Impacts of CHUMS measures [D 4.2] - CHUMS project

Impacts of CHUMS measures [D 4.2] Author(s): Dirk Engels - Gitte Van Den Bergh Contributor(s): Aurore Asorey, Lisa Freeman, Stefania Papa, Gabriel Vladut, Elke Vandenbroucke, Steve Wright Peer Review: Paul CURTIS VECTOS Version: V2.0

Date:

30.8.2016

Project: CHUMS [www.chums-carpooling.eu]

Contract no: IEE/13/648

Duration: 1.03.2014 – 31.08.2016 Project Coordination: VECTOS The Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T4TP United Kingdom www.vectos.co.uk [email protected] The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1

2

3

4

5

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.1

Objectives of this report........................................................................................... 4

1.2

The CHUMS project .................................................................................................. 4

1.3

CHUMS terms and definitions .................................................................................. 5

1.4

The CHUMS objectives ............................................................................................. 6

1.5

Objectives of the CHUMS evaluation ....................................................................... 6

1.6

Main outputs the Evaluation Work package ............................................................ 7

1.7

Structure of this report ............................................................................................ 7

Evaluation approach .............................................................................................................. 9 2.1

Selection of indicators .............................................................................................. 9

2.2

Data collection ....................................................................................................... 11

2.3

Methodology .......................................................................................................... 12

Site specific findings............................................................................................................. 14 3.1

Edinburgh ............................................................................................................... 15

3.2

Toulouse ................................................................................................................. 34

3.3

Perugia ................................................................................................................... 46

3.4

Craiova.................................................................................................................... 67

3.5

Leuven .................................................................................................................... 90

Impact of the CHUMS measures........................................................................................ 122 4.1

Impact on awareness and attitude ...................................................................... 122

4.2

Impact on travel behaviour .................................................................................. 126

4.3

Environmental impact .......................................................................................... 128

4.4

Influence of the different CHUMS measures ....................................................... 129

Recommendations on the evaluation of carpooling schemes .......................................... 141

2

6

5.1

Assessment of the CHUMS evaluation approach................................................. 141

5.2

Concept for an efficient evaluation...................................................................... 142

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 144

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 146

3

1

Introduction

1.1

Objectives of this report To contribute to the overall objectives of the CHUMS project and the STEER program, a focused and well-structured impact evaluation approach is implemented. More specifically the evaluation work package provides quantitative support to the transfer of the CHUMS measures based on the evaluation of  the behavioural changes observed in the target populations of the 5 CHUMS champion cities;  the measured reductions in energy use, the use of fossil fuels and the associated emissions of CO2 and  what factors have influenced change / resistance. This report is detailing the evaluation results concerning the impacts of the CHUMS measures in the 5 European sites. Much attention is given to the understanding why the results are as they are, in order to create a strong basis to support the transfer of the three CHUMS measures towards other European cities.

1.2

The CHUMS project The CHUMS project addresses the energy challenge of low car occupancy and the ≈50% of journeys in cities that cannot be accommodated by conventional public transport modes. The enormous potential of carpooling strategies has been frustrated by the traditional behavioural, social and cultural barriers people have to sharing cars – this is the challenge of ‘CHUMS’. The aim of the project is to apply a composite CHUMS behavioural change strategy, developed by the consortium and to transfer the proven methods to the rest of Europe, through validating the method in 5 ‘champion’ cites that represent the scale of carpooling and the diversity of mobility mindsets across Europe: Craiova (RO), Edinburgh (UK), Leuven (B), Toulouse (F) and Perugia (IT). The CHUMS behaviour change strategy includes a carpooling week, conducting personalised travel plans, which include carpooling options and providing a mobility jackpot lottery to attract people to carpool. These have all been shown to produce significant behavioural changes in a wide range of places where they have been delivered: increasing car occupancy, reducing car numbers and significantly reducing energy use. Indeed the carpooling week which Liftshare Founder, Ali Clabburn receives the has been tested in over 1,000 carpooling sites in the UK has Queen’s won a award Queen’s award for for achievement achievement. The strategic aim of CHUMS is simple – to ‘attract car-poolers, match them and retain them’, to keep the numbers rising, and to develop and transfer this proven practice to generate a core sustainable market for carpooling across Europe, so that it becomes a habitual way to 4

travel and a recognised mobility mode for transport planning. All of the 5 ‘champion cities’ have existing car-pooling systems, at various stages of maturity, which serve ‘closed’ target groups such as work-places, large employers or universities. Once proven, the application will be equally valid for ‘open’ systems for citizens in general. The project has already developed a European carpooling ‘interest group’ with members from 19 member states and candidate countries; where further take-up of the CHUMS measures will be developed during the project. The 10 fully committed CHUMS partners include mobility behaviour experts, city authorities and carpool operators.

1.3

CHUMS terms and definitions In order to achieve a strong common understanding of the CHUMS activities and more specifically the evaluation, we define following key words as they are used in the CHUMS project: 

Carpooling is when two or more people, usually who are headed to the same destination, travel together by car for all or part of a journey. Driver and passenger(s) know before leaving that they will share at least part of the trip, with this arrangement made using a coordinating body. Usually, a mutual agreement is reached between carpooling participants to share expenses or take turns to drive in order to reduce personal costs or time loss. Both the driver and passenger(s) are called “car-poolers”. Importantly, professional and/or commercial vehicles are excluded. In this way, carpooling is in fact formal carpooling, as the opposite of informal carpooling.



Informal Carpooling: trips which are shared between members of the same family or close friends and neighbours who give each other a lift. No technology is used to arrange the shared trips (except perhaps a phone call to a friend). In that case we just have a driver with passengers.



Car sharing is where individuals hire cars on an hourly, daily or weekly basis allowing flexible access to a vehicle when required. This short-term access allows multiple individuals to access the benefits of car ownership but can reduce the cost significantly – often called “car clubs”.



Carpooling system: an “attract-match-retain” scheme for carpooling which can be used to check the carpooling possibilities and to make the required arrangements



Coordinating bodies: Liftshare.com (UK), RAT (Craiova), Taxistop (BE) and FI-start (Perugia). These organisations operate services that allow prospective car-poolers to find suitable matches and provide the initial information needed to contact a potential carpooler.



Carpool manager/carpool coordinator employed at the individual sites and set-up “attract-match-retain” schemes for carpooling. They are the primary interface with the carpoolers. This role is different to that of the champion, as coordinators are responsible for the day-to-day management of a carpool scheme. Where possible, carpool coordinators should communicate with all employees in order to promote the scheme and to receive feedback.



Site: CHUMS has 5 sites in which the carpooling schemes are active; a site can have more companies (employers) which can have different seats on different locations



Target group of a carpool scheme: (potential) user of a specific carpool system e.g. persons working in the same company (employer) or in the same seat of a company or in an area in which we have more companies. They are approach as a whole group by the CHUMS measures. Eventually we can identify sub-groups. 5

1.4

The CHUMS objectives The main objective of CHUMS is to change travel behaviour mind-sets from single occupancy driving towards sharing the journey to work and decreasing the 50% of commuters who currently drive alone. The target is to demonstrate that a combined package of measures, which promotes and supports carpooling, can achieve a 12% reduction in energy use for the journey to work at targeted employment sites. In this perspective the specific objectives for the CHUMS project are:        

To promote and support more sustainable and energy efficient travel behaviour through the CHUMS behaviour change package of measures To attract-match-retain more employees to use carpooling for their commute to work trips resulting in an increase in carpooling mode share of 11%. To minimise barriers to use in order to enable widespread uptake. To encourage employers and local authorities to champion the CHUMS approach, hence increasing the project’s coverage and ensuring the project’s on-going success. To implement CHUMS within 5 cities in 5 countries targeting a minimum of 47,000 employees Decreasing the use of the car to targeted employment sites during rush hour by 9% and decreasing single occupancy car trips by 22%. Realising a direct saving of 2,341,000 litres/annum of fuel which is equivalent to 1992 toe/annum in energy savings Realising an indirect saving of 5788 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year

The strategic objectives on longer term - towards 2020 - are:     

1.5

Shift in behaviour for 22% of single occupancy drivers towards sharing their journey with a colleague at workplaces where CHUMS is introduced. To support the EU’s 2020 target for energy and climate change achieving a >12% reduction in energy use for the journey to work sites. CHUMS adopted at employment sites across partner and follower countries. In total 150,000 employees across 10 countries are exposed to the CHUMS package of measures. Realising a direct saving of 23.54 million litres of fuel, equivalent to 20,035 toe in energy savings Realising in indirect saving of 58,206 tonnes CO2 equivalent

Objectives of the CHUMS evaluation The primary objectives for the CHUMS evaluation are  To identify the optimal conditions for implementing and continuing the CHUMS carpooling measures (carpool week, mobility jackpot, personalised travel planning) within the five diverse European demonstration sites, in order to support and facilitate the transfer of these measures to other cities and regions (i.e. within the CHUMS network)  To provide a clear quantification of the effect of the CHUMS measures to change mobility behaviour and increase the take-up of carpooling among the target groups, allowing for an estimation of the impact on mobility by the year 2020. On a second level, it is the objective to evaluate the implementation of the CHUMS wide spread take-up strategies. In this also the impact of these take-up strategies and the supporting dissemination activities need to be evaluated.

6

1.6

Main outputs the Evaluation Work package

1.6.1

Deliverable(s)

The 3 main deliverables of the CHUMS evaluation work are:  D4.1: The CHUMS evaluation plan: integration of current best practices on mobility behaviour and sustainability evaluation (from Task 4.1)  D4.2 (this deliverable): The impacts of the CHUMS measures in 5 European sites and associated transferability potentials (from Task 4.3 and 4.3)  D4.3: The forecast behavioural and energy impacts of a European take-up strategy for CHUMS – breaking down the barriers to carpooling (from Tasks 4.3 and 4.4 with input from WP5) (links to key output 4 in section 1 (b)) Additionally there is a working document:  W4.1: The base line situation before the implementation of the CHUMS measures 1.6.2

Other outputs

Beside the deliverables and working document, WP4 will produce the following outputs:  a detailed methodology for analysis of measures to support carpooling  an operational web-based questionnaire for (potential) users of carpool schemes  a database of raw data on the behaviour and attitude of target groups of carpooling schemes in 5 EU sites.  a comparison of automated versus conventional user approaches  a quantitative support to the transfer activities showing the importance of measures and specific elements in the approaches. In this way the Work Package ‘Evaluation’ will contribute on different levels to the envisaged result of the project.

1.7

Structure of this report The report starts in chapter 2 with a short rehearsal of the evaluation approach used to evaluate and calculate the impact of the CHUMS measures. This approach is already described in the evaluation plan (D4.1), but some deviations were added here because of practical issues that rose during the project. Chapter 3 describes the site specific findings for each of the five implementation sites. For each target group the baseline situation, based on working document W4.1, and the impact analysis with drivers and barriers during implementation are described. In chapter 4 the results from the different sites and target groups are put together to result in the general findings and impact of the CHUMS measures during the project. Also the different CHUMS measures are considered, with a focus on the PTP approach, where the effectiveness of manual and automated PTPs are compared to each other. The chapter ends with a description of other observations of impacts, related on factors like gender and age. The evaluation approach did change during the process, due to practical element that were not foreseen in the evaluation plan. The feedback of the implementation partners about the evaluation has given us a better insight in how the evaluation in practice is far more 7

challenging than we had estimated in the beginning. Chapter 5 describes this learning process and gives guidelines for the evaluation approach needed for similar implementation studies. Finally, chapter 6 gives the final conclusions about the evaluation results of the CHUMS measures during the project.

8

2

Evaluation approach The evaluation is carried out by following the project evaluation plan as described in deliverable 4.1. However, because of site specific differences in data collection and implementation of the CHUMS measures, the evaluation was in reality more flexible and adapted to the different sites than primarily discussed in the project evaluation plan. Two complementary approaches are used to do the assessment:  Impact evaluation: what is the impact of the measures on attitude and behaviour of the end-users?  Process evaluation: what were the crucial aspects while implementing the measures? What were the drivers and barriers for the implementation and for the impact of the measures? Both types of evaluation are crucial for the project. The impact evaluation produces the ‘hard facts’ about how effective the CHUMS measures were for the different target groups. However, these facts are not worth much, if we do not understand why these effects are what they are. In this report the results of both evaluation approaches are combined to obtain a comprehensible story about the impact of the CHUMS project.

2.1

Selection of indicators For the impact evaluation of the CHUMS measures, different indicators were assessed. An indicator is a specific, observable and measurable characteristic or change that represents achievement of the impact. Most of these indicators are assessed before and after implementation of the CHUMS measures, to measure the effect of implementation. Additionally we have assessed context parameters in order to have a better understanding about the factors influencing the resulting impacts. The indicators and parameters are divided into three main groups: ‘context information’, ‘target group information’ and ‘effects on mobility and environment’. Table 2-1 below shows the indicators and parameters that were assessed for the evaluation of the CHUMS measures.

9

Topic CONTEXT INFORMATION

Indicator

Comment

Percentage of vehicle categories This information is collected on in the running fleet (per fuel national level and does not type) change (a lot) during the project Descriptions of policies or initiatives which support or Existing policies encourage carpooling in the company/city/region/on the national level This information must be available for the baseline, so a distinction can be made between Extent of carpooling at the Carpooling services available to target groups where carpool city/region level the target group software is already available and target groups that does not have any carpooling options before TARGET GROUP INFORMATION Personal characteristics Age of the target group members Division into age groups Demographic information Gender of the target group members Daily occupation Students/employees Work information Number of average working days per week Car commute distance Car commute distance Attitude towards carpooling Willingness to use carpooling Measurement before and after Personal attitude services implementation Usefulness/acceptance of the Measurement after User acceptance CHUMS carpooling measures implementation Awareness of the carpool Measurement before and after Public acceptance system(s) implementation Measurement before and after Barriers List of barriers and importance implementation List of opportunities and Measurement before and after Opportunities importance implementation Mobility behaviour Nb. of registered carpool members Carpooling penetration Nb. of confirmed carpool trips Modal split for all transport Modal split modes, with focus on carpooling EFFECTS ON MOBILITY AND ENVIRONMENT Effects on the transport system Car occupancy Nb. of average passengers per car Effects on energy and emissions Fuel consumption Consumption of the used fuels Equivalent energy of the Energy consumption consumed fuels CO2 emissions from commuting Greenhouse gas car trips Fleet composition

Table 2-1 List of indicators for the impact evaluation of the CHUMS measures

10

2.2

Data collection During the project, different types of data were collected. In general we can look at three main periods in which data was collected: before, during and after the CHUMS measures. Some of the data collection is done twice, both before and after the CHUMS measures, or during the implementation phase, which is before and during the CHUMS measures. An overview: 





Data collection for the baseline situation BEFORE the CHUMS measures: - interviews with the key stake holders for each site - before end-user questionnaire:  Perugia municipality: full questionnaire  Perugia university: full questionnaire  Craiova RAT, ELPRECO, ICMET: full questionnaire  Leuven UCLL employees: short questionnaire  Leuven UCLL students: short questionnaire - Existing survey reports:  Travel Survey Report of the University of Edinburgh (2013)  Edinburgh Park Travel Plan (2015-2025) (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015)  Edinburgh Park Travel Survey 2015 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015) - Process evaluation:  Implementation diaries of the implementation partners Data collection for the baseline situation DURING the CHUMS measures: - Process evaluation:  Implementation diaries of the implementation partners Data collection AFTER the CHUMS measures: - After end-user questionnaire:  Toulouse second target group: short questionnaire  Perugia municipality: full questionnaire  Perugia university: full questionnaire  Craiova RAT, ELPRECO, ICMET: short questionnaire  Craiova university students: short questionnaire  Leuven UCLL employees: short questionnaire  Leuven UCLL students: short questionnaire - After survey carried out by other partners:  End-user questionnaire carried out by SWECO UK for Edinburgh Park - Information from the carpooling systems:  Liftshare carpooling data for Edinburgh University  Liftshare carpooling data for Edinburgh Park  Tisséo carpooling data for second target group in Toulouse  Perugia municipality carpooling software for both target groups  IPA carpooling data for the city of Craiova, and split up into separate data for the target groups RAT, ELPRECO, ICMET and the university students  Taxistop carpooling data for the separate target groups UCLL (staff + students), KBC, Imec and Colruyt Group - Process evaluation:  Interviews with the implementation partners

11

In previous list, it is seen that there are differences in data collection for the five sites. The biggest difference is found in the implementation of the end-user questionnaire. In the evaluation plan we have foreseen to undertake the same questionnaire for each site, translated into the local languages. There would be two rounds of filling in the questionnaire: one before the first CHUMS measures were implemented, and one round after the implementation of all the CHUMS measures. However, the length of the questionnaire was not well accepted for most of the sites. As a compromise, a shorter version has been made, which also has been personalised towards the different target groups. But even with a shorter questionnaire, there were target groups, were it was impossible to carry out the questionnaire, or to carry out the questionnaire twice. So, if it was possible, we have only carried out an after questionnaire (instead of both before and after). This after questionnaire was the same as the other short questionnaires, but extra questions were added regarding the change persons had made, like what transport mode they used before they went carpooling. Also, an even much shorter on-the-field version questionnaire was developed. And last, but not least: the response rates are very variable. The obtained response rate is not always achieved. For each end-user questionnaire we have taken into account the response rate, in order to do a statistical analysis and include this into the interpretation of the results.

2.3

Methodology After the data collection, the indicators and parameters described in section 2.1 are derived and calculated. Some of the indicators are directly derived from existing surveys or the enduser questionnaires, which were analysed statistically, to have a good interpretation of the data. Other indicators were calculated based on other results. Therefore we used calculation methods to obtain the most accurate results. In this section we will not describe every step we took in the process, because a lot of steps are very obvious and described in the working reports W4.1. Or some steps are very site specific and are described in the site specific evaluation results. However, there are some key elements that we want to describe here in more detail, to make it more clear how we have interpreted and obtained the results. Car occupancy rate

The car occupancy rate is not directly known, but is calculated from the modal split data using this formula: 𝑛𝑏. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠 + 𝑛𝑏. 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 + 𝑛𝑏. 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑛𝑏. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠 + 𝑛𝑏. 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 So, the car occupancy rate is equal to the total number of persons commuting in a car divided with the number of cars. This seems logical. However, we see for different target groups that the number of car drivers with passengers is greater than the number of car passengers. So, many employees are carpooling with passengers that are not co-workers, but probably relatives like their children. So, the car occupancy rate we are calculating, is actually the occupancy rate of the average car that is arriving at the work site. 12

Calculation of the environmental impact

The behavioural and contextual analyses are used to calculate the impact on energy consumption and associated emissions for the different sites. The calculation of the impact of the CHUMS measures on energy consumption and associated CO2 emissions is done using the following formula:

In order to estimate the impact of the CHUMS measures, these values are calculated for the situation before the measures, and the effect of the measures is calculated afterwards. The specific calculations are more in detail mentioned in working documents W4.1 about the baseline situations. The same calculation methods are used to calculate the environmental impact after the CHUMS measures. Interpretation of the carpool software

For the calculation of the impacts data from the carpool software is used: the number of registrations, number of carpool trips, number of carpool kilometres. However, every carpool software is different and the data registered in the software also differs. Therefore, the interpretation and use of the data out of the carpool software are done after consultation of the site partner who is responsible for the carpool software. An important remark here is that, when the number of carpool trips are registered into the carpool system, this will most of the time be an underestimation of the total number of carpool trips. Persons can register into the system, find a match, and just carpool, without register the system. There are some incentives to register: if the carpooler must register his/her trip to be eligible for the mobility jackpot, or if the carpooler registration is used to have a tax benefit (e.g. the Colruyt Group target group in Leuven). If the number of trips or carpool kilometres are not available in the carpool system, other sources like the end-user questionnaire is used to estimate the carpool rate for the registered members.

13

3

Site specific findings In this chapter, we describe the evaluation of implementation of the CHUMS measures at the 5 partner sites. For each target group the baseline is first described, consisting of a description of the target group, background information concerning existing policies and carpooling services, mobility behaviour and attitude towards carpooling. Also the energy and emissions related to car use before the implementation of the CHUMS measures are described. This baseline description is a shorter version of the working documents W4.1, which can be found in Annex 2. Then the impact of the CHUMS measures is described, focusing on attitude, behaviour and the effects on energy and emissions.

14

3.1

Edinburgh

3.1.1

Edinburgh University

3.1.1.1

Description of the target group

In total there are 12,700 members of staff across the University at 9 sites as listed in Table 3-1 and shown in Figure 1. Additionally there are 31,770 students across the University campus, from which two third are undergraduates and the rest are postgraduates. The CHUMS measures will mainly focus on staff members, since the students have a more sustainable travel mode share. Furthermore we will focus on the sites with the largest number of solo car drivers, which are Central Area, King’s Buildings and Easter Bush.

Figure 1 Map of University locations within the city of Edinburgh

15

Location

Staff

Central Area

6 653

Easter Bush

636

Edinburgh College of Art

583

King's Buildings/Royal Observatory

2 400

Other site

203

Accommodation Services site

225

Pollock Halls of Residence

470

RIE/QMRI, Little France

927

Western General Hospital

568

Grand Total

12 702

Table 3-1 Edinburgh University staff number by location, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

Easter Bush Easter Bush campus is located within the Bush area of Midlothian, approximately 7 miles to the south of Edinburgh. Prior to 2011 the campus was home only to the Large and Small Animal Hospitals and the Vet Centre. The Vet Centre provided the base for 4th and 5th year Vet students. In 2011 the New Vet School Building opened and all Vet School teaching transferred from Summerhall in the city centre and from the Vet Centre into the building. At the same time staff from the Roslin Institute moved into their new building on the campus. There are now more than 1,500 people based at the Campus – around twice the number previously based there. In 2013 there were 636 staff members and 1,357 students located at Easter Bush. 3.1.1.2

Background information Existing policies

In addition to the National, Regional and City strategy documents mentioned in working document W4.1, Edinburgh University also produces its own Transport and Travel Planning Policy and workplace/area specific travel plans. These can be found via this link http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/transport/policies-plans-reports/plans The University of Edinburgh Transport and Travel Planning Policy (2010) places an emphasis on the reduction of carbon emissions from staff, student and visitor commuter and business travel. It stresses the commitment of the University to continuing to develop and implement innovative travel plans, and the emphasis the University now places on supporting active forms of travel. The University has travel plans for all of its major sites. In addition to this the University supports its own Tripshare carpooling scheme which currently has 1083 members. Easter Bush The University has a Travel Plan for Easter Bush, which was prepared in 2009 to support the expansion of the campus. The Plan is and continues to be an important part of the Campus operations due to the challenges of creating an accessible campus in a semi-rural location. The Travel Plan implementation included the provision of a new bus route subsidised by the University, a new parking management system, personalised travel planning and information roadshows for staff and students, a travel map for the campus, and promotion of car sharing. 16

Some key elements of the Travel Plan that have been implemented are:  The ongoing development and financial subsidy of public transport provision. Since 2009 the University has subsidised public bus service 67, and has worked with the local bus operator to improve the other services serving the area;  The implementation of the University Parking Management System. Parking on campus is by permit only. Permits are allocated annually using a “needs-based” system, requiring applicants to answer questions designed to ascertain their need to bring a car to campus;  Promotion of the Tripshare scheme. Staff and students are incentivised to join the scheme through the parking permit allocation system (which awards points for car sharing);  Secure and sheltered cycle parking, shower and locker facilities, and free bike maintenance; and  The provision of The Easter Bush Campus Travel Map – this provides maps of the bus routes, walking and cycle routes, plus information on how to access the site and details of the travel plan measures. Carpool services available

The University has offered a SEStran supported Tripshare carpooling scheme for the last 7 years. Two members of staff from SEStran and a member of staff from Edinburgh University coordinate and manage the scheme. On average this consumes about 4 hours per week of staff time in promotion and day to day interactions with members on the ground. The scheme utilises Liftshare matching software which provides day to day provision of online service and facilitates most of the on-going tasks once users register to become members. The coordinators main role is to help plan and raise awareness prior to the launch of new schemes, be an enthusiastic and positive champion for the scheme, engage with other relevant departments to help with promotion, monitor membership and other useful statistics, ensure ongoing promotion of the scheme to continue raising awareness, provide point of contact for members. They also communicate with members to encourage them to move along the “journey” from registering their details and journeys to establishing a Budi team and to encourage them to be ambassadors through talking to other colleagues about the benefits of car sharing. The main marketing and promotion activity is the National Liftshare week in the first week in October. This is coordinated by Liftshare UK and implemented by SEStran and the Edinburgh University Transport and Parking Manager. This is promoted through website communications and posters and is largely focused on the personal cost savings of car sharing. The Tripshare scheme is promoted on the University website: www.ed.ac.uk/transport. It is also promoted to car users when they apply for parking permits. A new initiative to encourage more carpooling is to award additional points in the permit application process to proven Tripshare members. While no payment process is in place, Liftshare UK provide a recommended mileage calculator to its members to share journey cost: https://www.liftshare.com/content/savings_calculator.asp?skin=277 Other features of the service include the offer of a free emergency ride home to carpoolers, although this has never been used. No misuse of the service has been reported and no penalties exist in the event of misuse. As an academic institution working hours can be 17

extremely variable. Some staff (and students) are put off by the need to commit to set start and end times in order to carpool with others. Parking places available

The University has permit parking across all its sites. The annual charge for a permit is £250. A pay as you go option is also offered for users not requiring a daily permit (e.g. part time workers). The charge is £250 which covers 220 working days. Permits are issued on an annual basis. Users must re-apply each year and answer a series of questions on mobility, accessibility, business need and caring responsibilities. Points are assigned to how these questions are answered and a threshold number of points is determined to be eligible for a permit (based on number of applicants versus space available). A new initiative to encourage more carpooling is to award additional points in the permit application process to proven Tripshare members. Unsuccessful applicants may purchase a limited number of day scratchcards (20 per year) to allow them to park on occasion. These are charged at a much higher rate of £10 per day to discourage use. 3.1.1.3

Mobility behaviour before the CHUMS measures Modal split

The University has achieved an excellent sustainable travel mode share, with 88% travelling on foot, by bicycle or public transport with a very low car driver (alone) mode share of 7%. However, these statistics are heavily influenced by the large numbers of non car-owning city centre dwelling students. The statistics are less impressive (but still better than the national average) when considering only members of staff. For staff, the proportion of car-based travel is 33% with a car sharing proportion of 11%. Worryingly, between 2010 and 2013 there has been a marginal reduction in car passenger trips with a small increase in car driver (alone) trips. Given the low car use by students (11%), the University has recommended that any further promotion of Tripshare for carpooling should focus on staff. However, amongst the mode share figures for staff there is large variation between different University sites. It is evident from Table 3-2 that the University sites with the largest numbers of solo car drivers are the Central Area, King’s Buildings and Easter Bush. Focus of the CHUMS measures will be on these three locations, because the solo car are the once who needs to be targeted and change their behaviour. The total number of staff at these three locations is 9,630, the number of car drivers is 2,500 while the number of solo car drivers at these locations is 1,572 (~60% of all staff who drive alone to work at the University). For the University staff there are 3,684 cars trips during the rush hour, for the students there are 2,542. This number is a maximum, because not all staff members and students will travel at the University at the same time, because of part time work, course hours, holidays, sickness and other reasons. The total number of car trips per year is 1,731,283 for the University staff and 798,312 trips for the University students.

18

Location

Staff

Car driver (alone)

Car sharing

Average Average distance: Car distance: driver (alone) Car sharing

Number of solo car drivers

Central Area

6,653

10%

8%

8.6

2.6

665

Easter Bush

636

52%

19%

13.9

8.1

331


583

3%

3%

6.7

4.2

17

King's Buildings/Royal Obs

2,400

24%

11%

7.8

3.2

576

Other site

203

18%

9%

37


225

0%

8%

0


470

34%

12%

11.9

7.8

160


927

30%

14%

13

5.7

278


568

23%

9%

14.8

9.4

131

Grand Total

12,702

21%

11%

9.8

3.6

2,667

Table 3-2 Edinburgh University staff number and modal split by location, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

Table 3-3 Edinburgh University staff mode share, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

19

Table 3-4 Edinburgh University student mode share, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

Easter Bush There is less walking and cycling to the Easter Bush campus when compared with other more central sites. The modal split of staff and students at Easter Bush is more focused on motorized transport than the average modal split of all University locations. This is not surprising because the site is located 7 miles to the south of Edinburgh in a semi-rural location and as such is not within walking distance of residential areas. It is outwith an easy cycle ride for the majority of staff and students based there.

Table 3-5 Edinburgh University staff mode share at Easter Bush, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

The public bus services are a very important means of transport for both staff and students. A very good public transport mode share has already been achieved by students. However, the staff public transport mode share is low by comparison; they prefer coming by car. 20

There are three different public bus services to the site, but services are far less frequent than those enjoyed by other University sites. The site has dedicated parking facilities in excess of that currently required.

Table 3-6 Edinburgh University student mode share at Easter Bush, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

For the University staff at Easter Bush there are 420 cars trips during the rush hour, for the students there are 407. This number is a maximum, because not all staff members and students will travel at the University at the same time, because of part time work, course hours, holidays, sickness and other reasons. The total number of car trips per year is 197,287 for staff members and 127,869 for students. Distance travelled

The average trip length for the University staff is 9.8 miles for a car driver alone, 3.6 miles for a car driver with passengers and 3.1 for a car passenger. The distances for the other transport modes are given in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7 Edinburgh University staff average travel distance (miles) per mode, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

21

The average trip length for the students is 7.7 miles for a car driver alone, 2.9 miles for a car driver with passengers and 2.9 for a car passenger. The distances for the other transport modes are given in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8 Edinburgh University student average travel distance (miles) per mode, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

The annual number of car trips multiplied by the average distance of a car trip gives the annual number of car km. For the University staff this is 22,539,634 km per year. For the students this is 6,809,217 km per year. Use of a carpool system

There are currently 1,083 staff and student Tripshare members in the University of Edinburgh scheme (although many of these are no longer active). On average 45% of users are seeking lifts, 26% are offering lifts and 26% are both seeking and offering lifts. Table 3-9 presents data on Tripshare awareness and uptake for each University location in more detail.

Location

Staff

Non Would Active Active consider members members Joining

Do not wish Have not to join heard of it

Central Area

6,653

2%

3%

5%

47%

43%

Easter Bush

636

12%

6%

20%

56%

6%


583

0

0

4%

31%

65%

King's Buildings/Royal Obs

2,400

3%

5%

6%

51%

34%

Other site

203

0

0

4%

43%

53%


225

0

8%

0

67%

25%


470

4%

1%

8%

42%

46%


927

4%

5%

10%

50%

31%


568

0

2%

3%

33%

61%

Grand Total

12,702

2.7%

3.4%

6.2%

47.0%

40.2%

Table 3-9 Edinburgh University staff Tripshare awareness and uptake, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report 22

Easter Bush At Easter Bush, 17% of staff and 37% of students are members of the Tripshare scheme, representing a high proportion. 3.1.1.4

Attitude towards carpooling before the CHUMS measures

Easter Bush There is a high level of awareness of Tripshare at Easter Bush (90% for staff and 72% for students). 30% of staff and 28% of students may consider joining the scheme. This indicates an opportunity to continue to build upon the use of Tripshare and the clear interest in car sharing as an alternative to single occupancy car driver trips. In general At the other sites at the University, the awareness of Tripshare and the willingness to carpool are significantly lower.

Table 3-10 Edinburgh University staff Tripshare awareness at Easter Bush, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

23

Table 3-11 Edinburgh University student Tripshare awareness at Easter Bush, Source: University of Edinburgh 2013 Travel Survey Report

3.1.1.5

Energy and emissions before the CHUMS measures Fuel consumption

The total annual fuel consumption for commuting car trips by staff members at the University of Edinburgh is 1,905,911 litres. For the students the annual fuel consumption for car trips is 575,775 litres. Easter Bush The total annual fuel consumption for commuting car trips by staff members at Easter Bush is 340,149 litres. For the students located at Easter Bush the annual fuel consumption for car trips is 149,241 litres. Energy consumption

The total annual energy consumption for commuting car trips by the University staff is 1,595 toe. For students the total annual energy consumption due to car trips is 482 toe. Easter Bush The total annual energy consumption for commuting car trips by the University staff at Easter Bush is 285 toe. For students located at Easter Bush, the total annual energy consumption due to car trips is 125 toe.

24

CO2 emissions

The total annual emissions due to commuting car trips by the University staff are 4,674 tonnes of CO2. For the University students the total annual emissions due to car trips is 1,412 tonnes of CO2. Easter Bush The total annual emissions due to commuting car trips by the University staff at Easter Bush are 834 tonnes of CO2. For the University students the total annual emissions due car trips is 366 tonnes CO2. 3.1.1.6

Impact of the CHUMS measures Attitude towards carpooling

Because there is no questionnaire carried out for Edinburgh University after the CHUMS measures, no data are available describing their changed attitude towards carpooling. Carpooling behaviour

The carpooling software, however, gives figures about the registration of new carpool members and active carpool behaviour of the employees. After the carpoolweek and the other CHUMS measures, 36 extra members were gained in the system. Liftshare automatically removes inactive members from the system, so only the active ones remain. Initially there were 144 new members, but 108 of them were removed out of the system. From this 36 new members, 22 are related to the Easter Bush campus, where most of the CHUMS activities where planned. But also in the rest of the University there were activities for the national Liftshare day in October 2014.

Number of subscribers 1090 1080 1070 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000

Month Table 3-12 Number of registered carpool members at Edinburgh University, source: carpool software Liftshare

The software has registered that one third of the new carpoolers were car drivers alone before they started carpooling.

25

Effects on energy and emissions

Because of the CHUMS measures, an annual saving of 4,144 litres of fuel is realised. This results in a total annual energy savings of 3.47 toe and CO2 emission savings of 10.16 tonnes. For the Easter Bush campus alone, there was an annual saving of 2,533 litres of fuel. This results in a total annual energy savings of 2.12 toe and CO2 emission savings of 6.21 tonnes. 3.1.2

Edinburgh Park

3.1.2.1


Edinburgh Park is a business park located to the west of Edinburgh. It is home to 28 businesses, mostly offices, providing employment for around 8,000 people.

Figure 2 Location of Edinburgh Park

3.1.2.2


Edinburgh Park is well connected to the transport network, with two rail stations providing direct connections across the Central Belt and ten bus services providing local links into Edinburgh and West Lothian. In May 2014, the Edinburgh Tram service began, providing an alternative link to the city centre, and airport. Facilities on the park for cyclists and pedestrians are of good quality. A range of measures have been implemented on the park, including shuttle buses to connect the park to the nearby stations, high quality bus shelters, a site wide car share scheme, and a wide range of online information. Measures have been implemented to manage car use to the site via a barrier access scheme on a key access route. Further emphasis on awareness raising of the range of travel options and benefits of these over travelling by car, working with local stakeholders to further improve connections to areas such as Fife and West Lothian and working with stakeholders to integrate with their existing and future schemes are priority areas for the travel plan in the future. Edinburgh Park has a travel plan that aims to provide a long term and sustainable travel management plan for Edinburgh Park. It focuses on employee commuting, business and visitor

26

travel and will be implemented from 2015 to 2025, and reviewed annually to ensure it remains relevant. Carpool services available

Liftshare operates Edinburgh Park’s online car share database. Parking places available

Car parking facilities for employees and visitors are provided on-site by most employers on the Park. Individual employers manage their car parks in different ways depending on the number of spaces, demand for them from employees, and the nature of the business. A pay and display car park is also provided in the south of the park. The parking charge is £4.00 per day. 3.1.2.3


Travel surveys have been conducted annually at Edinburgh Park since 2003. Between 2003 and 2012 a large number of questions were asked of employees, covering travel patterns and attitudes. In 2014, a shorter travel survey was undertaken, in an effort to boost the response rates of the survey. A similar survey was used in 2015. The survey response rate in 2015 was approximately 26% from an approximate employee population of 7,945. Mode share figures obtained from the travel survey conducted in 2015 show mode shares for single occupancy car use at 56%, car share at 10%, bus at 8%, train at 10%, tram 7%, walk at 3% and cycle at 4%.

Edinburgh Park: modal split 10%

1% 4%

3%

15%

Private car driver (alone) Private car driver (with passengers)

3%

Private car passenger

Bus, tram Train

7%

Motorcycle or PWT Bicycle On foot 56%

Table 3-13 Edinburgh Park mode share, Source: Edinburgh Park Travel Survey 2015 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015).

Table 3-14 shows that mode share varies greatly across employers. Premier Inn, Park Management and Energie Fitness and Spa show the highest proportion of single occupancy car use. However in respect to volume of employers travelling this way these employers only represent four respondents, with Aegon/Kames Capital, HSBC Securities and British Telecom generating 530 (46%) single occupancy car trips between them (see Table 3-15). 27

Table 3-14 Edinburgh Park mode share by employer, Source: Edinburgh Park Travel Survey 2015 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015).

Table 3-15 Edinburgh Park mode volume by employer, Source: Edinburgh Park Travel Survey 2015 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015).

28

Respondents were also asked which other methods of travel they used if their main method was unavailable. 20% of them choose for car sharing as an alternative mode. The other popular alternative modes are car driver alone (22%), train (20%), tram (19%) and bus (22%).

Table 3-16 Edinburgh Park: use of alternatives to main mode. Source: Edinburgh Park Travel Survey 2015 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015)

For Edinburgh Park there are 5,040 cars trips during the rush hour. This number is a maximum, because not all staff members and students will travel at the University at the same time, because of part time work, working hours, holidays, sickness and other reasons. Distance travelled

From the 2016 follow-up survey for the Council travel planning project, the results suggest the average distance travelled by car is between 6 and 7 miles. This result, however, is extracted from a low sample rate. With respect to the 2015 Edinburgh Park survey, from a review of the postcode map, it would suggest that the majority of car users live within a 5 to 6 mile radius of Edinburgh Park. We therefore assume a distance of 6 miles as average distance between home and work place for the car drivers. The annual number of car trips multiplied by the average distance of a car trip gives the annual number of car km. For Edinburgh Park this is 20,585,956 km per year. Use of a carpool system

Edinburgh Park’s online car share database has approximately 65 members. 29

Figure 3 shows the location employees who travel to Edinburgh Park either as a driver alone or by a shared car. Key areas where there are high proportions of car sharers are around Livingston and north east Edinburgh.

Figure 3 Travel by car for Edinburgh Park, Source: Edinburgh Park Travel Survey 2015 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2015).

3.1.2.4


There were no data available about awareness and attitude towards carpooling in Edinburgh Park. 3.1.2.5


The total annual fuel consumption for commuting car trips by employees at Edinburgh Park is 1,740,711 litres. Energy consumption

The total annual energy consumption for commuting car trips by employees at Edinburgh Park is 1,457 toe. CO2 emissions

The total annual CO2.emissions due to commuting car trips by the employees at Edinburgh Park is 4,269 tonnes.

30

3.1.2.6


Around 70% of the employees is aware of the carpool facilities at Edinburgh Park. Only 8.4% has used these facilities. The reasons to sign up to the carpool system are to travel more sustainable and to reduce travel costs. Reason for signing up to Tripshare To travel more sustainably To reduce travel costs Promotional stall

Response count 4 3 2

Table 3-17 Reasons for signing up to Tripshare; source: end-user questionnaire, SWECO UK

Employees mention the promotional stall at the carpool week as reason to sign up to the system, but not the jackpot lottery or (My)PTP. Most people do not use the carpool system. The most important reason is the use of other, (more) sustainable transport modes (60%), car sharing does not appeal to the person (17%) or people are already informally carpooling with family members (13%). Answer Options I use public transport, walk or cycle Car sharing doesn't appeal to me I use my car to pick up other family members / dependants Other

Response Percent 60% 17% 13% 11%

Response Count 56 16 12 10

Table 3-18 Reasons why employees of Edinburgh Park are not using the carpool system, source: enduser questionnaire, SWECO UK

The most important other reasons are that someone has a flexible or other working pattern than other employees (6 times) or that there is no one living in their neighbourhood to carpool with (3 times). Carpooling behaviour

Based on the end-user questionnaire, 8.4% of the questioned employees has used the carpool system for their commute. The carpooling software also gives figures about the registration of new carpool members and active carpool behaviour of the employees.

31

Number of subscribers 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Month Table 3-19 Number of registered carpool members at Edinburgh Park, source: carpool software Liftshare

There is no information available about the previous transport mode of the carpoolers, but for the calculations we take the total solo car drivers modal share. Effects on energy and emissions

Because of the CHUMS measures, an annual saving of 692 litres of fuel is realised. This results in a total annual energy savings of 0.58 toe and CO2 emission savings of 1.7 tonnes. 3.1.3

Overview Edinburgh site Impact analysis

At the Edinburgh site, there are almost 60,000 car kilometres saved every year, as a result of the CHUMS measures. Number of employees

Number of vkm

Fuel consumption (litres)

Energy consumption CO2 emissions (toe) (tonnes CO2)

Edinburgh University

32 700

49 013

4 144

3.47

10.16

Edinburgh Park Edinbrugh

7 950 40 650

8 180 57 192

692 4 836

0.58 4.05

1.70 11.86

Table 3-20 Total savings after the CHUMS measures for the site of Edinburgh

Lessons learned

- Edinburgh University: the carpool week was held during the national Liftshare week, so the whole university was targeted. However, the focus was on the Easter Bush campus and King's Buildings/Royal Observatory. Because of the CHUMS measures the number of new registrations doubled in comparison with a similar period before the CHUMS measures. So, the measures were a success. However, carpooling is already well established at the university, the CHUMS measures are very useful to expand the use and to reactivate non-active carpool members. - Edinburgh Park: In Edinburgh Park carpooling was already established, but it was not easy to use, and the awareness of the system was very low. Also, a lot of persons are solo car drivers, so there is a lot of potential for carpooling here. The CHUMS measures were successful here, 32

however less successful than at the university. Probably because carpooling is not that wellknown already. There is still a lot of potential in the future, carpool can still grow a lot in the next 5-10 years. Especially because there will be even more congestion on the road. And younger persons seem to be more interested in carpooling. - In general: Saving money is the best driver to convince people to carpool. Convincing people to try carpooling is hard, but when you convince them to try, they really enjoy it.

33

3.2

Toulouse The CHUMS demonstration site in France, based in the city of Toulouse, has primarily focused on the promotion of carpooling to the TOP Business Area comprising of 17 companies and around 12,000 employees, and the Héliopole Area, comprising 9 organisations and around 2100 employees. The two sites are located in Business Areas (TOP: South-West, Héliopole: North East) of Toulouse urban area as illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 4 Location of the CHUMS demonstration sites in the Toulouse urban area

The second cycle of the CHUMS implementation (in 2016), covered a wider perimeter; every company which ‘registered’ to the SMTC-Tisséo carpooling service was part of the eligible target. This consisted in 60 eligible organisations – of which 14 registered major companies and administrations of the Toulouse metropolitan area participated, representing 11 224 employees.

34

In all areas a Workplace Mobility Plan is implemented (or PDIE – Plan de Déplacements InterEntreprise). The PDIE approach refers to a grouping of companies within a Business area which have decided to appoint, within one of the companies, a mobility advisor who will follow and tailor the mobility actions (marketing/promotion, etc) on behalf of the other companies and the PDIE. 3.2.1

TOP Business Area

3.2.1.1


The PDIE TOP area represents 17 companies (around 12,000 employees, 5,500 public and 6,500 private). A majority are SMEs with more than 500 employees. The main companies of this Business area are: 1. Thalès Alénia Space: 3,000 employees 2. Météo France: 1,200 employees 3. ERDF: 1,000 employees 3.2.1.2


National and regional policies: see W4.1 in Annex 2. Carpool services available

National and regional services: see W4.1 in Annex 2. Parking places available

There are no parking restrictions (one space per employee) or parking costs in the PDIE TOP area. However, there are 2-3 carpooling parking places located in front of the main building entrances (with dedicated stickers) for the largest employers in the PDIE TOP area (Thales, ERDF, Freescale). Employers are starting to reduce the global number of parking places and there are now some combined inter-company parking areas. There is also an initiative whereby a “Drop-me off at the metro station” pick-up point has been established at the exit to the car park to encourage drivers to give lifts to other employees as far as the nearest metro stop. In ERDF, in addition to the « get back guarantee », the company makes available a company fleet car if the carpooling driver is missing. 3.2.1.3


The mode share statistics for PDIE TOP are 67% single occupancy car, 4% multiple occupancy car, 7% public transport and 8% cycling and walking. The average number of car occupancy is 1.03 persons/car. 35

Modal split TOP 7%

8%

4%

single occupancy car multiple occupancy car public transport bicycle/on foot 67%

Table 3-21 Modal split, TOP area

The number of trips during the rush hour is 8,280 cars. This number is a maximum, because not all employees will be at the office at the same time, because of part time work, holidays, sickness and other reasons. The total number of car trips per year is 3,461,010. Distance travelled

The average car commute distance to work for the PDIE TOP area is 20 kilometres. The annual number of car trips multiplied by the average distance of a car trips give the annual number of car km, which is 69,220,800 km. Use of a carpool system

In March 2015, before the CHUMS actions were implemented, Top had 504 carpoolers. 3.2.1.4


There were no data available about awareness and attitude towards carpooling before implementation of the CHUMS measures. 3.2.1.5


The total annual fuel consumption for commuting car trips by the Top employees is 4,935,761 litres. Energy consumption

The total annual energy consumption for commuting car trips by the Top employees is 4,148 toe. CO2 emissions

The total annual emissions due to commuting car trips by the Top employees is 12,316 tonnes CO2. 36

3.2.1.6


Because there is no questionnaire carried out for PDIE TOP after the first promotion of the CHUMS measures, no data are available describing their changed attitude towards carpooling. Carpooling behaviour

The carpooling software, however, gives figures about the registration of new carpool members and active carpool behaviour of the employees. Following the 3rd mobility lottery draw, the number of registered carpoolers has grown from 504 to 562 (+10.3%) for Top. This is the result after the carpool week and three lottery draws. There is no information available about the previous transport mode of the carpoolers, but for the calculations we take the total solo car drivers modal share. Effects on energy and emissions

Because of the CHUMS measures, an annual saving of 458 litres of fuel is realised. This results in a total annual energy savings of 0.38 toe and CO2 emission savings of 1.33 tonnes. 3.2.2

Héliopole Business Area

3.2.2.1


On site, there are 9 organisations containing anything from less than 200 employees to more than 500 employees, and 1 organization of less than 50 employees. In total there are 2,100 employees (300 public and 1,800 private) on site. 3.2.2.2




There are no parking restrictions (one space per employee) or parking costs in the PDIE Héliopole area. 3.2.2.3


The mode share statistics for PDIE Héliopole are 71% single occupancy car, 3% multiple occupancy car, 21% public transport and 5% cycling and walking. The average number of car occupancy is 1.02 persons/car.

37

Table 3-22 Modal split, Héliopole area

The number of trips during the rush hour is 1,449 cars. This number is a maximum, because not all employees will be at the office at the same time, because of part time work, holidays, sickness and other reasons. The total number of car trips per year is 605,682. Distance travelled

For PDIE Héliopole commute car commute distances range from 17 to 35 kilometres, with an average of 24 km. The annual number of car trips multiplied by the average distance of a car trips give the annual number of car km, which is 14,536,368 km. Use of a carpool system

In March 2015, before the CHUMS actions were implemented, Héliopole had 61 carpoolers. 3.2.2.4




The total annual fuel consumption for commuting car trips by the Héliopole employees is 1,036,510 litres. Energy consumption

The total annual energy consumption for commuting car trips by the Héliopole employees is 871 toe. CO2 emissions

The total annual emissions due to commuting car trips by the Héliopole employees is 2,586 tonnes CO2.

38

3.2.2.6


Because there is no questionnaire carried out for PDIE Héliopole after the first promotion of the CHUMS measures, no data are available describing their changed attitude towards carpooling. Carpooling behaviour

The carpooling software, however, gives figures about the registration of new carpool members and active carpool behaviour of the employees. Following the 3rd mobility lotery draw, the number of registered carpoolers grew from 61 to 75 for Héliopole (+18.6%). This is the result after the carpool week and three lottery draws. There is no information available about the previous transport mode of the carpoolers, but for the calculations we take the total solo car drivers modal share. Effects on energy and emissions

Because of the CHUMS measures, an annual saving of 2,037 litres of fuel is realised. This results in a total annual energy savings of 1.71 toe and CO2 emission savings of 5.92 tonnes. 3.2.3

Target groups second promotion, 2016

3.2.3.1


The target group was expanded for the second carpool week. Not only Héliopole and TOP, but every company registered to the SMTC-Tisséo carpooling service was part of the eligible target. 14 companies and administrations participated, representing 11,224 employees :  Aéroport Toulouse Blagnac  Airbus Defence and Space  AXA Balma  CIRSO  CEM  CONTINENTAL  Héliopole  INRA  LIEBHERR AEROSPACE  Mairie de Blagnac  Mairie de Ramonville  Pôle Emploi Balma  Rockwell Collins  Santerne Toulouse

39

3.2.3.2




There are no parking restrictions or parking costs. Some companies, such as Liebherr, make available carpooling parking places. 3.2.3.3


According to the results of the end-user questionnaire, 66% of the employees are coming by car (driver or passenger). The average number of car occupancy is 1.17 persons/car. The number of trips during the rush hour is 6,847 cars. This number is a maximum, because not all employees will be at the office at the same time, because of part time work, holidays, sickness and other reasons. The total number of car trips per year is 2,861,896.

Toulouse: modal split 12%

5%

2%

car driver (alone)

4%

car driver (with passenger)

5%

car passenger

7%

bus train 5%

moto 50% 11%

bike foot other

Table 3-23 Modal split, target groups second promotion 2016

Distance travelled

According to the end-user questionnaire, the average car commute distance to work is 24.12 km. The annual number of car trips multiplied by the average distance of a car trips give the annual number of car km, which is 69,028,920 km. 40

Use of a carpool system

Before the CHUMS actions, there were 484 registered carpoolers. 3.2.3.4




The total annual fuel consumption for commuting car trips by the employees is 4,922,079 litres. Energy consumption

The total annual energy consumption for commuting car trips by the employees is 4,136 toe. CO2 emissions

The total annual emissions due to commuting car trips by the employees is 12,282 tonnes CO2. 3.2.3.6


According to the end-user questionnaire, 56% of the employees is aware of a carpooling service. 52% of the employees consider carpooling as an option for their commute trip. In general, 63% of the employees would consider making use of a carpooling service in the future. There is however a big difference between employees who experienced the CHUMS measures and employees who did not: Awareness =

33% (without CHUMS measures) 62% (carpool week) 79% (PTP) 95% (Mobility Jackpot)

Note that most of the employees who experience the mobility jackpot or (to a lesser extent) the PTP also experienced in most cases also the carpool week, so the results of PTP and mobility jackpot are the impact of combined effects of CHUMS measures. In addition, persons that were participating in the mobility jackpot are already testing carpooling, so on beforehand they already were more convinced than the other groups to try it. The attitude towards carpooling also changes based on the CHUMS measures they did or did not experience before:

41

Consider making use of a 43% (without CHUMS measures) carpooling service for their 54% (carpool week) commute trip = 61% (PTP) 75% (Mobility Jackpot) So, the awareness and attitude towards carpooling schemes for commuting increases for all CHUMS measures. This is more for PTP than carpoolweek, but most people with PTP also experienced the carpool week, so both measures strengthen each other. The same is valid for the mobility jackpot. And people participating to the jackpot already considered trying carpooling, so their awareness/attitude towards carpooling is probably already there before they participate in the lottery. Carpooling behaviour

25% of the employees is using a carpooling service. 7.3% is using the carpooling service for their commute trips. According to the results of the end-user questionnaire, PTP and mobility jackpot were the most effective to stimulate employees to register in the carpooling software. The reduction of travel costs is the most important reason to carpool. Environmental friendliness comes as the second most given reason. Why do you carpool for this trip? [To reduce costs] 5 50% [Environmental friendly] 3 30% [To experiment with carpooling] 1 10% [Because of social interaction] 1 10% Table 3-24 Reasons why persons carpool in Toulouse, source:end-user questionnaire

The carpooling software gives figures about the registration of new carpool members and active carpool behaviour of the employees. The number of carpoolers increases after the carpool week from 484 subscribers to 625 subscribers (+28.9%). During the three lottery draws, this number increases slightly towards 669 subscribers (+37.9% in comparison with the situation before the CHUMS measures).

42

Table 3-25 Number of registered carpool members at Toulouse, source: carpool software SMTC-Tisséo

The number of active carpoolers increases even more. During the carpool week the number of active carpoolers increases from 97 to 103 (+6.2%). During the three lottery draws, this number increases even more to 111 active carpoolers (+14.4%).

Table 3-26 Number of active carpool members at Toulouse, source: carpool software SMTC-Tisséo

Also the total distance that employees carpool has increased significantly: +8.9% during the carpool week, and +11.8% after the three lottery draws.

43

Table 3-27 Number of carpooled kilometres at Toulouse, source: carpool software SMTC-Tisséo

The questionnaire registers that 73% of the new carpoolers were car drivers alone. Effects on energy and emissions

Because of the CHUMS measures, an annual saving of 6,564 litres of fuel is realised. This results in a total annual energy savings of 5.52 toe and CO2 emission savings 16.38 tonnes. Attitude towards the CHUMS measures

Employees who experienced the carpool week were mostly positive in their judgement of this CHUMS measure. They found it useful, pleasant and effective. There is more doubt about whether the carpool week is raising awareness, but even then, the carpool week is scored rather positively.

[Useless | Useful] [Unpleasant | Pleasant] [Superfluous | Effective] [Irritating | Likeable] [Lowering | Raising awareness]

1+2 8% 10% 13% 9% 23%

3 24% 35% 26% 47% 43%

4+5 68% 55% 62% 44% 34%

Table 3-28 Rating of the carpool week, employees Toulouse; 78 respondents 1: very negative, 2: negative, 3: neutral, 4:positive, 5: very positive

Employees who have received a PTP were mostly positive in their judgement of this CHUMS measure. They found it useful, pleasant, effective, likeable and raising awareness.


1+2 14% 5% 14% 5% 18%

3 23% 23% 18% 36% 23%

4+5 64% 73% 68% 59% 59%

Table 3-29 Rating of the mobility jackpot, employees Toulouse; 22 respondents 1: very negative, 2: negative, 3: neutral, 4:positive, 5: very positive

44

Employees who have participated in the mobility jackpot were mostly positive in their judgement of this CHUMS measure. They found it useful, pleasant, effective, likeable and raising awareness.


1+2 17% 17% 25% 17% 21%

3 17% 29% 25% 21% 29%

4+5 67% 54% 50% 63% 50%

Table 3-30 Rating of the PTP, employees Toulouse; 24 respondents 1: very negative, 2: negative, 3: neutral, 4:positive, 5: very positive

3.2.4

Overview Toulouse site Impact analysis

At the Toulouse site, there are almost 130,000 car kilometres saved every year, as a result of the CHUMS measures.

Table 3-31 Total savings after the CHUMS measures for the site of Toulouse; *: in the 2016 target group there is an overlap of 3,830 employees of Top and Héliopole

Lessons learned

The CHUMS measures were very effective in Toulouse. Especially the second phase was much easier and effective, because the involvement of the companies was there, and even formalised in a charter. There is a need to repeat the carpool message, because people forget about it. So, the CHUMS measures must be organised on a permanent basis. SMTC-Tisséo is now training the companies how they can develop carpooling promotion in the company, so they can unroll their own carpool campaigns.

45

3.3

Perugia The CHUMS demonstration site in Italy based in the city of Perugia was focused on the promotion of carpooling to two target groups:  employees of the Municipality of Perugia  employees of the University of Perugia who are based in the central area of the city

3.3.1

Municipality of Perugia

3.3.1.1


This target group consists of 932 employees of the Municipality of Perugia. Half of them are between 50 and 59 years old. Most of the employees are female (62%).

Table 3-32 Gender and age distribution, Municipality of Perugia

Out of the seven Municipality buildings, four are in the city centre within the Limited Traffic Zone (LTZ)1 (Palazzo Grossi, Palazzo dei Priori, Palazzo Penna and via Oberdan), one is in the city centre but not within the LTZ (via Scarlatti) and two are in peripheral areas (Cantiere Pian di Massiano and Polizia Municipale Madonna Alta). Almost half of the employees (49%) are working within the Limited Traffic Zone. 21% of the employees work in the city centre, but not within the LTZ and 29% works in a peripheral area.

1

See Error! Reference source not found. Existing policies, Perugia, for more information. 46

Table 3-33 Employees per workplace, Municipality of Perugia

3.3.1.2


In addition to the national and regional policies described in W4.1, there is the Home-Work Journey Plan for Municipal Employees including the following main permissive actions: 1) Making public transport more attractive: Multimodal integration of the public transport system as a priority measure for the city over the next 10 years, with the emphasis on creating a network of high quality interchange stops creating a better integration of all transport modes in the city of Perugia. 3) Communicating PT service to potential users: Providing a wide and clear idea of the opportunities offered by the PT network - a short report with useful information related to possible solutions to their commuting problems (suggestions on available routes, possible modal interchanges...) was sent by e-mail to potential PT users. 4) Promoting carpooling solution: Providing the FI-Start web portal to facilitate matching of those offering a ride with those requesting a ride and implementation of electronic gated parking filtering access to a reserved parking area, allowing only the car-poolers crews registered in the gate and composed of at least 3 people (see below). 5) Raising awareness about economic impact of car use (internal costs2): The costs related to car parking (at Pellini car park, closest to MUPER offices) and to the PT network use have been compared with the monthly gross salary of different professional profiles included in the organizational chart of the Municipality (B3, B4, C1, D1), in order to emphasize the economic percentage impact on personal income due to different means of transport. 6) Raising awareness about social and environmental impact of car use (external costs) 7) Raising awareness about the relationship between health and transport 8) Raising awareness about park & ride solutions 9) Raising awareness about teleworking option

2

The internal costs, or private costs, are those borne directly by the individual user of transport services. For example, for road transport, these costs include car purchase, fuel, maintenance, taxes, charges and premiums, and the cost of spending time 47

Parking places available

At the Municipality of Perugia there are no dedicated parking areas reserved for employees. In the city centre, both the employer’s sites rely on public parking areas with charges as detailed in following table.

Parking name Piazza Partigiani Viale Pellini Mercato Coperto Briglie di Braccio Sant’Antonio Piazzale Europa

No. of car parking Hourly rate (€) spaces 1.50 (1st hour) 550 1.90 (from 2nd on) 1.50 (1st hour) 315 1.90 (from 2nd on) 1.90 (1st hour) 200 2.50 (from 2nd on) 1.50 (1st hour) 235 1.60 (from 3rd on) 1.50 (1st hour) 210 1.60 (from 3rd on) 1.10 (1st hour) 620 1.50 (from 2nd on)

Parking spaces along the road (prices are higher the closer the space is to the City centre)

From 1.35 up to 2.70

Daily rate Monthly (€) rate (€) 17.00

95.50

17.00

95.50

--

164.50

17.00

95.50

17.00

95.50

17.00

84.00

--

Table 3-34 Public parking places in the city centre of Perugia

3.3.1.3


A specific problem identified by the Municipality of Perugia is the very low levels of multiple occupancy car use amongst its own employees. While the city of Perugia as a whole has 34% single occupancy car trips and 32% multiple occupancy car trips, the respective figures for Municipality employees are 48% single occupancy car trips and only 10% multiple occupancy car trips3. Average vehicle occupancy for Municipal employees is 1.09 persons per car. Municipality employees thus provide a main the focus of the CHUMS implementation in Perugia. According to the results of the end-user questionnaire, there are 57% single car trips and 16% multiple occupancy car trips. However, a big part of the multiple occupancy car trips is due to bringing children or other family members to the crib/school/etc. Only 3% of the employees are car passengers, so the vehicle occupancy at arrival at work is only 1.05 persons per car. If we include the family carpooling into account, the car occupancy is at least 1.22 persons per car. 77% of the employees are coming by car (driver or passenger), 12% takes the public transport (bus and train) to come to work and 8% comes by foot. Cycling however is not a popular transport mode in Perugia.

3

General information from stakeholder survey 48

Table 3-35 Modal split, Municipality of Perugia

The number of car trips during the rush hour is 683 cars. This number is a maximum, because not all employees will be at the office at the same time, because of part time work, holidays, sickness and other reasons. The total number of car trips per year is 276,621. Distance travelled

According to the results of the end-user questionnaire, the average trip length for Municipality employees is 12.29 km. A large part of trips (37%) has a trip length between 5 and 9 km. 85% of all trips are below 20 km distance.

Table 3-36 Trip length, Municipality of Perugia

There are differences in trip length between the different transport modes. Car users (drivers and passengers) have an average trip length of 13.21 km; employees who come on foot to their work have an average trip length of 1.56 km.

49

Transport mode

Average distance

Car Bus Train Motorcycle or PWT Bicycle On foot Other All

13.21 14.02 19.25 5.56 1.56 6 12.29

Nb of respondents (weighted) 176 23 5 5 18 2 229

Table 3-37 Average distance per transport mode, Municipality of Perugia

The annual number of car trips multiplied by the average distance of a car trip, gives the annual number of car km, which is 3,652,874 km. Use of a carpool system

Only 3 to 4% of the employees make (sometimes) use of a carpool system for their daily commuting trip. 6% of all employees have already made use of a carpool system once before (also for other trip purposes than commuting). 3.3.1.4


In general only 41% of the employees are aware of a carpooling websites/ schemes available for them. 62% of the employees would consider carpooling in the future. This number does dependent on several characteristics: 

People seem to be more likely to consider carpooling if they are aware of a carpooling system, although this is not statistically significant under a 95% confidence interval (p=0.17). Would consider carpooling Aware of carpooling website/scheme 67% Not aware of carpooling website/scheme 58% Table 3-38 Awareness and willingness to carpool in relation to awareness of carpooling websites/schemes, Municipality of Perugia



The willingness to carpool is not directly related to the gender of a person. The difference in following table is not statistically significant (p=0.52). Aware of carpooling Would consider Gender websites/schemes carpooling male 42% 59% female 40% 64%

number of respondents 101 137

Table 3-39 Awareness and willingness to carpool in relation to gender, Municipality of Perugia

50



There are no statistically significant differences in willingness to carpool depending on the current transport mode the employees are using.

Transport mode car driver alone car driver with passengers car passenger bus train motorcycle or PWT bicycle on foot

Aware of carpooling Would consider websites/schemes carpooling 34% 62% 66% 63% 14% 57% 29% 62% 50% 50% 20% 40% 53% 71%

number of respondents 136 38 7 21 4 5 0 17

Table 3-40 Awareness and willingness to carpool in relation to transport mode, Municipality of Perugia



The younger the employee, the higher the chance that he/she would consider carpooling. This differences are statistically significant (p