UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
BUDGET SUB-COMMITTEE
TRANSPORT POLICY SUB-COMMITTEE
9th July 2008
MINUTES
Chair
Present
Apologies
Secretary
Professor Temple, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Resources)
Ms Harrup, Mrs Leyland, Mr Nightingale, Mr Pearson, Dr Sellens, Mrs Totman, Mr
Wakeman, Mrs Williams, Mr McAuley (for Mr Barnard)
Mr Blackshaw, Dr Rich, Mr Barnard
Mrs Leyland, Transport Policy Coordinator
CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
37/08
STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS
Noted
Item 10 was requested to be starred.
38/08
Minutes of the 26th February 2008 meeting.
39/08
MINUTES
Approved
MATTERS ARISING
Noted
20/08
Deferred to next meeting.
40/08
23/08
The meeting had not taken place.
41/08
Agenda revised to amend the references to minutes covered under agenda items.
42/08
CAR PARKING POLICY
Noted
Mrs Leyland introduced the paper identifying the suggestion to defer the
introduction of formal carsharing to 2009/10 in view of the occasional users
permit being introduced in 2008/9, and the establishment of the ‘Car User Group’
which should be able to contribute to the development of a suitable scheme.
43/08
Mr McAuley noted that at the recent Car User Group meeting, members’ major
concern was for those who have no option but to use their car and their concerns
about the proposed change to the clamping service and the income the University
would forego.
44/08
Professor Temple gave a brief overview of the extensive discussions of the
previous meeting on this point; the requirement for training in clamping, that the
existing system was not working with a perceived increase in violations in
parking policy, and that fees from clamping were not offsetting the investment in
training. Mr Nightingale added that the time taken for each Patrol Officer to
45/08
organise their licensing combined with staff turnover and sickness compounded
the problem of having insufficient licenced officers for shifts. Secondly, patrol
officers’ principal duty is not car parking and they may be otherwise committed.
Thus it is evident that the clamping system is not being carried out in the way that
is required to make the policy effective and he referred members to the paper
being proposed under agenda item 8 to deal with this problem.
Agreed
Mrs Leyland noted another issue raised by the Car User Group with regard to the
proposed increase in P&D charges to 10p an hour and why the University was
doing it. She reported that when it does raise parking charges, the University will
need to make a very strong case for doing so.
46/08
With regard to the ‘Occasional Users’ car parking permit, Mrs Williams raised a
number of points that had come up at the recent Tuesday taster session on the
cycle to work scheme. People interested to switch to join the cycle to work
scheme had concerns about the fixed limit on the term-time car park usage (of no
more than the equivalent of two days per week) and of monitoring their usage of
it e.g. if they have used up their quota and then have unforeseen childcare
obligations that necessitate bringing their car in. Professor Temple emphasised
that the scheme was designed to be for ‘occasional users’ as an identified
exceptions category and not as an alternative to the standard permit, particularly
given the protracted deliberations in developing the current standard permit
system.
47/08
Committee agreed to take account of the reservations raised, and address on an
adhoc basis if individuals have a real issue, but to trial the permit with the limit
stated and to review it after a year.
48/08
PAYMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING FEES
Noted
Professor Temple introduced the agenda item, stating that there had been a long
discussion with divergent views at the last meeting and a recognition that if car
parkers avoid paying without being penalised this is unfair for those who do pay
and abide by the regulations. Discussion culminated in the question of how the
University could develop a system that would sufficiently sanction those that did
not pay while acknowledging the ethos of the University’s parking regulations.
49/08
Mr McAuley questioned why a programme of random clamping had not been
instituted. Mr Nightingale confirmed that there had been random clamping but
not often enough to sustainably affect behaviour. He reiterated that rigorous
clamping needed to commence at the beginning of the academic year so that
people driving on to campus realise that that they are liable to be clamped if they
fail to pay.
50/08
Mr Nightingale introduced the paper as being ‘commercial in confidence’ and
stated that it had been discussed with the campus union representative and was
developed on the basis of the earlier University decision not to outsource the
service. He identified two minor amendments to the proposed agreements, which
clarified clamp release waiting periods and noted that it might be necessary for
vehicles to be observed for 30 minutes. He informed the Committee that he had
been approached by two patrol staff who wished to provide the clamping service.
The Agreement had been verbally agreed by them but the fine detail had not yet
been finalised. The initial agreement was for a trial period of one year and would
be reviewed at regular intervals. The benefit of the proposed arrangement was
that the providers were sympathetic to the ethos of the University and they would
51/08
also be engaged for other provisional services, paid for from the Security budget
including, at the moment, the checking of the P&D machines. Current patrol
staff would still be licensed for a year to provide a fallback position.
Committee raised a number of questions. Mr Nightingale noted the difficulty of
contacting drivers of unregistered vehicles that were clamped and Mr Pearson’s
preference for a 30 minute period between observing an illegally parked car and
fitting a wheel clamp. He confirmed that the providers would take the clamping
fees directly (probably at the car) and that, if the overflow car parks were opened
up, people would not be clamped providing they were displaying the relevant
ticket. It was suggested that the providers assist with car parking.
52/08
Agreed
Committee supported the approach proposed and agreed on the need for clear
information to be made available to people about the scheme including which
areas they are allowed to park in, particularly the overflow car parks.
53/08
Noted
Mr Nightingale advised that appeals would be dealt with by the Security
Manager. He also confirmed that, on the principle of tender and having spoken
to the Deputy Director of Purchasing, it was not a competitive issue because it is
a trial, and the University is not actually paying for a service.
54/08
The Chair noted the benefits from the proposed scheme being a trial for a year
55/08
and Mr Nightingale emphasised that it was much more of a ‘management buyout’
than contracting out the service.
BUS SERVICES
Noted
Mrs Leyland gave a brief overview of the paper noting the dramatic increase in
bus use in the last three terms. She reported that whilst First were proposing to
increase the cost of the Unicard by 10%, the Students’ Union were in discussion
with them.
56/08
Action
Mrs Leyland to ensure that information on the ‘Unicard’ and travel options be
availed to staff, both new and existing.
57/08
Noted
Mr Nightingale remarked that the ‘Unicard’ scheme should be entered for the
Green Gown awards by the University at the end of the year.
58/08
Mr Nightingale reported a comment from the Registrar regarding the proposed
cost of the circular route proposed for the Hythe station link to the University,
that the cost was high.
59/08
Committee discussed the likely usage of such a service by staff and students from
the Hythe station with the extension later this year of the Hythe station platform
to accommodate 12 car trains. Ms Harrup also indicated that National Express
East Anglia were open to providing a more discounted rail ticket scheme, perhaps
just with the University, given the recent developments.
60/08
CYCLING AT ESSEX
Noted
Mrs Williams raised two questions, the first in relation to emails being sent out
regarding the clearing of bikes. Mr Nightingale advised that two emails had gone
out although they may only have gone out to students as they leave for the
summer.
61/08
Mr Nightingale to resend email, including staff, and copy to the Students’ Union
& Transport Policy Coordinator.
62/08
Her second question related to the lack of information on the effect on pension
contributions for University staff signing up to the cycle to work scheme.
63/08
Action
Mrs Leyland to ensure information clearly provided.
64/08
Noted
Mr Nightingale raised a point of principle. The paper notes that there is no cycle
parking at Loughton nor is there income at present from car parking there
currently although there is a proposal to introduce car parking charges from
2009/2010. Should such income be ring-fenced for use solely at Loughton? And
should money raised from car parking at Colchester be used for improvements at
Loughton?
65/08
Action
Whilst members agreed that Colchester funds should not be used at Loughton if
66/08
there were no car parking charges at Loughton, the Chair noted the general drive
for integration at the University. Mr Pearson agreed that with integration, income
should not be ring-fenced at each campus and that Loughton was perceived as the
campus receiving least resources. Ms Harrup noted that cycle storage had been
provided at the Colchester campus by the University prior to the establishment of
ring-fenced transport funds.
Agreed
Mrs Leyland reported that she had received more concerns about bike theft and
secure cycle storage from Lougton staff wishing to join the cycle to work scheme
than from Colchester staff. Whether funding for cycle storage could be obtained
externally or from the University was briefly discussed.
67/08
Mr Nightingale noted that the car parking facility at Loughton needs significant
investment, half of which at least is not marked out.
68/08
Committee agreed that in the move for integration, similar car parking fees
should be levied at Loughton. Whether such ring-fenced income is combined
with the Colchester ring-fenced income or segmented was unresolved. Mr
Nightingale to give further thought to how improvements at Loughton could be
funded in the interim.
69/08
PROJECTS FOR 2008/9
Noted
Mrs Leyland gave a brief overview of the paper, highlighting the linkages to the
comments on the previous paper’s table. She confirmed the highlighted LTM
figures included the proposed budget of £159,000 for 2008/9 and that the
schemes had already been agreed in principle by the Committee at the last
meeting.
70/08
Mr Nightingale referred to the proposed bus turnaround in connection with the
South Courts bus stop central island. The principle for the turnaround is to have
a turning circle and a bus waiting point at the Park Road/Boundary Road
junction. The area would be traffic light controlled resulting in a major traffic
calming point on Boundary Road and making the whole junction safer. This
together with the tender figure questions whether the scheme required at the
South Courts bus stop needs to be so complicated.
71/08
The safety issue at the South Courts stop is primarily for bus passengers,
72/08
alighting from the Colchester bound buses, who are in danger from overtaking
vehicles when using the pedestrian crossing infront of, and obscured by the bus.
There is also no pedestrian crossing at the nearby point on Boundary Road where
the public footpath from Wivenhoe abuts the footpath/cyclepath into campus.
The turnaround with pedestrian crossing measures would do much towards traffic
calming on that part of Boundary Road and would make unnecessary the
expenditure of £84,500 of car parking income on the South Courts bus stop island
project.
Agreed
The Chair proposed that with the changed circumstances, much greater expense
than anticipated and developments that may impinge on it, it is appropriate to
wait on the South Courts island project until next academic year to see what
would be the costing and details of the turnaround and see how it affects the
whole flow of traffic.
73/08
Noted
Committee also requested that the pedestrian crossing linking the footpaths be
costed for consideration.
74/08
Mr Wakeman requested that it be noted that the South Courts bus stop crossing is
still a safety hazard and Dr Sellens suggested a pedestrian light-controlled
crossing at that point.
75/08
Action
Estate Management Section to provide costings on crossings and also for
flashing speed signs.
76/08
Noted
Mr Nightingale reported that with major capital works potentially scheduled
around the Sports Centre, it was difficult to envisage a practical design for a
decked car park in this area. There is a need to look at increasing the number of
spaces at the Colchester side and one additional project for £1000 being proposed
is to reduce the area of the zoned car park at North Towers which is currently
underutilised.
77/08
It was proposed that it was better to acquire more data from monitoring car park
78/08
use and the national trend in lower car usage before moving ahead with a brief
for the decked car park, if required. However, Mr Wakeman noted that with
Avon Way accommodation coming on stream, there would be more cars coming
in. Mrs Leyland highlighted plans to reduce the speed limit on Clingoe Hill and a
need to persuade the Highways Authority of implementing the scheme ahead of
the Research Park development, possibly leveraging through the Cycling Town
project.
Following Mr Wakeman’s comments on what funds have so far been used for, a
more detailed description of projects undertaken was required to inform staff of
what was being delivered for the money. Mr Wakeman also queried what
happened with the interest that was accruing from the monies so far unspent.
79/08
Agreed
Committee agreed the need to make the information on expenditure more
available. Whilst limited progress had been made on infrastructure
improvements, the Chair noted that the statistics for registrations showed a
reduction, particularly for students, and was in line with the Committee’s aims.
80/08
Action
Mrs Leyland to make information on expenditure more available via
website/email.
81/08
Agreed
In conclusion, the Committee recommended the allocation of £159,000 for
82/08
expenditure for 2008/9 transport related schemes as agreed in the paper revised
with respect to discussions of the agenda item. With regard to the discussions of
the use of the North Towers overflow car park it was agreed to include provision
for installing a post and chain fence to define the area.
Action
Mr Nightingale and Mrs Leyland to redraft the paper incorporating discussions
held and circulate to the group prior to submission to University Steering Group
for approval.
83/08
COLCHESTER 2020 TRAVEL PLAN UPDATE
Noted
Ms Harrup identified the elements of the cycling town bid. Mrs Leyland 84/08
highlighted the University’s particular interest in the Hythe station/area
component of the bid and the desire to set up a sub-working group for that area
within the project especially with the opportunities being presented by the Hythe
Station improvements. Given that the staff of the East Colchester Regeneration
Office will be moving on at the end of September, the University together with
Essex BUG felt it important to ensure that there would be good integration with
their work and that of the cycling town project. She also mentioned provision in
the bid for a cycle hire centre at one of the stations which would be good for the
Hythe station given the cycling tourism potential and the many short stay visitors
to the University.
Action
Mrs Leyland to forward contacts for Richard Monk, the newly appointed Cycling 85/08
Champion to the Students’ Union and Dr Sellens.
Noted
Ms Harrup reported highlights from the responses to the travel survey that went 86/08
out to staff and students in May. About 500 staff and over 400 students
responded. Respondents were asked which mode they used most during May;
35% only said they came alone by car, 22% walked and 7% by bus, 4% by train.
It was suggested that those who were likely to respond to the survey were
probably more interested in alternative modes of transport and that the findings
could therefore be biased. Nearly 170 responded that they had changed their
main mode of travel since May 2007. Mrs Williams also raised the point that
first year students who completed the survey would not have been here last year
and thus would have changed travel patterns and second year students may have
moved off campus. Another indicator was that nearly half of the respondents
stated they were using other modes beside their main mode; including 25% bus,
21% walking, 19% car sharing, and 10% cycling. 51 people confirmed the
alternative was used at least once a week. In terms of those driving alone to
work/study, only 5% said that nothing would encourage them to consider an
alternative, 21% stated saving on the costs of running their car and 15% on
improving health through increased exercise were factors that would encourage
them to change. 44% of respondents indicated that they would like information
about options for their journeys including 13% and 10% respectively on bus and
train services and ticket discounts. About 400 respondents were aware of both
the University’s travel plan and its membership of the Colchester 2020 Travel
Plan Club. Further analysis would be carried out but the survey provided
indicators of areas to work on.
Ms Harrup reported on the discounted adhoc bus tickets being developed with 87/08
First.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
88/08
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Noted
Wednesday 12th Nov 2008, 10.00 am
89/08