Transport Policy Sub-Committee
26 July 2010
Agenda item 7
TPSC/09/18
Car Parking Registration Survey
Between May and June 2010 a survey was carried out across the Colchester campus to gain
the views of the University community on the idea of restricting the issue of car parking
permits and what criteria might be used to effectively manage the car parks. TPSC requested
that views be gained as to whether the University should implement criteria which is fair and
works alongside Government guidelines namely PPG13 a white paper which gives guidelines
on reasonable distances which can be cycled or walked. Any criteria introduced would
complement the aims of the Sustainable Transport Strategy to reduce demand for car parking
on campus. A paper version of the survey was offered to all staff. Below is the summary of
the responses. The summary of the responses are attached and the following preliminary
conclusions are drawn:
From the summary it suggested that:








More respondents walk than cycle
Respondents felt strongly that staff permits should not be limited
23% of respondent thought that Students permits should not be limited but 23%
agreed that they should.
82.8% indicated that the current rule that students residing on campus should not be
allowed to register for parking continued to be supported.
Respondents indicated that medically impaired applicants are neither a high or low
priority.
28% of respondents indicated that priority should be given to those to whom distance
was an issue.
33.8% strongly disagreed that there should be an exclusion zone for staff whereas
29.1% indicated that they strongly agree to an exclusion zone for students.
In the case of both students and staff a reasonable distance for an exclusion zone was
2 miles.
It is suggested that further consultation and discussion be undertaken to establish a scheme
for registration for 2011/12.
TPSC is requested to indicate:1.
2.
3.
4.
Whether a change to the eligibility for registering is supported.
Whether staff registration rules should be strengthened.
Whether student registration rules be strengthened.
Whether an exclusion zone should be implemented for
a. Staff
b. Students
5. What exemptions should these be in the event of change?
This information will be used to discuss options with focus groups and the University
community to identify a proposal.
Charlotte Humphries
Transport Policy Coordinator
Survey on car parking permit issue at Colchester Campus
Below is a summary of the responses from the car parking permit issue survey held May – June 2010.
Base = 100%
Which Group do you belong
Q1. to?
Staff
Students
Visitor
Other
Base 1753
1024
719
6
4
How do you currently travel
Q.2 to campus?
Car
Walk
Car Share
Cycle
Bus
Reside
Train
Motorcycle
Taxi
Other
Base 2398 Multi
1401 58.4%
286 11.9%
221
9.2%
191
8.0%
173
7.2%
64
2.7%
28
1.2%
19
0.8%
12
0.5%
3
0.1%
Comment
Interestingly more respondents
walk than cycle.
Should permits issued to
Q.3 staff be limited?
Strongly Agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Base 1753
155
8.8%
239 13.6%
251 14.3%
390 22.2%
718 41.0%
Comment
Respondents felt strongly that
staff should not be limited
Should permits to student
Q.4 be limited?
Strongly Agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Base 1753
352 20.1%
403 23.0%
236 13.5%
307 17.5%
455 26.0%
Comment
Although the outcome
indicates that respondents
strongly disagree the other
figures indicate a degree of
uncertainty
Should students residing on
Q.5 campus register?
No
Yes
Base 1753
1451 82.8%
175 10.0%
Comment
An overwhelming response that
students who reside on campus
should not be allowed to apply
for a permit.
Maybe
127
58.4%
41.0%
0.3%
0.2%
7.2%
Comment
More staff that students
responded to the survey
What priority should we
give to people who car
Q.6 share?
5High
4
3
2
1 Low
Base 1753
336 19.2%
388 22.1%
604 34.5%
152
8.7%
273 15.6%
Comment
Respondents indicated this is
not a priority as most gave a
mid way response, although
the figures indicate that priority
to car sharers is favourable.
Priority for those with
Q.7 caring responsibilities
5 High
4
3
2
1 Low
Base 1753
587 33.5%
381 21.7%
469 26.8%
130
7.4%
186 10.6%
Comment
Overwhelming response that
those with caring responses
should be allowed to park.
Required definition into caring
responsibilities.
Q.8
Q.9
Q.10
Q.11
Priority to those to whom
public transport is not an
option
5 High
4
3
2
1 Low
Base 1753
862 49.2%
466 26.6%
295 16.8%
81
4.6%
49
2.8%
Comment
Overwhelming response that
those with little or no access
to public transport should be
allowed to park.
Priority to medically
imparied?
5 High
4
3
2
1 Low
Base 1753
344 19.6%
455 26.0%
574 32.7%
178 10.2%
202 11.5%
Comment
Requires definition of
impairment, e.g. from a
temporary ailment to a more
serious permanent medical
condition.
Priority dependant on
distance
Strongly Agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Base 1753
490 28.0%
423 24.1%
188 10.7%
248 14.1%
404 23.0%
Comment
Respondents indicate that
distance is a priority.
Should there be an
exclusion zone for staff?
Strongly Agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Base 1753
288 16.4%
317 18.1%
288 16.4%
268 15.3%
592 33.8%
Comment
Respondents indicate that
there should not be an
exclusion zone for staff
Agenda item 7
TPSC/09/18
Q.12
Q.13
Q.14
Q. 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Reasonable distance to
exclude staff
1 mile
2 miles
3 miles
More
Base 605
75 12.4%
266 44.0%
217 35.9%
47
7.8%
Comment
Indicates that those that agree
to a exclusion zone for staff
indicate that 2 miles is
prefered.
Should there be an
exclusion zone for
students?
Strongly Agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Base 1753
510 29.1%
365 20.8%
309 17.6%
197 11.2%
372 21.2%
Comment
Indicates that respondents
strongly agree that there
should be a exclusion zone for
students.
Reasonable exclusion zone
for students?
1 mile
2 miles
3 miles
More
Base 875
123 14.1%
341 39.0%
311 35.5%
100 11.4%
Comment
Indicates that respondents
prefer a 2 miles exclusion zone
if implemented.
Base 1753
1017
933
912
889
737
707
684
58.0%
53.2%
52.0%
50.7%
42.0%
40.3%
39.0%
Comment
Prioritise the lesser known
measures.
628
35.8%
583
577
503
33.3%
32.9%
28.7%
479
27.3%
462
361
292
26.4%
20.6%
16.7%
Travel Measure know of
(MULTIPLE CHOICE)
Barrier Parking
Car Parking Information
Bike to Work Week
Walk to Work Week
Sustainable Travel Policy
Cycle scheme for staff
Car share scheme
Public Transport
Information
Estate Management Web
pages
Discounted rail rickets
Cycle Training
Public Transport Season
Ticket loan
Opportunities to purchase
recycled bike
Unicard
EMS Twitter
Agenda item 7
TPSC/09/18