ACP Insights & Guidance
Travel plan monitoring checks whether agreed measures are in place, how people travel and whether the plan is meeting its objectives. Set up the arrangements before occupation so the evidence leads to action.
The practical answer
Follow the approved monitoring commitments. Name a coordinator, fund the programme and compare surveys using consistent definitions. When results fall short, check the evidence and delivery before agreeing corrective action, an owner and the next review.
Start with the approved travel plan commitments
Read the approved plan alongside the permission, conditions and any relevant legal agreement. Extract the monitoring dates, survey requirements, reporting route and responsibilities. Do not rely on a generic timetable if the project has specific commitments.
The current England transport policy, TR6, describes travel plans that deliver, monitor and manage sustainable transport objectives over time. It also refers to fallback options where initial measures do not achieve the expected outcomes. That makes the response process part of the plan, not an afterthought.
For the earlier planning stage, see our transport assessment and transport statement comparison. This guide focuses on what happens after the travel plan has been agreed.
Give travel plan monitoring an owner and a budget
Name the travel plan coordinator and explain the role’s authority, time allocation and reporting line. Also identify who pays for surveys, communications and agreed measures. A job title without resources will not deliver the programme.
For multi-occupier or phased schemes, allocate responsibilities across the developer, management organisation and occupiers. Record the handover arrangements and explain who maintains continuity when personnel change.
Keep a current contact list for the authority, survey provider and site management team. In addition, identify who can approve corrective measures. This avoids a monitoring report reaching the right inbox but producing no action.
Build a monitoring programme around comparable evidence
| Element | Record | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Survey date, occupancy, population, method and conditions. | What does this result represent? |
| Target | Metric, denominator, target date and agreed definition. | Are later results genuinely comparable? |
| Measures | Delivery status, responsible party and evidence. | Were the promised interventions actually implemented? |
| Monitoring | Survey scope, results, response rate and limitations. | What changed, and how confident is the interpretation? |
| Corrective action | Action, owner, funding, deadline and verification. | How will the next review test the response? |
Agree the survey method with the relevant authority. London guidance distinguishes monitoring approaches for different types of travel plan; that does not create one universal national procedure. Use the method required by the actual approval.
Record significant changes in occupation, working patterns, public transport provision or site access. They may affect interpretation. However, do not use a changed circumstance as an automatic reason to abandon an agreed target.
Define the target before comparing percentages
A percentage needs a denominator. For example, a share of surveyed employees is not necessarily the same measure as a share of all trips entering a site. State the population, question and calculation basis so future surveys can reproduce the comparison.
Also distinguish percentage points from percentage change. In an illustrative example, moving from 40% to 35% represents a reduction of five percentage points. It is not a five per cent relative reduction. Clear reporting avoids overstating or understating progress.
Look beyond one headline figure. Low response rates, changing respondent groups or unusual survey days can limit the conclusion. The report should explain those limitations and identify whether further evidence is needed.
Check delivery as well as travel behaviour
Maintain a record of the measures actually introduced. Examples might include travel information, coordinator activity, cycle facilities or agreed public transport initiatives. The relevant measures should come from the approved plan and local context.
Then ask whether users can access and understand them. A facility may exist on a drawing but be difficult to find, poorly maintained or unavailable to the intended group. Monitoring should help identify those practical barriers.
Where the plan informs other environmental commitments, share material changes with the relevant specialists. Our air quality assessment team may need to review transport assumptions used in related evidence. Keep that coordination proportionate to the change.
Agree corrective action when targets are missed
First, check the data quality and the status of the agreed measures. Next, identify plausible reasons for the result and discuss them with the responsible parties. A missed target needs an evidence-based response, not simply a new target that matches current performance.
Consider feasible additional or revised measures under the plan’s agreed process. Record who will implement them, the funding source and the completion date. Seek the authority’s agreement where the approval or legal mechanism requires it.
Finally, explain how the next monitoring round will test the response. An action such as ‘encourage cycling’ is too vague to track. A defined intervention with an owner, date and evidence requirement is much more useful.
Example: occupation changes between survey rounds
Illustrative review
A workplace’s second survey shows a higher car-driver share. Meanwhile, occupancy has increased and a new shift pattern has started. The coordinator records those changes and checks the survey method and response profile.
The team then reviews whether the promised measures were delivered and whether they suit the new travel patterns. It agrees practical adjustments, documents any required authority agreement and sets a date for checking implementation.
The example does not establish that the target should change. It shows how monitoring can distinguish data issues, delivery gaps and changed circumstances before selecting a response.
Keep the monitoring report concise and actionable
Present the approved commitments, measures delivered, survey method, results and target comparison. Explain limitations and material changes. Then finish with an action table that identifies ownership and deadlines.
Retain supporting evidence securely and avoid collecting unnecessary personal information. Report aggregate findings where they meet the monitoring purpose. Agree data handling with the survey provider before approaching occupants.
Finally, schedule the next review and hand over the records when management changes. The travel plan should remain usable after the original project team leaves.
| Record | Check and action |
|---|---|
| Approval and scope | Record the approved plan version, planning reference, reporting period, site occupation and named coordinator. |
| Survey basis | State the date, method, eligible population, number of responses and response rate. Explain changes from the baseline. |
| Target comparison | Show the baseline, current result, target and target date together. Use the same denominator and distinguish percentage points from relative change. |
| Delivery and interpretation | List the measures delivered and outstanding. Explain data limitations and the likely reasons for any gap. |
| Action and accountability | Give each agreed action an owner, funding source, deadline and evidence of completion. Record any required authority agreement. |
| Next review | State the next survey or reporting date, who receives the report and how the response will be checked. |
Use this as the report’s summary page, with methods and supporting evidence in clearly labelled appendices. It is an original coordination checklist, not a replacement for the approved reporting requirements.
Common questions
How often should travel plan monitoring take place?
Follow the approved plan, conditions and relevant agreement. Generic examples such as annual or multi-year surveys do not replace the project’s actual monitoring programme.
Who is responsible after the developer leaves?
The approved arrangements should identify the successor role or organisation. Record the handover, funding and contact details so responsibility does not disappear when staff or ownership change.
Does a missed target mean the travel plan has failed?
It signals a need for review under the agreed process. Check data quality, delivery and circumstances, then implement and monitor the appropriate corrective response.
Can a target be changed after a survey?
Do not revise it unilaterally to fit the result. Check the approved process and obtain any required agreement, supported by a clear explanation and evidence.
Is a questionnaire enough for every travel plan?
Not necessarily. The monitoring method should match the approval and relevant authority guidance. Different plans can require different survey approaches.
References and scope
England-focused operational guide with London-specific references clearly identified. It does not amend an approved travel plan or determine compliance with a condition or agreement.
- GOV.UK. National Planning Policy Framework, Chapter 15, TR6: Assessing transport impacts.Current England policy page checked 29 October 2026; delivery, monitoring and fallback context.
- GOV.UK. Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements.Planning practice guidance on proportionate, locally tailored travel planning. Historic policy paragraph references are not treated as current numbering.
- Transport for London. How we monitor the progress of travel plans.London-specific monitoring guidance; confirm the method applicable to the project approval.
- Transport for London. What a travel plan should contain.Supporting guidance on management, funding, monitoring and action plans; example frequencies are not national rules.