- Email: [email protected]
Securing travel plans through the planning approvals process: A case study of practice from Victoria, Australia
Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Securing travel plans through the planning approvals process: A case study of practice from Victoria, Australia Chris De Gruyter ⇑, Geoffrey Rose, Graham Currie Institute of Transport Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 March 2014 Received in revised form 9 May 2014 Accepted 11 June 2014
Keywords: Travel plan Sustainable transport Urban development
a b s t r a c t Travel plans can be required for new developments through the land use planning and approvals process. They contain specific measures that can be implemented at a site to reduce car use and encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. Travel plans have been used in various countries as a requirement of development approval, including the United States, United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. However, the scale of practice in Australia is largely unknown. Using a case study from the Australian state of Victoria, a survey of councils was undertaken to assess the scale of travel planning practice for new developments. Results showed that half of the councils had previously required a travel plan for a new development, with a total of around 100 travel plans secured through the planning process between 2010 and 2012 alone. Key issues facing councils include the lack of any state planning policy that is supportive of travel plans, difficulties with monitoring and enforcement, and general uncertainty regarding effectiveness. Some of these issues could be addressed through the preparation of travel planning guidance specific to new developments, comprehensive training, and changes to planning policy and enforcement practices. Future research is needed to contrast experience with other jurisdictions and to better understand the effectiveness of travel plans at new developments, both in terms of their process and outcomes. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Continued demand for new housing and commercial developments is expected to add further pressure to existing transport networks in many urbanised areas, contributing further to increased greenhouse gas emissions (Tiwari, Cervero, & Schipper, 2011). Given these issues and a limited ability to add more capacity to the existing transport network, Travel Demand Management (TDM) offers an alternative approach by managing existing resources better and modifying the behaviour of transport users. While TDM can include ‘hard’ policy measures such as road pricing (Seik, 2000), it can also encompass ‘softer’ measures such as travel plans (Enoch, 2012). Various definitions for travel plans have been developed over time (Cairns et al., 2004; Department of Infrastructure, 2008; Rye, 2002) with recognition that the term ‘travel plan’ is probably not the most easily understood but for lack of a better option has remained (Enoch, 2012). For the purpose of this paper, a travel plan can be defined as a strategy that contains measures that are tailored to the needs of a site to reduce car use and encourage ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 1848; fax: +61 3 9905 4944. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. De Gruyter). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.003 0264-2751/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
the use of more sustainable transport modes, such as public transport, walking and cycling. Examples of measures in a travel plan can be wide-ranging, although the more effective ones tend to include ‘carrots’, such as financial incentives to use public transport, as well as ‘sticks’, such as car parking charges to discourage car use (Cairns, Newson, & Davis, 2010). While results have varied considerably, travel plans introduced at workplaces and schools have typically brought about a median reduction in car use of around 15% (Enoch, 2012). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the role that travel plans can play in managing the transport impacts of new developments, such as offices, residential sites, schools and other major trip generators (Addison & Associates, 2008; PBAI, 2005). However, in contrast to existing developments, relatively little research has been undertaken into travel plans for new developments. While applications in the United States (Jollon, 2013), United Kingdom (Rye, Green, et al., 2011) and other parts of Europe (Rye, Welsch, et al., 2011) have been reported, the scale of practice in Australia is largely unknown. In response to this knowledge gap, a case study of practice from the Australian state of Victoria has been chosen as a focus for this research. Victoria is located in the south east corner of the Australian mainland and is home to over five million people. The
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
capital city of Victoria is Melbourne, with a population of around four million people (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014c). Melbourne has been consistently ranked as the most liveable city out of 140 cities surveyed since 2011 (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013). A key contributor to this ranking is the quality of transport networks and availability of good quality housing. While this paper is focused on Victoria, the methodology and approach can be replicated in future to examine levels of practice in other states and countries to obtain a broader perspective. The overall aim of the research underlying this paper1 was to develop an appreciation of travel planning practice for new developments, using a case study of Victoria, Australia. Key objectives of the research were to: Understand the extent to which travel plans have been required by local government. Identify the reasons why travel plans have and have not been required. Identify mechanisms used to require travel plans. Assess the level of monitoring that has taken place to date and relate this back to planning enforcement and regulation theory. Understand levels of travel plan familiarity and experience among local government staff. Understand perceptions of travel plan effectiveness among local government staff. Gauge the likelihood of local government requiring travel plans in the future. This paper is structured as follows. The next section sets the context around travel plans for new developments through a review of the Victorian planning system and relevant literature. It then details the methodology employed in a survey to determine the scale and associated characteristics of travel planning practice in Victoria. This is followed by a summary of the survey results which are then compared to the literature. The final section of this paper presents some concluding remarks and identifies future research directions. This paper uses the term ‘council’ to refer to a local government elected authority. It is recognised that slightly different terms may be used in other countries such as municipal government or county government.
Research context Victorian planning system Despite the development of a national urban policy for Australia in 2011, regulation of urban planning and land use activity is the responsibility of states and territories who each have independent planning systems in place (Department of Infrastructure, 2011). In Victoria, planning schemes are developed separately for each local government area and contain a range of policies and provisions to ensure the appropriate use and development of land (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). While state-wide content is included in the planning schemes and supports access to new developments by more sustainable transport modes, it does not make any specific reference to the use of travel plans. Furthermore, while councils can choose to include local content within their planning scheme, only 4 out of the 79 councils in Victoria (5%) currently include a requirement for travel plans (Department of Transport, Planning and Local 1
This paper builds upon a conference paper that was presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF) in Brisbane, Australia in October 2013.
115
Infrastructure, 2014b). Despite this minor representation, other councils are not precluded from imposing the requirement where it is considered appropriate. In Victoria, a travel plan for a new development can generally be secured either through a condition on a planning permit or through a formal agreement. Basic principles have been established about the validity of conditions on a planning permit. Each condition must be reasonable and relevant, fulfil a planning purpose, accurately convey its intended effect, and avoid uncertainty and vagueness. In addition, planning conditions must be enforceable (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). A formal agreement arises out of section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and can be registered over the title of the land and become binding upon future owners (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). Options available to local government for enforcing planning conditions and section 173 agreements range from negotiation and official warnings, to enforcement orders and court proceedings (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). However, local guidance suggests that an emphasis should be placed on obtaining compliance rather than on prosecuting offenders (Planning Enforcement Officers Association Inc., 2007). Training of enforcement officers therefore needs to build skills in verbal and written communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution (Victorian Auditor-General, 2008). Most planning enforcement activity in Victoria is undertaken in response to public complaints (Planning Enforcement Officers Association Inc., 2007). However, it may be questionable as to whether a complaint would arise from inaction of a travel plan, particularly in the absence of any traffic and parking issues at the development. Planning enforcement and regulation theory The subject of planning enforcement and regulation theory has received little attention to date (Harris, 2011). However, the theory does suggest two main approaches for achieving planning compliance. The first, commonly referred to as systematic enforcement, favours the use of legislative mechanisms to deter violations such as sanctions and fines. Over the past decade, there has been a shift away from this regime towards a more facilitative approach that is centred on securing compliance, with punitive measures retained as a last resort. This approach favours the use of incentives, negotiation and education to assist offenders to comply with regulations (Burby, May, & Paterson, 1998; McKay, 2003). The facilitative approach is based on the assumption that most breaches of regulations occur through ignorance and are therefore unintended. Harris (2011) argues that the facilitative approach can be suited to situations where resources are limited, given this style of enforcement tends to be less resource intensive than systematic enforcement regimes. Through a survey of local governments in the US, Burby et al. (1998) found that effective enforcement is more likely to occur with a facilitative approach. Their study identified four key ingredients to achieving successful compliance:
An adequate number of technically competent staff. Strong proactive leadership. Adequate legal support. A consistent, strong effort to inspect building plans and sites, and provide technical assistance.
While the literature is supportive of the facilitative approach, the ability to use punitive measures should not be neglected, particularly in cases of repeat and flagrant offenders. Punitive
116
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
measures can help to ensure integrity of the planning system and deter others from breaching planning controls (Harris, 2010). Travel planning guidance With the exception of the City of Darebin in Victoria (City of Darebin, undated), no state or local governments in Australia have developed any travel planning guidance specifically for new developments. Looking internationally however, an excellent set of guidance documents exist in the United Kingdom (UK), focused specifically on new developments (Department for Transport, 2009; Transport for London, 2011). Key points highlighted in the UK guidance include the need for: A supportive transport and land use planning policy framework. Buy-in and subsequent ownership of the travel plan by the applicant (and future occupant if known) with a strong commitment to implementation. Inclusion of an appropriate package of measures that are specific to the needs of the site and aimed at achieving a clear set of measurable objectives and targets. Nomination of a dedicated and enthusiastic travel plan coordinator. Clarity of roles and responsibilities for funding, implementing and monitoring the travel plan. Issues in securing travel plans through the planning process Despite the availability of clear and detailed guidance in the UK, a number of issues have arisen in using the planning process to secure travel plans (Addison & Associates, 2008; De Gruyter, Rose, & Currie, 2014; Roby, 2010; Rye, Green, et al., 2011; Wynne, 2013), including: Difficulties in monitoring and enforcing the travel plan, mainly due to a lack of resources but also uncertainty in the use of legal mechanisms. Inconsistency between the objectives of the travel plan and the motivations of those responsible for implementing it. Developers paying ‘lip-service’ to travel plans, particularly where they are not actively involved in the process, e.g. post occupation. Issues associated with the quality of travel plans being approved, particularly where planning assessment officers lack sufficient knowledge or experience in the application of travel plans. The nature of the proposed development often being unknown when preparing the travel plan, despite this information being vital for formulating objectives, targets and measures. Travel planning outcomes In Australia, travel plans have become relatively common in most states over the last 10 years. However, the approach has been primarily focused on existing developments, with very little practical experience or research into new developments. There are however some notable exceptions. The relocation of Optus, a major employer in the state of New South Wales, was subject to compulsory mode share targets as part of the development application process. The travel plan that was implemented in response to this requirement achieved 45% of employees commuting by public transport, walking or cycling, compared to 10% of all other employees in the local area (NSW Government, 2011). Another example is the QEII Medical Centre in Perth, Western Australia, where a travel plan was prepared in response to future plans to see more activity concentrated on fewer sites. This travel plan
achieved a reduction in car driver trips among staff from 85% to 70% (Thom, 2009). However, in both the Optus and QEII examples, the occupant was not only known, but also involved in developing the travel plan. Facilitating ownership and engagement in this way is widely recognised by the literature as a key factor for success (Department of Infrastructure, 2008; Thom, 2009). In Victoria, published results concerning travel plans are limited to existing sites only, such as schools, workplaces and universities. Results have been positive, with increases in sustainable travel often exceeding initial targets and reductions in single occupant vehicle trips of 10–15% or more (Howlett & Watson, 2010). Finally, it is worth noting the inherent difficulty in evaluating outcomes of travel plans for new developments. Often no baseline travel patterns are available at the time of preparing the travel plan as the development is not occupied or even built. While estimates of mode splits can be made based on nearby sites or regional travel survey data, the effectiveness of travel plan measures that are implemented prior to occupation can be difficult to estimate.
Research method In order to develop an appreciation of travel planning practice for new developments in Victoria, a self-completion questionnaire was developed and administered online to councils during 2012. Anonymity in survey responses was assured so that individual councils could not be identified. Survey questions covered the extent to which travel plans had been required, reasons for requiring (and not requiring) travel plans, mechanisms used to require travel plans, levels of monitoring undertaken, familiarity and experience with travel plans, perceptions of travel plan effectiveness, and the likelihood of requiring travel plans in the future. A closing question was also included to allow respondents to express any other comments they had about travel plans for new developments. All 31 councils in metropolitan Melbourne were targeted for the survey, plus five regional councils (Greater Geelong, Greater Bendigo, Ballarat, Greater Shepparton and Latrobe) which represent the key regional centres across Victoria. This resulted in a total target population of 36 councils, as illustrated in Fig. 1. While the remaining regional councils could also have been targeted for the survey, this was not considered appropriate as travel plans are generally not considered in these areas at all due to their predominant rural character. Furthermore, the 36 councils targeted for the survey contain the majority of the Victorian population, at around 84% (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014c). In order to recruit survey participants, an initial telephone call was made to each council to explain the purpose of the survey and to determine an appropriate representative who could complete the survey. Contact with each representative was then made to confirm that they were the most suitable person to participate in the survey. As the survey was administered online, a link could be distributed by email to the selected representative in each council. Reminder emails were then sent as required to ensure completion of the survey. The level of interest in the survey was relatively high and there were generally no issues in seeking commitment from each representative to complete the survey. As a result, a response from all 36 councils was achieved, representing a 100% response rate. An important finding during the survey recruitment stage revealed that there was little consistency in the administrative unit within each council that was responsible for travel plans for new developments. Of the 36 councils surveyed, 19 responses (or 53%) were provided by representatives in transport related roles, 15 responses (42%) were provided by representatives in planning
117
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
Fig. 1. Location of Victorian councils targeted for the survey.
related roles, and the remaining 2 responses (5%) were provided by representatives in other roles (e.g. environmental management). In some cases, the representative sought input from other relevant areas to complete the survey, highlighting that more than one area within particular councils may be involved in the travel planning process for new developments. Following completion of the survey, the results were analysed using descriptive statistics. The data was also cross-classified and supported by statistical tests to help understand the extent to which responses varied according to different segments of the survey population.
each during 2010–12. Based on the data presented in Table 2, it is estimated that around 100 travel plans were required by Victorian councils during 2010–12. Reasons for requiring travel plans Fig. 2 shows that offsetting the impact of providing reduced car parking was the most common reason for requiring a travel plan for a new development. Reducing car parking has clear benefits for a developer through reduced costs which also acts as an important ‘stick’ in managing car use as part of the travel plan developed for the site.
Results Reasons for not requiring travel plans This section presents the results of the survey, in line with each of the survey questions that were asked of council representatives. Requirements for travel plans Table 1 indicates the number of Victorian councils that have previously required a travel plan. Around 80% of inner and middle metropolitan councils have required a travel plan before, with this figure decreasing to around 20% for outer metropolitan and regional councils. Overall, 18 out of the 36 councils surveyed (50%) had previously required a travel plan. Table 2 shows the number of travel plans required by Victorian councils between 2010 and 2012. As can be seen, inner and middle metropolitan councils required more travel plans than outer metropolitan and regional councils. This may be due to higher rates of greenfield and car oriented development occurring in outer areas compared to inner and middle suburbs where higher density infill development and greater transport issues are experienced. Half of the councils who had required a travel plan before (equivalent to 25% of the total sample) had required more than five
The survey results indicated that around one-third of the councils (10 out of the 36 surveyed) had not required a travel plan before. The most common reason for this (stated by 5 of the 10 councils) was that they did not consider travel plans to be effective or appropriate for their local area. Other reasons included the lack of any statutory requirement, or an intention to require travel plans in the future. Mechanisms used to require travel plans Fig. 3 shows that a planning permit condition is the most common mechanism used for requiring travel plans for new developments in Victoria. As respondents could indicate more than one mechanism they have used, verbal negotiation (reported by more than one-third of respondents) may have been used in conjunction with other mechanisms. This is because it is unlikely that verbal negotiation alone would be particularly effective in ensuring a travel plan is developed and implemented. Around one-third of respondents (28%) indicated the use of formal agreements by their council to require travel plans for new developments.
Table 1 Requirements for travel plans for new developments by Victorian councils. Status
Required Never required Unsure Total
Number of councils by location
Total
Inner metro
Middle metro
Outer metro
Regional
4 (80%) – 1 (20%) 5 (100%)
10 (83%) 2 (17%) – 12 (100%)
3 (21%) 6 (43%) 5 (36%) 14 (100%)
1 (20%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 5 (100%)
18 (50%) 10 (28%) 8 (22%) 36 (100%)
118
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122 Table 2 Number of travel plans required by Victorian councils during 2010–12. Number of travel plans required
Number of councils by location
1–2 3–5 6–10 More than 10 Unsure Total
100%
Inner metro
Middle metro
Outer metro
Regional
– – 2 1 1 4
2 (20%) – 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 10 (100%)
1 1 1 – – 3
– 1 (100%) – – – 1 (100%)
(50%) (25%) (25%) (100%)
(33%) (33%) (33%)
(100%)
3 (17%) 2 (11%) 5 (28%) 4 (22%) 4 (22%) 18 (100%)
94%
90%
Percentage (%) of councils
Total
83% 78%
80% 70% 60%
56%
50% 40% 30% 22%
20% 10%
6%
0% Offset impact of Mitigate transport reduced car parking impacts and provision improve accessibility
Deliver on council's Contribute to wider transport environmental policies/strategies objectives
Reduce requirements for road network upgrades
Other
Key reason/motivation Fig. 2. Key reasons for councils requiring travel plans for new developments.
100%
94%
Percentage (%) of councils
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 39%
40%
28%
30%
22%
20% 10% 0%
0% Condition on planning permit
Verbal negotiation with developer
Formal agreement
Other
Development contribution plan
Mechanism Fig. 3. Mechanisms used by councils to require travel plans for new developments.
Monitoring of travel plans Fig. 4 indicates the level of travel plan monitoring undertaken by Victorian councils to date. Around 80% of councils indicated that they had not undertaken any monitoring of the travel plans they had required. A lack of council resources was a key reason cited for the relatively low rate of monitoring:
‘‘The monitoring of travel plans is complex and it will require more resources from councils to follow up the results in time.’’ [Response from outer metropolitan council representative] However, it was also noted that councils are not necessarily averse to monitoring travel plans, but would only do so if a particular issue arose:
119
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122 30%
Percentage (%) of councils
28%
28%
25%
20% 17% 15% 11% 10% 6%
6%
6%
5%
0%
0%
Not applicable No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring Some monitored Most travel All travel plans as no travel plan and no plans to but may be but definitely but majority plans monitored monitored implementation do any some in future some in future have not been
Unsure
Level of monitoring
Fig. 4. Level of travel plan monitoring among councils.
‘‘It is unlikely that we would monitor the plan to ensure it is being implemented, however if a complaint was received in relation to the development and traffic etc, it is likely planning enforcement would ensure that all conditions on the permit (including the green travel plan) are being implemented.’’ [Response from middle metropolitan council representative]
Familiarity and experience with travel plans Council representatives were asked to state their level of familiarity and experience with travel plans, as reported in Fig. 5. While most of the respondents had some level of awareness of travel plans (91%), only around one-third (36%) indicated they had practical experience in using them. Practical experience with using travel plans generally declined with distance from the Melbourne CBD, with inner metropolitan councils reporting the highest proportion of respondents with practical experience (80%), followed by middle metropolitan councils (42%), regional councils (20%) and outer metropolitan councils (14%).
Very aware but no practical experience 25%
Very aware and practical experience 36%
Aware but only limited understanding 31%
Only heard about travel plans 6% Never heard about travel plans 3%
Fig. 5. Level of respondent familiarity and experience with travel plans.
Perceived effectiveness of travel plans Council representatives were first asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale, the extent to which they agreed that a number of mechanisms, including travel plans, are effective in managing transport access at new developments. The proportion that either agreed or strongly agreed that each mechanism is effective is shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen, travel plans ranked lowest of the mechanisms presented with one in two respondents (50%) regarding them as effective. Table 3 shows the extent to which respondents agreed that travel plans are effective and cross-classifies this by their familiarity and experience with travel plans. In total, around one-third of respondents (36%) felt ‘neutral’ towards the effectiveness of travel plans. However, when cross-classified, it can be seen that only 27% of those familiar and experienced in using travel plans felt ‘neutral’ towards their effectiveness, compared with 50% of those with a limited understanding of how travel plans work. Despite this finding, a z-test for the difference between proportions showed there was no statistical significance to suggest that those not familiar and experienced with travel plans were more uncertain about their effectiveness (p = 0.17). Table 3 also shows that 64% of those familiar and experienced with travel plans agreed (or strongly agreed) that travel plans are effective, compared to only 29% of those with a limited understanding of how travel plans work. A z-test for the difference between proportions showed that there was a statistically significant difference to suggest that those familiar and experienced with travel plans are more likely to agree that they are effective in managing transport access to new developments (p = 0.04). In addition, perceived effectiveness of travel plans was also cross-classified by council location and the number of travel plans they had required for new developments. However, no clear pattern or differences emerged from these additional analyses. Finally, it should be noted that uncertainty about travel plan effectiveness did not necessarily correspond with disinterest in the concept: ‘‘We are very interested in exploring the use of travel plans for new developments, however we have not come across any cases where they have been proven to be effective...’’ [Response from outer metropolitan council representative]
120
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
100%
100%
Percentage (%) of respondents
91%
90%
86%
80% 70%
67% 58%
60%
50%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% New and/or Safe and connected walking and cycling improved public transport services network
Mixed land uses
Road network/ intersection upgrades
Sufficient car parking to meet demand
Travel plan
Mechanism Fig. 6. Mechanisms considered effective for managing transport access at new developments.
Table 3 Extent to which respondents agreed that travel plans are effective in managing transport access for new developments (cross-classified by their familiarity and experience with travel plans). Extent of agreement that travel plans are effective
Agree or strongly agree Neutral Disagree or strongly disagree Total
Respondent familiarity and experience with travel plans Familiar and experienced
Not familiar or experienced
14 (64%) 6 (27%) 2 (9%) 22 (100%)
4 (29%) 7 (50%) 3 (21%) 14 (100%)
Future likelihood of requiring travel plans Fig. 7 shows that around half of the councils (51%) stated that they were likely or highly likely to require a travel plan for a new development in the next 12 months, which is similar to the proportion that have required them previously (50%). The proportion of councils that were likely or highly likely to require a travel
Total
18 (50%) 13 (36%) 5 (14%) 36 (100%)
plan in the next 12 months also declined with distance from the Melbourne CBD. Inner metropolitan councils were most likely (80%), followed by middle metropolitan councils (75%), regional councils (50%) and outer metropolitan councils (21%). Other key issues A number of other key issues were highlighted by councils as part of the survey. These included the lack of any state planning policy that is supportive of travel plans and concerns about the effectiveness of travel plans:
Highly unlikely 9%
Highly likely 37% Unlikely 26%
‘‘The town planning process is very focussed on vehicular movements with little consideration towards other modes (apart from broad motherhood statements in the State Planning Policy Framework) therefore it is difficult to liaise with some developments in requesting extra info such as travel plans.’’ [Response from outer metropolitan council representative] ‘‘Travel plans are not effective when implemented by a statutory requirement, like many management plans.’’ [Response from middle metropolitan council representative]
Discussion
Unsure 14% Likely 14%
Fig. 7. Likelihood of Victorian councils requiring a travel plan in the next 12 months.
This section compares the research findings to the literature and outlines some potential responses to issues that have been identified from the survey. Firstly, it is insightful to compare the results to a previous survey conducted of 388 local authorities in the UK (Steer Davies Gleave, 2001). The survey was undertaken in 2001 to assess the take-up and effectiveness of travel plans which included a
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
component on travel plans and development control. The results of this survey showed that 58% of local authorities had required a travel plan for a new development, compared to 50% for the Victorian council survey. However, the percentage today in the UK is likely to be much higher, due to the increased focus on travel plans for new developments and the ongoing presence of a supportive policy framework (Department for Communities, 2011, 2012). A subsequent survey of local authorities in the UK in 2007 suggested a three-fold increase in travel plans between 2001 and 2006, although it was also recognised that most local authorities currently secure less than 10 travel plans each year (Addison & Associates, 2008). Formal agreements were used by around one-third of Victorian councils to require travel plans for new developments. This contrasts the finding of the 2007 UK survey where 61% of local authorities used them (Addison & Associates, 2008). Formal agreements in the UK are typically used for larger developments as they are considered to have more ‘legal force’ and can be used to secure payments associated with implementing and monitoring the travel plan. Around 80% of Victorian councils indicated they had not monitored any of the travel plans they had required. This is in contrast to the UK where only 21% of local authorities recently reported that they did not monitor travel plans (Rye, Green, et al., 2011). A very different pattern of travel plan monitoring therefore exists between Victoria and the UK. Difficulties with monitoring and enforcing travel plans are commonly cited in the literature (Addison & Associates, 2008; Enoch, 2012; Rye, Green, et al., 2011; Wynne, 2013), with findings from the 2007 UK survey echoing comments made by Victorian councils: ‘‘Resourcing (or the lack of it) of the monitoring, penalties, sanctions and incentives processes was seen by many authorities as a reason for not including them within travel plans as they have no resources to follow this through.’’ (Addison & Associates, 2008, p. 71) In applying these findings to the theory on planning enforcement (Burby et al., 1998; Harris, 2010, 2011; McKay, 2003), consideration could be given towards adopting a facilitative approach to enforcing travel plans. This approach would be particularly appropriate given that travel plans are a relatively new concept for the property development industry, who may therefore benefit from more of an educational style of enforcement. Furthermore, the less resource intensive nature of facilitative compliance helps to address the issue regarding a lack of council resources for enforcement. However, adequate staffing of enforcement officers would still need to be ensured under a facilitative approach, not only to monitor travel plan implementation, but to also protect the integrity of the planning system. Given the difference in monitoring rates between Victoria and the UK, consideration could also be made to translating best practice in monitoring and enforcing travel plans from the UK (and other countries) to Australian conditions. Looking more broadly, the development of state-wide travel planning guidance specifically for new developments would be a step forward in providing greater clarity to councils. This would need to be tailored to local conditions with reference given to effective and appropriate use of the planning system. Furthermore, the incorporation of travel plan requirements into state planning policy could provide councils with a more robust mechanism for requiring travel plans for new developments. In the UK, a strong policy context was the most cited ‘assisting’ factor by local authorities in securing travel plans for new developments (Addison & Associates, 2008) and is also considered to be important in other European countries (Rye, Welsch, et al., 2011).
121
The level of practical experience with using travel plans was not particularly high among council staff. This may therefore point to the need, in some cases, for specific training in this area for council staff and perhaps developers. In particular, such training would need to provide suitable guidance on how to assess the quality of travel plans received as part of planning applications to ensure they are robust and contain effective implementation and monitoring procedures. A similar recommendation was previously made in the UK in 2008 stating that a ‘‘lack of knowledge hindered the effectiveness of the travel plan work’’ and that ‘‘training was seen as much needed’’ (Addison & Associates, 2008, p. 78). Training could also extend to enforcement officers to ensure they are familiar with travel plans and appropriate enforcement styles that should be adopted. Finally, it is worth noting again that around half of the councils surveyed stated that they were likely to require a travel plan for a new development in the next 12 months. This clearly indicates an area of continued growth in the transport and land use planning profession, and therefore one which deserves further attention as a research area to ensure there is a degree of consistency in the way that travel plans are required and subsequently implemented. It is also important that opportunities are taken where possible to identify best practice to guide councils in securing more effective travel plans through the planning process.
Conclusions The aim of the research underlying this paper was to develop an appreciation of travel planning practice for new developments. Using a case study of Victoria, Australia, it showed that half of the councils had required a travel plan for a new development before, primarily to offset the impact of providing less car parking. A condition on a planning permit was the most common mechanism used to require a travel plan, although formal agreements were also used in some instances. Little monitoring of travel plans at new developments has taken place to date, primarily due to limited resources. The level of practical experience in using travel plans was relatively low among council representatives, yet those with experience were more likely to perceive travel plans as effective. Around half of the councils surveyed stated that they were likely to require a travel plan for a new development in the future. From the results presented, it appears that Victoria is still at a somewhat embryonic stage with respect to travel planning for new developments, which is perhaps analogous to the UK’s position 10 years ago. Progress could be made towards a more effective approach through greater involvement of state and national government in supporting and guiding the implementation and monitoring of travel plans. A logical progression might include specific training for council staff and other stakeholders, in combination with the development of clear guidance that can be applied consistently and easily by those involved in the travel planning process. In the longer term, changes to relevant planning policies and enforcement practices could help to ensure that travel plans for new developments are applied on a more consistent basis. Future research directions arising from this paper include: Determining the level of travel plan take up by councils, i.e. the proportion of new developments that were required to have a travel plan. Understanding levels of travel planning practice for new developments elsewhere in Australia and other countries, potentially using the same approach as employed in this research. Assessing the effectiveness of travel plans for new developments, both in terms of their process and outcomes.
122
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
Understanding the perspectives of stakeholders involved in travel planning for new developments, such as state and local government, developers, and property managers.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank each of the council representatives who participated in the survey. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which have improved the quality of this paper. Any opinions, conclusions or views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors. References Addison & Associates (2008). Delivering travel plans through the planning process – Research report. London, UK: Department for Transport and Communities and Local Government. Burby, R., May, P., & Paterson, R. (1998). Improving compliance with regulations: Choices and outcomes for local government. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 324–334. Cairns, S., Newson, C., & Davis, A. (2010). Understanding successful workplace travel initiatives in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(7), 473–494. Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A., & Goodwin, P. (2004). Smarter choices – Changing the way we travel. UK: Department for Transport. City of Darebin (undated). Travel plans – Guidelines for planning permit applications. Viewed 22.02.14. De Gruyter, C., Rose, G., & Currie, G. (2014). Evaluating travel plan quality for new developments: Methodology and a case study from Victoria, Australia. Paper presented to 93rd Transportation Research Board (TRB) annual meeting, Washington, DC. Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Planning policy guidance 13: Transport, London, UK. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National planning policy framework, London, UK. Department for Transport (2009). Good practice guidelines: Delivering travel plans through the planning process. London, UK: Department for Transport. Department of Infrastructure (2008). TravelSmart travel planning guide, Victoria, Australia. Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2011). Our cities, our future: A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future, Canberra, Australia. Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (2014a). A guide to the planning system.
Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (2014c). Victoria in future 2012 data tables, Victoria, Australia, Viewed 22.02.14. PBAI (2005). Guidelines for the application and implementation of travel plans for new development in Darebin, City of Darebin, Victoria, Australia. Planning Enforcement Officers Association Inc. (2007). A guide to planning enforcement in Victoria. Victoria, Australia: PEOA.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Securing travel plans through the planning approvals process: A case study of practice from Victoria, Australia Chris De Gruyter ⇑, Geoffrey Rose, Graham Currie Institute of Transport Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 March 2014 Received in revised form 9 May 2014 Accepted 11 June 2014
Keywords: Travel plan Sustainable transport Urban development
a b s t r a c t Travel plans can be required for new developments through the land use planning and approvals process. They contain specific measures that can be implemented at a site to reduce car use and encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. Travel plans have been used in various countries as a requirement of development approval, including the United States, United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. However, the scale of practice in Australia is largely unknown. Using a case study from the Australian state of Victoria, a survey of councils was undertaken to assess the scale of travel planning practice for new developments. Results showed that half of the councils had previously required a travel plan for a new development, with a total of around 100 travel plans secured through the planning process between 2010 and 2012 alone. Key issues facing councils include the lack of any state planning policy that is supportive of travel plans, difficulties with monitoring and enforcement, and general uncertainty regarding effectiveness. Some of these issues could be addressed through the preparation of travel planning guidance specific to new developments, comprehensive training, and changes to planning policy and enforcement practices. Future research is needed to contrast experience with other jurisdictions and to better understand the effectiveness of travel plans at new developments, both in terms of their process and outcomes. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Continued demand for new housing and commercial developments is expected to add further pressure to existing transport networks in many urbanised areas, contributing further to increased greenhouse gas emissions (Tiwari, Cervero, & Schipper, 2011). Given these issues and a limited ability to add more capacity to the existing transport network, Travel Demand Management (TDM) offers an alternative approach by managing existing resources better and modifying the behaviour of transport users. While TDM can include ‘hard’ policy measures such as road pricing (Seik, 2000), it can also encompass ‘softer’ measures such as travel plans (Enoch, 2012). Various definitions for travel plans have been developed over time (Cairns et al., 2004; Department of Infrastructure, 2008; Rye, 2002) with recognition that the term ‘travel plan’ is probably not the most easily understood but for lack of a better option has remained (Enoch, 2012). For the purpose of this paper, a travel plan can be defined as a strategy that contains measures that are tailored to the needs of a site to reduce car use and encourage ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 1848; fax: +61 3 9905 4944. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. De Gruyter). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.003 0264-2751/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
the use of more sustainable transport modes, such as public transport, walking and cycling. Examples of measures in a travel plan can be wide-ranging, although the more effective ones tend to include ‘carrots’, such as financial incentives to use public transport, as well as ‘sticks’, such as car parking charges to discourage car use (Cairns, Newson, & Davis, 2010). While results have varied considerably, travel plans introduced at workplaces and schools have typically brought about a median reduction in car use of around 15% (Enoch, 2012). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the role that travel plans can play in managing the transport impacts of new developments, such as offices, residential sites, schools and other major trip generators (Addison & Associates, 2008; PBAI, 2005). However, in contrast to existing developments, relatively little research has been undertaken into travel plans for new developments. While applications in the United States (Jollon, 2013), United Kingdom (Rye, Green, et al., 2011) and other parts of Europe (Rye, Welsch, et al., 2011) have been reported, the scale of practice in Australia is largely unknown. In response to this knowledge gap, a case study of practice from the Australian state of Victoria has been chosen as a focus for this research. Victoria is located in the south east corner of the Australian mainland and is home to over five million people. The
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
capital city of Victoria is Melbourne, with a population of around four million people (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014c). Melbourne has been consistently ranked as the most liveable city out of 140 cities surveyed since 2011 (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013). A key contributor to this ranking is the quality of transport networks and availability of good quality housing. While this paper is focused on Victoria, the methodology and approach can be replicated in future to examine levels of practice in other states and countries to obtain a broader perspective. The overall aim of the research underlying this paper1 was to develop an appreciation of travel planning practice for new developments, using a case study of Victoria, Australia. Key objectives of the research were to: Understand the extent to which travel plans have been required by local government. Identify the reasons why travel plans have and have not been required. Identify mechanisms used to require travel plans. Assess the level of monitoring that has taken place to date and relate this back to planning enforcement and regulation theory. Understand levels of travel plan familiarity and experience among local government staff. Understand perceptions of travel plan effectiveness among local government staff. Gauge the likelihood of local government requiring travel plans in the future. This paper is structured as follows. The next section sets the context around travel plans for new developments through a review of the Victorian planning system and relevant literature. It then details the methodology employed in a survey to determine the scale and associated characteristics of travel planning practice in Victoria. This is followed by a summary of the survey results which are then compared to the literature. The final section of this paper presents some concluding remarks and identifies future research directions. This paper uses the term ‘council’ to refer to a local government elected authority. It is recognised that slightly different terms may be used in other countries such as municipal government or county government.
Research context Victorian planning system Despite the development of a national urban policy for Australia in 2011, regulation of urban planning and land use activity is the responsibility of states and territories who each have independent planning systems in place (Department of Infrastructure, 2011). In Victoria, planning schemes are developed separately for each local government area and contain a range of policies and provisions to ensure the appropriate use and development of land (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). While state-wide content is included in the planning schemes and supports access to new developments by more sustainable transport modes, it does not make any specific reference to the use of travel plans. Furthermore, while councils can choose to include local content within their planning scheme, only 4 out of the 79 councils in Victoria (5%) currently include a requirement for travel plans (Department of Transport, Planning and Local 1
This paper builds upon a conference paper that was presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF) in Brisbane, Australia in October 2013.
115
Infrastructure, 2014b). Despite this minor representation, other councils are not precluded from imposing the requirement where it is considered appropriate. In Victoria, a travel plan for a new development can generally be secured either through a condition on a planning permit or through a formal agreement. Basic principles have been established about the validity of conditions on a planning permit. Each condition must be reasonable and relevant, fulfil a planning purpose, accurately convey its intended effect, and avoid uncertainty and vagueness. In addition, planning conditions must be enforceable (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). A formal agreement arises out of section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and can be registered over the title of the land and become binding upon future owners (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). Options available to local government for enforcing planning conditions and section 173 agreements range from negotiation and official warnings, to enforcement orders and court proceedings (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014a). However, local guidance suggests that an emphasis should be placed on obtaining compliance rather than on prosecuting offenders (Planning Enforcement Officers Association Inc., 2007). Training of enforcement officers therefore needs to build skills in verbal and written communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution (Victorian Auditor-General, 2008). Most planning enforcement activity in Victoria is undertaken in response to public complaints (Planning Enforcement Officers Association Inc., 2007). However, it may be questionable as to whether a complaint would arise from inaction of a travel plan, particularly in the absence of any traffic and parking issues at the development. Planning enforcement and regulation theory The subject of planning enforcement and regulation theory has received little attention to date (Harris, 2011). However, the theory does suggest two main approaches for achieving planning compliance. The first, commonly referred to as systematic enforcement, favours the use of legislative mechanisms to deter violations such as sanctions and fines. Over the past decade, there has been a shift away from this regime towards a more facilitative approach that is centred on securing compliance, with punitive measures retained as a last resort. This approach favours the use of incentives, negotiation and education to assist offenders to comply with regulations (Burby, May, & Paterson, 1998; McKay, 2003). The facilitative approach is based on the assumption that most breaches of regulations occur through ignorance and are therefore unintended. Harris (2011) argues that the facilitative approach can be suited to situations where resources are limited, given this style of enforcement tends to be less resource intensive than systematic enforcement regimes. Through a survey of local governments in the US, Burby et al. (1998) found that effective enforcement is more likely to occur with a facilitative approach. Their study identified four key ingredients to achieving successful compliance:
An adequate number of technically competent staff. Strong proactive leadership. Adequate legal support. A consistent, strong effort to inspect building plans and sites, and provide technical assistance.
While the literature is supportive of the facilitative approach, the ability to use punitive measures should not be neglected, particularly in cases of repeat and flagrant offenders. Punitive
116
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
measures can help to ensure integrity of the planning system and deter others from breaching planning controls (Harris, 2010). Travel planning guidance With the exception of the City of Darebin in Victoria (City of Darebin, undated), no state or local governments in Australia have developed any travel planning guidance specifically for new developments. Looking internationally however, an excellent set of guidance documents exist in the United Kingdom (UK), focused specifically on new developments (Department for Transport, 2009; Transport for London, 2011). Key points highlighted in the UK guidance include the need for: A supportive transport and land use planning policy framework. Buy-in and subsequent ownership of the travel plan by the applicant (and future occupant if known) with a strong commitment to implementation. Inclusion of an appropriate package of measures that are specific to the needs of the site and aimed at achieving a clear set of measurable objectives and targets. Nomination of a dedicated and enthusiastic travel plan coordinator. Clarity of roles and responsibilities for funding, implementing and monitoring the travel plan. Issues in securing travel plans through the planning process Despite the availability of clear and detailed guidance in the UK, a number of issues have arisen in using the planning process to secure travel plans (Addison & Associates, 2008; De Gruyter, Rose, & Currie, 2014; Roby, 2010; Rye, Green, et al., 2011; Wynne, 2013), including: Difficulties in monitoring and enforcing the travel plan, mainly due to a lack of resources but also uncertainty in the use of legal mechanisms. Inconsistency between the objectives of the travel plan and the motivations of those responsible for implementing it. Developers paying ‘lip-service’ to travel plans, particularly where they are not actively involved in the process, e.g. post occupation. Issues associated with the quality of travel plans being approved, particularly where planning assessment officers lack sufficient knowledge or experience in the application of travel plans. The nature of the proposed development often being unknown when preparing the travel plan, despite this information being vital for formulating objectives, targets and measures. Travel planning outcomes In Australia, travel plans have become relatively common in most states over the last 10 years. However, the approach has been primarily focused on existing developments, with very little practical experience or research into new developments. There are however some notable exceptions. The relocation of Optus, a major employer in the state of New South Wales, was subject to compulsory mode share targets as part of the development application process. The travel plan that was implemented in response to this requirement achieved 45% of employees commuting by public transport, walking or cycling, compared to 10% of all other employees in the local area (NSW Government, 2011). Another example is the QEII Medical Centre in Perth, Western Australia, where a travel plan was prepared in response to future plans to see more activity concentrated on fewer sites. This travel plan
achieved a reduction in car driver trips among staff from 85% to 70% (Thom, 2009). However, in both the Optus and QEII examples, the occupant was not only known, but also involved in developing the travel plan. Facilitating ownership and engagement in this way is widely recognised by the literature as a key factor for success (Department of Infrastructure, 2008; Thom, 2009). In Victoria, published results concerning travel plans are limited to existing sites only, such as schools, workplaces and universities. Results have been positive, with increases in sustainable travel often exceeding initial targets and reductions in single occupant vehicle trips of 10–15% or more (Howlett & Watson, 2010). Finally, it is worth noting the inherent difficulty in evaluating outcomes of travel plans for new developments. Often no baseline travel patterns are available at the time of preparing the travel plan as the development is not occupied or even built. While estimates of mode splits can be made based on nearby sites or regional travel survey data, the effectiveness of travel plan measures that are implemented prior to occupation can be difficult to estimate.
Research method In order to develop an appreciation of travel planning practice for new developments in Victoria, a self-completion questionnaire was developed and administered online to councils during 2012. Anonymity in survey responses was assured so that individual councils could not be identified. Survey questions covered the extent to which travel plans had been required, reasons for requiring (and not requiring) travel plans, mechanisms used to require travel plans, levels of monitoring undertaken, familiarity and experience with travel plans, perceptions of travel plan effectiveness, and the likelihood of requiring travel plans in the future. A closing question was also included to allow respondents to express any other comments they had about travel plans for new developments. All 31 councils in metropolitan Melbourne were targeted for the survey, plus five regional councils (Greater Geelong, Greater Bendigo, Ballarat, Greater Shepparton and Latrobe) which represent the key regional centres across Victoria. This resulted in a total target population of 36 councils, as illustrated in Fig. 1. While the remaining regional councils could also have been targeted for the survey, this was not considered appropriate as travel plans are generally not considered in these areas at all due to their predominant rural character. Furthermore, the 36 councils targeted for the survey contain the majority of the Victorian population, at around 84% (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014c). In order to recruit survey participants, an initial telephone call was made to each council to explain the purpose of the survey and to determine an appropriate representative who could complete the survey. Contact with each representative was then made to confirm that they were the most suitable person to participate in the survey. As the survey was administered online, a link could be distributed by email to the selected representative in each council. Reminder emails were then sent as required to ensure completion of the survey. The level of interest in the survey was relatively high and there were generally no issues in seeking commitment from each representative to complete the survey. As a result, a response from all 36 councils was achieved, representing a 100% response rate. An important finding during the survey recruitment stage revealed that there was little consistency in the administrative unit within each council that was responsible for travel plans for new developments. Of the 36 councils surveyed, 19 responses (or 53%) were provided by representatives in transport related roles, 15 responses (42%) were provided by representatives in planning
117
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
Fig. 1. Location of Victorian councils targeted for the survey.
related roles, and the remaining 2 responses (5%) were provided by representatives in other roles (e.g. environmental management). In some cases, the representative sought input from other relevant areas to complete the survey, highlighting that more than one area within particular councils may be involved in the travel planning process for new developments. Following completion of the survey, the results were analysed using descriptive statistics. The data was also cross-classified and supported by statistical tests to help understand the extent to which responses varied according to different segments of the survey population.
each during 2010–12. Based on the data presented in Table 2, it is estimated that around 100 travel plans were required by Victorian councils during 2010–12. Reasons for requiring travel plans Fig. 2 shows that offsetting the impact of providing reduced car parking was the most common reason for requiring a travel plan for a new development. Reducing car parking has clear benefits for a developer through reduced costs which also acts as an important ‘stick’ in managing car use as part of the travel plan developed for the site.
Results Reasons for not requiring travel plans This section presents the results of the survey, in line with each of the survey questions that were asked of council representatives. Requirements for travel plans Table 1 indicates the number of Victorian councils that have previously required a travel plan. Around 80% of inner and middle metropolitan councils have required a travel plan before, with this figure decreasing to around 20% for outer metropolitan and regional councils. Overall, 18 out of the 36 councils surveyed (50%) had previously required a travel plan. Table 2 shows the number of travel plans required by Victorian councils between 2010 and 2012. As can be seen, inner and middle metropolitan councils required more travel plans than outer metropolitan and regional councils. This may be due to higher rates of greenfield and car oriented development occurring in outer areas compared to inner and middle suburbs where higher density infill development and greater transport issues are experienced. Half of the councils who had required a travel plan before (equivalent to 25% of the total sample) had required more than five
The survey results indicated that around one-third of the councils (10 out of the 36 surveyed) had not required a travel plan before. The most common reason for this (stated by 5 of the 10 councils) was that they did not consider travel plans to be effective or appropriate for their local area. Other reasons included the lack of any statutory requirement, or an intention to require travel plans in the future. Mechanisms used to require travel plans Fig. 3 shows that a planning permit condition is the most common mechanism used for requiring travel plans for new developments in Victoria. As respondents could indicate more than one mechanism they have used, verbal negotiation (reported by more than one-third of respondents) may have been used in conjunction with other mechanisms. This is because it is unlikely that verbal negotiation alone would be particularly effective in ensuring a travel plan is developed and implemented. Around one-third of respondents (28%) indicated the use of formal agreements by their council to require travel plans for new developments.
Table 1 Requirements for travel plans for new developments by Victorian councils. Status
Required Never required Unsure Total
Number of councils by location
Total
Inner metro
Middle metro
Outer metro
Regional
4 (80%) – 1 (20%) 5 (100%)
10 (83%) 2 (17%) – 12 (100%)
3 (21%) 6 (43%) 5 (36%) 14 (100%)
1 (20%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 5 (100%)
18 (50%) 10 (28%) 8 (22%) 36 (100%)
118
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122 Table 2 Number of travel plans required by Victorian councils during 2010–12. Number of travel plans required
Number of councils by location
1–2 3–5 6–10 More than 10 Unsure Total
100%
Inner metro
Middle metro
Outer metro
Regional
– – 2 1 1 4
2 (20%) – 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 10 (100%)
1 1 1 – – 3
– 1 (100%) – – – 1 (100%)
(50%) (25%) (25%) (100%)
(33%) (33%) (33%)
(100%)
3 (17%) 2 (11%) 5 (28%) 4 (22%) 4 (22%) 18 (100%)
94%
90%
Percentage (%) of councils
Total
83% 78%
80% 70% 60%
56%
50% 40% 30% 22%
20% 10%
6%
0% Offset impact of Mitigate transport reduced car parking impacts and provision improve accessibility
Deliver on council's Contribute to wider transport environmental policies/strategies objectives
Reduce requirements for road network upgrades
Other
Key reason/motivation Fig. 2. Key reasons for councils requiring travel plans for new developments.
100%
94%
Percentage (%) of councils
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 39%
40%
28%
30%
22%
20% 10% 0%
0% Condition on planning permit
Verbal negotiation with developer
Formal agreement
Other
Development contribution plan
Mechanism Fig. 3. Mechanisms used by councils to require travel plans for new developments.
Monitoring of travel plans Fig. 4 indicates the level of travel plan monitoring undertaken by Victorian councils to date. Around 80% of councils indicated that they had not undertaken any monitoring of the travel plans they had required. A lack of council resources was a key reason cited for the relatively low rate of monitoring:
‘‘The monitoring of travel plans is complex and it will require more resources from councils to follow up the results in time.’’ [Response from outer metropolitan council representative] However, it was also noted that councils are not necessarily averse to monitoring travel plans, but would only do so if a particular issue arose:
119
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122 30%
Percentage (%) of councils
28%
28%
25%
20% 17% 15% 11% 10% 6%
6%
6%
5%
0%
0%
Not applicable No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring Some monitored Most travel All travel plans as no travel plan and no plans to but may be but definitely but majority plans monitored monitored implementation do any some in future some in future have not been
Unsure
Level of monitoring
Fig. 4. Level of travel plan monitoring among councils.
‘‘It is unlikely that we would monitor the plan to ensure it is being implemented, however if a complaint was received in relation to the development and traffic etc, it is likely planning enforcement would ensure that all conditions on the permit (including the green travel plan) are being implemented.’’ [Response from middle metropolitan council representative]
Familiarity and experience with travel plans Council representatives were asked to state their level of familiarity and experience with travel plans, as reported in Fig. 5. While most of the respondents had some level of awareness of travel plans (91%), only around one-third (36%) indicated they had practical experience in using them. Practical experience with using travel plans generally declined with distance from the Melbourne CBD, with inner metropolitan councils reporting the highest proportion of respondents with practical experience (80%), followed by middle metropolitan councils (42%), regional councils (20%) and outer metropolitan councils (14%).
Very aware but no practical experience 25%
Very aware and practical experience 36%
Aware but only limited understanding 31%
Only heard about travel plans 6% Never heard about travel plans 3%
Fig. 5. Level of respondent familiarity and experience with travel plans.
Perceived effectiveness of travel plans Council representatives were first asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale, the extent to which they agreed that a number of mechanisms, including travel plans, are effective in managing transport access at new developments. The proportion that either agreed or strongly agreed that each mechanism is effective is shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen, travel plans ranked lowest of the mechanisms presented with one in two respondents (50%) regarding them as effective. Table 3 shows the extent to which respondents agreed that travel plans are effective and cross-classifies this by their familiarity and experience with travel plans. In total, around one-third of respondents (36%) felt ‘neutral’ towards the effectiveness of travel plans. However, when cross-classified, it can be seen that only 27% of those familiar and experienced in using travel plans felt ‘neutral’ towards their effectiveness, compared with 50% of those with a limited understanding of how travel plans work. Despite this finding, a z-test for the difference between proportions showed there was no statistical significance to suggest that those not familiar and experienced with travel plans were more uncertain about their effectiveness (p = 0.17). Table 3 also shows that 64% of those familiar and experienced with travel plans agreed (or strongly agreed) that travel plans are effective, compared to only 29% of those with a limited understanding of how travel plans work. A z-test for the difference between proportions showed that there was a statistically significant difference to suggest that those familiar and experienced with travel plans are more likely to agree that they are effective in managing transport access to new developments (p = 0.04). In addition, perceived effectiveness of travel plans was also cross-classified by council location and the number of travel plans they had required for new developments. However, no clear pattern or differences emerged from these additional analyses. Finally, it should be noted that uncertainty about travel plan effectiveness did not necessarily correspond with disinterest in the concept: ‘‘We are very interested in exploring the use of travel plans for new developments, however we have not come across any cases where they have been proven to be effective...’’ [Response from outer metropolitan council representative]
120
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
100%
100%
Percentage (%) of respondents
91%
90%
86%
80% 70%
67% 58%
60%
50%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% New and/or Safe and connected walking and cycling improved public transport services network
Mixed land uses
Road network/ intersection upgrades
Sufficient car parking to meet demand
Travel plan
Mechanism Fig. 6. Mechanisms considered effective for managing transport access at new developments.
Table 3 Extent to which respondents agreed that travel plans are effective in managing transport access for new developments (cross-classified by their familiarity and experience with travel plans). Extent of agreement that travel plans are effective
Agree or strongly agree Neutral Disagree or strongly disagree Total
Respondent familiarity and experience with travel plans Familiar and experienced
Not familiar or experienced
14 (64%) 6 (27%) 2 (9%) 22 (100%)
4 (29%) 7 (50%) 3 (21%) 14 (100%)
Future likelihood of requiring travel plans Fig. 7 shows that around half of the councils (51%) stated that they were likely or highly likely to require a travel plan for a new development in the next 12 months, which is similar to the proportion that have required them previously (50%). The proportion of councils that were likely or highly likely to require a travel
Total
18 (50%) 13 (36%) 5 (14%) 36 (100%)
plan in the next 12 months also declined with distance from the Melbourne CBD. Inner metropolitan councils were most likely (80%), followed by middle metropolitan councils (75%), regional councils (50%) and outer metropolitan councils (21%). Other key issues A number of other key issues were highlighted by councils as part of the survey. These included the lack of any state planning policy that is supportive of travel plans and concerns about the effectiveness of travel plans:
Highly unlikely 9%
Highly likely 37% Unlikely 26%
‘‘The town planning process is very focussed on vehicular movements with little consideration towards other modes (apart from broad motherhood statements in the State Planning Policy Framework) therefore it is difficult to liaise with some developments in requesting extra info such as travel plans.’’ [Response from outer metropolitan council representative] ‘‘Travel plans are not effective when implemented by a statutory requirement, like many management plans.’’ [Response from middle metropolitan council representative]
Discussion
Unsure 14% Likely 14%
Fig. 7. Likelihood of Victorian councils requiring a travel plan in the next 12 months.
This section compares the research findings to the literature and outlines some potential responses to issues that have been identified from the survey. Firstly, it is insightful to compare the results to a previous survey conducted of 388 local authorities in the UK (Steer Davies Gleave, 2001). The survey was undertaken in 2001 to assess the take-up and effectiveness of travel plans which included a
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
component on travel plans and development control. The results of this survey showed that 58% of local authorities had required a travel plan for a new development, compared to 50% for the Victorian council survey. However, the percentage today in the UK is likely to be much higher, due to the increased focus on travel plans for new developments and the ongoing presence of a supportive policy framework (Department for Communities, 2011, 2012). A subsequent survey of local authorities in the UK in 2007 suggested a three-fold increase in travel plans between 2001 and 2006, although it was also recognised that most local authorities currently secure less than 10 travel plans each year (Addison & Associates, 2008). Formal agreements were used by around one-third of Victorian councils to require travel plans for new developments. This contrasts the finding of the 2007 UK survey where 61% of local authorities used them (Addison & Associates, 2008). Formal agreements in the UK are typically used for larger developments as they are considered to have more ‘legal force’ and can be used to secure payments associated with implementing and monitoring the travel plan. Around 80% of Victorian councils indicated they had not monitored any of the travel plans they had required. This is in contrast to the UK where only 21% of local authorities recently reported that they did not monitor travel plans (Rye, Green, et al., 2011). A very different pattern of travel plan monitoring therefore exists between Victoria and the UK. Difficulties with monitoring and enforcing travel plans are commonly cited in the literature (Addison & Associates, 2008; Enoch, 2012; Rye, Green, et al., 2011; Wynne, 2013), with findings from the 2007 UK survey echoing comments made by Victorian councils: ‘‘Resourcing (or the lack of it) of the monitoring, penalties, sanctions and incentives processes was seen by many authorities as a reason for not including them within travel plans as they have no resources to follow this through.’’ (Addison & Associates, 2008, p. 71) In applying these findings to the theory on planning enforcement (Burby et al., 1998; Harris, 2010, 2011; McKay, 2003), consideration could be given towards adopting a facilitative approach to enforcing travel plans. This approach would be particularly appropriate given that travel plans are a relatively new concept for the property development industry, who may therefore benefit from more of an educational style of enforcement. Furthermore, the less resource intensive nature of facilitative compliance helps to address the issue regarding a lack of council resources for enforcement. However, adequate staffing of enforcement officers would still need to be ensured under a facilitative approach, not only to monitor travel plan implementation, but to also protect the integrity of the planning system. Given the difference in monitoring rates between Victoria and the UK, consideration could also be made to translating best practice in monitoring and enforcing travel plans from the UK (and other countries) to Australian conditions. Looking more broadly, the development of state-wide travel planning guidance specifically for new developments would be a step forward in providing greater clarity to councils. This would need to be tailored to local conditions with reference given to effective and appropriate use of the planning system. Furthermore, the incorporation of travel plan requirements into state planning policy could provide councils with a more robust mechanism for requiring travel plans for new developments. In the UK, a strong policy context was the most cited ‘assisting’ factor by local authorities in securing travel plans for new developments (Addison & Associates, 2008) and is also considered to be important in other European countries (Rye, Welsch, et al., 2011).
121
The level of practical experience with using travel plans was not particularly high among council staff. This may therefore point to the need, in some cases, for specific training in this area for council staff and perhaps developers. In particular, such training would need to provide suitable guidance on how to assess the quality of travel plans received as part of planning applications to ensure they are robust and contain effective implementation and monitoring procedures. A similar recommendation was previously made in the UK in 2008 stating that a ‘‘lack of knowledge hindered the effectiveness of the travel plan work’’ and that ‘‘training was seen as much needed’’ (Addison & Associates, 2008, p. 78). Training could also extend to enforcement officers to ensure they are familiar with travel plans and appropriate enforcement styles that should be adopted. Finally, it is worth noting again that around half of the councils surveyed stated that they were likely to require a travel plan for a new development in the next 12 months. This clearly indicates an area of continued growth in the transport and land use planning profession, and therefore one which deserves further attention as a research area to ensure there is a degree of consistency in the way that travel plans are required and subsequently implemented. It is also important that opportunities are taken where possible to identify best practice to guide councils in securing more effective travel plans through the planning process.
Conclusions The aim of the research underlying this paper was to develop an appreciation of travel planning practice for new developments. Using a case study of Victoria, Australia, it showed that half of the councils had required a travel plan for a new development before, primarily to offset the impact of providing less car parking. A condition on a planning permit was the most common mechanism used to require a travel plan, although formal agreements were also used in some instances. Little monitoring of travel plans at new developments has taken place to date, primarily due to limited resources. The level of practical experience in using travel plans was relatively low among council representatives, yet those with experience were more likely to perceive travel plans as effective. Around half of the councils surveyed stated that they were likely to require a travel plan for a new development in the future. From the results presented, it appears that Victoria is still at a somewhat embryonic stage with respect to travel planning for new developments, which is perhaps analogous to the UK’s position 10 years ago. Progress could be made towards a more effective approach through greater involvement of state and national government in supporting and guiding the implementation and monitoring of travel plans. A logical progression might include specific training for council staff and other stakeholders, in combination with the development of clear guidance that can be applied consistently and easily by those involved in the travel planning process. In the longer term, changes to relevant planning policies and enforcement practices could help to ensure that travel plans for new developments are applied on a more consistent basis. Future research directions arising from this paper include: Determining the level of travel plan take up by councils, i.e. the proportion of new developments that were required to have a travel plan. Understanding levels of travel planning practice for new developments elsewhere in Australia and other countries, potentially using the same approach as employed in this research. Assessing the effectiveness of travel plans for new developments, both in terms of their process and outcomes.
122
C. De Gruyter et al. / Cities 41 (2014) 114–122
Understanding the perspectives of stakeholders involved in travel planning for new developments, such as state and local government, developers, and property managers.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank each of the council representatives who participated in the survey. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which have improved the quality of this paper. Any opinions, conclusions or views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors. References Addison & Associates (2008). Delivering travel plans through the planning process – Research report. London, UK: Department for Transport and Communities and Local Government. Burby, R., May, P., & Paterson, R. (1998). Improving compliance with regulations: Choices and outcomes for local government. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 324–334. Cairns, S., Newson, C., & Davis, A. (2010). Understanding successful workplace travel initiatives in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(7), 473–494. Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A., & Goodwin, P. (2004). Smarter choices – Changing the way we travel. UK: Department for Transport. City of Darebin (undated). Travel plans – Guidelines for planning permit applications.
Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (2014c). Victoria in future 2012 data tables, Victoria, Australia,