Lessons from travel planning and road user charging for policy-making: through imperfection to implementation

Abstract

In 1978 Gunn published a seminal paper which explained why implementation of policy is so difficult. The paper set out 10 conditions, which should be satisfied if perfect implementation is to be achieved. Whilst it is clear that perfect implementation is not possible in the real world, and Gunn has subsequently been criticised for his ‘top-down’ approach to decision-making, these conditions do, nonetheless act as an effective framework through which to evaluate good practice in the implementation of urban transport policy instruments. Two urban transport policy instruments, which form an increasingly important element of the Government's strategy in the UK for reducing the demand for private transport as set out in a New Deal for Transport (DETR, 1998), are travel plans and road user charging. Travel plans are a relatively recent policy instrument in the UK and seek to reduce trips to work by car by providing, through individual employers, a targeted, integrated package of incentives and disincentives to influence commuters' choice of mode of travel to and from the workplace. Road user charging, whereby motorists are charged for the road space they use in urban areas, seeks to reduce the congestion problem via the price mechanism, and has a longer history in the UK. To date the implementation of travel plans in the UK has been more widespread than that of road user charging. It is fair to say, however, that the widespread implementation of both urban transport policy instruments is a complex and sensitive area for decision-makers.

The aim of this paper is firstly, to analyse travel plans and road user charging in the UK with respect to the conditions for perfect implementation put forward by Gunn and secondly, to highlight the elements of good practice, pertinent to the implementation of road user charging, in the process of the implementation of travel plans. Overall, the paper uses Gunn's theoretical framework as a basis for recommendations for better decision-making that will aid the wider implementation of both travel plans and road user charging internationally.

Introduction

In 1978 Gunn published a seminal paper entitled ‘Why is implementation so difficult?’ The article set out 10 conditions or what can be called ‘desiderata’, which would need to be considered if perfect implementation were to be achieved. It is important to state at the outset that perfect implementation is virtually impossible in the real world, it does however act as a concept or idea rather than an ideal and as such it is a useful straw man (or woman) through which to evaluate travel plans and road user charging.

The aims of this paper are: firstly, to analyse travel plans and road user charging in the UK with respect to the conditions for perfect implementation put forward by Gunn. Secondly, to highlight the elements of good practice in the process of implementation of travel plans, which may be pertinent to the implementation of road user charging. Overall, the paper will use Gunn's theoretical framework (summarised in Section 2) to make recommendations for better decision-making to aid the wider implementation of both travel plans and road user charging.

A travel plan is normally implemented by an employer, who puts in place a number of measures at the workplace to encourage employees to use modes of transport other than the single occupant car to travel to, from and at work. To quote the DfT definition (2002 page 4): “A workplace travel plan is a simple idea with a big ambition: to change the way that people travel to work. Cost, convenience and comfort all influence our decisions about the journeys that we take. Travel plans set out to address these factors, re-framing travel choices with major improvements to the bus, cycling and walking routes that serve the work site. Cyclists are welcomed with secure parking and changing facilities. Bus services are adjusted to staff needs. Drivers can find car share partners through a matching service. Discounts, promotional offers and financial incentives make alternatives to solo driving more attractive. Car park restrictions and charges make driving less so.”

There are also now attempts to extend travel planning to other types of land use, such as leisure and retail but, for the purposes of this paper, we restrict the discussion to travel plans covering employment sites, where there is more experience of actual implementation, and where particular circumstances apply in terms of the relationship between the employer and the travellers to the site. Clearly, then, the travel plan is principally a form of organisational change; nonetheless, since travel extends off site, there is a need to involve actors outwith the organisation who do or who are able to provide travel and other related services off site.

Whilst this paper deals primarily with UK experience in the field of travel planning, this is not to imply that other countries do not have experience of attempting to implement them. The recently completed EU FP5 Research project MOST (http://mo.st) highlights the travel planning activity that has taken place over many years in the US and the Netherlands and, more recently, in Italy and Germany. (See also Section 3, below.)

The term ‘road user charging’ is well established in the field of transport economics where it usually refers to setting the price equal to the social marginal cost of a trip. Whilst the theoretical basis for road user charging has been clearly enunciated, sound economic rationale does not guarantee in itself political acceptability (Orski, 1992).

Road user charging appears to be economically beneficial and technically feasible and in fact most researchers have focussed primarily on the analytical soundness of road user charging proposals (Rom, 1994). It would ostensibly appear that issues need to be resolved in the political arena if road user charging Scheme are to be widely adopted in the UK, and in fact in other areas throughout the world. The UK Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport (1998) placed renewed emphasis on road user charging in the UK. It was seen as a key ingredient in a package of measures designed to deal with the issue of congestion and traffic related pollution, promoting transport choice and reducing car dependency. Local Authorities in England and Wales, via the Transport Act (2000), have been given power to charge for the use of congested roads; similar legislation exists in Scotland.

The nature of travel plans and road user charging are fundamentally different. Road user charging invariably provokes major hostility, tends to be higher profile and requires introduction on an area wide basis. Travel plans on the other hand are generally less contentious and are introduced on an individual employer basis. Even though these differences exist there are important lessons, which can be learnt in terms of each policy instrument and its implementation.

There are of course other policy options whose implementation could be analysed using the framework set out by Gunn. In a paper of this length, there is not space to do this, although the final parts of the paper briefly discuss avenues for further work in this area.