Accessibility is usually discussed in terms of buildings: step-free access, accessible toilets, adjustable desks. All essential. But there’s another, less visible layer of accessibility that most organisations never examine – whether people can actually get to the building at all, in reasonable time, by a realistic mode of transport.

This is where workforce travel mapping earns its keep.

What the mapping actually shows

Using anonymised home postcode data, workforce travel mapping builds a realistic picture of where employees live in relation to a site – and calculates genuine travel times by car, public transport, cycling and walking, reflecting real infrastructure, not straight-line distance.

The results are frequently more revealing than expected. It’s common to find:

• Clusters of staff with significantly longer or less reliable journeys than leadership assumed
• Public transport “deserts” – areas with poor service that effectively exclude candidates without a car
• Disparities in accessible travel options for staff with mobility needs, caring responsibilities or non-standard hours
• Mismatches between where recruitment is targeted and where people can realistically travel from

Why this matters beyond transport

This isn’t simply a transport planning exercise. It has direct implications for:

• Recruitment: are you unintentionally limiting your talent pool to those who can afford a car or live within a narrow public transport corridor?
• Site strategy: is a proposed new office, depot or hub actually accessible to the workforce you expect to staff it?
• Equity and inclusion: are certain groups structurally disadvantaged in their ability to reach your sites?
• ESG reporting: can you evidence equitable access as part of your social value or inclusion commitments?

From map to decision

A workforce accessibility map isn’t an end in itself – it’s a decision-making tool. It gives HR, estates and ESG leads a shared, evidenced starting point for conversations that are often currently based on anecdote: “people seem to struggle getting here,” or “I think most of our team drive in.”

Replacing “I think” with “we know” is a small shift in language, but a significant shift in the quality of decisions that follow.