Mode share targets in a Travel Plan and how to evidence them

Travel plan mode share targets fail review for the same reason most of the time: they are aspirations with no baseline, no measurement method and no consequence for missing them. A target that a highway officer will accept has four parts. A stated baseline with a source, a defined shift, a date by which it is achieved, and a survey method that will produce a comparable number when the time comes.

Get those four right and the rest of the document writes itself.

What makes a target measurable

Mode share is the proportion of trips to and from a site made by each mode: car driver, car passenger, public transport, cycling, walking and, increasingly, remote working counted separately for workplaces.

A usable target names the mode, the direction, the size of the change and the deadline. Reducing the car driver share from a stated baseline by a stated number of percentage points within five years of first occupation is measurable. Encouraging sustainable travel is not.

Two conventions worth fixing early. Decide whether targets are expressed in percentage points or as a relative percentage change, because a reduction from 60 per cent to 54 per cent is six percentage points and a 10 per cent relative reduction, and the two get confused in monitoring reports. And decide whether the denominator is all trips, commuting trips only, or trips in the peak hours, since a residential Travel Plan and a workplace one usually count different things.

Baselines and where they come from

Three sources do the work, and each has a weakness.

Census travel to work data published by the Office for National Statistics gives method of travel to workplace by small area, and it is the standard starting point for a workplace target. It is free, it is granular, and it is a snapshot of one point in time. The 2021 census in particular was taken during a period of unusual working patterns, so the home working figure and the reduced public transport figure need commentary rather than direct adoption.

Site surveys of an existing operation give the real picture where the site is occupied and the scheme is an expansion. Response rates matter, and a survey with a low response is easy for a reviewer to discount.

Comparable site data, including the multi-modal records held in the national trip rate database, fills the gap for a new build with no occupier. Select comparison sites on public transport accessibility, parking provision and location type rather than on land use alone, and list the sites used.

State which source you have relied on for each mode, and be honest where the baseline is an estimate. An officer will accept a reasoned estimate. They will not accept a number with no provenance.

Setting a shift that stands up

The realistic ceiling for a travel plan working on its own is modest. Behaviour change measures alone shift a few percentage points over five years. Larger shifts come from physical provision and from constraint, particularly the amount of parking provided.

So the sequence runs: fix the parking, then set the target. A scheme with one space per unit and a bus stop 400 metres away cannot credibly target a 15 point reduction in car driver share, whatever the measures list says. A scheme with unbundled parking, a car club bay and a controlled parking zone around it can.

A five-year plan with interim milestones at years one and three is the usual structure, because it lets remedial measures be triggered before the end date rather than at it. Set the year one target close to the baseline, since occupation patterns take time to settle and an early miss against an ambitious figure creates a dispute over nothing.

Measures that justify each percentage point

Each target needs a line of measures behind it, and the connection should be explicit rather than a list at the back of the document.

• cycle parking above the local minimum, secure and covered, with showers, lockers and drying space for a workplace
• a travel plan coordinator, named or by role, with funded time and a stated day allocation
• welcome packs and personalised travel planning for new occupiers in the first weeks, when habits form
• car club membership and an on-site bay, which does more for residential targets than most measures
• parking management: permit allocation, unbundling from leases, charging, and enforcement
• public transport information and, where justified, a period of subsidised travel
• electric vehicle charging, which changes emissions rather than mode share and should not be claimed as a mode shift measure

That last point is worth stating in the document. Reviewers notice when the measures schedule pads out with items that cannot affect the metric being targeted.

Illustrative example: a five-year target

Illustrative example. A workplace scheme has a baseline car driver share of 62 per cent, taken from census travel to work data for the surrounding area with an adjustment for the site's parking ratio. The plan targets 54 per cent within five years of occupation, with an interim milestone of 59 per cent at year three.

The eight percentage points are attributed as follows in the plan: parking permit allocation and charging carrying roughly half, cycle facilities and a shower and locker provision carrying two points, a car share matching scheme and priority bays carrying one, and personalised travel planning and information carrying the balance. Whether those attributions are exactly right is less important than the fact that each has a measure against it and a cost.

Monitoring surveys at years one, three and five use the same questionnaire and the same census-comparable mode categories, so the numbers can actually be compared. All figures in this example are illustrative.

Monitoring, remedial measures and securing

Monitoring is what makes the target real. The plan should state the survey method, the timing, the minimum response rate, who carries it out and who receives the report.

Where a target is missed, the plan needs a remedial mechanism: a defined process by which additional measures from a reserve list are implemented, with a further survey to test whether they worked. Reserve measures should be costed in the original document, otherwise the remedial step becomes a negotiation.

Securing is normally through a section 106 agreement rather than a condition, because obligations to fund a coordinator, pay a monitoring fee and implement future measures are hard to draft as conditions. Expect the agreement to cover the approved plan, the monitoring fee, the survey obligations and, on larger schemes, a financial contribution triggered by sustained underperformance.

Councils vary in how hard they enforce. That is not a reason to write a weak plan, since an unenforced obligation still sits on the title and surfaces at the next application on the site.

Framework, interim and full travel plans

Three versions exist and they are not interchangeable.

A framework travel plan sits above a multi-phase or multi-occupier development, setting the targets, the governance and the obligations that each occupier's own plan must meet. It is the right document for an outline permission where the end users are unknown.

An interim travel plan is prepared where occupancy details are not yet settled, containing the baseline assumptions and the measures, and is replaced by a full plan once occupiers are known.

A full travel plan is site and occupier specific, with actual survey baselines. Councils normally require it to be approved before first occupation.

Whichever version applies, the travel plan should share its numbers with the Transport Assessment or transport statement submitted alongside. Where the assessment assumed one mode split for trip generation and the travel plan targets another, a consultee will ask which is right, and the answer that the assessment was conservative rarely survives the follow-up question.

Where parking provision underpins the target, on-street evidence from a Parking Survey carried out to the established overnight methodology gives the council something to weigh against local objections about displacement.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which transport documents a scheme is likely to need, then send the draft for professional review.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.