Wim Korver/Henk Pauwels

12 October 20110

Policy Evaluation Task Policy Evaluation Task Force Mobility Force Mobility ManagementManagement

Content

- Why a Taskforce- Research Design- Regional development TFMM- Regional agreements with

employers- Mobility Management

measures by employers- Mobility effects- Process aspects- Conclusions- What happened afterwards

Why a Task Force Mobilitity Management? _1

- Ministry of Environment: intention to make MM compulsory by law for all employers (> 50 employees) (initiated by Parliament resolution, November 2004)

- Employers organisations and trade unions: “we will come with an alternative based on a voluntary approach”

- Recommendation “Mobility Management” of the The Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER) in 2006

- combination of measures on central governmental level and regional/local binding agreements based on a voluntary commitment of employers being more effective than an obligatory mobility management plan

- Cabinet in September 2007: one year to come with proposals

Why a Task Force Mobilitity Management? _2

- September 2008: A proposal for Task Force Mobility Management- Two years to reach objectives - Funding by central government of 50 million Euro- September 2010 evaluation is needed

- Chaired by Lodewijk de Waal, former chairman of the largest Trade Union

- TFMM:- Central Taskforce with representatives of different organizations

- Regional Taskforces, led by public authorities

Objectives of TFMM

1. increasing the number of regions with a regional agreement (TFMM starting with six regions), and the number of employers and employees involved;

2. creating binding agreements with employers in regional agreements on the implementation of mobility management measures;

3. an irreversible process of growth in terms of structural application of such mobility management measures by employers to limit their employees' car use;

4. adapt collective agreements and the implementation of those collective agreements in various industries, and

5. as a result of the implementation of agreed MM measures a reduction of 5% of the number of kilometers during rush hour and the associated environmental emissions.

Research DesignResearch Design

2010 Policy Evaluation

Mid-term progress assessment: - Assess progress of implementation

(agreements, participation, MM-packages)- Assess mobility impacts

- Mobility Management = Work Place Travel Planning

4. Mobility management in collective agreements

1. More regions

2. Binding regional agreements

3. Irreversible growth process of mobility management

5. Mobility and environmental effects

6. Policy evaluation

• Survey ministry of Social Affairs• Survey AWVN• Interviews with employers

association en P&O organisation• Analysis

• Desk research periodic regional reports

• Additional information• Analysis

• Desk research regional agreements

• Interviews within regions (20)• Analysis

• Interviews employers (26)• Interviews representatives

industries (4)• Analysis

• Regional surveys for baseline• Regional surveys after

implementation of MM• Nation wide Internet panel

• Interviews members of Taskforce • Interaction with regions• Interviews with representatives

of the ministry of Transport

• Degree into which mobility related regulation is incorporated within collective labour agreements

• Employers and employees related to the TFMM

• The amount and character of implementation by employers of mobility management measures per region

• Assessment of structural embedding of mobility management by employers

• Reduction of car km within rush hour + environmental effect

• Lessons Learned• End report

Activities ResultObjective

Regional Diffusion

Of

Mobility Management

Regional Diffusion MM

- Starting with 6 six regions- End of 2010: 13 regions- 1.500 employers- Appr. 700.000 employees- 15% of all employees in

these regions- Strong representation of

governments, educational parties and financial industry. Less involvement of building and trade industry

- Average size TFMM employer: 400 employees

Number of Employers and employees related to the TFMM

Regions # Employers # Employees

Startingregions

Amsterdam 22 120.000

Arnhem-Nijmegen 212 80.000

Eindhoven-Den Bosch 69 100.000

The Hague 55 80.000

Rotterdam 108 62.322

Utrecht 343 139.000

Added regions 2008-2010

Drechtsteden 12 9.602

Maastricht 38 24.000

Stedendriehoek 14 8.385

Twente 639 25.000

Zwolle-Kampen 26 14.000

Verder via Veluwe 10 350

WERV Zuidelijke Vallei 6 6.330

TOTAL 1554 669.217

Regional Agreements with employers

Regional Agreement with employers (1)

- Taskforce Regions regional agreements Employers

- Model/standard agreement: limited use- Regional agreement worked as catalyst for creating

enthusiasm- Employers are reluctant for binding agreements- Combination with Mobility projects (‘Paid Peak

Avoidance’ show-cases to prove effect of pricing) speeded up the process

- Regional agreements based on already ongoing initiatives

- Limited interactions/negotiations between companies and public authorities

Regional Agreement with employers (2)

- The Mobility Broker played an important role

- MM measures are custom work: depending on the character and location of the organisation (generic MM measures are not effective)

- Reporting back from regional towards central TFMM turned out to be difficult

- Bottlenecks within regions:1) Nationwide operating employers (the head office versus the local office)

2) Fiscal regulation

Irreversible growth Irreversible growth process of Mobility process of Mobility Management measuresManagement measures

Employers are already active with Mobility Management

- 21 of 26 employers implemented MM during last two years

- Character Mobility Management measures:- 50% work related- 50% mobility related

- Much attention for stimulating (pull) measures: limited attention to push measures (e.g. paid parking)

Which MM measures do you actively support?

1822

1517

11 10

51

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

Flexible

workin

g tim

es

Mee

tings

Decreas

ing c

omm

uti..

Stimula

ting

PT

Telewor

king

Discour

age c

ar us

e f..

Trave

ling ou

tside

ru..

Stimula

ting

Bicycle

Car- an

df vanp

oolin

g

Implementation Mobility Management is driven by company objectives

What were the reasons to implement MM measures?

3,4 3,2 3,0

1,8 1,8 1,5 1,4 1,3

0

1

2

3

4

5

MM measures are irreversible

- MM measures are part of company MM measures are part of company regulationsregulations

- MM measures will have a structural impactMM measures will have a structural impact- Reversing MM measures is seen as negativeReversing MM measures is seen as negative

In which way are the MM measures implemented/regulated within your company?

5

14

5

2

8

1 1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Collebaritive

Labour

Arr

angem

ents

Com

pany

specific

labor

regula

tion

Com

pany

culture

Indiv

idual

agre

em

ents

Location

specific

agre

em

ents

Agre

em

ents

with o

ther

com

panie

s

Agre

em

ents

with p

ublic

bodie

s

Oth

er

Mobility effects

Base line travel survey & 1 measurement hardly available

Region Data

Usable?

Situation June 2010

Amsterdam Base line = previous work, 1 measurement not available

Brabant Travel survey going on

Drechtsteden Base line measurement

The Hague 1-measurement planned, no data

Arnhem-Nijmegen

1-measurement + panel data

Maastricht Base line measurement

Rotterdam Base line measurement

Stedendriehoek Base line measurement

Twente Base line measurement, only 4 employers

Utrecht Base line = previous work, 1-measurement = survey among PT Pass users

Verder via Veluwe

Base line measurement

WERV Base line measurement only 3 employers

Zwolle-Kampen Baseline measurement planned

Data availability for mobility analysis

Time Region # Surveys

Base line

Maastricht 5.970

Stedendriehoek 1.948

Rotterdam 5.149

Verder via veluwe 437

Drechtsteden 561

1- measurement

Arnhem Nijmegen (two samples) 2.717

Five starting regions (divided into TFMM related employers and a reference group of not involved employers), based on an internet panel

1.575

Personal factors:- moving house- other personal factors

Work related factors:- Other position or activities- change in number of working hours- different labour agreements- new agreements/regulation on flexible working times- Public transport pass- new company regulation or facility (other than working times)- encouragement by management- specific agreements with manager- specific mobility projects, as for instance Slim Prijzen Waalbrug in the Nijmegen area (peak avoidance)- other

Behavioural changes

Effect Mobility Management

Which MM measures offer employers to their employees? (five starting regions)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Promoting bicycle use

Promoting PT use

Meetings

Teleworking

Flexible working times

Discourage car use for business travel

Travelling outside the rush hours

Shortening home-work distance

Car –or vanpooling

TFMM-group Reference group

Net effect on rush hour car traffic

Behavioural change Five starting regionsInternet panel

Arnhem/Nijmegen (only employers participating in TFMM

TFMM group(n=575)

Reference -group(n=1005)

1measurement

(n=2219)

Panel-research (n=498)

Persons that have changed their mobility behaviour

30% 30% 30% 34%

Behavioural change related to mobility management

12% 11% 9% 10%

Net effect of mobility management on rush hour

traffic

2,1% 0,5% 0,9% 2,4%

Extra effect TFMM 1,5%

MM measure which caused the behavioural reaction (view of the employees within the five starting regions)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Teleworking & flexible working times

Encouragement from management

Public Transport Pass

New corperate regulation

Labour agreements

Specific agreements with manager

Different opening hours

TFMM-group Reference group

Process aspects (1)

- Adaptive policy: identifying new trends- Broadening MM to Smart Working (teleworking, ICT driven

new working conditions)

- More collaboration with other initiatives

- Monitoring and data collection was not easy - Information on regional activities and progress was lacking- Especially the 1-measurements were difficult - Better results in the regions which started later

- Implementing MM takes time- Preparing regional agreements - Collaborative agreements are made for two/three years- Within companies bureaucratic processes take time

Process aspects (2)

- What if a the obligation for a mobility management plan had become a law/regulation- Innovation (broadening) within MM would have become difficult

- Commitment of employers to certain MM measures could have been higher

Conclusions_1

- Mobility Management became a hot topic. The TFMM has played a role in this. What exactly is difficult to assess

- Identifying existing trends was positive

- Monitoring and data collection was not easy. Too much a top-down approach.

- Effect on mobility behaviour:- Extra effect for employers involved in the TFMM: 1,5%- The impact on the road was: appr. 0,2% (16% of 1,5%)- Changing departure time had the most influence, largely explained by work related changes (Smart Working)

- MM can be a very cost effective policy measure

Conclusions_2

- Environmental effect (CO2 emissions) lower than impact on rush hour traffic

- Employers are driven by their own objectives. Mobility management is only successful if it supports the objectives (e.g. cost reductions, being a good employer). Accessibility issues are seldom a driver for these companies)

- Implementing MM cost time. Both on the national, regional as well as the company level

What happened afterwards?

- Report was sent to the parliament in October 2010

- Cabinet agreed to continuation in new stage:- more direct involvement from employers (starting with 50 front-running major companies)

- Task Force becomes Platform Smart Working, Smart Travelling (SWSR)

- Other structure, same chairman (Lodewijk de Waal)

- New objective: at the end of 2012 one million employees can work smart

- Funding by the ministry: 10 million Euro

Thank you for your Thank you for your attentionattention