Travelling smarter down under: policies for voluntary travel behaviour change in Australia

Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177 www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Travelling smarter down under: policies for voluntary travel behaviour change in Australia Michael A.P. Taylora,*, Elizabeth S. Amptb a

Transport Systems Centre, School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building, University of South Australia, G.P.O. Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia b Steer Davies Gleave, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract This paper reviews the voluntary travel behaviour change programs adopted across Australia in recent times. These programs facilitate individuals and households in changing their travel behaviour through personal choice and individual action. The paper examines the issues relating to the various programs and discusses the techniques used and the results and evaluations. The behaviour change programs reported to date show consistent evidence that participating households make substantial reductions in their usage of private motor vehicles. Further, a range of non-transport benefits have been found, albeit at the local level. These benefits include changes in land use, social interaction, economic development, and health indicators. One consequence is that other government agencies, responsible for areas such as community development, health, environment, energy, public safety, planning and even education, have begun to form interests in the programs. Two key challenges have emerged: (1) the actual measurement tools are hard to implement or the changes are on a scale smaller than that at which measurement is usually made, and (2) the clients for travel behaviour change programs have to date been transport organisations for whom the only relevant outcome is travel change. Given that these projects may be of value to other interested organisations, it may be that ultimately travel behaviour change may be intimately linked with all aspects of community life, which could lead to greater change, and certainly to greater sustainability. q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Travel Demand Management; Voluntary travel behaviour change; Transport policy instrument; Travel Blendingw; IndiMarke

1. Introduction The latter years of the 1990s saw the Australian federal and state transport authorities prepared to try some new approaches in Travel Demand Management (TDM), quite different in approach from the earlier TDM initiatives based on pricing and charging, road space rationing if not restraint, and physical infrastructure change.1 In keeping with similar moves in other western countries, these new approaches have attempted to work with individuals in a community rather than impose measures on that community, tapping * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 61-8-8302-1861; fax: þ61-8-8302-1880. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.A.P. Taylor). 1 A typical Australian definition of TDM from the mid 1990s is that offered by the Institution of Engineers, Australia: ‘TDM is intervention (excluding provision of major infrastructure) to modify travel decisions so that more desirable transport, social, economic and/or environmental objectives can be achieved, and the adverse impacts of travel can be reduced’ (IEAust, 1996). Whilst this definition can now be seen to probably encompass initiatives such as voluntary travel behaviour change, its application at the time was very much to changes in the way that physical infrastructure was used or managed.

into the desires of a significant minority of people to make and be seen to make their own contributions to improving the environment and reducing resource consumption. The new methods, generically known as voluntary travel behaviour change approaches, seek to find the means for individuals and households to change their travel behaviour—adopting approaches where individuals choose their own method of changing travel behaviour rather than simply acting in response to external policies or pressures. While they are often embraced with enthusiasm by people and organisations from fields as diverse as transport, environment, human services, crime prevention and education, a continuing problem is the evaluation and measurement of effects other than those, which are measurable in standard, quantifiable terms. This is further complicated in the Australian context where the differences between the major cities, in terms of population levels, urban topography, urban sprawl and inherent traffic congestion, mean that the travel behaviour change programs adopted in the different cities may well have different outcomes in terms of the levels of reduction in private vehicle use and the sustainability of those outcomes.

0967-070X/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00018-0

166

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

This paper examines these issues and discusses the techniques used and the results and evaluations of the different programs used in the various states. Some wider implications emerge from this comparative study, including impacts in areas such as land-uptake change, changes in social interaction, economic development measures, and health indicators. In fact, whilst TDM is now seen, broadly speaking, as anything that reduces the negative impacts of the car (Steer Davies Gleave, 2002), there appear to be certain potential positive effects and synergies from voluntary travel behaviour change programs which mean that there is growing interest from people working in areas as diverse as community development, health, environment, safety, planning and even education. Initially TDM focussed on convincing people to reduce their usage of the private car by changing modes of transport. It included (and still does) policies as varied as improving public transport and cycling facilities and increasing parking prices and tolling roads. Australian state transport departments realised by the mid 1990s that it would no longer be possible to continue building infrastructure indefinitely to supply an ever-growing car population. Supply was not going to be enough for demand, and hence demand had to be managed in some way. Of course, no one then was very clear on how this was going to happen—nor how anyone was going to tell the public that it needed to happen. After all, it was the people who had been supplying the roads and other infrastructure who had the first insight—and their specialty was building and encouraging use, not discouraging it. Since the planners, policy makers and engineers who had this understanding were transport specialists in one way or another, the first thing that occurred to them was to move from one mode of transport (car) to something else like public transport, cycling or walking. Since that time, people other than transport planners have become interested, and transport planners have also become more innovative. TDM now encompasses any initiative with the objective of reducing the negative impact of the car. Policies can therefore include things like using the car more efficiently in ways that reduce emissions. Once nontransport people became curious about the innovations of the transport planners, they started to see positive benefits of TDM for many things. For example, when people used the car a bit less in a community there were more people on the streets and other benefits accrued: there was less crime, children were allowed to walk or ride alone more, people walked to their local shops and gave them more business, people lost weight because they walked a bit more, people got to know their neighbours better. This resulted in direct ‘travel demand’ reductions (such as sharing rides) as well as other community benefits (people working together to achieve community objectives). The advent of voluntary travel behaviour change as a form of TDM led to the development of a number of empirical methods for

facilitating and measuring travel behaviour change, as described later in this paper. The paper provides a comparative review of the voluntary travel behaviour change programs adopted across Australia and their outcomes to date. It is arranged as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the recent Australian research on travel behaviour change, stemming firstly from the recognition by transport planning agencies of the need to curb the forecast future growth in private vehicle usage, recognition of contemporary changes in lifestyle and aspirations in the Australian community, and the concerns of community groups about questions of environmental sustainability. The section then describes the use of two alternative travel behaviour change tools, Travel Blendingw and IndiMarke, in a series of trials in cities around the country—namely Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane. Policies and initiatives for travel behaviour change are then discussed, in Section 3, while Section 4 presents current and emerging issues, including the evaluation of travel behaviour change programs and the possible transferability of their results. Use is made of the transport policy taxonomy and objectives for evaluation developed for the KonSULT knowledgebase (May, 2001). Section 5 presents its conclusions.

2. Review of Australian research on voluntary travel behaviour change The Australian focus on voluntary travel behaviour change was initially directed at achieving reduced usage of the private motor vehicle in urban areas, in order to achieve reductions in the adverse social and environmental impacts of the car and, possibly, to enhance the potential for the provision of suburban public transport. More recently, the emphasis on transport greenhouse gas emissions has increased significantly with the advent of the federal government’s Commonwealth of Australia, 1998, which indicated that transport’s contribution to total greenhouse gases was in the order of 17%. Greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector are also the fastest growing emissions of any sector, rising by 20.3% from 1990 levels. The Australian Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) predicts that, without reduction measures, emissions from the transport sector will rise by 38% between 1990 and 2010. The Australian Greenhouse Office has subsequently introduced initiatives that include the reduction of transport emissions. One of these is the Environmental Strategy for Motor Vehicles targeting a 15% improvement in fuel efficiency in vehicles by 2010, mandatory fuel efficiency labelling and the phasing out of leaded fuel. More important in the current context is the national ‘Cool Communities’ project (which began in 2001), a household-based project using a behavioural change approach and which includes several examples of transport emission reduction

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

throughout the country (AGO, 2002). Finally, since about 2000, nearly all state transport departments have introduced voluntary behaviour change programs—usually under the banner of ‘Travel Smart’. All of these have the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as their prime goal. Australian cities, with the possible exception of central Sydney, belong to the modern era, being planned according to the prevailing wisdoms of good urban planning practices of the 19th and 20th centuries. To a large extent endemic congestion has not been a major factor as it is in western Europe—Australian cities continue to grow, space per se is not the problem, but spatial separation is—the ‘tyranny of distance’ applies at metropolitan, regional, national and international levels in the land ‘down under’. Thus, until the mid 1990s, whilst TDM measures such as exclusive bus lanes or central city parking restrictions were applied (Hidas and Cuthbert, 1998; Hensher and King, 2001), in most cases the imperative for the measure was to solve a local traffic management problem rather than an overall transport planning problem (Hidas and Black, 2001). The BTRE estimates that congestion costs in the major Australian cities presently total some US $6.8 billion p.a., of which US $3.2 billion p.a. is incurred in Sydney (BTE, 1999). Melbourne, almost comparable in size, incurs only US $1.4 billion p.a. whilst Brisbane (with a current population less than half that of Melbourne) also experiences congestion costs of about US $1.4 billion p.a. By international standards these figures are not high. The problem for Australia—and especially for the ‘sun belt’ development regions such as south east Queensland (which includes Brisbane)—is that of predicted future growth in congestion costs. According to BTRE, by 2015 congestion in the major cities will cost US $15.7 billion p.a. Sydney congestion will not get much worse—prediction US $4.7 billion p.a.—but congestion elsewhere could treble in cost (e.g. Melbourne US $4.2 billion p.a. and Brisbane US $4.9 billion p.a.). The link between congestion and pollution, especially air pollution, is also strong and widely recognised by the Australian community and governments. Perceptions of poor air quality and a concern about greenhouse gas emissions rather than congestion itself may be the main drivers for change in Australian travel habits. Even if Australia’s ‘special’ national circumstances—as a net exporter of fossil fuel based energy—cause it some problems with the Kyoto protocol, there is deep community concern about greenhouse gas emissions and road transport is identified as a major source of greenhouse gases. Urban congestion is seen as a major contributing factor to these emissions (BTE, 2000). It is these forecasts of rapid escalations in the costs and impacts of congestion that have generated the strong interest firstly in TDM and more recently in facilitating travel behaviour change. The Brisbane region was identified above as a looming problem for traffic congestion. In the mid 1990s Queensland Transport, faced with forecasts of substantial increases in

167

population (60%), person trips (70%) and vehicle-kilometres of travel (VKT, 100%) over the period 1992 – 2011, developed an integrated regional transport plan (QT, 1996) which set specific targets aimed at achieving more sustainable transport outcomes for 2011, e.g. † increase proportion of trips made by public transport by 50% (i.e. from 7 to 10.5% of all trips) † increase proportion of trips made using non-motorised modes from 15 to 20% of all trips † reduce daily car trips by 12% below the 2011 forecasts † increase average vehicle occupancy from 1.3 to 1.4 persons. At about the same time, on the other side of the continent in Western Australia, similar concerns were being raised about Perth (James and John, 1997). Transport WA coined a set of principles—the ‘three Es’ for urban transport, i.e. improvements in: † equity through accessibility for all † efficiency of the transport system † environment and liveability of cities whereas the current trends for Perth indicated declines in all of these. Consequently, Transport WA sought to use TDM to achieve more sustainable transport targets, for the planning horizon year 2029: † an increase in car occupancy from 1.21 in 1919 to 1.25 in 2029 (the trend was for an occupancy of 1.13 by 2029) † a reduction in average trip length for personal travel, from 8.4 km in 1991 to 7.2 km in 2029 (trend outcome 10.7 km) † an increase in personal car trips of 48% between 1991 and 2029, compared to the forecast 133% increase (from 2.1 to 4.8 million trips/day), and commensurate increases in the mode shares for public transport and non-motorised modes. Transport WA coined the phrase ‘environmentally friendly modes’ (EFMs) to collectively represent walking, cycling and public transport. These targets from Brisbane and Perth were probably the first such official recognition of the need for changed travel behaviour in Australia leading to more sustainable travel. They have shaped research directions and policy formulation ever since (Abraham, 1996; Hidas and Black, 2001). A confounding factor in considerations of sustainable travel and its components has been the issue of contemporary lifestyles and aspirations in Australia. For planners, the first practical realisation has been the decline in importance of the journey to work. Part time and casual employment and flexible working hours are partly responsible, but more complex lifestyles and intra-household relationships are also involved. The question of gender in transport and travel

168

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

behaviour has new significance if not new paradigms. A detailed understanding of how the motor vehicle fits into contemporary Australian life rather than mere travel behaviour patterns is needed. How is the car used differently by social groups such as women, the elderly or the poor? Broad policies for sustainable transport often exhibit little understanding of the factors determining car use, and thus the effectiveness of policy measures aimed at reducing reliance on the private car can be highly compromised. In particular, there has been considerable Australian research on the travel behaviour of women. Dowling and Gollner (1997) examined the interconnections between the car and social change—how the present economic, social and cultural circumstances influenced women’s travel patterns and car use in Sydney. They found that, while previous studies have focussed on women’s disadvantage through constraints imposed by the unavailability of transport, by the mid 1990s women were clearly and creatively modifying the available transport alternatives to meet their individual needs. For many of the women surveyed, transport—and primarily this was the private car—was not constraining but enabling. The car served to help them meet expectations of themselves as wives, mothers and workers. Yet they also recognised a new dilemma: in an era of increased environmental awareness, women’s mobility is again in question as individual social justice considerations are played off against community environmental aspirations. Dowling and Gollner noted that women were often the people most concerned about the state of the urban environment (see also Gollner (1995)). They drew the following conclusions regarding transport policy formulation from their study: † women’s observed travel behaviour indicates the difficulty in formulating policies to reduce dependency on the car, while identifying the need for integration of other, complementary strategies to address behaviour change and community values and perceptions † there is a demonstrated need to target and design strategies for reduced car travel according to demographic, spatial and cultural differences † there is need for more consideration and assessment of non-peak, non-work trips † the design and location of suburban activities and their interconnectivity in new and established areas could reduce the need for short car trips and improve opportunities to make multipurpose trips † concerns about personal safety when using public transport are important, even if not as deeply felt as sometimes perceived through the popular media. Safety concerns not only lead to a reluctance by individuals to use public transport, but also to a reluctance by parents to encourage their children to use it too, thus aiding the development of another car dependent generation.

Other researchers, such as Boisvert (1998), Allan (1999), and Morris et al. (2001) have considered travel behaviour of other groups and traveller segments, such as school children and the elderly. The way forward is perhaps to look less at the conventional TDM measures based on ‘supply side’ restrictions and more at programs that enable individuals and families to organise their travel demands and behaviour in ways that lead to less potential use of the private car. A ‘grass roots’ swell was observed in the 1990s as growing concerns about the state of the environment, local and global, led to a new wave of community concern (James and John, 1997). Some individuals, families and groups began to actively seek ways to contribute to environmental improvement (Curtis and James, 1998) or at least to reduce their own deleterious impacts on the environment—‘think globally, act locally’. Thus, community groups such as ‘Smogbusters’ became active (Wake, 1999)—even if urban air quality in Australia remains substantially good, certainly by international standards (AATSE, 1997). Public perceptions and scientific appraisal need not necessarily point to the same dilemmas—but perceptions cannot be ignored. Rose and Ampt (2001) described the results of two early trials of travel behaviour change programs in Australia, one in Sydney and the other in Adelaide. The original Adelaide study found a 10% reduction in VKT, with slightly higher percentage reductions in car driver trips and vehicle hours of travel (VHT). The promising results from these initial studies led to a major trial of one travel behaviour change technique, Travel Blendingw, in Adelaide, commencing in 1996 (Ampt and Rooney, 1998). This technique makes use of simple principles to help people make equally simple changes to their travel behaviour to fit in with their lifestyles. It is based on four basic precepts: † provide people with an understandable, overall goal (e.g. improving the quality of life in their city by reducing the use of the car) † let people measure their existing travel behaviour † provide them with personalised tips on how to change their behaviour, that fit into their existing lifestyles, and † provide a reinforcing environment (e.g. family, work or school situation). 2.1. The Travel Blendingw tool This tool is described in detail elsewhere (Ampt and Rooney, 1998; Ampt, 1999, 2001; Rose and Ampt, 2001) but a brief summary is useful because it provides one of the key ways to measure travel behaviour changes There are two separate weeks in which all people in participating households complete a travel diary. To assist in the recording and collection of data from respondents, four different kits are used with a range of materials in them. Each of these kits and their purpose is described below:

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

† Kit 1—contains the initial contact letter and materials required to introduce the participant to the Travel Blendingw tool for round one. Importantly this kit contains the first diary/ies that the household participants will need to complete to track their travel for 1 week. † Kit 2—contains the customised individual feedback to the household after the household has returned the diaries for data entry, and is generated using an expert system. The feedback contains helpful customised suggestions on how the household and individuals might initially be able to benefit from making small changes. † Kit 3—contains the second round of materials. This kit is offered about 4 weeks after Kit 1 is completed and is designed for participants to track their travel for the second travel week. The kit contains the second diary/ies that the household completes to enable a comparison of their travel between round 1 to round 2. † Kit 4—gives feedback for the household to show the comparative changes they may or may not have made during the travel weeks. This feedback also contains helpful personalised suggestions on how the household can continue to benefit from small beneficial changes. 2.2. The Adelaide trials While the Travel Blendingw technique had previously been employed in a number of cities around the world, the Adelaide application was perhaps the most extensive at that time. Tisato and Robinson (1999) indicated sample sizes of 100 and 329 for the two initial studies, then 900 households for the Dulwich project (see below). Each of these trials was more extensive that its predecessor. This allowed for continual modification of the process at each stage, based on feedback from the participants. Ampt and Rooney (1998) found that study participants were able to reduce their VKT by 21% and their follow-up survey found that these changes appeared to be sustained over a period (some 6 months) after the end of the trial. Indeed, the participating households recorded further decreases (of about 5% averaged over the whole group) in their VKT. When translated to the community as a whole, overall VKT reductions of about 11% were possible. The Adelaide trials evolved into the ‘Living Neighbourhoodsw’ project, which began in 1999 (Ampt, 1999) with a trial in the inner eastern suburb of Dulwich, which included some 900 households—a penetration rate of 70% (Tisato and Robinson, 1999). This project provided an approach to changing travel behaviour to reduce the impact of the car through a partnership between the community and the providers of services and goods in that community, including (all levels of) government. In the Living Neighbourhoodsw approach, everyone who lives, works, studies and plays in the neighbourhood is offered the opportunity to travel blend. Consequently, a large proportion of the community is making small changes, which benefit themselves, their families, and the neighbourhood as

169

a whole. The first result is that the community becomes empowered to ask for small changes from those providing its services and goods. Similar in scale to the changes being made by individuals, the changes made by other partners are also small. Examples of these include changes made by the bus company (changes to bus frequencies), by doctors (introduction of green prescriptions), real estate agents (provision of information on services to new residents) and by the local government authority (provision of signage, better quality footpaths). Results show that the community and the partners in the community gained many personal benefits (e.g. time, money, health), children experienced more independence, there were more people on the streets, and businesses gained cost and time efficiencies. Changes in travel behaviour may have wider ramifications (Ampt, 2001). 2.3. The IndiMarke technique Concurrent with Travel Blendingw in Adelaide came ‘individualised marketing’ in Perth, with its IndiMarke technique (Bro¨g et al., 1999a). Bro¨g and Schadler (1998) described a European demonstration project of individualised marketing that indicated that the method could successfully increase public transport patronage at minimal cost. Perkins (2002) recently provided a useful summary description of the IndiMarke technique. It is a travel behaviour change facilitation technique based on the following four conceptual premises: 1. a change in choice of travel modes can be achieved provided that the right marketing approach is adopted. This approach may be strengthened by transport systems improvements but is not reliant on them 2. small changes in behaviour by individual households (say for two or three trips per month) can produce a significant aggregate increase in the use of EFMs and a significant decrease in car usage 3. the most effective approach is to select that proportion of the population that professes a potential for mode change rather than endeavouring to engage with the full population of a study area 4. rewards to those who are already substantial EFM users will encourage those users to make further increases in their EFM usage. Thus, as indicated by Bro¨g and Schadler (1998), IndiMarke’s main aim is to increase the amount of activities accessed by EFMs whilst decreasing the amount of car travel (in terms of numbers of trips and VKT). Central to this aim is an assumption that there exists a gap between the public perception of public transport and reality, with a considerable proportion of the community uninformed about the actual nature and operation of public transport services, and believing these to be much poorer than they really are.

170

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

Application of the IndiMarke technique involves use of the following steps: † Contact, in which all households in an area are contacted by mail and telephone to discover if they are regular or extensive users of EFMs (R), are not at all interested in changing (N), or are prepared to consider changing (I) † Motivation, in which problems and requests from the R and I groups receive attention and response † Information, when lists of available information are mailed to the R and I participants. These participants may then select the information that they want (e.g. timetables, route maps, etc.) and this information is delivered to the participants within 1 or 2 days † Reinforcement, in which consultation telephone calls and home visits are made, with participating households in group I receiving free tickets for use on public transport within a set time period. 2.4. The Perth trials A trial of individualised marketing, using IndiMarke and aimed at increasing both public transport patronage and cycling, began in the municipality of South Perth in Perth, Western Australia in 1997 (James, 1998). The behaviour change program adopted in the trial involved three stages: † a travel survey to assess current behaviour and motivation to change † individualised marketing for survey participants † an evaluation survey to measure the extent of behaviour change. Approximately 400 households were approached in the program, with 36% of them expressing interests in switching from car to other modes. These volunteer households were motivated and provided with specific local information on the use of these alternative modes, through face-to-face contact. The evaluation survey suggested a 10% reduction in car driver trips and a 14% reduction in VKT. Public transport trips increased 21%, cycling 91%, walking 16% and car passenger trips 9%. Bro¨g et al. (1999b) reported a follow up evaluation of the South Perth trial, conducted 12 months after the initial evaluation survey. As in the earlier Adelaide case study (Ampt and Rooney, 1998) they found that the initial changes were not only sustained, but there were further increases in walking trips and a corresponding decline in car driver trips, yielding an addition 3% reduction in VKT (a 17% reduction in VKT from the initial situation). Car occupancy had increased from an initial value of 1.3 to 1.4. The incidence of cycling and public transport usage remained unchanged from those found in the initial evaluation survey. A further spin off from the increased cycling and walking activity was that the average level of physical exercise had increased by 4 min/day in the initial evaluation, and by a further

minute/day after 12 months. The authors concluded that, on the basis of the available evidence, this form of voluntary behaviour change should be considered as an important mainstream transport planning activity. The success of the South Perth trial, now included in an innovative city-wide initiative called ‘Travelsmart’, led to further trials in two other inner suburbs of Perth: Subiaco and Victoria Park (which have quite different socioeconomic characteristics). Similar results to those from South Perth were found (Bro¨g et al., 1999a). The researchers concluded that the issue for behaviour change is not one of potential, but rather of devising effective measures. They recognised that there had been scepticism about the potential for behaviour change in real world situations, and suggested that this may have been due to the previous use of survey techniques that could only identify those people in the ‘choice’ category. Bro¨g et al. (1999a) suggested that perhaps 47% of all car trips in Perth were in principle ‘replaceable’ (i.e. were without constraints and had an alternative mode available), even without system improvements for the alternative modes. In 2000 a major project for travel behaviour change was then implemented in South Perth (John, 2001). In this project all 15,300 households resident in the area were invited to participate in a large-scale Travelsmart program. Of these, some 6120 households (40%) actively participated in the program through seeking advice about how to change their travel habits, whilst a further 2295 households (15%), classed as existing ‘regular users’ of walking, cycling and public transport, were also identified. The other 45% of households took no interest in the program. John (2001) cites a 25% increase in public transport patronage and a 16% increase in walking trips resulting from this study. John and Wake (1999) considered the scope for Travelsmart initiatives aimed at influencing travel behaviour of schoolchildren and their parents, especially for travel to and from school. Subsequent studies in Perth have indicated a substantial opportunity for Travelsmart to present walking as an alternative transport mode (John, 2001; Baudains et al., 2001). 2.5. The Brisbane trial Marinelli and Roth (2002) reported on the ‘TravelSmart Suburbs Brisbane Pilot Study’ which used the IndiMarke technique in the Grange district of inner northern Brisbane. The pilot study was undertaken to: † verify the results obtained from the Perth trials † determine the applicability of IndiMarke to Queensland cities in encouraging the use of environmentally friendly transport modes, and † increase the knowledge and understanding of Queensland transport planners about voluntary travel behaviour change programs.

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

The Grange area had a population of about 26,000 people, or about 10,000 households. A random sample of 1080 households was selected, of which half were taken as a control group whilst the other half participated in the IndiMarke trial. Households in both subsamples were surveyed about their travel patterns, before and after the trial. The IndiMarke tool was presented to 412 households of the 455 invited to participate in it. Of the households presented with the tool, 118 households were not interested in proceeding further in the study, leaving 294 active households. There were 98 ‘EFM regular user’ households in this set, leaving 196 households for whom further services and information were supplied, to assist them to consider changes in their travel behaviour. The results of the trial included a 10% reduction in private vehicle trips, a 33% increase in public transport trips, and a 6% increase in cycling trips. These latter results, whilst displaying similar trends to those found in South Perth, differ slightly from those found in the earlier study, where the increase in transit trips was 21% and the increased in cycle trips was 91%. The researchers believe that these differences were largely due to differences in topography and public transport supply in the two study areas. Grange includes a substantial area of hilly terrain, making cycling less attractive, whilst it is well provided with public transport services, bus and rail, because of its proximity to the city centre. The decrease in car usage, on the other hand, was commensurate with that found in the earlier studies. It should also be noted that the use of the EFMs decreased slightly amongst the control group during the period of the trial. 2.6. Economic evaluations Whilst the Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane travel behaviour change trials yielded promising indications of sustainable changes in travel behaviour in all three cities, further considerations need to be given to the possible economic benefits from travel behaviour change initiatives. Tisato and Robinson (1999) undertook a cost-benefit analysis of the Adelaide Travel Blendingw trials. They considered both the specific Dulwich study area and an extrapolation to the whole Adelaide metropolitan area, for which they assumed a 40% take-up rate over a 30-year period. The researchers then quantified benefits in terms of travel time savings, environmental benefits, and network congestion reduction benefits. Costs included consideration of initial survey costs, follow up costs, which might be required on annual and five yearly cycles, and any costs incurred by households. They tested a range of parameter values for these benefits and costs, and found that the lowest benefit costs ratio across all scenarios tested for the full metropolitan area was 1.8, and in most cases was substantially greater (with a maximum ratio of about 17 for the best performing scenario). For the specific case of the 900 households in Dulwich, the outcome was a net present value of US $1.4 million and a benefit-cost

171

ratio of 5.7. In this case household costs equalled about half of gross private benefits, and ongoing follow-up reminders and resurveying programs were assumed. Tisato and Robinson (1999) estimated that the direct unit cost of a Travel Blending w program was about US $55 per participating household. They concluded that Travel Blendingw could be seen as an economically sound initiative and investment for TDM programs. Ker and James (1999) undertook an economic evaluation of the South Perth trial. Like Tisato and Robinson (1999), they also used cost-benefit analysis, deliberately adopting a similar approach to that used for assessment of proposed road project investments. Their analysis indicated strong positive returns from the Travelsmart project. Depending on the parameter values selected, cost-benefit ratios of between 11 and 13 (over 10 years) and 12.5 and 15 (over 30 years) were found. A sensitivity analysis indicated a possible range of cost-benefit ratios from just under 4 to 33. In addition, Ampt (2001) identified a number of noneconomic benefits, and non-transport benefits, seen to accrue from travel behaviour change programs. A number of these benefits are introduced later in this paper.

3. Voluntary travel behaviour change policies and initiatives For the purposes of this paper and its consideration of transport policies, we need to draw a distinction between alternative approaches to TDM. While all TDM approaches seek to bring about a change in behaviour, ‘voluntary travel behaviour change approaches’ are defined here as those where the objective of the program is to allow people to choose to change travel behaviour rather than to expect or force reactions in response to external stimuli or pressures. Hence, for example, approaches in which road lanes are narrowed or bus services increased or construction standards for cars regulated, limit the opportunities for ‘the decision to change’. Voluntary travel behaviour change approaches may be seen as ‘bottom up’ approaches. Martin (2001) has summarised well the appeal of the bottom up approach when she notes that the more traditional (‘top down’) approaches ‘…tell people that this is what they should do to get certain benefits, without looking at what else impacts on this obviously good strategy’. An informed or a cynical community may well dismiss the top down approach (and possibly its protagonists) through the democratic process. The bottom up approach attracts adherents, even if these do not form a majority. Marinelli and Roth (2002) further continue this argument, as follows: The process of voluntary travel behaviour change projects is one of empowering and educating people to make deliberate choices regarding travel mode, destination, activities, etc. rather than unconsciously stepping

172

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

into a car whenever a perceived need arises. Unlike a change in attitude or awareness that often erodes over time or does not convert to actual behaviour change, these projects demonstrate significant levels of behaviour change. The newly acquired skill is a result of the empowerment process and is consistently reinforced by the personal benefits realised (health, time, stress, money, etc.) and the regular need for mobility (Marinelli and Roth, 2002, p. 14). Current travel behaviour change programs continue in Adelaide (Perkins, 2002) and Perth (DEP, 2002; Transport WA, 2002), and new programs are commencing in Brisbane (QT, 2002) and Melbourne (DoI, 2003).

outcomes, to illustrate the many possible ways of evaluating, and the challenges associated with them. Of particular concern is that only a few of these outcomes may be called ‘traditional’ and benefit cost analyses are difficult in many cases. Thus, she identified broad outcomes on which travel behaviour change programs can be evaluated or measured. These outcomes were highly valued by different groups of people: the community, the transport client, community development leaders, many divisions of a local government authority, and so on. For each case she identified a measurement method. Table 1 lists the broad outcomes and suggested measurement methods suggested by Ampt, and a classification of the outcomes in terms of the KonSULT objectives for evaluation. The table suggest that travel behaviour change programs can have impacts across the full set of objectives identified in KonSULT:

4. Current and emerging issues It is possible to define five broad areas of current concern and interest about travel behaviour policies and programs in Australia. These may be listed as: † † † † †

evaluation measurement long term sustainability translation to other areas heightened expectations.

4.1. Evaluation Evaluation of TDM programs is always complicated, but never more so than when, as is often the case in behavioural change programs, the outcomes are many more than reduction in congestion, pollution and emissions but include among other things benefits to health, environment, education, community capacity, economic development and so on. This is confounded when the client or commissioning body has primarily transport related objectives. The recent development of the KonSULT knowledgebase on urban transport policy instruments (May, 2001; May and Taylor, 2002; Matthews et al., 2002; ITS-Leeds, 2003) has offered assistance in the evaluation process through the identification of seven objectives of interest for consideration in any evaluation. These objectives are: † † † † † † †

economic efficiency liveable streets environmental protection equity, social inclusion and accessibility safety and security economic growth finance.

Ampt (2001) used the Living Neighbourhoodsw travel behaviour change tool, in which there are transport and other

† improved economic efficiency may result from a reduction in congestion stemming from reduced car usage † environmental protection is found through reductions in air and noise pollution † streets may become more liveable due to increased levels of walking and cycling, greater social interaction and reduced perceptions of personal insecurity, and perhaps through reduced needs for land uptake for road-related activities, including car parking space—which frees available space for other purposes such as improved streetscape design † finance is improved through greater fare revenues from increased ridership on public transport † safety and security improvements may be seen in reduced numbers of crashes and from (perceived if not actual) improvements in personal safety and, in the longer term, from new health benefits due to improved fitness levels, reduced stress and a healthier environment † equity, social inclusion and accessibility improvements may be found from improved community social benefits, cultural benefits, community development and improved self-esteem and satisfaction † local economic development fosters economic growth and wellbeing in a community. 4.2. Measurement The reported Australian research on voluntary travel behaviour change programs identifies a wide range of potential benefits and potential indicators of those benefits that can be captured by the KonSULT evaluation objectives. The quantitative measures that have been reported to date focus on reductions in private motor vehicle use and changes in modal splits. There have also been some limited economic analyses attempting to determine the cost-benefit outcomes of specific programs. There is still considerable need for further research to formulate, test and apply

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

173

Table 1 Broad outcomes from travel behaviour change programs and possible evaluation measures (based on Ampt (2001)), classified by KonSULT evaluation objectives (see May (2001) and May and Taylor (2002)) Broad outcome

KonSULT objective

Possible measurements for evaluation purposes

Reduction of congestion

Economic efficiency

† reduction in kilometres by car overall (including car driver and car passenger if the trip was made especially for the passenger) † reduction in time spent travelling by car † reduction in kilometres and time spent travelling by car in key times (e.g. rush hours and other busy times) † reduction in kilometres and time in congested areas of a city (e.g. CBD, again as determined by external data) † increase in car sharing on congested routes

Reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

Protection of the environment

† reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gases relating to vehicle type and km travelled † reduction in cold starts † reduction in hot soaks † improvement in car maintenance † reduction in air pollution due to using less polluting vehicles in the household † reduction in car ownership (causing reduction of pollution and greenhouse gases at the point of manufacture)

Reduction in noise pollution

Protection of the environment

In principle, it is possible to measure reductions in noise pollution at the neighbourhood level. It can, however, also be assumed that the reductions in VKT have an automatic impact on noise pollution

Increased usage of EFMs

Liveable streets

† increases in pedestrian and bicycle activity and public transport trips reported in travel surveys and travel diaries † observed counts of pedestrians and cyclists

Reduction in land uptake for road-related activities

Liveable streets

† reduction in car ownership—i.e. less space needed to park cars † reduction in the size of car owned † reduction in car parking space in the neighbourhood

Increase in revenue from public transport fares

Finance

† increase in reported public transport use in travel surveys † increase in public transport fare receipts † increase in public transport patronage

Road safety

Safety and security

† increase in pedestrian and cycling safety as measured by travel diaries † decreases in frequency counts of reported accidents in the local area, in the long term

Personal safety outcomes

Safety and security

Personal reports from the travel behaviour change trial areas repeatedly mention the increase in personal safety which people experience in their neighbourhood as they start to do more things locally and occasionally walk or cycle. Community participation survey instruments may provide measurements of feelings of safety

Social benefits to the community

Equity, social inclusion and accessibility

Measurable social benefits to the community are likely to be as varied as there are projects since the local people are shaping their futures. Changes which have been measured include: † improvement in local facilities in cases where people have done this themselves or been able to constructively ask authorities to make changes † increase in relevant local activities (e.g. a senior citizens’ walk which decreased the loneliness of residents and reduced the need to travel further afield for leisure activities) † changes in feelings of isolation and in the level of trust in the community may be assessed using community participation survey methods

Economic development benefits

Economic growth

† increase in local shopping—local people may realise they do not need to drive as far and spend as much time † improvement in marketing by local shops † redevelopment of local facilities to reflect current needs (continued on next page)

174

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

Table 1 (continued) Broad outcome

KonSULT objective

Possible measurements for evaluation purposes † increase in property prices when local community efforts increase safety or positive perceptions of the community

Cultural benefits

Equity, social inclusion and accessibility

† an increase in recognition of local heritage and culture † an increase in ‘cultural’ products in local shops

Community development

Equity, social inclusion and accessibility

† decrease in number of complaints-without-solutions to Councils † increase in number of projects, which can be listed as individual or groupinitiated (not initiated by Councils or other authorities because they thought it would be a good idea!)

Health benefits

Safety and securitya

† increase in fitness levels (due to more walking and cycling) † increase in health levels (due to less in-car pollution effects) † decrease in ‘regular’ visits to doctors (e.g. by some elderly, because they are walking more or because they know more neighbours and no longer need the social aspects of the visit) † decrease in weight for a proportion of population (due to more walking and cycling and less sedentary car travel) † lower stress levels (due to less car travel, parking search, etc.)

Satisfaction and self-esteem

Equity, social inclusion and accessibility

Levels of satisfaction and self-esteem may be measured using community health and participation type surveys

a This table was constructed in accordance with the objectives explicitly identified in KonSULT. We believe that there is a case to widen and extend this list of objectives, for instance by adding an objective for ‘public and individual health’ to take specific account of the factors raised in this entry in the table. This will be of growing importance for voluntary travel behaviour change as the context of the behaviour change programs expands and evolves beyond mere transport impacts.

a range of indicators and measurement methods so that multidimensional evaluations can be undertaken. Considering the outcomes listed in Table 1, the travel demand and traffic impact outcomes may be measured using tools such as the Travel Blendingw tool, at least for participating households. For example, most of the congestion reduction outcomes can be measured to more or less extent using the tools. Others, such as the impact on congested areas, would not come into effect until there is widespread application of a travel behaviour change program a city but then could be measured using traffic counts. Similarly, pollution outcomes may be measured by the Travel Blendingw tool, in at least assessing the levels of pollutant generating activities. In other cases it should be possible to measure or estimate using ‘before and after’ surveys. As discussed previously in this paper, Living Neighbourhoodw projects and other travel behaviour change projects have almost always meant that there has been an increased use of modes other than the car—particularly walking and public transport. An increase in public transport use can definitely be measured from the Travel Blendingw tool, but it could also be measured from increase in public transport fare receipts and from public transport patronage surveys. This is important, because in the travel behaviour change approaches it is well known that non-participants as well as participants in

the program make travel reduction changes—implying that the tools such as Travel Blendingw can be underestimating the extent of actual change. Qualitative reports in the trial areas have repeatedly mentioned the increase in personal safety which people experience in their neighbourhood as they start to do more things locally and occasionally walk or cycle. Precise measurement of feelings or attitudes about personal safety has not been included in the research and investigations performed to date, but it is possible to look at this more rigorously by using a measurement tool such as the ‘Health and Participation Survey’ (SACHRU, 1997). This type of survey essentially asks people about a range of topics and would be administered before and after the introduction of a travel behavioural change program. It includes health related issues such as emotions, covers knowledge of the neighbourhood and its people and participation in neighbourhood events and activities. Furthermore, it could ask questions about how much influence you feel you have in your life and neighbourhood as well as feelings about personal and property safety. We believe that there is an increasing need to include this type of measure in travel behaviour change models. For instance, whilst KonSULT already includes a wide range of objectives including ‘safety and security’, there is an emerging case to either extend the scope of these objectives, e.g. consider ‘health, safety and security’, or to introduce new objectives, such as ‘health’ and ‘individual satisfaction and self-esteem’. This is

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

particularly important in the wider context, beyond mere transport impacts, to which voluntary travel behaviour change programs are migrating. 4.3. Long-term sustainability The evidence so far, and as presented in this paper, is that changed behaviours persist and indeed may intensify over time, at least in the short to medium term. Longer term studies are required to examine the duration of changed behaviours over time and the extent, if any, to which they may propagate through a community. Social research aimed at identifying individuals and groups more prone to consider and make changes is also required.

175

be for those who want them. The research suggests that the resultant benefits seen at the community level are substantial, and can justify the relatively low cost of the programs, especially when viewed against the costs of infrastructure improvements. If we take the evidence of similar previous programs for changes in social behaviour, such as alcohol and driving in road safety, then in the longer term the level of participation in travel behaviour programs may grow as these programs become firmly established as a social norm. Furthermore, many of the more recent programs (DoI, 2003) have a specific community-group approach supplementing the household-based approach that has been shown to offer many more people the opportunity to change.

4.4. Translation to other cities and regions

4.5. Heightened expectations

The major studies and evaluations of Australian voluntary travel behaviour change programs first took place in the ‘mid size’ metropolitan areas of Adelaide and Perth and, more recently, Brisbane. Programs are now spreading to the larger Australian cities, such as Melbourne. As indicated earlier in this paper, cities like Perth and Adelaide have not been greatly afflicted by traffic congestion (BTE, 1999) or indeed by adverse air pollution from transport sources (AATSE, 1997), even if their citizens believe these to be major concerns. The voluntary travel behaviour programs in these cities have found substantial reductions in private vehicle usage, largely through changes in activity and travel patterns developed by participating households given the opportunity to change offered by these programs. The large Australian metropolises of Melbourne and Sydney are now implementing or considering the introduction of travel behaviour change programs. These cities, especially Sydney, have been subject to significant levels of congestion for many years. Is it possible that the residents of these cities have already changed much of their travel behaviour in the face of day-to-day congestion, so that their potential for further change, compared to that for their cousins elsewhere, is diminished? The evaluations of the programs in the larger metropolises will be most interesting. One important qualification that must affect the possible transferability of the results is the nature of the travel behaviour change programs. The programs reported in this paper are voluntary programs, offered to households and individuals who choose to participate in them. The Australian evidence as reported here is that such households form a substantial minority of the resident population of an area, perhaps one third to two fifths of all households, but they are unlikely to represent the whole community. For instance, there is no reason to expect that non-participating households would behave similarly. The willingness to volunteer may define the potential difference. This should not be seen as a problem with the implementation of travel behaviour change programs. Such programs are and should

It is interesting that many policy makers and planners are seeing the travel behaviour change option as a kind of panacea, hoping that it will address what is seen as the failure of other alternatives. This approach is perhaps epitomised in the UK Transport White Paper of July 1998 and its ‘Transport 2010: the 10 Year Plan’ (DETR, 2001) which has led to the encouragement of many initiatives which could be categorised as behavioural change based. It certainly has some currency in Australia. For example, Bro¨g et al. (1999a) concluded that the desired reductions in private vehicle usage sought for metropolitan Perth (James and John, 1997) could be achieved, using voluntary travel behaviour change programs, without any need for further investments in infrastructure for other transport modes. More recently, Marinelli and Roth (2002) suggested that the programs could substantially delay the needs for the provision of new transport infrastructure. Yet, perhaps, we should not forget Forrester’s (1967) axiom about the behaviour of complex systems—that actual outcomes of changes in complex systems are often counter-intuitive— when we extrapolate from the specific to the general case?

5. Conclusions The review of Australia’s experiences with travel behaviour change programs shows promising results from across the range of trials reported to date. State governments have been encouraged to extend and broaden the programs, and local government, perhaps destined to be the eventual organisers and facilitators of travel behaviour change programs given there strong local impacts, have also begun to take an interest in them. So, indeed, have other agencies representing a wide range of social and community interests. For example, health, planning and energy agencies are now prominent, along with the transport agencies. Initial evaluations of the impacts of voluntary travel behaviour change have found evidence of substantial

176

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177

economic benefits related to transport operations and travel activity, as well as evidence of positive outcomes in many other areas of community activity and concern, including local economic development, environment, safety and personal security, land use, individual well-being, education and public health. Whilst voluntary behaviour change programs are not yet for the whole community, the trials around Australia have shown firstly that a sizeable minority of households and individuals can be attracted to the programs, and secondly that the participants can achieve ongoing, substantial reductions in their usage of private motor vehicles. Further, there is evidence of significant economic benefits then being achieved. Some numerical results from the Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane trials have been given in this paper. It would be misleading to cite these values in the conclusions of the paper because we cannot presently be sure if and to what extent they will translate to other cities and regions. Further research to investigate the transferability of the suggested outcomes is required. In listing the outcomes which could be measured, two key challenges emerge. The first is simply that the actual measurement tools are often hard to implement or the changes are on a scale smaller than that at which measurement is usually performed. We believe that the way to answer this challenge is to continually report small measurable changes—even if it is not in the traditional sense. The second challenge relates to the fact that the clients for travel behaviour change programs are—not surprisingly at the moment—transport organisations for whom the only valid outcome is travel change. This situation has begun to change as other government agencies begin to see the relevance and potential of the programs. We believe it is important that to an increasing extent travel change behaviour projects should be undertaken by groups of organisations since the outcomes are clearly of benefit to many and do not belong in any one portfolio. This would mean that, as in real life, travel behaviour change would be intimately linked with all aspects of life in the community and would possibly lead to greater change, and certainly to greater sustainability. Quantitative measurement of these non-travel benefits is not yet possible, but we believe that there is significant scope to develop suitable survey instruments, most likely based on a combination of the established travel diaries and the ‘Health and Participation’ survey instrument (SACHRU, 1997). This is an important area for further research and development that we intend to pursue now.

References AATSE, 1997. Urban air pollution in Australia. Report to Environment Australia. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Melbourne.

Abraham, M., 1996. Planning for transport choice. Transport Engineering in Australia 2 (1), 23–27. AGO, 2002. Australia’s coolest communities. Australian Greenhouse Office website, www.ea.gov.au/minister/env/2002/mr23apr02.html [Accessed 30 July 2002]. Allan, A., 1999. Making cycling a realistic and practical alternative to the car for urban trips. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (2), 805 –822. Ampt, E., 1999. From travel blending to living neighbourhoods—a vision for the future. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (2), 579– 589. Ampt, E., 2001. The evaluation of travel behaviour change methods—a significant challenge. Transport Engineering in Australia 7 (1/2), 35 –39. Ampt, E., Rooney, A., 1998. Reducing the impact of the car—a sustainable approach: TravelSmart Adelaide. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 22 (2), 805– 822. Baudains, C., Styles, I., Dingle, P., 2001. Travelsmart workplace: walking and the journey to work. Road and Transport Research 10 (1), 26 –33. Boisvert, D., 1998. Switching to public transport. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 22 (2), 649 –666. Bro¨g, W., Schadler, M., 1998. Marketing in public transport is an investment not a cost. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 22 (2), 619 –633. Bro¨g, W., Erl, E., Funke, S., James, B., 1999a. Potential for increased public transport, cycling and walking trips. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (1), 287 –301. Bro¨g, W., Erl, E., Funke, S., James, B., 1999b. Behaviour change sustainability from individualised marketing. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (2), 549 –562. BTE, 1999. Urban Transport—Looking Ahead, Information Sheet 14, Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra. BTE, 2000. Urban Congestion—The Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Information Sheet 16, Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia, 1998. The National Greenhouse Strategy, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. Curtis, C., James, B., 1998. To switch or not to switch: why and which mode? Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 22 (2), 823 –827. DEP, 2002. Travelsmart: it’s how you get there that counts. www.environ. wa.gov.au/community/travelsmart, Department of Environmental Protection, Perth [Accessed 30 July 2002]. DETR, 2001. Transport 2010: the 10 Year Plan, Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, London. DoI, 2003. TravelSMART. www.doi.vic.gov.au, Department of Infrastructure, Melbourne [Accessed 24 March 2003]. Dowling, R., Gollner, A., 1997. Women and transport: from transport disadvantage to mobility through the motor vehicle. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 21 (1), 337–355. Forrester, J., 1967. Urban Dynamics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gollner, A., 1995. Monitor of Public Attitudes: Air Quality and the Car, National Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA), Sydney. Hensher, D.A., King, J., 2001. Parking demand and responsiveness to supply, pricing and location in the Sydney central business district. Transportation Research A 35A, 177 –196. Hidas, P., Black, J.A., 2001. SMART targets for sustainable transport—a review of international and local (NSW) practice. Transport Engineering in Australia 7 (1/2), 77–92. Hidas, P., Cuthbert, M., 1998. Parking policy as a TDM measure in CBD areas. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 22 (2), 739 –755. IEAust, 1996. Policy on Travel Demand Management, Institution of Engineers, Australia, Canberra. ITS-Leeds, 2003. Knowledgebase on sustainable land use and transport. www.transportconnect.net/konsult/index.html [Accessed 11 March 2003].

M.A.P. Taylor, E.S. Ampt / Transport Policy 10 (2003) 165–177 James, B., 1998. Changing travel behaviour through individualised marketing: application and lessons from South Perth. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 22 (2), 635 –647. James, B., John, G., 1997. Behavioural approaches to travel demand management. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 13 (1), 141–156. John, G., 2001. The effectiveness of the Travelsmart individualised marketing program for increasing walking trips in Perth. Road and Transport Research 10 (1), 17–25. John, G., Wake, D., 1999. Innovative approaches to influencing travel behaviour at schools. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (2), 563–578. Ker, I., James, B., 1999. Evaluating behavioural change in transport—a case study of individualised marketing. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (2), 703–719. Marinelli, P.A., Roth, M.T., 2002. Travelsmart suburbs Brisbane—a successful pilot of a voluntary travel behaviour change technique. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 25 Paper No. 59, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, CD-ROM. Martin, M., 2001. Living Neighbourhoodsw—A Project Guide, Steer Davies Gleave, Adelaide. Matthews, B., Jopson, A., May, A.D., 2002. Developing a Method for the Assessment of Evidence on the Impacts of Transport Policy Instruments, Proceedings of European Transport Conference, September, Cambridge, Session 2 9 September, PTRC Ltd, London, CDROM. May, A.D., 2001. Development of an International Knowledgebase on Urban Transport Policy Instruments, Proceedings of the 9th World

177

Conference on Transport Research, July, Seoul, Korea Transport Institute/Korean Society of Transportation, Seoul, CD-ROM. May, A.D., Taylor, M.A.P., 2002. KonSULT—developing an international knowledgebase on urban transport policy instruments. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 25 Paper no 40, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, CD-ROM. Morris, J., Wang, F., Lilja, L., 2001. School childrens travel patterns. Transport Engineering in Australia 7 (1/2), 15– 25. Perkins, A., 2002. Travel behaviour change programs in Australia. Research Summary TP-02/5, Transport SA, Adelaide. QT, 1996. Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland, Queensland Transport, Brisbane. QT, 2002. How to TravelSmart. www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/ptinfo.nsf/ index/tshow_to, Queensland Transport, Brisbane [Accessed 30 July 2002]. Rose, G., Ampt, E., 2001. Travel blending: an Australian travel awareness initiative. Transportation Research D 6D, 95 –110. SACHRU, 1997. In: Baum, F., (Ed.), Health and Participation Study, South Australian Community Health Research Unit, Department of Human Services, Adelaide, October. Steer Davies Gleave, 2002. Travel Demand Management: a Resource Book. Report AP-G67/02, Austroads, Sydney. Tisato, P.M., Robinson, T., 1999. A cost benefit analysis of travel blending. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (2), 687–702. Transport WA, 2002. Travelsmart. www.travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au, Department of Transport, Perth [Accessed 30 July 2002]. Wake, D., 1999. Smogbusters way to work: greening transport practices through the workplace. Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 23 (1), 127 –136.