OPET - EFFICIENT TRANSPORT THROUGH TRANSPORT PLANS Description for the Netherlands 1

Transcription

1 OPET - EFFICIENT TRANSPORT THROUGH TRANSPORT PLANS Description for the Netherlands 1 The setting up and implementation of (company) transport plans is known as 'vervoermanagement' in the Netherlands. For the Dutch government, promotion of vervoermanagement is one of the policy elements of mobility management, or transport demand management (the older term from the USA). The distinguishing feature of vervoermanagement within mobility management is that it concerns measures taken by employers that are geared to their own employees. Certainly in the Netherlands, mobility management by the authorities encompasses much more than just vervoermanagement: take, for instance, parking policy, pricing policy, the promotion of bicycle use, car pooling and autodate. In the Netherlands, the word 'plan' is consciously avoided in any term relating to vervoermanagement. There is considerable experience in the Netherlands of stimulation for setting up transport plans that does not automatically result in implementation. The nub of the matter is not that transport plans are drawn up, but that companies do something about their commuter traffic - whether or not this is via a sound plan. An English term for Dutch vervoermanagement that is generally applicable is the one we recently saw in European documents: company mobility management. In the present paper, this term, abbreviated to CMM, will be used, to mean 'transport management' or 'the setting up and implementation of transport plans'. 1. Incentives instruments In the Second Structural Plan for Traffic and Transport, the far-reaching transport plan of 1989, the Government introduced CMM as an important policy theme. The objective was that all companies would have a transport plan by However, legislation was not to be used to achieve this objective, although the plan did state that regulation would be considered if the objective was not reached by This sentence had a great deal of effect. On the one hand, because all kinds of parties suddenly saw a large market in CMM, in expectation of regulation. On the other hand, because discussions whether to employ regulation or not remained open. The discussions in the Netherlands concerning regulation for CMM are covered in more detail in 2. The promotion of CMM was thus started without legislative compulsion - and this has remained the case up to the present time. The main policy instrument was and continues to be the provision of advice. On the one hand, the government bears the cost of several dozen posts in regional CMM Advisory Centres. The people in these Advisory Centres can therefore offer their services free of charge to companies interested in CMM. The regional advisory structure was set up when it became apparent that personal contact was necessary to get companies to commit themselves. Considering the extent of the target group, about 16,000 companies and organisations with over 50 employees, with a total workforce of almost 4,000,000, a decentralised organisation was essential. 1 This document is based mainly on the overview of knowledge of transport management in the Netherlands to 1998: Ligtermoet (1998), supplemented by more recent literature (see source references in the text). L+L 160 1

2 On the other hand, a large number of aids were produced to allow companies to analyse their situation and weigh up the CMM measures. Separate information booklets were produced for various CMM measures, including measures for bicycle use and car pooling. There is also a tool, for instance, to examine total costs for commuting traffic and CMM for employer and employees. Fairly stable budgets were available annually for the consultants and advisory products funded by the government. In the period , this amounted to approx. 3 million euro per year; since then, 5 to 6 million euro per year (Verkeer en Waterstaat 1999). Last year a comprehensive resource, the 'Working Model for CMM' (Verkeer en Waterstaat 2000), was made available to companies. The Working Model consists of three parts: Quick Scan, Route Plan and Tool Kits. The Quick Scan aids with the setting up of a mobility profile, setting out the transport problems (causes, starting points) and establishing the situation concerning CMM. Filling in the Quick Scan provides an answer to the question as to whether CMM is useful for the company, and, if so, which follow-up steps are desirable: a planned approach or direct selection of specific measures. The Route Plan gives advice on a more planned approach: setting up of a start-up memorandum and project set-up, drawing up an inventory of data, plan formation, implementation, management and evaluation. Where necessary it refers to 27 concrete Tool Kits. The Tool Kits form a collection of tools, information sources and aids that can help with specific questions or problems. They provide guidance on making the plans specific and for implementing measures aimed at promoting the use of public transport, car pools, van pools, bicycles, teleworking, etc. The 'Working Model for CMM' is intended for individual companies, and is the setting down of all empirical knowledge existing in the Netherlands concerning the stimulation of individual companies. Further, from 1990 attention has consistently been given to the stimulation of CMM with groups of companies, per business park. Much has been thought and written about the question whether the individual approach of CMM or the communal approach with neighbouring companies is the most effective way. Over time, opinions on this have varied. The current opinion is that the individual and collective approach both can be effective and that the question as to which is more effective is not that relevant. Companies often seem to be able to take relatively effective measures independently. Collectively, measures can be much more effective, but on the other hand it has proven to be very difficult to make specific agreements within a group of companies. The professionals in the regional Advisory Centres paid for by the government play a central role in the stimulation of CMM. There are also a number of specialised consultancy firms. Further, various product providers play a significant role in the maturation of CMM. There are now professional suppliers of company bicycles and van pooling, as a result of the government's promotion of the CMM theme. Public transport companies are also variously active in the sale of their products to employers. The role of employer and employee organisations is relatively limited. Employer organisations do generally support the CMM theme, but their real activities are limited. Employee organisations and works councils do at times have a stimulating role in specific company situations. However, they generally adopt a careful approach, often partly from fear of a reduction in travel compensation for employees. 2

3 National consultation between employer and employee organisations has recently adopted a position on CMM that will do little to change this situation. The importance of CMM is recognised, but this is limited to a statement of position and a call to make CMM effective (Stichting van de Arbeid, 2000). In the Netherlands a (limited) subsidy regulation only existed in the starting phase for companies that wanted to make a transport plan. Since then, it has often been considered, but never put into effect. Variants were also looked at, such as giving fiscal reductions to companies that have carried out CMM measures. Considerations for not setting up subsidy regulation for companies were, in particular: C The fact that the government already gives a lot of financial stimulus in another way, namely, the 3 to 6 million euro which is funding the advisory structure that companies can use free of charge. C The fact that the government already gives employees, many financial advantages if they opt for other modes of transport rather than the car: fiscal advantages for using a bicycle, public transport or car pooling. And public transport is already subsidised to a significant extent by the government. There is subsidy provision geared to companies for one of the transport modes, however: collective transport (not public transport) arranged by the employer. C A genuine doubt as to whether financial impulses will be of any further use, particularly considering that CMM is already receiving financial benefits in other ways. Experience in the Netherlands generally is that the costs of CMM are not the most significant hindrance for implementation (see also 3). Relatively large amounts of money are indeed injected into stimulating CMM in comparison with other themes of mobility management. This is connected firstly with the communicative power of this subject. With CMM, companies, as well as the government, can actively do something about solving traffic problems. And the concrete CMM measures are usually positive, in the sense that they only, or predominantly, offer advantages to employees. Another factor is that particularly in the early 90's, effect calculations were circulating that predicted a considerable contribution from CMM to the solution of traffic problems. Thirdly, the size of the considerable budget also relates to the still formally existing standpoint that it concerns temporary promotion of CMM. The government would give a strong impetus for a period of time, and after that the companies would take it over themselves. 2. Regulation and extension of CMM In the Netherlands the call for regulation can be heard regularly - particularly when the results of voluntary promotion of CMM are disappointing. In the European context, the discussion is relevant because regulation or legislation is being or due to be considered in a number of countries. In 1989 it was determined that in the event of disappointing results statutory regulation of CMM would be considered, and consideration has therefore been given, since the early 90's, as to whether an effective, controllable and fundable system of regulation would be achievable. Assessors opted for a cyclical system of obligatory measures for companies with above-average car use in commuter traffic. External controllers would determine if a company had taken sufficient CMM measures if, after a few years, car use was still above-average. Politically, however, there was no reason whatsoever to give any real consideration to regulation. It was 1993, and CMM appeared to be taking hold. L+L 160 3

4 In subsequent years, the grounds for rejection of statutory regulation changed. The controllability and effectiveness of regulation increasingly came into doubt. After all, CMM requires specific measures from each company. A 'transport plan' can be made mandatory, but that does not ensure that it will be implemented. And certain measures can be made mandatory, but they may not apply to the specific situation in each company. It was thought, therefore, that the best strategy would be to create a policy environment in such a way that companies would increasingly be forced to start CMM 'themselves', in a form that fitted their situation. Increasingly, attention was therefore directed towards statutory regulation in the area touching on CMM: regulation concerning themes for which statutory frameworks already existed and where better control would be possible. In this way, a maximum target for car use can be set through environmental legislation. Furthermore, there are possibilities to regulate the parking capacity of companies. In Amsterdam there has been some use of environmental legislation to force CMM. General recommendations have been laid down and these have been distributed to other councils (Van der Braak, 1999). In Amsterdam, when a company is granted an environmental licence, it is required to fill in a 'CMM checklist', showing how much reduction in car use can be achieved. If the possibility for savings is large, an investigative report and a plan of action are required, in which commuting patterns are analysed and recommendations made for measures for CMM that have a large chance of success. The authorities check the plan of action against the investigation results and ask for adaptation where necessary. An approved plan of action, as a regulation, subsequently forms part of the environmental licence. Wide linking of CMM with other parts of the traffic policy is being pursued by the province of Zuid-Holland. The pressure on companies to implement CMM is increased via adjacent policy themes in accordance with the line of policy of the department of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (Zuid-Holland 1999). This is being done in a number of ways: C By incorporating CCM as much as possible into the economic, spatial and environmental policy of the province. The province is often involved, for instance, in constructing or renovating business parks. This automatically involves issues such as bicycle paths and parking space. It is possible to approach this in a 'CMM-oriented' way. However, agreements can also be made in this context, that in return for financial contributions from the authorities for setting up such business parks, companies make every effort to reduce car use, via CMM. C A closer connection can be made between CMM efforts required from companies and the subsidies available from the province for new infrastructure. For instance, the province makes money available to improve the flow on a release road for a business park, but in return asks the companies for CMM efforts to ensure that the increased capacity of the road will not already be insufficient after one year. In this way the province can use CMM as one of the prioritisation criteria for the many requests for subsidy for infrastructure projects. The emphasis on 'adjacent legislation' in the strategy from the government, however, made it necessary that local authorities would play a stronger role in the stimulation of CMM. Because it is precisely the local authorities who have the power, through environmental policy and parking policy, to set CMM-stimulating rules for companies. This concept is central to the last policy document on CMM from the ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (Verkeer en Waterstaat 1999). In this, 4

5 a continuation of the voluntary promotion of CMM is linked to a stronger 'push' for companies towards CMM via, among other things, environmental and parking regulation. As a consequence of this, decentralisation of voluntary promotion is also being proposed. For the period , the incentives funds will be transferred to the regional authorities. However, a second reason is also given for this decentralisation. Particularly at decentralised level, it is more possible - as experience has shown - for effective agreements to be reached between the authorities and companies concerning CMM and other traffic policy. Agreements that are akin to an exchange: if companies implement CMM, the authorities will create a particular bus route or a particular bicycle path. The Rotterdam Congestion Plan is a good example of such an approach. Here, local and regional authorities are signing agreements with companies located in industrial zones in the region, in which employers undertake to adopt CMM in exchange for measures to improve the infrastructure and public transport. Things are looking promising. The local authorities are providing cycling facilities, public transport and infrastructure. A feed road from the motorway, previously closed, is to be re-opened for trucks from companies in the area, while the companies have introduced CMM measures. The companies and industrial associations have undertaken to reduce car use by 10%. However, this deployment of CMM in a wider traffic policy is not a straightforward matter. The relation to parking policy, for instance, is only practicable in city centres, where parking capacities on business parks can be regulated and parking on public roads can be regulated by a regime of paid parking or parking permits. Barter, or agreement-related extension of CMM is particularly difficult because it concerns complex processes. In the first place, it requires several neighbouring businesses to take part - because barter with one company is seldom wise - and it is not easy to get several companies on the same track. In the second place, it requires an active regional authority, which does not give in too easily to requirements concerning infrastructure from companies - but requires a 'price' in the form of CMM. It is often difficult for authorities to delay meeting the wishes of companies, considering the competition between authorities to attract business. As the discussions on CMM legislation remained, the government carried out a new investigation at the end of 1999 into the possibility of stimulating CMM through a form of regulation (De Poorter 2000). The conclusions of the report confirmed the line of policy that the department of Transport, Public Works and Water Management had taken in 1999: C There are sufficient opportunities to link in to legislation in the area of C environmental policy, parking policy, etc. Linking in this way is preferable to separate regulation for CMM, because CMM is (as yet) insufficiently measurable and controllable in hard terms and because it is simply not desirable to rig up new legislation if alternatives are already available. One of the more general considerations for continuing to reject direct regulation is the fact that although the results of voluntary promotion are certainly not satisfactory, neither do they signify total failure. L+L 160 5

6 3. Effectiveness of CMM The effectiveness of CMM can be seen as the product of a number of consecutive steps: 1. the number of companies that are given information about the possibilities of CMM: 2. the number of companies that subsequently take active CMM measures; 3. the effect of such CMM measures on car use by employees. The figures on effect are gathered systematically in the Netherlands via an automated system called ReMove. The situation at the beginning of 2000 was as follows, on two scale levels (Touwen 2000); Number of companies with over 50 employees Companies that were 'personally' informed about CMM Companies that had carried out CMM measures Companies that were preparing CMM measures Estimated reduction in car use per CMM company Communication package Basic package of measures More vigorous measures Average for all companies All of the Netherlands Province of Zuid-Holland only (incl. cities of Rotterdam and The Hague) 16,142 3,457 30% 63% 6% 12% 7% 14% 0-3% 6-8% 15-20% 8% The table shows that in the whole of the Netherlands some 30% of companies with more than 50 employees were 'personally' informed about CMM. This has already resulted in success for 6% (of the total of over 16,000 businesses): they are actively supporting CMM. Around 7% is preparing CMM measures. The score is significantly better specifically in the strongly urban province of Zuid-Holland. This is partly because traffic problems there are greater and partly because stimulation for CMM was started earlier. In this region, 63% of companies have already been informed about CMM, 12% of companies is actively pursuing CMM, and 14% is preparing CMM measures. The type of CMM measures plays an important role in the third step of the calculation of effect, namely, the degree to which employees leave their cars at home as a result of the CMM measures of their employers. The estimates presented are based on a few dozen figures of effects from companies who have introduced CMM. Car use is reduced by 5-10% if the employers introduce a basic package of measures (these include negotiating special deals with public transport providers, company bicycles, car pool matching). Employers that adopt more vigorous measures (company transport, parking measures, major changes in travel allowance schemes) achieve a mean reduction of 15-20%. The mean effect of a package of only communication measures (travel advice, promotional campaigns, etc.) is rather small: 0-3%. 6

7 Most companies adopt CMM measures that form part of the basic package. The measures carried out most often are: bicycle measures approx. 25% of all measures carried out communication measures 20% car pool measures 15% public transport measures 10% Only a few companies are taking more vigorous measures. A limited number of companies took only communication measures. Considering the figures of the effects, it also appears that it would not be desirable to place more emphasis on 'only' communication for CMM in the Netherlands. In this respect, the Dutch CMM does not match the description of mobility management in general, as given by EPOMM, the European Platform for Mobility Management (see - because that description strongly emphasises the 'softest' measures: The core of mobility management is soft measures (e.g. information or coordination of existing user services), which enhance the effectiveness of hard measures of traffic management (e.g. new bus routes or bicycle tracks). Mobility management tools (in comparison to hard measures) do not necessarily require large investments measured against their high potential to change mobility behaviour. Similar opinions on the high cost-effectiveness of 'soft' measures can also be heard in the Netherlands where CMM is concerned. Nevertheless, we do not know of any examples of companies that have achieved considerable reductions in car use as a result of 'soft' measures in the sense of communication measures. The figures in the table can be multiplied: in the whole of the Netherlands 6% of companies have adopted CMM measures, with roughly a mean effect of 8% reduction in car use. Or: through CMM, 0.48% of commuter car use has in the meantime been replaced by alternative modes of transport. This percentage is double for Zuid-Holland. Description of five examples (Louwerse 1999) Five descriptions of companies that have introduced CMM are given below. 'Good, regular examples' have been selected. Good in the sense that they are companies that have introduced considerable measures, that have achieved an effect. Regular in the sense that it mainly concerns real companies (and not government institutions) who have not introduced CMM simply to set a good example, but because CMM was a solution to a problem. ANWB, The Hague This consumer organisation for road and recreational users (Dutch A. A.) has its head office, and 1500 employees, at a location that is only moderately accessible by public transport. Reasons for CMM On the one hand, to set an example through CMM. On the other hand, to solve the parking overload in the area. Measures In 1991, the ANWB participated in an area transport plan. In March 1991, a company transport plan was set up with external assistance. Employees can choose between a company bicycle, a public transport pass or a combination of the two. The ANWB provides car pool matching (internal and regional) and has car pool parking spaces. Business travel by public transport, company bicycle or company car is obligatory. The L+L 160 7

8 ANWB achieved improved bus services in the area through discussions with the bus companies. Effect The number of cars per 100 employees in commuter traffic (car ratio) decreased from 63 in 1990 to 42 in 1996, a reduction of 33%. The share of car pool initially increased somewhat, but then decreased again (to 9%). Employees changed particularly to public transport (25% share) and cycling (28% share). Siemens, The Hague The head office of Siemens Nederland BV has 1450 employees and is located 10 minutes from the central station in The Hague. There are another 1400 employees in the distribution centre in Zoetermeer, and there is an external workforce (installation and servicing) throughout the Netherlands. Reasons for CMM Limited parking space at their own location, with little opportunity on the public road (paid parking and a permit system apply only to local inhabitants). Measures In 1992, a transport plan was set up. The first measures were introduced in 1992 and 1993 in parallel with the extension of the site. In 1992/93 a parking regime was implemented for the company's parking garage with automatic number plate recognition (own product). Only travelling staff, car poolers, managers and employees with a medical indication can park there. Cyclists receive a taxable compensation of NLG 25 per month. Company bicycle racks are available, with showers and changing rooms. Effects Between 1991 and 1994, the car ratio (number of cars per 100 employees) decreased from 68 to 50 (26% reduction). There were more cyclists in particular (26% share) and increased use of public transport (22% share). Merwede Shipyard BV Merwede Shipyard in the small locality of Hardinxveld-Giessendam is a company involved mainly in the construction and repair of ships. There are 360 employees. The location is outside the built-up area and cannot be reached by public transport. Reasons for CMM Quality of life in the immediate work environment (reduction in parking pressure in the area), maintain availability of trained personnel in the rural area, cost control. Measures Transportation of employees is an established topic, including in particular the company's own transport using large and small busses. In 1997, it was decided that, considering the locations of employees' homes and the cost of running the busses, there should be a shift towards promoting cycling and car pooling. For distances under 10 km, employees receive a bicycle (good bicycle racks and shower and changing rooms are available) or a kilometre compensation. The compensation is often mutually used for car pools. Above 10 km, car pooling is compensated and arranged via contracts, if the route is not served by company transport. Effects The new transport arrangement has resulted in a sharp reduction of the car ratio of approx. 25%. Merwede now has a car ratio of 22; it was 30. No less than 44% of employees now cycle or walk to work, 23% still go by company bus and 20% use car pools. 8

9 Academisch Ziekenhuis Rotterdam (AZR) The AZR (Rotterdam academic hospital) is centrally situated in Rotterdam, and well served by public transport. The site is moderately accessible by car due to its location near the centre and the limited parking space. AZR has 6000 employees. Reasons for CMM The specific reason for taking CMM measures was the additional parking problems resulting from the construction of a new laboratory on a large part of the hospital's own car park. This left wholly inadequate space for visitors, patients and personnel. Furthermore, because of the lack of parking space on site, there was inconvenience for people living in the immediate area. Measures Parking had been posing a problem for years because the AZR had to sacrifice part of the car park for the laboratory. A company transport plan was set up in consultation with the regional CMM advisory centre. The basis of the plan was the introduction of paid parking between 6.00 and hours. Furthermore, the use of alternative transport was encouraged. There were discussions with personnel about the plan. The works council was also closely involved in the formation of the plan. Employees can choose from four transport arrangements: 1. Car arrangements. Under this arrangement there is a charge for parking on the hospital site; there is no compensation. 2. Car pool arrangement. Under this arrangement a car pool team can use reserved parking spaces free of charge. The VCC brings the teams together and registers them under car pool agreements. The teams receive a car pool sticker and a special entry pas to the car park. 3. Bicycle arrangement. Under this arrangement employees receive a free bicycle for five years. The AZR has extended bicycle parking facilities and introduced a bicycle repair service. 4. Public transport arrangement. Employees who choose this arrangement receive higher transport reimbursement than they did previously. The transport pass is purchased with the money received. As a lot of the staff work evening and night shifts, cycling and public transport is not always offer a viable alternative. For this reason, employees arriving between and 6.00 hours and at the weekend can park free of charge. Effects The pressure on the car park has been reduced to such an extent that sufficient parking places have been freed up for visitors and patients. Furthermore, the parking overload in the vicinity has disappeared. Of over 6000 employees, 30% have chosen the bicycle arrangement, 20% the public transport arrangement, 3% the car pool arrangement and 43% the car arrangement. ECT Delta Container Division ECT has the largest container terminal in the port of Rotterdam. It has 950 employees. The location is accessible by car, but virtually impossible to reach by public transport or bicycle. Reasons for CMM Until 1996, most employees were literally forced to take their own car to work, as public transport did not exist and people lived too far away to use a bicycle. As not all of the employees could travel to work by car, there was a need for a form of collective transport. Furthermore, ECT wants to make a contribution to reducing congestion to and from the port. Measures ECT asked an external bureau to organise a form of company transport. This resulted in the Delta Shuttle. This collective transport system consists of seven routes that depart from various places around the port area. The busses can use a number of bus lanes, resulting in improved journey times. Not only touring cars are used, but also van pools. The Delta Shuttle costs ECT approx. 0.5 million euro annually. On the other hand, however, significant savings have been achieved because personnel who use the system no longer need reimbursement of travel expenses. L+L 160 9

10 Effects The Delta Shuttle is successful: 53% of the operational personnel of ECT use the shuttle. 4. Perspective of CMM in the Netherlands The perspective of CMM in the Netherlands is reasonably clear at the effects level - this can be seen from the above table with the figures for the results. Experience has shown that it can be expected that of those companies that are preparing CMM, half will, in fact, implement measures. In total, therefore, 9% (Netherlands) and 19% (province of Zuid-Holland) of companies would implement CMM measures. In respect of the percentage of companies that have been informed (30% in the Netherlands; 63% in Zuid-Holland) this is roughly the same ratio. Of those companies still to be informed, a smaller percentage will probably eventually implement measures. After all, those companies with the greatest likelihood of taking action have already been informed. On the other hand, traffic problems are increasing and the inclination of companies to introduce CMM will also increase as a result. Roughly speaking, of the total target group of companies with more than 50 employees, about 30% will probably take CMM measures (see also Touwen, 2000). With a mean effect on car use of 8%, this gives a reduction in commuter car use with the target group companies of 2.4%. Calculated over all commuter car use this is a reduction of 1.5%. This is, in principle, a structural effect, considering the nature of the CMM measures. The picture of the CMM effect outlined above is certainly achievable, because promotion via regional Advisory Centres is guaranteed until The question, however, is how to evaluate the end result of 1.5% less commuter car use. Set alongside the original aims of the government, it is a very small figure. In 1989 it was assumed that all companies with more than 50 employees would set up and implement a company transport plan, and that they would achieve a reduction of 20% of commuter car use. The final 1.5% reduction in commuter car use that is achievable does fully match the adapted goal launched by the government in But in particular: 1.5% reduction in commuter cars on the road maybe sound very little, but in comparison with the effect of other measures (such as public transport infrastructure and many themes within mobility management) it is positively a lot! The last government policy document (Verkeer en Waterstaat 1999), however, has put specific target formulations aside and placed a strong accent on achieving CMM with wider traffic policies. The consequences of this for the practice of the regional Advisory Centres is not yet clear. This makes looking ahead difficult. In the period there has consistently been a relatively large amount of funding for CMM, despite somewhat disappointing results in comparison with the objectives. The budgets for stimulating CMM were repeatedly said to be temporary, but the terms were then repeatedly extended. Considering past experience and considering the expectation that the traffic problems in the Netherlands will certainly not decrease, a first future perspective is that specific budgets for CMM promotion will remain, even after 2004, with the continuing emphasis on voluntary implementation. To us this does not appear to be a desirable perspective. In that scenario, CMM will remain a subject as much in the margin of total traffic policy as it is now, not taken seriously enough from within public transport policy and infrastructure policy. However, we do see three possible developmental directions that could give CMM a stronger position in traffic policy: 10

11 1. A future of mobility management: The interweaving of CMM with broader traffic policy, supported by the government, in area-oriented projects and linked to legislation in adjacent areas becoming reality. In this context, the expected introduction of road pricing will certainly also be a stimulus. CMM will then be less visible - but even more effective. 2. A future of regulation: Because the effects achieved (1.5% reduction in commuter car use) convinces the politicians that CMM is a relatively effective policy theme and because it is has become clear that a standardised 'basic measures package' can be defined, the implementation of that basic package is made compulsory for all companies. 3. A future of market operation: Although this has been regularly attempted up until now, it has never succeeded. CMM nevertheless remains a subject with which the government does not have to get involved. Advisory Centres develop into commercial service providers with standardised and affordable services (such as the regional centre in Noord-Brabant province is already doing increasingly better). Companies want to use those services. The product providers (of company bicycles, van pool, car, company transport, etc.) are increasingly seeing their products in demand by the companies. All three directions for development could also become reality together. That would be very good of course, because it would be very effective. However, it does not appear likely to us that the third future scenario will become reality. An important experience in 10 years of CMM is, after all, that companies seldom experience such traffic problems that they want to introduce CMM independently and at market prices. The first future scenario similarly does not appear likely to succeed in our opinion. There will certainly be an increasing tendency towards area-oriented cooperation between the authorities and companies. But considering experiences up to the present, it cannot be expected that this will happen quickly or that it will be substantial. The core of the matter, in our opinion, lies in the second future scenario: the further development of a basic package and its 'sale' via, for instance, a subsidy arrangement - with obligation as a possible final resort. If results can be achieved along this route, it will also, indirectly, be a strong incentive for the first and third perspective. Recommendations for Best Practice C CMM process in companies: Analyses to determine which measures must or can be launched, are only required to a limited extent and can be pointed at concrete aspects: the commuting distance (for bicycles), the travelling time (for public transport), etc. It is of great importance that company management clearly knows early on what they want to achieve with CMM and how far they want to go, considering the importance of the desired effect. And, subsequently, the second success factor is good organisation and communication of the measures that have been adopted. C CMM measures for companies: Soft, communicative measures are generally not effective in the Netherlands. The hardest measures, such as parking measures, can seldom be achieved. But between the two is a package of measures (the 'basic package') that are reasonably effective for car use and that are widely usable: special deals with public transport providers, company bicycles, car pool matching, limited major changes in travel allowance schemes. C The market for CMM: In the Netherlands, without regulation, almost all the companies that take CMM measures are those that have very specific traffic problems at their location. More general problems ('the traffic-jams', 'the environment') are seldom the reason for companies to introduce CMM. L+L

12 C C Promoting CMM: Promotion of CMM must be directed to measures. If companies take suitable measures for their situation and these subsequently have little effect on car use, it is merely a confirmation: the companies have done what they could. Promotion directed to steps that precede taking measures (such as encouraging mobility analyses to be carried out, setting up company plans and appointing transport coordinators within the companies) is less effective, because there are no guarantees that such steps will in fact result in measures being adopted. CMM and a broader traffic policy: A good harmony between all parts of the traffic policy is particularly beneficial for CMM. This may seem like an open door, which it is not. All too often in the Netherlands, distinct sections of the authorities carry out actions that adversely affect other sections: promoting CMM in a particular business park and at the same time providing additional parking space for employees on adjacent public roads. Ensuring that actions do not adversely affect each other, but indeed are mutually strengthening, is essential and at the same time extremely difficult. Dirk Ligtermoet Ligtermoet + Louwerse bv Gouda, January 2001 References Ligtermoet (1998), D., Status: kansrijk; de ontwikkeling van vervoermanagement in Nederland, , Ligtermoet+Louwerse for the Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, August Louwerse (1999), K., and M. Touwen, Voorbeelden vervoermanagement Zuid-Holland, Ligtermoet+Louwerse and CEA for the Rijkswaterstaat Zuid-Holland, June Poorter (2000), G. de, and M. van der Gugten, Wetgeving en vervoermanagement: verkenning van het bestuurlijk-juridisch instrumentarium in Nederland en beschrijving van ervaringen met wetgeving rondom vervoermanagement in België, Frankrijk en Verenigde Staten, DSP for the Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, February Stichting van de Arbeid (2000), Vervoermanagement, een actualisering, April Touwen (2000), M., Monitor vervoermanagement 1999, CEA for the Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, August Zuid-Holland (1999), Werkplan Vervoermanagement 2000+, December Verkeer en Waterstaat (1999), Beleidsbrief vervoermanagement, September Verkeer en Waterstaat (2000) and Vervoermanagement Nederland, Werkmodel vervoermanagement: projecten, acties en beheer, AVM and Awareness for Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, April