There are currently few direct financial benefits from dealing with transport than minimising energy and water use or waste generation. The main financial aspect is the opportunity to raise more money from car parking to partially or wholly finance environmental measures in transport or other fields. Although there is always user resistance, Bristol (see the HEEPI case) and some other universities have shown that it can be done.

The business arguments for taking transport seriously are therefore more intangible but still important. They include:

Government policies are moving towards minimising car use by making it more difficult and expensive, especially at peak periods. It seems likely that congestion charging will become more common, and possible that parking place taxes might be introduced. In the medium-long term, this could mean that student choices about where to study are more influenced by transport factors.

As transport is a growing environmental and political issue, both nationally and at local level, it is a key indicator for an organisation's environmental reputation (which can influence credibility with stakeholders and recruitment)

Reducing the number of staff / student vehicles on campus can be beneficial to the environment, but where charging schemes for car parking are in operation, it can be disadvantageous to ‘environmental levies' that help fund alternatives to the car i.e. cycling provision and public transport.

However not addressing these issues or charging for parking can have the same negative effect, in that car parks require maintenance and security provision. The case of the University of Bristol demonstrates this, where in 1998 some spaces were being let commercially for £1,400 per year whilst many staff were paying only £29 per year. Overall, the cost of maintaining and operating the car parks was in the region of £90,000 per year, which was £20,000 greater than the income.