TravelSmart built on the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town programme) levels of cycling. Further analysis of the travel survey data shows that: •
The behaviour changes were achieved without any significant constraint on daily mobility (i.e. activities, number of trips, distances travelled) among the target populations;
•
Despite increases in the use of ‘slower’ sustainable travel modes, there was no significant change in daily time spent travelling among the target population;
•
Modal shift occurred at all times of the day and for all types of journey.
7.2.2 Participation in the Individualised Travel Marketing campaign The ITM process resulted in high participation rates among the target population of 50,232 households. This demonstrates a positive community response to the personalised TravelSmart approach, and a high level of unmet demand for information on local transport options: •
86% of households in the target population responded to the initial contact phase;
70
•
Of these, 61% were interested in receiving information through the TravelSmart campaign and a further 11% were already regular users of sustainable travel modes who did not request additional information;
•
66% of those initially interested in receiving information then responded to the offer of information and advice by completing a TravelSmart order form, either in their own time at home or over the phone; and
•
A total of 19,454 personalised TravelSmart packages were hand-delivered to participating households (including 2,103 containing only rewards for regular users), around 40% of the initial target population.
•
A further 5,479 information packs on responsible driving were sent to households not interested in the main TravelSmart offer, bringing the total number of delivered packages to 24,933, around 50% of the initial target population.
7.2.3 Demand for information and advice The profile of requests received during the TravelSmart campaign indicates a high demand for information and advice on local transport: •
A total of 193,593 items of information, incentives and rewards were requested during the TravelSmart campaign, an average of nearly 10 per participating household;
•
Of the information materials on offer, the local travel maps, stop-specific bus timetables and local walking guides were the most frequently items of information during the ITM campaigns; and
•
A total of 1,889 households requested further personal advice on walking, cycling and/or public transport, resulting in a total of 498 advice sessions on walking, cycling and/or public transport being conducted at people’s homes.
71
In case of any queries regarding this report, please contact: Neil Smith Senior Project Officer, TravelSmart® Sustrans 2 Cathedral Square College Green Bristol BS1 5DD Telephone (direct line): 0117 915 0318 e-mail: [email protected]
Report for Lancashire County Council September 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
INTRODUCTION This report Other Reports Structure of this report
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background Aims and objectives The TravelSmart Individualised Travel Marketing process Target areas and populations Project management Project timetable
3 3 3 4 5 9 10
3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
PREPARATIONS FOR THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGNS Introduction Information materials Incentives and rewards Further services Local field offices Call centre
11 11 11 12 14 16 16
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN PRESTON AND SOUTH RIBBLE Introduction Contact and segmentation phase Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information Convincing Phase Summary
16 18 18 21 26 27
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN LANCASTER, TORRISHOLME AND MORECAMBE Introduction Contact and segmentation phase Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information Convincing Phase Summary
27 27 27 30 34 35
6 6.1 6.2 6.3
EVALUATION Introduction Travel behaviour surveys Analysis
36 36 36 42
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5
1 1 1 2
7 7.1 7.2
CONCLUSIONS Introduction Key outcomes
ANNEXES
68 68 69
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lancashire’s first TravelSmart®1 Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM) programme, conducted across a total target population of 50,000 households in Preston, South Ribble, and Lancaster during 2006-07, was successful in increasing levels of walking, cycling and public transport use, leading to significant reductions in car travel. By offering households personalised information and advice on the alternatives to private car travel and incentives to try them out, six separate ITM campaigns activated some of the significant potential for behaviour change existing across the target areas, as highlighted by extensive baseline surveys conducted in spring 2006. A detailed evaluation of the TravelSmart programme measured average increases in use of sustainable travel modes among the target populations ranging from 11 to 36%, generating relative reductions in car driver trips of between 10 and 14%. The total annual saving in vehicle kilometres was approximately 62.6 million vkm, leading to annual CO2 reductions of around 13,000 tonnes. The evaluation also provided strong evidence that the effects of TravelSmart were sustained for up to 18 months. The programme of six ITM campaigns and travel behaviour research (consisting of baseline, interim and final surveys) was delivered by Sustrans and partners Socialdata under contract to Lancashire County Council. The work was focused on two ‘package areas’: Preston and South Ribble, where it formed part of the County Council’s EU-funded CIVITAS SUCCESS project; and Lancaster (including Morecambe), where it was designed to support other local transport schemes, notably the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) programme.
1
TravelSmart is registered by Sustrans as a trade mark in the UK
i
At the time of its launch in early 2006, Lancashire’s TravelSmart programme was the largest household travel behaviour change programme of its kind in the UK, helping to consolidate the County Council’s position as one of the country’s most innovative transport planning authorities. The aim of the programme was to reduce levels of car use by promoting walking, cycling and use of public transport among residents of the two packages area. The specific objectives were as follows: •
To define suitable target areas in Preston and South Ribble, and in Lancaster district, to provide a total ITM target population of 50,000 households
•
To develop for each area a package of information, incentives and other services to promote walking, cycling and public transport;
•
To offer this package of information, incentives and other services to the target population in each area, and to fulfil all requests received using the TravelSmart ITM technique (see below); and
•
Using a series of household surveys, to evaluate the effects of this intervention against a range of performance indicators relating mainly to personal travel behaviour using.
The programme was co-ordinated by a working group consisted of Sustrans, Socialdata and Lancashire County Council. This group was responsible for finalising the overall project design and developing the marketing package for each of the six stages of the ITM programme. Further inputs from Lancaster City Council and South Ribble District Council, in particular to the development of the marketing package, were sought as required.
ii
Alongside published bus and rail timetables, local cycling and walking guides and information on community transport, the marketing package assembled for each ITM campaign included two resources developed specifically for TravelSmart®: stop-related bus timetables and a series of local travel maps. A programme of home advice sessions, together with targeted incentives (including a four-week ‘test ticket’ to for local bus services), was also developed to provide participating households with an opportunity to trial one or more alternative modes. Finally, a separate package of materials on responsible driving was assembled for distribution to selected households that were not interested in the main offer of information on sustainable travel options. Each TravelSmart campaign was conducted using the dialogue-based ITM technique, offering households the opportunity to choose travel information and support from the range of resources available to meet their individual needs. The postal and telephone contact was managed throughout the process by Socialdata from its Bristol operations centre while Sustrans established a series of local field offices, staffed by locally-recruited teams to undertake door-to-door canvassing, packing and delivery of the personalised information packs and home visits. The ITM campaigns were conducted according to the following timetable: Preston and South Ribble May – July 2006
Lancaster district
Stage 1.1: South Ribble
Sept – Dec 2006
Stage 2.1: Torrisholme
May – July 2007
Stage 1.2: Preston East
Stage 2.2: Lancaster City
Sept - Dec 2007
Stage 1.3: Preston West
Stage 2.3: Morecambe
iii
The overall responses to the six ITM campaigns are summarised in the flowchart below. This shows that of the total initial target population of 50,232 households, 87% responded to a combination of telephone and door-to-door contact, and were segmented into groups according to their current travel patterns and willingness to participate in the TravelSmart campaign. Of these, 61% were interested in receiving personalised information and advice on walking, cycling and/or public transport and 11% were regular users of these sustainable travel modes with no need for further support. The remaining 28% were not interested in taking part.
Following this initial contact and the subsequent offer of advice etc to those interested, personalised TravelSmart packs containing a total of more than 190,000 items of information, rewards and incentives were delivered to a total of 19,454 households across the six target areas. In general, the most frequently requested information materials were the local travel maps, walking guides and stop-specific bus timetables. Following the offer of further advice and support to selected households, a total of more than 500
iv
home visits were also conducted by trained advisers on walking, cycling and/or public transport. A further 5,479 information packs on responsible driving were sent to households not interested in the main TravelSmart offer, bringing the total number of delivered packages to nearly 25,000, reaching nearly half of the initial target population. The TravelSmart programme was evaluated using a series of detailed travel behaviour surveys, conducted as follows: 1. Baseline surveys across all ITM target areas (March-May 2006) 2. Interim surveys to measure the effects of the first two ITM campaigns in South Ribble and Torrisholme (January - April 2007) 3. A series of final surveys across all ITM target areas to measure the effects of the remaining ITM campaigns in Preston East and West, Lancaster City and Morecambe, and to assess the durability of changes measured by the interim surveys in South Ribble and Torrisholme (April - June 2008) The travel behaviour surveys included separate control groups to measure ‘background’ changes not associated with TravelSmart®. This enabled the analysis to take into account any external influences, e.g. changes in the weather (including seasonal effects), major events affecting the highway network. The charts below show the changes in travel behaviour measured across the ITM target populations in Preston and Lancaster (with control group effects taken into account). The relative reductions in car driver trips of 10 and 14% are within the range observed in other TravelSmart programmes across the UK. The analysis indicates that in each case the greatest modal shift occurred from car driver trips to walking. However there were also significant gains in public transport use and (in particular in Lancaster where TravelSmart built on the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town programme) levels of cycling.
v
Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person per year) (Preston)
Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person/year) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
vi
Further analysis of the travel survey data shows that: •
The behaviour changes were achieved without any significant constraint on daily mobility (i.e. activities, number of trips, distances travelled) among the target populations;
•
Despite increases in the use of ‘slower’ sustainable travel modes, there was no significant change in daily time spent travelling among the target population;
•
Modal shift occurred at all times of the day and for all types of journey.
The final surveys also provided an opportunity to assess the longer term effects of ITM in South Ribble and Torrisholme. The interim evaluations conducted in 2007 indicated relative reductions in car driver trips in South Ribble of 13% and in Torrisholme of 12%. The charts overleaf show the mode choice data (% of all trips) measured by the final surveys among the South Ribble and Torrisholme target populations, and compares those from the 2007 interim evaluation2. This indicates that the changes measured a few months after each ITM campaign were broadly sustained a year later. The effects of all six stages of Lancashire’s TravelSmart programme are summarized in the table below: Target area
Target population (households)
Relative change in car driver trips
Relative change in trips by sustainable modes
Additional daily exposure to active travel (mins)
Annual reduction in vehicle km (millions)
Estimated annual reduction in CO2 emissions (tonnes)
South Ribble
10,700
-13%
+36%
2
18.2
3,800
Torrisholme
8,500
-12%
+16%
4
7.5
1,600
Preston
14,518
-10%
+11%
2
10.5
2,200
Lancaster City & Morecambe
16,501
-14%
+19%
5
26.4
5,500
Totals
62.6
13,000
2
Unlike the interim evaluations which included use of a control group, the 2008 data reflect mode choice across the ITM target populations without any adjustment for ‘background changes’ elsewhere.
vii
Longer-term effects of ITM in South Ribble
Longer-term effects of ITM in Torrisholme
viii
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This report
This report has been prepared by Sustrans in co-operation with Socialdata to review the implementation and outcomes of the TravelSmart®3 Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM) programme conducted in Lancashire in 2006-07. It is the final deliverable of Sustrans’ contract with Lancashire County Council for the provision of behavioural research and personalised travel planning4 in Lancashire. This contract started in January 2006 and will terminate upon the County Council’s acceptance of this report5. The report is intended primarily for Lancashire County Council as the client for this work. However, as agreed at inception, rights to the use of this report and data contained herein will be shared by the client, Sustrans and Socialdata for the purposes of further developing TravelSmart in the UK. 1.2
Other reports
Throughout the project, Sustrans and Socialdata have provided a number of field reports reviewing the implementation of each ITM campaign and the travel behaviour surveys. The two other key deliverables were a detailed report, submitted in October 2006, on the findings of the baseline travel behaviour research and two interim evaluation reports, submitted in September 2007, analysing the effects on travel behaviour of the first two ITM campaigns conducted during spring and autumn of 2006. This report summarises the data provided in the field reports for all six ITM campaigns and baseline, interim and final evaluation surveys. However the analysis of the final evaluation surveys presented here focuses on the effects of the four later ITM campaigns which previously have not been evaluated. For a detailed evaluation of the first two ITM campaigns, readers should refer to the interim evaluation reports submitted in September 2007.
3
TravelSmart is registered by Sustrans as a trade mark in the UK The term Individualised Travel Marketing (ITM) is used in preference to personalised travel planning throughout this report 5 Subject to the County Council’s agreement to bring forward the contract end date of 31st January 2009 4
1
1.3
Structure of this report
Although the report should be read as a whole, each main section is designed to provide readers with a stand-alone account of the project background, methodology or outcomes, as follows: •
Section 2 provides a description of the project, including the background to the Lancashire TravelSmart programme, the principles and key elements of the ITM process; the aims and objectives; and project management arrangements;
•
Section 3 reviews the work done by all project partners to prepare for the ITM campaigns;
•
Section 4 reviews the implementation of the three TravelSmart campaigns in Preston and South Ribble, and summarises the responses from the target populations and services delivered at each stage of the ITM process;
•
Section 5 repeats the previous section, but for the three TravelSmart campaigns conducted in Lancashire district;
•
Section 6 provides a detailed evaluation of the four later ITM campaigns and assesses the longer term effects of the first two (previously evaluated by the interim surveys); and
•
Section 7; presents a series of key conclusions based on the project outcomes, including a comparison with other TravelSmart projects which have taken place in the UK.
2
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
Background
In September 2005, Lancashire County Council invited tenders for a programme of behavioural research and personalised travel planning in two ‘package areas’, Preston and South Ribble, and Lancaster (including Morecambe). The Preston and South Ribble package was to form part of the County Council’s EU-funded CIVITAS SUCCESS project while in Lancaster, the work was intended to build upon other local transport schemes, notably the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) programme. In January 2006, Sustrans and partners Socialdata were commissioned to undertake the work, using behavioural research and Individualised Travel Marketing techniques which had provided the foundation for their successful TravelSmart programme. At the time, this was the largest household travel behaviour change programme of its kind in the UK, helping to consolidate Lancashire’s position as one of the country’s most innovative transport planning authorities6. 2.2
Aims and objectives
The aim of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme was to reduce levels of car use among the target populations by promoting walking, cycling and use of public transport. The specific objectives were: •
To define suitable target areas in Preston and South Ribble, and in Lancaster district, to provide a total ITM target population of 50,000 households
•
To develop for each area a package of information, incentives and other services to promote walking, cycling and public transport;
6
The Lancashire TravelSmart programme has since provided one of the major case studies for a comprehensive study commissioned by the Department for Transport into the effectiveness of personalised travel planning: Making Personalised Travel Planning Work (2007)
3
•
To offer this package of information, incentives and other services to the target population in each area, and to fulfil all requests received using the TravelSmart ITM technique (see below); and
•
To evaluate the effects of this intervention against a range of performance indicators relating mainly to personal travel behaviour.
2.3
The TravelSmart Individualised Travel Marketing process
The TravelSmart ITM process has been developed and proven over many years as a highly successful tool for changing travel behaviour. Pioneered by Socialdata during the 1990s, the technique has since been applied in more than 250 projects targeting a total of more than three million people worldwide. In the UK, the TravelSmart programme run by Sustrans and Socialdata is currently targeting a total of more than 75,000 households in four locations (including three large-scale projects) with the offer of personalised travel information and support. The ITM process was developed by Socialdata as a result of detailed research showing that poor information and lack of motivation were important barriers preventing greater use of walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to car travel. It is now well-recognised that while good infrastructure is needed to provide better alternatives to the car, the full potential for modal shift towards more sustainable travel cannot be realised unless people are well-informed about the options and motivated to use them. The TravelSmart ITM process, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, involves three key stages each based on personal contact with the households in the target area. This creates a dialogue which motivates people to consider and review their own travel behaviour in the context of their own lifestyle situations. People who are interested in changing are supported and encouraged, but the choice is always left to the individual. This process enables people to make voluntary (often small) individual changes which add up to make a significant difference to community-wide travel patterns. The same Individualised Marketing technique has been successfully applied by Socialdata in Australia to promote domestic water efficiency. Other 4
TravelSmart -related programmes have included the use of health-related marketing materials and promoted other forms of physical activity alongside sustainable travel. Figure 2.1
2.4
Individualised Travel Marketing process
Target areas and populations
2.4.1 Definition of target areas The original project brief specified that the ITM programme (and associated behavioural research) should be focused on two distinct target areas: Preston and South Ribble; and Lancaster district. At inception, it was further agreed that the programme should be focused on more heavily populated parts of these areas in order to capture the greatest potential for behaviour change. The resulting six target areas are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. These were known as Preston East, Preston West and South Ribble; and Torrisholme, Lancaster City and Morecambe.
5
Figure 2.2
Preston (West and East) and South Ribble target areas
6
Figure 2.3
Lancaster, Torrisholme and Morecambe target areas
7
2.4.2 Selection of target populations At inception it was further agreed that: 1) The total target population of 50,000 households should be evenly split between the two areas; and 2) A target population of 25,000 households should be defined for each area in a way that maximised cost-effectiveness in the delivery of ITM As the ITM target population of 25,000 households was less than the actual number of households in each area, there was a need to select households from within each target area to form the target population for each stage of the ITM programme. The main criterion used in this selection process was the availability of telephone contact details on the basis that this would enable higher levels of participation to be achieved (for example through use of telephone motivation at different stages of the ITM process) for the same overall resource input. Table 2.5: Summary data on target areas and populations Target area
Households in target area7
Target population
% of target area households in ITM target population
South Ribble
27,159
10,713
39.4%
Preston East
30,234
7,518
24.9%
Preston West
23,710
7,000
29.5%
Torrisholme
13,954
8,500
60.9%
Lancaster City
14,457
8,501
58.8%
Morecambe
16,561
8,000
48.3%
The project database was assembled by Socialdata on this basis using households listed on AFD, a commercially available database of private 7
Derived from Census 2001
8
residential addresses. Once the supply of households with available telephone contact details was exhausted, the project database for each target area was topped up with other households selected at random from AFD. Table 2.5 summarises the resulting target populations for each stage of the ITM programme in relation to the total population of each target area. 2.5
Project management
The project was co-ordinated by a working group, which consisted of Sustrans, Socialdata and Lancashire County Council. Meeting around six times per year over the course of the programme, this group was responsible for finalising the overall project design and, for each of the six stages of the ITM programme, developing the marketing package and reviewing progress with the fieldwork. Further inputs from Lancaster City Council and South Ribble District Council, in particular to the development of the marketing package, were sought as required. As lead contractor to Lancashire County Council, Sustrans was responsible for day-to-day project management and reporting, as well as development of the marketing package for each stage of the ITM programme. Sustrans also managed the local ITM fieldwork, conducting door-to-door contact, deliveries and co-ordination of home visits from a series of field offices around the city. Socialdata undertook postal and telephone contact, database management and quality control from its Bristol operations centre. Lancashire County Council supplied local travel information materials and incentives in liaison with providers including local bus operators.
9
2.6
Project timetable
The overall timetable for the ITM programme and behavioural research was defined at inception as shown in Table 2.6. Table 2.6: Project timetable Preston and South Ribble March-May 2006 May – July 2006
Baseline travel behaviour research ITM Stage 1.1: South Ribble ITM Stage 2.1: Torrisholme
Sept – Dec 2006 January - April 2007
Lancaster district
Interim evaluation surveys
May – July 2007
ITM Stage 1.2: Preston East
ITM Stage 2.2: Lancaster City
Sept - Dec 2007
ITM Stage 1.3: Preston West
ITM Stage 2.3: Morecambe
April - June 2008
Final evaluation surveys
10
3 PREPARATIONS FOR THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGNS 3.1
Introduction
The aim of each TravelSmart campaign was to offer participating households a wide range of high-quality information, advice and support on local options for using sustainable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport). With support from Lancashire County Council, Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council and other local partners, Sustrans co-ordinated the assembly of a marketing package consisting of printed information materials, incentives and rewards, and personal advice sessions (home visits). 3.2
Information materials
A range of information materials was assembled on local options for walking, cycling and public transport, as well as other services. The principal sources of these materials were Lancashire County Council, Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council, Sustrans and the local public transport operators. A checklist of available materials was developed and reviewed according to the following broad criteria: •
Relevance to local travel needs of households in the target area;
•
Consistency with the overall aims of the TravelSmart campaign; and
•
Availability in the quantities required and within project time-scales.
All of the materials selected for use in each of the ITM campaigns were listed on the TravelSmart order forms specifically designed for each campaign (see Annex A). The form included the offer of a small incentive (see following section) to encourage households to respond quickly.
11
3.2.1 Local travel map With the support of the local authorities, Sustrans produced a local travel map for the target area of each campaign, showing integrated information on local cycling, walking and public transport options (see Annex B).
3.2.2 Personal journey plan The offer of a personal journey plan, downloaded from the Traveline North West journey planner, was included under the public transport section of the order form. The item was described as follows: •
Personal Journey Plan: A personal itinerary showing how to make a journey of your choice within Lancashire by public transport. (Please fill out the back of this form)
The back page of the order form was designed to capture the same information about the user’s requirements as the Traveline North West internet journey planner.
3.2.3 Pledge Card By pledging on the TravelSmart order form to use environmentally friendly travel options more often, households could qualify for a TravelSmart Pledge Card. The Pledge Card entitled households to discounts at local cycle and outdoor shops in Lancaster, Morecambe, Preston and South Ribble. These discounts were established by Sustrans with local retailers and included savings on servicing, accessories and new bikes. The Pledge Card also included a 20% discount on all orders placed by phone with the Sustrans shop. 3.3
Incentives and rewards
Sustrans sourced a range of incentives and rewards to support the ITM campaigns:
12
•
TravelSmart®-branded calico shopping bags and folders in which to package materials and facilitate deliveries;
•
TravelSmart®-branded personal FM radios to encourage a quick response to the order form; and
•
TravelSmart®-branded pens and travel alarm clocks to reward regular walkers, cyclists and public transport users to confirm their travel behaviour.
The items used during the TravelSmart campaigns are summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Rewards and incentives Item
To whom offered
Why offered
How offered
Calico shopping bag
All households ordering materials from the customer order form
To package materials and facilitate deliveries
During home deliveries
Information folder
All households ordering materials from the customer order form
To provide a ‘wrapper’ for households to store their information
During home deliveries
Personal FM radio
All households receiving a customer order form
To encourage quick response to order form
On customer order form
Travel alarm clock and Parker rollerball pen
Households identified as regular users of sustainable travel modes
To reward regular users and reinforce travel behaviour
On separate order form, giving choice of two items
Pledge card
All households receiving a customer order form
To offer discounts at local outdoor and cycle shops (including good going partners)
On customer order form
Incentives offered as part of the further services are discussed separately in the following section.
13
3.4
Further services
A package of 'further services' was developed and offered on the TravelSmart order forms as a means of providing further support and encouragement to households with a particular interest in making greater use of sustainable travel modes. These services were provided in the form of a home visit advice session and were geared towards people currently making little or no use of the travel modes concerned. Households could receive a home visit with a local adviser on cycling, walking and public transport. The TravelSmart order forms8 carried the following text to allow households to sign up for these further services9:
TravelSmart Plus: Your household may be eligible for a personal advice session with one of our local experts on public transport, cycling and/or walking in your area. Select one (or more) of the options below and we’ll be in touch to arrange a home visit to suit your needs. You’ll be surprised at the opportunities available. • Choose the bus – get the most out of public transport with the help of one of our specialist advisers, including tips on all the best ticket deals and a chance to try out local services. • Choose cycling – get going on two wheels with the help of one of our cycling advisers, including advice on the best local routes, a bike ‘health check’ and the limited offer of a free cycle trip computer. • Choose walking – put your best foot forward with the help of one of our walking experts, including advice on the best local routes, health information and the limited offer of a free pedometer. Various partners were involved in providing the public transport further services for the ITM campaigns (see Table 3.2)
8
Only households that were not regular bus users were sent this version of the order form. The text used on the South Ribble and Torrisholme order forms differed slightly from that on subsequent forms. Due to relatively low uptake in South Ribble and Torrisholme, a more detailed description of the further services was added for the later ITM campaigns.
9
14
Table 3.2: Home visit providers and test tickets offered Target area
Home visit provider
South Ribble
Stagecoach,
Fishwicks
Ticket type offered and
Four week ‘test ticket’
Lancashire United Preston East
Member of Lancashire County
Four week ‘test ticket’10
Council transport team Preston West
Member of Lancashire County
Four week ‘test ticket’ 11
Council transport team Torrisholme
Stagecoach
Four week ‘test ticket’12
Lancaster
Stagecoach
Four week ‘test ticket’13
Stagecoach
Four week ‘test ticket’ 14
Morecambe
and
Heysham
For Choose cycling, a local Sustrans cycling adviser was able to provide households with personal advice, a bike health check and the offer of a free cycle trip computer. For Choose walking, households could receive personal advice and route planning from a local Sustrans walking adviser, as well as the offer (and setup) of a free Step-O-Meter to help measure their progress.
10
Preston Bus, Stagecoach, JFS and Lancashire United were all involved in the offer of the four week ‘test ticket’ 11 As for Preston East 12 In addition to Stagecoach, Travellers Choice, Battersby Silver Grey and Kirby Lonsdale Minicoaches were also involved in the offer of a four-week test ticket 13 As for Torrisholme 14 As for Torrisholme
15
3.5
Local field offices
All face-to-face contact with households in the target population (including canvassing, deliveries and home visits) was conducted from a series of local field offices set up for each stage of the ITM programme. Subject to the availability of suitable accommodation, these temporary offices were established by Sustrans in rented premises with good access to the target area by foot and cycle. The following field offices were used for each TravelSmart campaign: South Ribble:
Penwortham Community Centre, Kingsfold Drive
Torrisholme:
Skerton Community Centre, Slyne Road
Preston East:
Preston YMCA, Samuel Street
Lancaster City:
St Leonard’s House, St Leonard’s Gate
Preston West:
St Margaret’s Parish Hall, Ingol
Morecambe:
West End Community Centre
Teams of field staff were recruited locally for each of the ITM campaigns, to work on a variety of roles including household canvassing, packing, deliveries, data entry and home visit advice. These teams were trained and managed by local Sustrans project officers, supported by specialist staff based in Bristol. Total staff numbers at each field office ranged between 10 and 30 according to the scale of the operation and the availability of each team member. 3.6
Call centre
Socialdata managed the telephone contact process, together with the mailing of all announcement letters, order forms and gift lists, from their UK operations centre in Bristol. A team of experienced staff carried out telephone contact and motivation, including booking of home visit sessions. Customer satisfaction and quality control checks were also conducted by Socialdata from Bristol, together with the mailing out of information on
16
responsible driving to households that were not interested in the main TravelSmart offer.
17
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN - PRESTON AND SOUTH RIBBLE 4.1
Introduction
This section summarises the implementation of three TravelSmart campaigns in Preston (East and West) and South Ribble. It reviews the activities conducted, and the responses from the target populations during the three main phases of the ITM process: Contact and Segmentation, Service (Confirmation, Motivation and Information) and Convincing15. 4.2
Contact and Segmentation Phase
The aim of the Contact and Segmentation Phase was to make direct contact with as many private residential households as possible in the target population(s), and to segment them into groups for the later phases of the ITM process. The South Ribble and Preston West target populations consisted entirely of households with available telephone details, while in Preston East the target population included a small proportion (13%) of households without available telephone contact details. Separate contact strategies were used for each of these groups. Households with available telephone details were sent an announcement letter explaining the purpose of the project. This was followed by a phone call to establish the household’s current usage of sustainable travel modes and level of interest in receiving information on walking, cycling and/or public transport. Households without available telephone details were also sent an announcement letter. For these ‘non-telephone’ households, this was followed by door-to-door contact in place of phone contact. Households contacted in this way were also segmented into ‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’ Groups according to their responses to a series of questions asked on the doorstep.
15
Detailed accounts of the implementation of each ITM campaign were provided earlier in a series of field reports.
18
Up to five attempts were made to contact non-telephone households. In cases where someone was clearly at home but did not answer the door, a card was delivered to inform the household about the project and that a member of staff would call again. During door-to-door contact in Preston East, the first part of the Service Phase was also carried out, i.e. households were offered a range of personalised information listed on the order form (see following section). In total, after phone and door-to-door contacts were complete in each of the three stages, a total of 23,118 households (92% of the initial 25,231 households) were successfully contacted and segmented into Interested, Regular User and Not Interested (‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’) Groups (see Table 4.1).
19
Table 4.1
Contact and Segmentation Phase Households
Total Households
25,231
Contacted / segmented Households (total)
23,118
92
Contacted / segmented Households (%) Comprising: Group ‘I’ households interested in receiving information (not including regular public transport users, but including regular walkers and cyclists)
9,937
43%
Group ‘R with’ households with at least one person in the household using environmentally friendly modes (including public transport) regularly and with an information wish
3,852
17%
Group ‘R without’ households with at least one person in the household who regularly uses environmentally friendly modes, (public transport, walking or cycling), but did not require further information
2,512
11%
Group ’N’ households who did not wish to participate, had no interest or were unable to use environmentally friendly modes
6,817
29%
20
4.3
Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information
The aim of this phase was to offer information and support to households contacted during the ITM process according to their specific needs. A comprehensive list of information on walking, cycling and public transport (referred to as the order form) was sent to households identified as Group ‘I’ or Group ‘R with’. An offer of a small incentive (a personal FM radio) was included on the order form to encourage households to return their requests promptly. In the Confirmation Phase, all households in Group ‘R’ (with or without information needs) and those in Group ‘I’ that regularly walked or cycled were offered a TravelSmart®-branded gift as a way of confirming their behaviour. This offer was made on a separate mail-back order form. The outcomes of this Confirmation Phase are detailed in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. These show that a total of 5,291 rewards were delivered, 2,138 to households in Group ‘I’16, 2,041 to Group ‘R with’ and 1,112 to Group ‘R without’. Of the total rewards delivered, 2,311 were pens and 2,980 alarm clocks.
16
Group ‘I’ includes households with regular use of walking and/or cycling which are therefore eligible for a reward.
21
Table 4.2
Confirmation Phase (Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’) I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,937
3,852
13,789
Households with wish for reward
2,138
2,041
4,179
951
881
1,832
Travel Alarm Clock
1,187
1,160
2,347
Households with no wish for reward
6,388
1,322
7,710
Total Response
8,526
3,363
11,889
Response Rate
86%
87%
86%
Parker Rollerball Pen
Table 4.3
Confirmation Phase (Group ‘R without’) R without Total Households
2,512
Households with wish for reward
1,112
Parker Rollerball Pen
479
Travel Alarm Clock
633
Households with no wish for reward
145
Total Response
1,257
Response Rate
50%
22
During the Motivation and Information Phase, households successfully segmented into Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ received order forms by post. Motivation phone calls were made to households not returning their forms within a specific time period. As shown in Table 4.4, a total of 13,789 households were included in the Motivation and Information Phase. Of these 86% (11,872 households) responded by completing the order form either in their own time at home, on the doorstep, or over the phone, and a total of 8,475 requested information.
Table 4.4
Motivation and Information Phase I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,937
3,852
13,789
Households with information wish
5,948
2,527
8,475
Households with no wish for information
2,561
836
3,397
Total Respondents
8,509
3,363
11,872
Response Rate
86%
87%
86%
Table 4.5 summarises the quantities of information materials and incentives delivered during the three TravelSmart ITM campaign. All items were included in personalised packs on the basis of requests made via the order form. These packs, together with the rewards for regular users, were delivered almost entirely by bike and on foot, with a small proportion done by post. The local travel maps and bus stop timetables created specifically for TravelSmart were among the most popular items of information requested in all three campaign areas, but in South Ribble the most frequently requested item was a leaflet on ‘health walks’ in the area.
23
Table 4.5
Information materials and incentives delivered I
R with
Total
62,023
26,521
88,544
Items per participating household17
6.4
6.9
6.5
Items per pack18
10.6
10.5
10.6
General Materials: Local Travel Maps
4,688
2,068
6,756
Public Transport Information (Total)
28,177
13,489
41,666
Cycling Information (Total)
13,609
4,996
18,605
Walking Information (Total)
9,883
3,529
13,412
Pledge Card (Total)
2,096
800
2,896
Other Information (Total)
1,607
663
2,270
Incentives (Personal FM Radio – Total)
1,963
976
2,939
Total items
Separately to the main Service Phase, a pack of information materials on responsible driving was sent to 3,784 households in Group ‘N’. This pack consisted of the TravelSmart local travel map; Transport Direct and Safer Driving Tips cards and Think! Speed, Shared Wheels and Cutting Car Use leaflets. The remaining households in Group ‘N’ were not sent this information because their responses to the Contact Phase suggested this service would be inappropriate (e.g. households with strong data confidentiality concerns; very aged and/or infirm occupants; or long-term absence).
17
Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ included in the motivation and information phase. 18 Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ receiving a pack.
24
4.4
Convincing Phase
The Convincing Phase aims to further encourage people to make environmentally friendly travel choices more frequently by offering additional personal advice and support. These ‘further services’ were included on the order form under the heading of TravelSmart Plus. A total of 1,012 households expressed an interest in TravelSmart Plus (see Table 4.6). These households were telephoned to explain the offer of a home visit conducted by an adviser on walking, cycling and/or public transport19. As a result, 269 households booked a total of 424 home visits. Of these, 363 were successfully conducted.
Table 4.6
Further service requests and home visits
Total Households Households interested in further services
I
R with
Total
9,937
3,852
13,789
737
275
1,012
516 456 346
274 275
516 730 621
215
54
269
73 121 152
31 47
73 152 199
55 111 124
36 37
55 147 161
Number of potential home visits by type: Public Transport Cycling Walking Households booking one or more home visits Number of booked home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking Number of conducted home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking
19 Households already using public transport regularly were not offered public transport further services.
25
4.5
Summary
The requests received and deliveries made during all three stages of the TravelSmart programme in Preston and South Ribble are summarised in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 below. In total, deliveries containing 93,835 items of information and rewards were made to a total of 9,587 households. Each delivery was packed in a project-branded bag with information materials held in a TravelSmart folder.
Table 4.7
Total requests I
R with
R without
Total
Total requested rewards
2,138
2,041
1,112
5,291
Total requested information materials
62,023
26,521
-
88,544
Total requested further services
1,180
454
-
1,634
Total requests
65,341
29,016
1,112
95,469
Table 4.8
Households receiving deliveries I
R with
R without
Total
-
-
1,112
1,112
Information only
3,810
486
-
4,296
Information and reward
2,138
2,041
-
4,179
Total deliveries
5,948
2,527
1,112
9,587
Reward only
26
5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVELSMART CAMPAIGN LANCASTER, TORRISHOLME AND MORECAMBE 5.1
Introduction
This section summarises the implementation of three TravelSmart campaigns in Lancaster City, Torrisholme and Morecambe. It reviews the activities conducted, and responses from the target populations during the three main phases of the ITM process: Contact and Segmentation, Service (Confirmation, Motivation and Information) and Convincing20. 5.2
Contact and Segmentation Phase
The aim of the Contact and Segmentation Phase was to make direct contact with as many private residential households as possible in the target population(s), and to segment them into groups for the later phases of the ITM process. The target populations consisted of varying proportions of households with and without available telephone details. Separate contact strategies were used for each of these groups. Overall households with available telephone contact details accounted for 62.5% of the total target population for Lancaster, Torrisholme and Morecambe. These were sent an announcement letter explaining the purpose of the project. This was followed by a phone call to establish the household’s current usage of sustainable travel modes and level of interest in receiving information on walking, cycling and/or public transport. Households without available telephone details were also sent an announcement letter. For these ‘non-telephone’ households, this was followed by door-to-door contact in place of phone contact. Households contacted in this way were also segmented into ‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’ Groups according to their responses to a series of questions asked on the doorstep.
20
Detailed accounts of the implementation of each ITM campaign were provided earlier in a series of field reports.
27
Up to five attempts were made to contact non-telephone households. In cases where someone was clearly at home but did not answer the door, a card was delivered to inform the household about the project and that a member of staff would call again. During door-to-door contact, the first part of the Service Phase was also carried out, i.e. households were offered a range of personalised information listed on the order form (see following section). In total, after phone and door-to-door contacts were complete in each of the three stages, a total of 20,326 households (81% of the initial 25,003 households) were successfully contacted and segmented into Interested, Regular User and Not Interested (‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘N’) Groups (see Table 5.1).
28
Table 5.1
Contact and Segmentation Phase Households
Total Households
25,001
Contacted / segmented Households (total)
20,326
81%
Contacted / segmented Households (%) Comprising: Group ‘I’ households interested in receiving information (not including regular public transport users, but including regular walkers and cyclists)
9,252
46%
Group ‘R with’ households with at least one person in the household using environmentally friendly modes (including public transport) regularly and with an information wish
3,449
17%
Group ‘R without’ households with at least one person in the household who regularly uses environmentally friendly modes, (public transport, walking or cycling), but did not require further information
2,478
12%
Group ’N’ households who did not wish to participate, had no interest or were unable to use environmentally friendly modes
5,147
25%
29
5.3
Service Phase: Confirmation, Motivation and Information
The aim of this phase was to offer information and support to households contacted during the ITM process according to their specific needs. A comprehensive list of information on walking, cycling and public transport (referred to as the order form) was sent to households identified as Group ‘I’ or Group ‘R with’. An offer of a small incentive (a personal FM radio) was included on the order form to encourage households to return their requests promptly. In the Confirmation Phase, all households in Group ‘R’ (with or without information needs) and those in Group ‘I’ that regularly walked or cycled were offered a TravelSmart®-branded gift as a way of confirming their behaviour. This offer was made on a separate mail-back order form. The outcomes of this Confirmation Phase are detailed in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. These show that a total of 5,313 rewards were delivered, 2,545 to households in Group ‘I’21, 1,867 to Group ‘R with’ and 901 to Group ‘R without’. Of the total rewards delivered, 2,209 were pens and 3,104 alarm clocks.
21
Group ‘I’ includes households with regular use of walking and/or cycling which are therefore eligible for a reward.
30
Table 5.2
Confirmation Phase (Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’) I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,252
3,449
12,701
Households with wish for reward
2,545
1,867
4,412
Parker Rollerball Pen
1,105
719
1,824
Travel Alarm Clock
1,440
1,148
2,588
Households with no wish for reward
5,701
1,321
7,022
Total Response
8,246
3,188
11,434
Response Rate
89%
92%
90%
Table 5.3
Confirmation Phase (Group ‘R without’) R without Total Households
2,478
Households with wish for reward
901
Parker Rollerball Pen
385
Travel Alarm Clock
516
Households with no wish for reward
816
Total Response
1,717
Response Rate
69%
31
During the Motivation and Information Phase, households successfully segmented into Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ received order forms by post. Motivation phone calls were made to households not returning their forms within a specific time period. As shown in Table 5.4, a total of 12,701 households were included in the Motivation and Information Phase. Of these 90% (11,434 households) responded by completing the order form and a total of 8,966 requested information.
Table 5.4
Motivation and Information Phase I
R with
Total
Total Households
9,252
3,449
12,701
Households with information wish
6,238
2,728
8,966
Households with no wish for information
2,008
460
2,468
Total Respondents
8,246
3,188
11,434
Response Rate
89%
92%
90%
Table 5.5 reviews the quantities of information materials and incentives delivered during the TravelSmart ITM campaign. All items were included in personalised packs on the basis of requests made via the order form. These packs, together with the rewards for regular users, were delivered almost entirely by bike and on foot, with a small proportion done by post. The local travel maps created specifically for TravelSmart were the most popular items of information requested in Morecambe and Torrisholme while in Lancaster City, the Walking for All guide was the most frequently requested item. The bus stop timetables, also developed specifically for TravelSmart by Lancashire County Council, were also requested by at least half of all households receiving information in the three campaign areas. Separately to the main Service Phase, a pack of information materials on responsible driving was sent to 1,697 households in Group ‘N’. This pack consisted of the TravelSmart local travel map; Transport Direct and Safer 32
Driving Tips cards and Think! Speed, Shared Wheels and Cutting Car Use leaflets. The remaining households in Group ‘N’ were not sent this information because their responses to the Contact Phase suggested this service would be inappropriate (e.g. households with strong data confidentiality concerns; very aged and/or infirm occupants; or long-term absence).
Table 5.5
Information materials and incentives delivered I
R with
Total
65,835
28,610
94,445
Items per participating household
7.1
8.2
7.4
Items per pack23
10.5
10.4
10.4
General Materials: Local Travel Maps
3,973
1,823
5,796
Public Transport Information (Total)
25,714
12,740
38,454
Cycling Information (Total)
19,746
6,904
26,650
Walking Information (Total)
8,919
3,634
12,553
Pledge Card (Total)
2,571
1,126
3,697
Other Information (Total)
2,299
944
3,243
Incentives (Personal FM Radio – Total)
2,613
1,439
4,052
Total items 22
22
Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ included in the motivation and information phase. 23 Based on all households in Groups ‘I’ and ‘R with’ receiving a pack.
33
5.4
Convincing Phase
The Convincing Phase aims to further encourage people to make environmentally friendly travel choices more frequently by offering additional personal advice and support. These ‘further services’ were included on the order form under the heading of TravelSmart Plus. A total of 877 households expressed an interest in TravelSmart Plus (see Table 5.6). These households were telephoned to explain the offer of a home visit conducted by an adviser on walking, cycling and/or public transport24. As a result, 158 households booked a total of 196 home visits. Of these, 145 were successfully conducted.
Table 5.6
Further service requests and home visits
Total Households Households interested in further services
I
R with
Total
9,252
3,449
12,701
617
260
877
457 462 188
259 253
457 721 441
123
35
158
45 67 42
21 21
45 88 63
33 51 27
18 16
33 69 43
Number of potential home visits by type: Public Transport Cycling Walking Households booking one or more home visits Number of booked home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking Number of conducted home visits: Public Transport Cycling Walking 24
Households already using public transport regularly were not offered public transport further services.
34
5.5
Summary
The requests received and deliveries made during all three stages of the TravelSmart programme in Lancaster district are summarised in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 below. In total, deliveries containing 99,758 items of information and rewards were made to a total of 9,867 households. Each delivery was packed in a project-branded bag with information materials held in a TravelSmart folder.
Table 5.7
Total requests
Total requested rewards Total requested information materials Total requested further services Total requests
Table 5.8
I
R with
R without
Total
2,545
1,867
901
5,313
65,835
28,610
-
94,445
686
339
-
1,025
69,066
30,816
901
100,783
Households receiving deliveries I
R with
R without
Total
-
-
901
901
Information only
3,684
861
-
4,545
Information and reward
2,554
1,867
-
4,421
Total deliveries
6,238
2,728
901
9,867
Reward only
35
6
EVALUATION
6.1
Introduction
As set out in the original project brief, the outcomes of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme were measured against a range of performance indicators focusing mainly on changes in personal travel behaviour. In common with most other TravelSmart programmes, the key component of the monitoring and evaluation framework was a set of detailed travel behaviour surveys, conducted before and after the ITM campaign. This following section focuses on the evaluation of outcomes using these travel behaviour surveys. However it is worth noting that these surveys were supplemented by further evaluation of ITM campaign outputs, reported on during the course of the project. These were: •
Responses from the target populations to each phase of each ITM campaigns (as summarised in Sections 4 and 5);
•
Customer satisfaction, based on the results of separate postal surveys conducted among participating households;
•
Comments collected from households during the ITM campaign, and compiled as ‘Quotes of the Day’; and
•
Quality control checks on a sample of households receiving information from the ITM campaign.
6.2
Travel behaviour surveys
6.2.1 Survey objectives and design As specified in the original project brief, a series of surveys was designed to provide a robust measure of the changes in travel behaviour associated with the TravelSmart programme. The key indicators of interest to Lancashire County Council were changes in mode choice (measured in trips per person per year) and the resulting changes in distances travelled by private car. In order to meet these requirements, the survey design consisted of:
36
1. Baseline travel behaviour surveys across all ITM target areas;25 2. A series of interim evaluation surveys to measure the effects of the first two ITM campaigns in South Ribble and Torrisholme; and 3. A series of final evaluation surveys across all ITM target areas to measure the effects of the remaining ITM campaigns in Preston East and West, Lancaster City and Morecambe, and to assess the durability of any changes measured by the interim surveys in South Ribble and Torrisholme The detailed findings of the interim surveys were reported in September 2007. This section focuses on the findings of the final surveys in relation mainly to the effects of the TravelSmart campaigns in Preston East and West, Lancaster City and Morecambe. It also presents an assessment of the longer term effects of ITM in South Ribble and Torrisholme based on the findings of the final surveys. 6.2.2 Survey method The New KONTIV® survey method has been developed over many years by Socialdata and applied successfully in travel behaviour research and the evaluation of ITM programmes in more than 15 countries world-wide, including most previous TravelSmart projects in the UK. For each household, the survey consists of a household questionnaire and a set of individual travel diaries for each of its members for a nominated day of the week. The survey sample includes households completing travel diaries for all seven days of the week. To ensure a high response rate a pre-paid return envelope is provided with the survey and in cases where surveys are not returned this is followed with further motivation by post and telephone. The survey aims to collect information on all trips26 to all out-of-home destinations on a nominated travel day for each household. The customer focus of the questionnaire design and individualised approach in the 25
The findings of these baseline surveys (which included in-depth research into attitudes and the potential for change) were the subject of a separate report delivered in summer 2006. 26 The subsequent analysis of day-to-day mobility excludes trips of more than 100km (a very small percentage of personal trips) to avoid skewing any distance-related indicators.
37
introductory mailing and subsequent motivation ensures high response rates and reliable results. The procedure for each of the surveys is as follows: i)
Mailing of an official announcement letter (bearing the Lancashire County Council logo and an official signatory) to all households in the gross sample;
ii) Mailing of survey forms and official covering letter (as above) to all households in the gross sample; iii) Households contacted by phone (if possible) on their nominated travel day to motivate them to respond to the survey; iv) Mailing of an official reminder letter to all households from whom a response had not been received after one week; v) Mailing of a second reminder letter (on Socialdata headed paper and signed by the Socialdata project manager) to non-responding households a further week later; vi) A new mailing of the questionnaire to non-responding households (including those without available telephone numbers); and vii) Reminder telephone calls to non-responding households each week to offer support in completing the forms and to motivate them to return them. As a result of this customer-friendly questionnaire design and survey process, Socialdata typically achieve response rates ranging from 60 to 80% for these behavioural surveys. The willingness of respondents to co-operate at this level is an excellent indicator of the quality of both the survey design and the data provided. 6.2.3 Sampling strategy In order to provide a robust measure of the effects of each TravelSmart campaign, the key elements of the sampling strategy for the surveys were as follows: 38
•
Separate samples were drawn from the TravelSmart target population and from a control area that was not subject to ITM over the same timeframe (see following section).
•
In order to reflect the ITM target populations, the samples for the Preston and South Ribble surveys were drawn at random from residential households with available telephone records, while in Lancaster the samples also included households without available telephone records.
•
To further ensure the data were representative of each target population, the target group samples for the after surveys included a proportional share of households which chose not to participate in the ITM campaign.
•
Minimum sample sizes for both target and control groups (i.e. the number of complete survey responses) were designed to provide statistically significant results27.
6.2.4 Control groups The travel behaviour surveys included separate control groups to measure ‘background’ changes not associated with TravelSmart®. This enabled the analysis to take into account any external influences, e.g. changes in the weather (including seasonal effects), major events affecting the highway network. The table below sets out which areas were used as the control for each evaluation of Lancashire’s TravelSmart programme. As discussed at inception, the choice of control areas was limited because of the area-wide coverage of the ITM programme. As a result, for the evaluation of the later stages of TravelSmart (Preston East and West; and Lancaster City and Morecambe) the control group samples were drawn from South Ribble and Torrisholme respectively, the target areas for the first two stages of the TravelSmart programme.
27
The statistical significance resulting from these surveys is explained further in Annex D.
39
Table 6.1
Control areas for the evaluation
ITM target area
Control area
South Ribble
Preston East and West
Preston East
South Ribble
Preston West
South Ribble
Torrisholme
Lancaster City and Morecambe
Lancaster City
Torrisholme
Morecambe
Torrisholme
While it is possible that travel behaviour in these two areas was still undergoing change at the time of the final surveys as a result of their respective ITM campaigns (conducted two years and 18 months previously), this was not felt to be a sufficient reason to disqualify them for use as a control. 6.2.5 Survey implementation The final evaluation surveys were implemented between April and June 2008. The responses from target and control groups for both sets of surveys are shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below. Sample sizes and response rates for all the surveys (baseline, interim and final) are shown in Annex C.
40
Table 6.2
Sample sizes (persons) and response rates (%) for the final surveys in Preston and South Ribble
Total
Preston West
Preston East
South Ribble
(Target)
(Target)
(Control)
Gross sample
2,850
1,000
1,000
850
Sample loss*
242
108
76
58
Adjusted sample
2,608
892
924
792
Total respondents
1,743
580
601
562
Response rate
67%
65%
65%
71%
* Sample loss: House unoccupied, householder moved away, deceased, etc.
Table 6.3
Sample sizes (persons) and response rates (%) for the final surveys in Lancaster City and Morecambe
Total
Lancaster
Morecambe
Torrisholme
(Target)
(Target)
(Control)
Gross sample
3,600
1,200
1,200
1,200
Sample loss*
401
100
145
156
Adjusted sample
3,199
1,100
1,055
1,044
Total respondents
1,863
634
600
629
Response rate
58%
58%
57%
60%
* Sample loss: House unoccupied, householder moved away, deceased, etc.
41
6.3
Analysis
6.3.1 Introduction This section reviews the analysis of the before and after surveys in Preston East and West, and in Lancaster City and Morecambe. It also presents an assessment of the durability of changes associated with the earlier TravelSmart campaigns in South Ribble and Torrisholme, as measured by the 2007 interim surveys. In each case, the analysis of the surveys data was designed to show changes in key mobility indicators attributable to the TravelSmart intervention. This involved a comparison of behavioural data from the target and control group samples in the baseline and after surveys. A summary of this methodology, including the statistical procedures used to account for changes in the data due to sampling factors or external influences, is given in Annex D. The basic measure used for this analysis was the average number of trips per person per year on the grounds that this gives the best overall picture of personal travel behaviour, as opposed to average distances per person per year, the results for which would be skewed by the very small number of long trips. The main indicators selected for the evaluation were as follows: •
Trips per person per year by main mode28;
•
Personal daily mobility (including trip rates, distances travelled and trip purposes);
•
Time spent travelling per person per day by main mode, and total daily exposure to walking and cycling; and
•
Car use measured by actual usage, number of trips, travel time, distance travelled and average occupancy per private car per day.
28
The main mode of a trip is defined as the mode used for the greatest length of the trip.
42
A series of three second-tier indicators are also used to show the effect of TravelSmart on mode choice by trip purpose, time of day, gender and age group. For the purposes of this evaluation, a trip is defined as a one-way course of travel having a single main activity as its purpose. The number of trips per person per year was calculated on the standard formula that on average, a person will spend 341 days of the year at home. This takes into account the days that a person travels away, for example on holiday or business. The charts in the following sections use ‘Without TravelSmart®’ and ‘With TravelSmart®’ to represent the changes in the ITM target group ‘before’ and ‘after’ the implementation of the TravelSmart programme, taking into account the effects of external influences measured across the rest of the city (control group). It is important to note that the following results show the changes in travel behaviour that were achieved across the whole target population including those in the ‘N’ (‘Not Interested’) group and non-respondent households.
43
6.3.2 Changes in travel behaviour (Preston East and Preston West) The net effect of TravelSmart on mode choice among the two ITM target populations in Preston is summarised in Figure 6.4. This shows the percentage of trips by main mode, with and without TravelSmart®, as measured by a comparison of the after survey (‘With TravelSmart®’) with the before survey (‘Without TravelSmart®’). This comparison takes into account changes measured in the control group that did not receive TravelSmart®. The share of car as driver trips was reduced from 44% to 39%, with corresponding increases in walking, cycling and public transport. Figure 6.4
Changes in percentage of trips by main mode (Preston)
44
Figure 6.5 expresses the changes in mode choice in terms of trips per person per year and shows the relative changes achieved by the TravelSmart intervention. It shows that the 10% reduction in car as driver trips was achieved by switching 43 trips per person per year to other modes, i.e. an average across the target population of less than one trip per person per week. Among the sustainable travel modes, walking saw the biggest gains in absolute terms with an additional 23 trips per person per year being made on foot, an increase of 11%. However public transport also gained an additional 12 trips per person per year (a relative increase of 9%), while cycling saw a 35% relative growth from a low baseline level. Figure 6.5
Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person/year) (Preston)
45
As shown in Figure 6.6, there were no significant changes in personal daily mobility as a result of the TravelSmart intervention. This confirms that while TravelSmart clearly influenced how people travel (see above), it had no significant impact on the number of activities they undertake on a daily basis, their daily travel demand (measured by number of trips and distances travelled), or (despite the shift from car travel to more sustainable modes) on time spent travelling. Figure 6.6 Changes in personal mobility (per person/day) (Preston)
46
Figure 6.7 provides an analysis of trips by purpose, without and with TravelSmart®. This shows that on the whole TravelSmart had little effect on the type of trips being undertaken by residents in the Preston target populations. The proportion of commuting trips remained constant at around one fifth of all trips, with shopping and leisure remaining the largest trip generators accounting together for more than half of all trips. Figure 6.7
Changes in trip purpose (%) (Preston)
47
The changes in car use for day-to-day trips shown in Figure 6.8 reflect the reduction in car as driver trips. This shows reductions in the share of cars used each day (77% to 71%), trips (from 2.3 to 2.1), duration of use (from 40 to 38 minutes), and distances travelled (from 21.4 to 19.9 km). Average car occupancy remained at 1.5 people per trip. Figure 6.8
Changes in car usage (per car/day) (Preston)
48
Figure 6.9 shows the changes in car distances travelled in more detail. The number of cars owned by households in the target population fell from 16,400 to 16,100, the distance travelled per car per day for day-to-day trips29 reduced from 21.4 to 19.9 km, resulting in a net saving of 10.5 million car km per year, a relative reduction of 9%. Figure 6.9
29
Changes in car distances travelled (Preston)
As stated earlier, this analysis excludes the small proportion of trips over 100km.
49
Figure 6.10a shows the total time spent travelling per person per day by mode, without and with ITM. This analysis includes all trip stages e.g. walking to a bus stop or from car park to final destination. It shows an increase in the overall time spent travelling by active travel modes (i.e. walking and cycling) from 21 to 23 minutes. Figure 6.10a Changes in travel time by mode (Preston)
Over the course of a year, the effect of ITM would be to increase the total exposure to active travel from 119 to 129 hours per person (see Figure 6.10b). This 8% increase is likely to make a small but significant contribution to increasing overall levels of physical activity amongst the target population. Figure 6.10b
Changes in total active travel time (per person/year in hours (Preston)
50
The following three charts show how the increases in use of sustainable travel modes and the reductions in car driver trips achieved by TravelSmart were distributed by time of day, age and gender groups, and trip purpose. For the purposes of this analysis, trips by sustainable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport) are aggregated and compared with car driver trips. TravelSmart resulted in an overall 11% increase in use of sustainable travel modes for all trip purposes (increasing from a set baseline of 100 to 111). The overall reduction in car driver trips of 10% is shown by the change from a baseline of 100 to 90. Figure 6.11 shows that the use of sustainable travel modes increased throughout the day with the greatest relative increase occurring after 7pm. However the greatest relative reductions in car driver trips occurred between 9am and 3pm. Overall this analysis demonstrates that TravelSmart contributed to reducing car traffic and increasing active travel, to a greater or lesser extent, during the evening peak and off-peak periods of the day. Figure 6.11 Changes in mode choice by time of day (%) (Preston)
51
The distribution of travel behaviour change by age and gender achieved by TravelSmart is shown in Figure 6.12. Increases in walking, cycling and use of public transport were measured throughout the age and gender groups, with the most significant relative growth occurring in people aged over 60. The greatest reductions in car driver trips were in both males and females aged between 20 and 59. Figure 6.12 Changes in mode choice by age and gender (%) (Preston)
52
Figure 6.13 shows the effect on mode choice for different types of trips. Increases in sustainable travel modes were apparent for all trip purposes, except for leisure where there was a slight decline. The greatest relative increase was for shopping and personal business trips. Reductions in car driver trips were focused on shopping/personal business and leisure trips. Figure 6.13 Changes in mode choice by trip purpose (%) (Preston)
53
6.3.3 CO2 reductions The evaluation provides for an estimate of the annual reductions in CO2 emissions accrued as a result of the TravelSmart campaigns in Preston. Based on a UK fleet average factor30, the reduction of 10.5 million car kilometres (Figure 6.9) would result in annual savings of around 2,200 tonnes of CO2. Figure 3.12 CO2 reductions (Preston)
Reduction in car kilometres (per year)
10.5m
Reduction in CO2 emissions (per year)
2,200 tonnes
6.3.4 Long-term effects in South Ribble A set of interim surveys conducted in spring 2007 measured changes in travel behaviour associated with the TravelSmart campaign carried out in South Ribble between May and July of the previous year. This evaluation was the subject of a separate report delivered in September 2007. As they included a sample of households from the target population, the final surveys (conducted in spring 2008) provide an opportunity to assess the longer term effects of ITM in South Ribble.
30
207.5 g CO2 per vehicle km, from: Guidelines to DEFRA’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, DEFRA 2007.
54
Figure 6.14 shows mode choice measured by the final survey among the South Ribble target population and compares this with data from the 2007 interim evaluation31. This indicates that the gains in walking have been constant, and that the changes measured a few months after the ITM campaign were sustained. It also showed that there had been a continued increase in cycling and public transport trips a year on. Figure 6.14 Longer-term effects of ITM in South Ribble
31
The interim evaluation used a control group drawn from Preston East and Preston West, while the 2008 data reflect mode choice in the South Ribble target group without any adjustment for ‘background changes’ elsewhere.
55
6.3.5 Changes in travel behaviour (Lancaster City and Morecambe) The net effect of TravelSmart on mode choice among the Lancaster City and Morecambe target populations is summarised in Figure 6.15. This shows the percentage of trips by main mode, with and without TravelSmart®, as measured by a comparison of the after survey (‘With TravelSmart®’) with the before survey (‘Without TravelSmart®’). This comparison takes into account changes measured in the control group that did not receive TravelSmart®. The share of car as driver trips was reduced from 42% to 36%, with corresponding increases in walking, cycling and public transport. Figure 6.15 Changes in percentage of trips by main mode (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
56
Figure 6.16 expresses the changes in mode choice in terms of trips per person per year and shows the relative changes achieved by the TravelSmart intervention. It shows that the 14% reduction in car as driver trips was achieved by switching 59 trips per person per year to other modes, i.e. an average across the target population of a little more than one trip per person per week. Among the sustainable travel modes, walking saw the biggest gains in absolute terms with an additional 48 trips per person per year being made on foot, an increase of 18%. However public transport also gained an additional six trips per person per year (a relative increase of 7%), while cycling saw a 69% relative growth from a low baseline level. Figure 6.16 Changes in trips by main mode (trips per person/year) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
57
As shown in Figure 6.17, there were no significant changes in personal daily mobility as a result of the TravelSmart intervention. This confirms that while TravelSmart clearly influenced how people travel (see above), it had no significant impact on the number of activities they undertake on a daily basis, their daily travel demand (measured by number of trips), or (despite the shift from car travel to more sustainable modes) on time spent travelling. There is only a slight reduction of distances travelled, reflecting the reduced distances travelled by car. Figure 6.17 Changes in personal mobility (per person/day) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
58
Figure 6.18 provides an analysis of trips by purpose, without and with TravelSmart®. This shows that on the whole TravelSmart had little effect on the type of trips being undertaken by residents in the Lancaster and Morecambe target population. The proportion of commuting trips remained the same at around one fifth of all trips, with shopping and leisure remaining the largest trip generators accounting together for more than half of all trips. Figure 6.18 Changes in trip purpose (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
59
The changes in car use for day-to-day trips shown in Figure 6.19 reflect the reduction in car as driver trips. This shows reductions in the share of cars used each day (74% to 66%), trips (from 3.0 to 2.6), duration of use (from 52 to 45 minutes), and distances travelled (from 31 to 26 km). A slight increase in average car occupancy was measured, from 1.4 to 1.5 people per trip. Figure 6.19 Changes in car usage (per car/day) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
60
Figure 6.20 shows the changes in car distances travelled in more detail. While the number of cars owned by households in the target population remained unchanged at 16,500, the distance travelled per car per day for day-to-day trips32 reduced from 31.2 to 26.5 km, resulting in a net saving of 26.4 million car km per year, a relative reduction of 15%. Figure 6.20 Changes in car distances travelled (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
32
As stated earlier, this analysis excludes the small proportion of trips over 100km.
61
Figure 6.21a shows the total time spent travelling per person per day by mode, without and with ITM. This analysis includes all trip stages e.g. walking to a bus stop or from car park to final destination. It shows an increase in the overall time spent travelling by active travel modes (i.e. walking and cycling) from 23 to 28 minutes. Figure 6.21a Changes in travel time by mode (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
Over the course of a year, the effect of ITM would be to increase the total exposure to active travel from 128 to 155 hours per person (see Figure 6.21b). This 21% increase is likely to make a significant contribution to increasing overall levels of physical activity amongst the target population. Figure 6.21 Changes in total active travel time (per person/year in hours) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
62
The following three charts show how the increases in use of sustainable travel modes and the reductions in car driver trips achieved by TravelSmart were distributed by time of day, age and gender groups, and trip purpose. For the purposes of this analysis, trips by sustainable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport) are aggregated and compared with car driver trips. TravelSmart resulted in an overall 19% increase in use of sustainable travel modes for all trip purposes (increasing from a set baseline of 100 to 119). The overall reduction in car driver trips of 14% is shown by the change from a baseline of 100 to 86. Figure 6.22 shows that the use of sustainable travel modes increased throughout the day with the greatest relative increase occurring between 5am and 9am (i.e. the morning peak). Reductions in car driver trips were evenly spread throughout the day. Overall this analysis demonstrates that TravelSmart in Lancaster and Morecambe contributed to reducing car traffic and increasing active travel at both peak and off-peak periods of the day. Figure 6.22 Changes in mode choice by time of day (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
63
The distribution of travel behaviour change by age and gender achieved by TravelSmart is shown in Figure 6.23. Increases in walking, cycling and use of public transport were measured throughout the age and gender groups, with the most significant relative growth occurring in males aged 20-59, followed by people over the age of 60. The greatest reductions in car driver trips were in females aged between 20 and 59. Figure 6.23 Changes in mode choice by age and gender (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
64
Figure 6.24 shows the effect on mode choice for different types of trips. Increases in sustainable travel modes were apparent for all trip purposes, except for shopping/personal business where it remained constant. In contrast to Preston (where shopping trips saw the greatest change), the greatest relative increase was for work and other trips. By some margin, the greatest reductions in car driver trips were recorded for work journeys. Figure 6.24 Changes in mode choice by trip purpose (%) (Lancaster City & Morecambe)
65
6.3.6 CO2 reductions The evaluation provides for an estimate of the annual reductions in CO2 emissions accrued as a result of the TravelSmart campaigns in Lancaster City and Morecambe. Based on a UK fleet average factor33, the reduction of 26.4 million car kilometres (Figure 6.20) would result in annual savings of around 5,500 tonnes of CO2. Figure 3.12 CO2 reductions (Lancaster City and Morecambe)
Reduction in car kilometres (per year)
26.4m
Reduction in CO2 emissions (per year)
5,500 tonnes
6.3.7 Long-term effects in Torrisholme The interim surveys conducted in spring 2007 measured changes in travel behaviour associated with the TravelSmart campaign carried out in Torrisholme between September and November of the previous year. This evaluation was the subject of a separate report delivered in September 2007. As they included a sample of households from the target population, the final surveys (conducted in spring 2008) provide an opportunity to assess the longer term effects of ITM in Torrisholme.
33
207.5 g CO2 per vehicle km, from: Guidelines to DEFRA’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, DEFRA 2007.
66
Figure 6.25 shows mode choice measured by the final survey among the South Ribble target population and compares this with data from the 2007 interim evaluation34. This indicates that, despite a slight erosion of the gains in walking, the changes measured a few months after the ITM campaign were broadly sustained a year later. Figure 6.25 Longer-term effects of ITM in Torrisholme
34
The interim evaluation used a control group drawn from Lancaster City and Morecambe, while the 2008 data reflect mode choice in the Torrisholme target group without any adjustment for ‘background changes’ elsewhere.
67
7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1
Introduction
The aim of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme was to promote greater use of sustainable and active travel modes (walking, cycling and public transport) as alternatives to car travel among a total target population of 50,000 households in South Ribble, Preston and Lancaster. In order to achieve this aim, the following components were put in place: •
The design of a coherent and attractive marketing offer consisting of local transport information of relevance to each of the six target areas;
•
The identification of project partners and other organisations to provide information materials in sufficient quantity and at the right time to support the ITM campaigns;
•
The development of new information resources to complement existing materials, notably a series of local travel maps and stop-specific bus timetables
•
The recruitment of local staff and personnel from partner organisations to implement the fieldwork, providing an effective knowledge base and adding value as a community initiative; and
•
The application of the proven TravelSmart ITM technique, with supporting project management systems, adapted where appropriate to local conditions.
The success of the campaign in achieving this aim is measured ultimately by the responses of the target population, in particular the willingness of households to participate in the TravelSmart campaign; the volume of information and other services requested; and the resulting changes in travel behaviour. This section reviews the key outcomes of the Lancashire TravelSmart programme under these broad headings.
68
7.2
Key outcomes
7.2.1 Travel behaviour change The travel behaviour surveys conducted before and after the TravelSmart campaigns show significant increases in levels of walking, cycling and use of public transport as modes of day-to-day travel, leading to major reductions in car use. The key indicators measured by each evaluation are summarised in the Table 7.1 below alongside the outcomes of other recent TravelSmart programmes elsewhere in the UK. Table 7.1
Summary of key changes attributed to TravelSmart®
Location
Date
Target population (households)
Relative change in car as driver trips
Relative change in trips by sustainable modes
Lancashire South Ribble
2006
10,700
-13%
+36%
Torrisholme
2006
8,500
-12%
+16%
Preston
2007
14,518
-10%
+11%
Lancaster & Morecambe
2007
16,501
-14%
+19%
Peterborough (Stage 1)
2005
6,500
-13%
+20%
Peterborough (Stage 2 & 3)
2006
11,756
-10%
+12%
Worcester (Stage 1)35
2005
6,300
-12%
+20%
Worcester (Stage 2.1)14
2006
4,775
-13%
+17%
Worcester (Stage 2.2)14
2007
3,830
-11%
+21%
Inverness
2007
1,500
-13%
+19%
Doncaster (Bessacarr)
2005
2,275
-13%
+29%
Gloucester (Barton, Tredworth, White City)
2005
4,050
-13%
+17%
Elsewhere in the UK
35
These projects used a streamlined evaluation methodology.
69
In Preston, the evaluation measured an overall 8% increase in the total time spent walking and cycling each day (equivalent to an average of two additional minutes per person), while in Lancaster City and Morecambe the increase in exposure to active travel was 21% (five minutes per person per day). The reductions in car distances travelled were 10.5 million vehicle km in Preston and 26.4 million in Lancaster City and Morecambe. As a result of the behaviour change across all six target populations, the total annual savings in car distances travelled amounted to 62.6 million vehicle km, leading to annual reductions in CO2 emissions of around 13,000 tonnes. The Lancashire evaluations suggest that in each case the greatest modal shift occurred from car driver trips to walking. However there were also significant gains in public transport use and (in particular in Lancaster where TravelSmart built on the district’s Cycling Demonstration Town programme) levels of cycling. Further analysis of the travel survey data shows that: •
The behaviour changes were achieved without any significant constraint on daily mobility (i.e. activities, number of trips, distances travelled) among the target populations;
•
Despite increases in the use of ‘slower’ sustainable travel modes, there was no significant change in daily time spent travelling among the target population;
•
Modal shift occurred at all times of the day and for all types of journey.
7.2.2 Participation in the Individualised Travel Marketing campaign The ITM process resulted in high participation rates among the target population of 50,232 households. This demonstrates a positive community response to the personalised TravelSmart approach, and a high level of unmet demand for information on local transport options: •
86% of households in the target population responded to the initial contact phase;
70
•
Of these, 61% were interested in receiving information through the TravelSmart campaign and a further 11% were already regular users of sustainable travel modes who did not request additional information;
•
66% of those initially interested in receiving information then responded to the offer of information and advice by completing a TravelSmart order form, either in their own time at home or over the phone; and
•
A total of 19,454 personalised TravelSmart packages were hand-delivered to participating households (including 2,103 containing only rewards for regular users), around 40% of the initial target population.
•
A further 5,479 information packs on responsible driving were sent to households not interested in the main TravelSmart offer, bringing the total number of delivered packages to 24,933, around 50% of the initial target population.
7.2.3 Demand for information and advice The profile of requests received during the TravelSmart campaign indicates a high demand for information and advice on local transport: •
A total of 193,593 items of information, incentives and rewards were requested during the TravelSmart campaign, an average of nearly 10 per participating household;
•
Of the information materials on offer, the local travel maps, stop-specific bus timetables and local walking guides were the most frequently items of information during the ITM campaigns; and
•
A total of 1,889 households requested further personal advice on walking, cycling and/or public transport, resulting in a total of 498 advice sessions on walking, cycling and/or public transport being conducted at people’s homes.
71
In case of any queries regarding this report, please contact: Neil Smith Senior Project Officer, TravelSmart® Sustrans 2 Cathedral Square College Green Bristol BS1 5DD Telephone (direct line): 0117 915 0318 e-mail: [email protected]
