Visit the NZ Transport Agency website
www.nzta.govt.nz
Travel behaviour change evaluation procedures
Technical report
Print version: Travel behaviour change evaluation procedures (PDF, 1.57 MB, 98 pages)
6. Funding, monitoring and review
6.1 Overlap with public transport funding
Possible grey areas for the TBhC procedures are the provision of information and marketing that promotes public transport and makes it easier to understand and use, and public transport subsidies as part of workplace travel plans. It could be argued that councils are already being funded to invest in this through the public transport funding policy, which contains incentives to increase patronage. If councils could in future obtain funding for such activities under the TBhC category there would be potential for them to be funded twice for the same benefits.
Public transport marketing and information cannot easily be excluded from the TBhC category as it is an intrinsic element to many TBhC projects. This is because public transport is one of the logical alternatives to private car travel and a TBhC project is likely to be less effective if it cannot include public transport related marketing.
Perhaps there is a case for including public transport information in TBhC initiatives/packages when undertaking the evaluation but Transfund then adjusting the funding that is provided for the TBhC project on the basis that some of it will be funded out of the additional funding likely to be received for the increased patronage.
6.2 Monitoring
Monitoring issues and recommendations are addressed in the Guidance Handbook. Further information is alsocontained in the Literature Review report.
6.3 Other issues
Consideration may also need to be given to additional rules setting out the procedures to be followed when a TBhC proposal includes significant infrastructure such as cycle paths and footpaths or other components covered by existing Transfund procedures. This may be necessary to ensure consistency and to minimise any incentive for proponents to artificially incorporate such projects into a TBhC project because it is perceived that more funding might be available for TBhC projects or because the project has been unsuccessful under another evaluation category. The need for any such rules/provisions should be monitored.
It is expected that the evaluation procedures proposed in this document would be reviewed and refined after one year to improve their ease of use and applicability, if necessary, following initial experience with their application. It is proposed that a more comprehensive review including default diversion rates should be undertaken in approximately three years when more evidence on effectiveness of different projects has become available from monitoring of initial TBhC projects. The procedures themselves may not need significant change after this time but it is expected that at the least some of the profiling information, composite benefit values and diversion rates would be revised and refined.
In the medium to longer term, if TBhC is successful, it may become possible for Transfund to define a range of common small-scale TBhC project types that are known to be effective and to provide councils with a lump sum allocation that they can use for projects meeting these criteria without each project needing to be separately approved by Transfund. Such a system could be similar to that currently used for funding minor safety works, or possibly patronage funding.
Page created: 29 October 2008