Travel to Work

Notes of Travel to Work Group Meeting

Wednesday 9th February 2000

2 pm Terrace Room Senate House

Present Professor Hodder-Williams (Chair)

Mr J Bailey (Part)

Mr R Bartlett

Mrs B Calder

Mr J Cole

Ms N Daniels

Mrs M Dunderdale

Ms K England

Ms K Lanham

Professor R Little (Part)

Ms D E Sheard

Dr A Williams

Ms C Willmore

Mr K Yarwood

In attendance:-Mrs C Hall and Mr A Clifford

Action

1. /

Apologies and Introductions

The (Acting / Temporary) Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and looked forward to hearing the views of the Group. Term “Group” used, as there were no legislative powers only the ability to make recommendations, which would be passed to the Committee of Deans, who meet six times a year.
2. /

Remit of the Group

Paper had been previously circulated by Mr Cole outlined the remit of the Group. Mr Cole was asked to present a project plan with dates, at the next meeting.

JC

3. /

Progress Report on the Transport Plan

3.1.1 /

Mr Cole made a verbal presentation on the following items:-

Car Sharing

Sophisticated scheme devised by ILRT and the Department of Geographical Sciences. Members of staff who are willing to participate, are invited to enter their name, postcode, information on dropping off / collecting children from school and details of their working hours to the database. Data such as preference for sharing with a non-smoker or female only may also be included. This will generate information on potential “matches” which may be printed for ease of reference. Grave concerns were raised about security of information relating to people who are involved in animal work or are based in the Medical School. Mr Cole confirmed that the system would be accessible to University of Bristol employees only. It was suggested that a separate paper listing could be maintained to cater for those with such fears. Information on Data Protection Regulations to be sought from the Secretary’s Office. (Clare Coyne). /

JC

3.1.2 /

Hospital Free Bus Service

Mr Cole explained the background to this arrangement between UBHT and the University. Proposed route was illustrated as follows:-
Route 1- Centre Circle
Route 2- Including Temple Meads
Proposed bus stops include MVB, The Hawthorns, Tyndalls Park Road, (entrance to Hampton House), St Michael’s Hill (Maternity Hospital).
It was hoped to have the shuttle bus running for a one week trial with effect from 27 March, prior to “going live” week commencing 3 April. It is intended that information gathered will facilitate production of a timetable. It was generally accepted that the frequency of service would fluctuate but it was expected that a frequency of 10 – 12 minutes would be achieved for Route 1 during the rush hour, and a 20 minutes frequency at all other times. Mr Bartlett pointed out that many portering staff are required to start work at 7am. Mr Cole confirmed that this had been taken into account and the service would start early enough to accommodate portering and housekeeping staff and run until about 7 pm. The service is intended primarily for University of Bristol employees and visitors and Hospital – patients, visitors and staff. Responses from the University Staff Travel survey carried out in 1998 indicated that 600 members of staff said they would consider using such a service. Ms Willmore asked about publicity for the scheme and it was decided to discuss this at the next meeting on 1st March.
3.1.3 /

Interest Free Loans.

Mr Cole indicated that 18 loans had been issued for bus / train season tickets or bicycle purchases.
3.1.4 /

Intercept Travel Information Scheme

Bristol is one of a number of European Partners in this initiative. Mr Cole stated that the University intended to purchase a kiosk which would present the user with public travel information (specifically buses) from data entered. He confirmed that this was part of the University's Information Strategy. The scheme is expected to go-live in four months time and will also be available for staff to access on the Intranet. It was thought that the information kiosk would be best positioned at the Hawthorns for easy access to members of staff and students on the Precinct, including those who do not have access to the Intranet. The need for basic (low level) travel information was discussed. Additionally, it was suggested that prospective / new employees were made aware of the problems relating to parking and travel so that they could make their own enquiries. Mr R Bartlett stated that some members of staff who start early had experienced problems with buses not turning up. All agreed that such complaints ought to be directed to the bus company for appropriate action.
3.1.5 /

Other Initiatives

Mr Cole said that there were many other initiatives but time at the present meeting did not permit further discussion on this agenda item.
4. /

University Transport Plan

Refer to paper previously circulated. Mr Cole confirmed that a map indicating the location of all University car parks was in the process of being produced on Autocad and would be available in time for the next meeting.

With reference to financial data, Mr Cole agreed at the next meeting to present the basic parameters on a single sheet of A4. /

JC

5. /

Decision on Walking and Cycling Facilities

Many of the individual proposals were discussed. Mr Cole described factors taken into account in determining successful applications. The number of spaces and ratio of staff in addition to facilities and cost effectiveness were all considered. Feedback on initiatives will be given at an open meeting with the Bicycle Users Group on 23rd February. It had been determined that the University Union would not be part of the University Transport Plan therefore that money would be held for another project. It was generally accepted that cycle facilities need to be covered and secure. Mr Cole confirmed that all new and existing secure compound facilities would be card access controlled. Facilities would be provided primarily for members of staff but students would not be excluded. Professor Hodder-Williams wished it to be known that many of the recommendations of the Travel to Work Group would have University wide benefits.

Mrs Calder noted that none of the facilities mentioned included the BRI. She agreed to look into this and come up with a plan for the next meeting. Mr Cole consented to produce a map indicating the location of existing cycle facilities. /

BC

JC
6. /

Winning Design for Hospital / University Bus Service livery

The winning design was submitted by Mr Andrew Dixon of Engineering (Computer Science). It was agreed that the service would carry the legend ‘Hospital and University Bus Shuttle’.

7. /

Future Agenda Items

Ms Sheard felt that consideration should be given to the promotion of walking and cycling. Ms Willmore said that the University should use its influence to promote the ‘S’ route of local railway stations in greater Bristol.

8. /

Discussion of Special Needs

Refer to Mr Cole’s paper on special needs, outlining the principals, which were agreed last year.

Mrs Calder asked that consideration be given to those with ‘hidden’ or embarrassing disabilities and asked if a HOD’s letter authorising issue of a permit would suffice. It was generally accepted that this should suffice but could be open to ‘fraudulent’ claim. Additionally, the need for a permit on a temporary, short-term basis was also discussed. Mr Cole said that there were two main issues to consider:-
1)Identifying those with Special Needs and
2)What priority parking provision should they receive – i.e. individual / designated space?
The issue of provision for wheelchair users and disabled visitors was raised and it was agreed that provision should be made for them.
The Group decided that of the three options outlined in the paper, it preferred Option 3 - A considerable number of guaranteed, but not individually allocated "special needs" parking spaces. Mr. Cole was asked to further develop this option in preparation for the next Travel to Work Group meeting.
Professor Hodder-Williams suggested the following three categories:-
A)Those who need an individual space for mobility considerations.
B)Special needs staff who will be guaranteed a parking space.
C)All other staff who do not have any special need, and who will be likely to find a parking space, but will not be guaranteed one.
These categories were agreed but further discussion is required on how to determine the optimum ratio of Category B and C parking spaces.
It was agreed in principal that anyone deemed to be in category B could utilise a category B or C car park.
The need to encourage the use of ‘Pool’ vehicles and sharing of Departmental spaces was also discussed as was the need to discuss criteria for determining Departmental spaces.
‘Essential’ Users
Mrs Hall explained the current criteria for issue of such a permit and it was thought that some special rules may be required to take account of their particular needs. Mrs Hall agreed to produce a list of current ‘Essential Users’. Problems relating to difficulties experienced by those who have to visit Langford on a regular basis was discussed. Consideration should be given to the provision of 2 to 3 hour car parks.
Car Sharers
It was suggested that they should come under Category B. Mr Cole pointed out that it would act as less of an incentive for official car sharers than if they were classed as Category A.
Visitor Spaces
The need to make provision for visitors to specific Departments such as the Children of the 90’s was discussed. The possibility of allowing other Departments to use each others empty space was generally accepted as a good idea, to maximise use of available space. It was thought that this should be controlled centrally and spaces contained in one area eg The Hawthorns.
Carers
It was suggested that a scoring system be introduced to cater for those with other needs – an example (Annex A) of questionnaire used at Manchester University was contained in Mr Cole’s paper on item 8 and previously circulated.
It was recognised that some ‘carers’ would be unable to arrive at work early enough to secure a parking space. In order to cater for this it was suggested that a number of car parks could open later.
9. /

Recommending the Level of car parking charges

Thought needs to be given before the next meeting, to the charging of the scheme. Points for consideration are:- should there be a minimum / maximum limit, ie same percentage for someone on £50,000 as for someone on £10,000? If so what should it be? Should the annual coupon be a nominal amount or should this also be salary related? How are the licenses/coupons to be issued? Who will be classed as legitimate users? All deliberations should bear in mind that the scheme is based on the fact that those who use the car parks more, pay more and those who use it less pay less, thus discouraging the use of car parks by those with a viable alternative.
10. /

Mission Statement and Operation of the Group

Professor Hodder-Williams said the Group needed a Mission Statement to indicate to the community what is trying to be achieved and that the TTW Group is not just sitting and discussing how to be nasty to car drivers. There is real concern and worry as to what is being decided by the Group. Can Group members think about this message to be given and not be backwards in coming forwards with their views.
Although the charges likely to be implemented are much less than was first envisaged, many within the University, including the Unions, feel that the University is trying to make money out of the car parking scheme. The finances, both in terms of income and expenditure should be published to allay these fears.
John Bailey said that the Group should consider the possible distress some members of the University will be feeling regarding the changes and subsequent disruption to their arrangements and therefore make available a name “counsellor” who could talk through some of their concerns. This may, or may not, be someone who is Personnel based.
11. /