Consultation Report咨询报告.doc

University of AberdeenPage 6 of 6Car Parking Consultation ReportAuthorChristopher Osbeck, Travel Plan Co-ordinatorDateApril 2008Version1.0Contents1.Introduction32.Concept of charging for car parking33.Rate of charge34.Method of payment35.Issuing of permits46.Differential charging47.Support for sustainable travel58.Use of revenue generated59.Enforcement measures510.Additional concerns and suggestions511.Summary61. IntroductionThe University, like many organisations, has limited parking available on its sites. Over recent years it has become apparent that the limited resources must be better controlled to ensure the most appropriate use of the facilities. In addition to this the University is committed to introducing a Sustainable Travel Plan to help reduce the number of vehicles travelling to University sites and the subsequent environmental impact that they have. One of the options available to the University is to introduce charging for car parking at University sites. A draft Controlled Parking Policy was produced and distributed to the University community for comments and suggestions. The consultation ran over a six week period during February and March. Numerous e-mails and telephone calls were received on many aspects of the proposed policy and these, together with the views obtained through face to face consultation sessions, are summarised in this consultation report. The summarised comments and suggestions will be used to shape and adapt the proposed policy so that a more balanced system can be produced which takes into consideration the operational needs of the University, the needs of the University community and the environmental impact of travel.The comments and suggestions received from the University community are summarised under the following headings:2. Concept of charging for car parkingStaff Comment: “Im glad the University is finally taking a stance on this issue.”There is mixed feeling regarding the need for and benefit of charging for car parking. Many staff expressed their support for introducing charging in principle but disagreed with the proposal of daily charging. The alternatives that were suggested are covered under Method of payment below. A significant number of staff expressed the opinion that charging is being proposed simply as a revenue generating exercise for the University and will produce little or no environmental benefit. To correct this misperception there is a need for the University to demonstrate its commitment to sustainable transport by investing in sustainable transport initiatives either before implementing car parking charges or as soon as possible once charges are introduced. The ratio of opinion is approximately 1:1:4 of people supporting the principle of charging, rejecting the principle of charging and those who did not express a strong opinion one way or the other on the issue.3. Rate of chargeStaff Comment: “I agree for a charge to car parking, but 2 is excessive and punitive.”Staff Comment: “I think 2 per day is too low to effectively discourage car travel - 4 would be an acceptable minimum.”A range of opinions were expressed during the consultation period ranging from the rate being too expensive to it being too cheap. Calls for fixed amounts were limited and covered values from 1 to 5 per day. The majority of comments received suggested a differential charging structure based on certain criteria, the most common and notable being an individuals salary. The range of different criteria suggested are covered in more detail under Differential charging below. During the face to face consultation sessions charging based on salary was discussed and it was suggested that a fixed percentage of pro rata salary may be the best solution as it gives the most accurate representation of an individuals take home pay by taking into consideration both rate of pay and the number of hours worked. The level the fixed percentage should be was discussed but no agreement could be made on what level was appropriate.4. Method of paymentSubstantial resistance to daily charging was received during the consultation period which was to be expected since the purpose of charging daily is to have the biggest perception of charging possible to deter car use. There was some support for daily charging from staff concerned that annual permits would not guarantee a space and could therefore involve staff paying for a permit and unable to use it. There were also some suggestions of barrier systems as has been explored in the past. The preferred option suggested by most staff was some form of annually paid permit system. This would be practicable but would require additional considerations to be made. These would include how many permits are issued, on what criteria are permits issued, what system would be adopted for occasional users and how would visitors be integrated into the system. Annually paid permits could have the potential to encourage car use rather than deter it since permits, once acquired, will provide best value when used as much as possible. This goes against the primary aim of introducing charging but does provide a reasonable balance between staff needs and environmental considerations.5. Issuing of permitsStaff Comment: “I wish to bring up the inequality facing staff regarding car parking at Foresterhill compared to those working at Old Aberdeen.”A very mixed response was received on this topic. Staff opinion was approximately equally split between those who felt permits should only be issued to staff who meet set criteria (distance, parental responsibilities etc.) and those who felt that permits should be issued to all staff. Many staff who supported the latter option were based at Foresterhill where permits are already issued based on set criteria. It is useful to note that not all those who opposed the idea of criteria based permits had failed to obtain a permit through the criteria based system. Generally speaking staff who disagreed with the concept of differential charging felt that it was unfair and biased towards certain lifestyles (living further away, having children etc.). Staff in support of differential charging where generally only concerned with criteria that would apply to their own personal circumstances and where not supportive of all the criteria that were suggested. It is important to note that the issuing of permits would need to be reconsidered and restricted if an annually charged permit system were to be introduced since there are only 1400 spaces available and approximately 1800 staff who wish to use their cars (based on information gathered through the 2006 Travel Survey). The criteria used to prioritise applications could be the same criteria suggested to implement differential charging.6. Differential chargingStrong support for differential charges was received although the criteria suggested for differential charging varied widely among staff. The criteria suggested included the following: Salary Parental responsibilities Carer responsibilities Age Distance from work Vehicle emissions Physical size of vehicle Business travel responsibilities Proximity to public transportStaff Comment: “I couldnt find anything that considers the dimensions or emissions of individual vehicles. Both these factors are vital when considering the environmental impact of driving, and the proportion of the parking resources occupied by a given motorist.”Staff Comment: “If you are going to do, do it flat rate at whatever level, everybody the same, everyday or part day, no half day exceptions, no vacation exemptions, no banding, no reservations of spaces (except disabled). Nothing will be perceived as fair to everyone but at least this way we all know nobody is getting preferential treatment.”To fairly apply criteria they should be quantifiable, non-discriminatory and must be able to be checked to ensure the system is not abused. Any criteria applied will require additional administrative resources.Of the suggested criteria most are easily quantifiable. The exceptions being parental, carer and business travel responsibilities. This is due to the varying levels of responsibility staff may have. All may be considered discriminatory in one way or another and care will need to be taken to ensure no specific groups are unfairly treated should differential charging be introduced. Of the criteria only salary, age, distance from work and vehicle emissions may be reliably checked. Even these would require significant additional administrative time to issue permits.Staff Comment: “Am I expected to pay the same amount to park as my colleagues who earn double what I do?”Staff Comment: “The two changes I think are most welcome are scrapping the presently unfair preference given to staff members with children and those who choose to live far away.” The feelings expressed during face to face consultation sessions suggest that differential charging should be used in tandem with an annual permit system rather than daily charging to prevent the unfair identification of staff meeting specific criteria (particularly salary scale).7. Support for sustainable travelThe majority of respondents support the concept of sustainable travel and encouraging staff to adopt alternative transport by improving infrastructure and services. Many staff expressed the opinion that the University should invest in some of the projects listed in the travel plan before implementing car parking. Staff also expressed the opinion that sustainable travel in Aberdeen was not a reality due to a combination of poor roads, lack of suitable cycle lanes, limited and costly bus services and a lack of rail links in Grampian. It was suggested that these issues need to be addressed by local and national government, transport providers and regional transport partnerships before individual organisations can expect staff to change their habits.8. Use of revenue generatedStaff Comment: “I think this could be a sensible option but consider that all the money should be used to improve sustainability and not to improve car parks (which are presumably already maintained within the University Estates budget).”There is substantial support for revenue to be ring fenced for sustainable transport initiatives and the range of projects that staff wish to see developed is diverse. Many suggestions mirror those listed in the travel plan while others are included under Additional concerns and suggestions below. There is mixed support for using revenue to pay for car parking facilities as many staff feel that costs relating to the facilities should be covered by Estates. A small number of staff suggested that, since charging is primarily a deterrent, all revenue generated should be donated to charity and not used for any University purpose.9. Enforcement measuresGenerally staff were in support of the proposed enforcement measures. Some staff remain unconvinced that such a scheme is viable, legal or will actually achieve its aim of ensuring only authorised users park in University car parks. Suggestions for alternatives focused around barrier systems which have been investigated in the past. A small number of staff expressed the opinion that there is no current problem of inappropriate parking to address.10. Additional concerns and suggestionsImprove facilities before implementing charging.A number of comments were received urging the University to invest in improving facilities before introducing controlled car parking measures. Staff felt that, by introducing charges first, they are being penalised without having any viable alternative.Improve local bus services.Although outwith the control of the University many staff felt that bus services in the local area are a poor alternative to private car use. Specific issues raised included punctuality, cleanliness, frequency, lack of direct services and cost.Reopening of Kittybrewster station.Staff living in outlying areas such as Inverurie, Kintore, Stonehaven and Portlethen suggested that the reopening of the railway station at Kittybrewster would be of major benefit to the University. This would certainly be the case and can be pursued with the City Council and the Regional Transport Partnership.No alternative options available for staff.A substantial number of staff believe that, due to their personal circumstances, have no viable alternative to private car use and, in some cases, believe that they should be exempt from any charging system. It is accepted that staff may not have viable alternatives however any system that makes exceptions based on personal circumstances will encourage car use by specific groups of staff or encourage lifestyle choices which necessitate the use a car (the exception being basic and clearly defined criteria such as disabled drivers). Ultimately only improvements to public transport, roads infrastructure and cycle networks, all of which are largely outwith the control of the University, would allow all staff suitable alternatives.More working from home.Some staff felt that, although the University has a flexible working policy, that it is not being actively encouraged by line managers to reduce the need for staff to travel. This will vary between different departments depending on the operational requirements of staff being physically present.Bike shed at park and ride sites.Suggestions were made that dedicated cycle storage for University staff be provided at Park & Ride sites. This is possible and would probably be actively encouraged by the City Council. An assessment of the usage of existing cycle storage facilities at Park & Ride sites would need to be made to ensure existing facilities were not suitable or operating at capacity.Staff spaces at park and ride sites.A small number of staff suggested that dedicated spaces for University staff be provided at Park & Ride sites. Since the Bridge of Don site is the closest to capacity at 80% and still has spaces available this, at present, seems unnecessary and unlikely to be supported by Aberdeen City Council.Car parking problems are perceived to be caused by consolidation of University operations.Some staff felt that some of the car parking problems stem from the consolidation of University operations into two main teaching sites. This is not an appropriate issue to be considered in this document being more appropriate to overall University strategy.Control of lease vehicles.