University of Leicester Travel Survey January

Transcription

1 University of Leicester University of Leicester Travel Survey January 2010 colinbuchanan.com

2 Project No: January Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG London@cbuchanan.co.uk Prepared by: Approved by: M Hemphill/J Boyd-Wallis R McArthur Status: Draft Issue no: 1 Date: 22 January 2010 university of leicester student survey results.doc (C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has been made

3 Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction Background Response rate and demographics Reliability of survey results 6 2 Study patterns Introduction Location and study characteristics Attendance patterns 9 3 Journey to University Introduction Residential location Time Main mode of travel Journey legs Carbon footprint 23 4 Travelling to the University by car Introduction Reason for car use Car sharing Parking 28 5 Encouraging travel by other modes Introduction Walking Cycling Public transport GIS Postcode Analysis Scope for modal shift to non-car modes 38 6 Travel between University of Leicester sites Introduction Frequency of travel Locations Main mode for travel between University of Leicester sites Barriers to sustainable modes 38 7 Travel between home and University Introduction Frequency of travel Mode of travel Home locations 38 8 Distance Learners Introduction Frequency of travel to University Travel mode share 38 9 Recommendations Introduction Recommendations 38 Appendix 1

4 Appendix 2 Tables Table 1.1: Gender of respondents 5 Table 1.2: Age of respondents 6 Table 2.1: Level of study 8 Table 2.2: Course type 8 Table 2.3: Responses by department 9 Table 2.4: Attendance per day by time of day 9 Table 2.5: Attendance per day during term time 10 Table 2.6: Attendance per day during vacation time 10 Table 3.1: Carbon emissions - students 24 Table 3.2: Emissions per mode - students 24 Table 5.1: Travel modes used in 1, 2 and 5 mile zones around the University 38 Table 5.2: Students car users who would consider walking, cycling or using public transport 38 Table 5.3: Potential shift from car use 38 Table 6.1: Travel between campuses 38 Table 7.1: Frequency of travel to home 38 Table 7.2: Home continent of international students 38 Figures Figure 2.1: Student responses per campus 7 Figure 3.1: Student responses per accommodation site 11 Figure 3.2: Distance travelled to University 12 Figure 3.3: Journey times 13 Figure 3.4: Main mode students 14 Figure 3.5: Main modes for Main Campus 15 Figure 3.6: Main modes for other campuses 15

5 Figure 3.7: Main mode per distance travelled 16 Figure 3.8: Main mode by gender 17 Figure 3.9: Main mode per level of study 18 Figure 3.10: Distance travelled per level of study 19 Figure 3.11: Main mode per student type 20 Figure 3.12: Engine capacity Car 21 Figure 3.13: Number of vehicle occupants 22 Figure 4.1: Reasons for car use 25 Figure 4.2: Reasons for car use by gender 26 Figure 4.3: Encouraging car sharing 27 Figure 4.4: Perceived barriers to car sharing 27 Figure 4.5: Parking location 28 Figure 5.1: Scope for increasing walking 29 Figure 5.2: Scope for increasing walking per existing main mode 30 Figure 5.3: Encouraging walking 31 Figure 5.4: Barriers to walking 32 Figure 5.5: Scope for increasing cycling 33 Figure 5.6: Scope for increasing cycling per existing main mode 34 Figure 5.7: Encouraging cycling 35 Figure 5.8: Barriers to cycling 36 Figure 5.9: Current cycle parking facility 37 Figure 5.10: Preferred cycle parking facility 37 Figure 5.11: Scope for increasing public transport 38 Figure 5.12: Scope for increasing public transport use per existing main mode 38 Figure 5.13: Encouraging bus use 38 Figure 5.14: Encouraging train use 38 Figure 5.15: Barriers to public transport 38 Figure 6.1: Frequency of travel between University of Leicester sites 38 Figure 6.2: Main mode for travel between University sites 38 Figure 6.3: Barriers to cycling between University of Leicester sites 38 Figure 6.4: Barriers to travelling between University of Leicester sites by public transport 38 Figure 7.1: Main mode of travel to home (international students) 38 Figure 8.1: Frequency that distance learners live from the University 38 Figure 8.2: Travel mode share of distance learners 38

6 Executive summary A travel survey of University of Leicester students was undertaken in late All students were invited to take part, with the survey available both online and in paper copies on limited dates within the survey period. A total of 1,655 students responded to the survey. With a total student population of 21,000, this equates to a 7.8% response rate. Analysis of the results has found that a disproportionate number of responses have come from full time students. The University s distance learners have been underrepresented in this survey, but their input is not considered as critical to the success of the travel plan as other students as many do not regularly travel to the University and the emphasis of the survey was on everyday travel to the University campuses. Distance learners have been excluded from most of the general survey analysis and examined as a separate sub-group of the University population. In general, distance learners live farther away from the University, are more likely to travel by car and travel to campus less frequently. The rest of the executive summary is therefore focussed on the travel of full time and part time students only. Journey to University The main modes of travel for students travelling to their primary place of study are shown in the chart below. The main mode of travel has been defined as the mode by which each student travels the greatest distance. Figure S 1: Main mode of travel for students Car passenger 1% Car driver (with passengers) 3% Bus / coach 15% Car driver (travelling alone) 9% Hospital Hopper 1% Cycle 11% Train 3% Taxi 1% Other 0% Walk 56% The high level of active travel amongst students is supported by analysis of the distance students live from their primary place of study, with 68% living within 2 miles. Further analysis found the following key points: Full time students are more likely to walk and cycle to the University than part-time students. 1

7 Men are much more likely to cycle as their main mode than women (17% versus 6%). Students based at the main campus walk more than students based at other campuses. Carbon footprint The carbon footprint for student travel has been calculated based on information gathered in the student survey. The analysis included full-time students only, estimating a total full-time student population of 13,000. It is estimated that student travel to University annually emits 2729 Tonnes of carbon equivalent into the atmosphere, of which 2152 Tonnes are emitted during term time and 577 Tonnes are emitted during vacation time. Within these totals, 61% of emissions are from single-occupancy vehicle travel, but only 7% of full time students travel by this mode. In addition, train travel accounts for 11% of this total while only accounting for 3% of all student travel. In addition to these being less environmentally friendly modes, these are the modes most frequently used by students who live farthest from the University. Travel by car Students that currently travel to the University by car, as either a driver or a passenger, were asked to rank their top three reasons for travelling to the University by this mode. That car travel offers the quickest journey time and that it was the most convenient mode were the most popular responses, followed by it being the cheapest option. Over half of students (63%) currently park on-street while they are at the University, with only a third of these students paying parking charges. 14% of students park in a private, off-street car park and 10% park in a University car park. Travel by other modes All students were asked about how frequently they currently walk, cycle or use public transport to reach the University and if they would consider using these options more in the future. Students were subsequently asked what would most encourage them to use these modes more or, if they would not consider using those modes, what they saw as the primary barrier to doing so. Walking Most students (82%) already walk to the University on at least an occasional basis, with 65% of all students always walking during their journey to the University. 5% of students stated that they don t currently walk but might walk in the future. Students stated that improved lighting and security on their route would most encourage them to start walking or to walk more often, which was followed by safer crossing facilities. Students also showed support for the introduction of more lockers and storage facilities on campus as well as having a walking buddy or group. Amongst those that wouldn t consider walking, distance was cited as the predominant barrier to doing so. Cycling Cycling has been found to show a greater scope for increase than walking, with 10% of students currently cycling some of the time and 35% of students stating that they don t cycle now but might in 2

8 the future. 71% of the students that might consider cycling currently walk to the University, 19% currently travel by public transport and 8% currently travel by car. Students stated the introduction of more secure cycle parking on campus would most encourage them to cycle or cycle more often, with the introduction of any cycle parking also widely supported. Students have also shown support for introduction of covered cycle parking on campus. Discounts on a bicycle and cycle equipment was the second most frequently cited measure for encouragement, while an additional 125 students claimed that not owning a bicycle was their primary barrier to cycling. Other frequently cited barriers to cycling were that students lived too far away or they preferred to walk. Public transport A total of 16% of students currently use public transport some of the time and a further 10% do not currently use public transport but might do so in the future. Amongst those that stated they don t currently use public transport but might in the future, walking is the predominant existing main mode. Amongst existing car users (as either driver or passenger), only 16% stated that they would consider using public transport while a further 15% of existing car users reported using public transport occasionally. The introduction of cheaper fares has been cited by the greatest number of students as a means to encourage both bus and train use, followed by more frequent services. Students also frequently cited the need for more direct bus routes. The primary barrier to using public transport as stated by students is that they already walk or cycle to the University. Travel between University of Leicester sites 69% of students stated that they never travel to other University of Leicester sites, with an additional 8% doing so less than once a month. By contrast, 15% of students claimed they travel once a week or more. The largest number of students claimed that they travel between sites located on the main campus, with students also frequently stating they travel between the main campus and the University hospitals. Leicester Royal Infirmary was travelled to most frequently out of the three hospitals. Excluding walking trips, public transport (evenly split between the public bus and the Hospital Hopper) is the most popular means of travelling between University sites, followed by cycling. Students stated that they primary reason for not cycling between sites is not having access to a bicycle. Travel to home International students were asked to provide details on how frequently they travel home, the mode they used when they undertook this travel, and where in the world they travelled to. 16% of students that completed the survey stated that they were from outside of the UK. 43% of international students stated that they did not travel home during the last academic year, 26% stating that they travelled home once, with 31% stating they travelled home two times or more. By contrast, only 21% of students stated that they would not be travelling home during the current 3

9 academic year, with 33% stating they would travel home once and 46% intending to travel two times or more. Nearly 90% of international students stated that they fly home, with no other mode accounting for more than 3% of travel. In total, 66 students stated they came from Asia, 58 from Europe (excluding the UK), 26 from North America, 9 from Africa and 1 from South America. 4

10 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Colin Buchanan (CB) have been commissioned by the University of Leicester to carry out travel surveys for all University staff and students The survey covered all staff and student travel to and from the University, including commuting and business travel, as well as travel between University sites. Emphasis was placed on identifying how staff and students currently travel and what barriers they see to walking, cycling, and using public transport The student survey was conducted using the online tool LimeSurvey and was carried out between Tuesday, 17 th November and Wednesday 6 th January The survey was also made available as a paper copy. Participation was encouraged on campus by members of the University of Leicester and CB team talking to students in person to explain about the survey and encourage them to take part This document provides a review of the results of the student survey. A separate review of findings has been prepared for staff. 1.2 Response rate and demographics A total of 1,655 students responded to the survey which equates to a 7.8% response rate, based on 21,000 students. Overall, 1,361 respondents completed the survey with 294 responses partially completed This response rate, though it appears low when compared with the staff response rate, is actually fairly good for a University students survey as students are a hard-to-reach group and it is always difficult to engage such a large survey base. Given the large number of responses, the results of the survey are still considered to be representative of the student population as a whole A breakdown of the characteristics of the respondents is provided in this section to establish the demographics of the respondents. Gender Different travel choices influenced by gender can bring bias into a survey, for example women may be less likely to choose modes with a perceived risk, such as cycling or walking in certain areas The gender of respondents is shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Gender of respondents Response Number Percentage Female % Male % In addition to the above, 291 respondents did not disclose their gender The gender split shows a higher prevalence of females responding to the survey, but this is not at a level to be great enough to cause any bias in the results. The gender of 5

11 respondents has been used to look at reasons for choosing different modes later on in this analysis. Age The age structure of the respondents can influence the type of mode chosen, with older students potentially more likely to choose car travel and younger respondents possibly more likely to travel by active modes, for various reasons including perceived status, time pressure and family responsibility and place of residence (associated with having access to a car parking space as well as dictating journey distance) Table 1.2 shows the age groups of respondents. Table 1.2: Age of respondents Response Number Percentage Under % ,011 74% % % % % Over 65 4 <1% The vast majority of respondents to the survey were in the typical undergraduate age bracket of years. A further 21% were between years, with only around 3% above the age of 45. Within this total, distance learners are more likely to be older than other students, with only two distance learners under the age of 25. Disabilities % of respondents stated that they have a disability that affects their travel options. Of this 2% (21 students) only 3 respondents hold a Blue Badge to entitle them to use Disabled car parking spaces. 1.3 Reliability of survey results The total number of responses to the student survey indicate that the overall survey results will be representative of the student population as a whole. However, a large number of questions within the survey were only asked to certain sub-groups of the overall sample, such as car users or potential cyclists. Throughout the analysis of many of these specific questions, the number of responses should be kept in mind as an indicator of the reliability of those results. Where the number of responses is not necessarily obvious, efforts have been made to state the number of responses received within the text Additional factors impacting the reliability of results, such as the proportion of full time versus part time students who have completed this survey, are discussed in the subsequent chapter. 6

12 2 Study patterns 2.1 Introduction A link to the student survey online was ed to all student accounts, meaning that all students were invited to participate in the survey, even if they were based off site (for example at a work placement or a distance learner). 2.2 Location and study characteristics University sites Figure 2.1 shows the number of responses received per University campus. Students that travel to multiple campuses were asked to select the campus at which they spend the most time. Figure 2.1: Student responses per campus Main Campus North Campus South Campus Vaughan College Leicester Royal Infirmary Leicester General Hospital Glenfield Hospital Knighton & Stoneygate None - distance learner Other ,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Frequency of response The overwhelming majority of responses (85%) were from students based at the Main Campus (though it should be noted they were not asked about every campus they visit, just where they were mostly based). 4% of responses were from the North Campus and 3% were based at the Leicester Royal Infirmary This means that many of the recommendations from this analysis will be focussed on travel to the Main Campus, but often the recommendations and barriers will apply to all sites. Level of study Table 2.1 lists the level of course studied by the respondents. 7

13 Table 2.1: Level of study Response Number Percentage Undergraduate 1,141 70% Postgraduate - research % Postgraduate - taught % Foundation year/pre-entry 12 1% Other 27 2% % of respondents are undergraduates, with post-graduate students comprising 28% of respondents, split equally between research and taught post-graduate students. This will impact on the amount of time spent on campus and journey patterns; this is investigated further in Section 2.3 below. Course type Table 2.2 shows the proportion of student respondents who study, full time, part time or are distance learners. Table 2.2: Course type Response Number Percentage Full Time 1,471 90% Part Time 74 5% Enrolled on a distance course 87 5% Other 10 1% % of the respondents attend University on a full-time basis, so would be travelling to the University on a frequent and regular basis, with 5% attending part-time so likely to visit the University regularly but less frequently A further 5% are enrolled on a distance course so will visit the University only rarely, if at all. For this reason these respondents have been omitted from the analysis from Chapter 3 onwards as they will not impact on the travel situation at the University or local area and may skew the results, particularly in terms of barriers and measures to encourage sustainable travel. Instead, the travel habits of distance learners have been analysed separately in Chapter 8. Distance learners will of course benefit from the implementation of travel plan measures when they do visit the University and from the general environmental and health messages the travel plan will promote These figures vary considerably from the actual overall split of full time versus part time and distance learners at the University, with full-time students believed to represent approximately 60% of the total student population. With this in mind, the survey results should be roughly indicative of the full-time student population but may not adequately represent the views and travel patterns of part-time or distance learners. Department Table 2.3 lists the number of responses from the various departments, starting with the most prevalent department: 8

14 Table 2.3: Responses by department Department Response (count) Medicine 97 Biological Sciences 91 Law 86 Geography 85 English 82 Engineering 82 Economics 82 Physics and Astronomy 68 Psychology 58 Mathematics 45 Geology 42 Chemistry 36 History 48 Criminology 30 Management 29 Sociology 19 Biochemistry 12 Politics 11 Media and Communications 6 School of Social Work 3 III 2 Centre for Urban History 2 SU 1 Arts As shown above, a wide range of departments are represented in the responses, with no department particularly over-represented to bring bias into the results. 2.3 Attendance patterns The following table shows when respondents are on campus during term time, for either educational or social purposes. The six most frequented days and times are highlighted. Table 2.4: Attendance per day by time of day Number Day Early Late Early Late Evening morning morning afternoon afternoon Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday The most frequently attended times during the week were late morning and early afternoon on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Unsurprisingly, the least frequently attended periods were Sundays, particularly mornings and Saturdays, particularly early morning and evening. Thursday is the most popular evening to be on campus, followed by Monday. 9

15 2.3.3 Table 2.5 shows the overall results for attendance on campus on each day: Table 2.5: Attendance per day during term time Response Number Percentage* Monday 1,366 83% Tuesday 1,394 84% Wednesday 1,280 77% Thursday 1,392 84% Friday 1,301 79% Saturday % Sunday % None 107 6% * Students stated each day that they came onto campus, so percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total number of responses (1,655) As shown above, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday are the most common days for students to be on campus, with over 80% coming onto campus on each of these days Students were also asked how often they came onto campus during vacation time, including trips for study, socialising, etc. Table 2.6: Attendance per day during vacation time Response Number Percentage* Monday % Tuesday % Wednesday % Thursday % Friday % Saturday % Sunday % None % * Students stated each day that they came onto campus, so percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total number of responses (1,655) Perhaps surprisingly, for each day Monday to Friday around 1 in 5 students said that they came onto campus during vacation time. 60% do not go onto campus on any day outside of term-time. 10

16 3 Journey to University 3.1 Introduction The following chapter details the students journeys to the University, including how far they travel and the modes by which they travel. Students were asked about their usual journey to University in detail and this information has then been used to calculate the carbon footprint of regular student travel to the University Please note, the responses of distance learners are excluded from this and all following chapters until Chapter 8, unless specifically noted. 3.2 Residential location % of respondents (376) live in University-allocated accommodation during term time Of these 376, the proportions of respondents that live in the various University accommodation sites are shown in Figure 3.1 below: Figure 3.1: Student responses per accommodation site The Grange 2% Mary Gee 9% Goscote House 1% Salisbury House 5% Opal Court 11% Freemens Common 8% Nixon Court 15% Other 1% Beaumont Hall 11% Digby Hall 4% Gilbert Murray Stamford Hall 16% John Foster Hall 17% A range of halls of residence are represented fairly evenly in the survey, which is good as it gives a broad basis for looking at the various travel issues faced by students travelling from different halls Figure 3.2 indicates the distances that students live from the University site at which they are primarily based. The distance students live from their place of study is a strong indicator of the scope for using different modes, particularly walking and cycling, as analysed in further detail later in this report. 11

17 Figure 3.2: Distance travelled to University miles 2% miles 3% miles 20% miles 2% More than 25 miles 5% Less than 1 mile 38% 1-2 miles 30% Very encouragingly, the majority (68%) of students travel less than 2 miles to their primary place of study, with 38% travelling less than one mile. These are ideal distances for walking and cycling to campus. A further 20% live between 2 and 5 miles, which could also be feasible for cycling. This shows there is huge scope for encouraging active travel to and from campus The term-time home postcodes of students who responded to this survey have been plotted using GIS software and can be found in Appendix Time It is also useful to look at journey times, as shown in Figure 3.3: 12

18 Figure 3.3: Journey times minutes 4% minutes 9% More than 60 minutes 3% Less than 15 minutes 48% minutes 36% Journey times are relatively short for 48% of students, who travel less than 15 minutes to campus. Only 16% of students travel over 30 minutes to reach their primary place of study. 3.4 Main mode of travel The main mode of travel is the mode by which each person has travelled the furthest distance during their journey to University. Students were asked to state their main mode as well as the mode and the distance travelled on each journey leg, which is analysed in Section The split of main modes for University of Leicester students is shown in Figure

19 Figure 3.4: Main mode students Car passenger 1% Car driver (with passengers) 3% Bus / coach 15% Car driver (travelling alone) 9% Hospital Hopper 1% Cycle 11% Train 3% Taxi 1% Other 0% Walk 56% As can be seen, active travel is used by the majority of students, with 56% travelling by foot and a further 11% walking to campus. This is slightly less than the 68% that live within 2 miles of their primary place of study, indicating that there is still considerable scope for increasing this figure A total of 13% of students travel to the University by car, with 9% travelling by car alone and 4% car sharing as either a passenger or a driver. An additional 1% travel by taxi Public transport accounts for 19% of all travel, with buses used by 15% of respondents, the Hospital Hopper 1% and the train used by 1% and 3%, respectively. Main mode per campus To investigate the travel patterns of students based at different campuses, the main mode of travel is shown in the following graphs for the different campuses. The Main Campus, where there was the most robust response rate, has been shown separately (in Figure 3.5) and the other campuses are shown in Figure

20 Figure 3.5: Main modes for Main Campus Hospital Hopper 1% Bus / coach 15% Car passenger 1% Train 3% Taxi 1% Car driver (with passengers) 2% Car driver (travelling alone) 7% Walk 60% Cycle 10% A higher proportion of students based at the main campus walk to campus than for the University as a whole (60% versus 56%), which is balanced by a lower rate of car use (10% versus 13%). Figure 3.6: Main modes for other campuses Frequency of response Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk 0 North Campus South Campus Vaughan College Leicester Royal Infirmary Leicester General Hospital Glenfield Hospital Knighton & Stoneygate None - distance learner Other 15

21 3.4.8 North Campus has a large number of single occupancy vehicle drivers, equating to a 25% modal share. However, this is a total of 14 responses, so the relatively small sample size for this campus (and all other campuses aside from the main campus) make it difficult to make any solid conclusions. Main mode per distance The main mode compared to the distance travelled is shown in Figure 3.7. Figure 3.7: Main mode per distance travelled Frequency of response Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk Less than 1 mile 1-2 miles miles miles miles miles More than 25 miles Walking is the dominant mode for all students living within 2 miles of their primary campus. The largest number of cyclists travel between 1 and 2 miles to reach the University, representing 16% of this distance bracket. Cyclists also account for 14% of the mode share for those travelling between 2 and 5 miles. Only 3 students cycle more than 5 miles to reach the University The bus accounts for nearly 45% of all student journeys between 2 and 5 miles, making this the predominant distance bracket for public transport use. It should be noted that 14 students reporting using the bus for journeys less than a mile, and 44 use the bus to travel between 1 and 2 miles (equivalent to a 10% mode share) Car use is highest amongst students travelling more than 5 miles to the University; possibly indicating that public transport does not offer competitive journey times over longer distances. Car use also accounts for nearly 18% of journeys between 2 and 5 miles. 16

22 Main mode per gender The male to female ratio per main mode of travel is shown in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8: Main mode by gender Female Male 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of response Walk Cycle Motorcycle / scooter Car driver (travelling alone) Car driver (with passengers) Car passenger Bus / coach Hospital Hopper Train Taxi Other The gender split indicates that male students cycle at a much higher rate than female students, representing 17% and 6% of the total mode share, respectively. Numerically, 95 male students listed cycling as their main mode versus 47 female students. This indicates that measures specifically targeting female students, such as the establishment of a Lady BUG or a specific travel awareness scheme, may be beneficial in encouraging an increased uptake of cycling amongst female students By contrast, female students travel more on public transport (21% for females, 14% for males), travel more by car (14% versus 12%) and walk more (58% versus 56%). Main mode per level of study The main mode of travel per level of study is shown in Figure

23 Figure 3.9: Main mode per level of study Frequency of response 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk Undergraduate Postgraduate - research Postgraduate - taught ELTU Foundation year / pre-entry Other The main mode of travel is relatively consistent amongst undergraduates and both types of post-graduate courses. It should be noted that the comparatively low number of responses amongst foundation year / pre-entry and other students distorts the responses for these categories Amongst the three primary student categories, walking and bus use are highest amongst undergraduates, while taught postgraduates tend to drive more as well as using the train. To determine if this is due to varying patterns in the distance these students live from campus, the distance travelled to primary campus versus level of study is shown in Figure

24 Figure 3.10: Distance travelled per level of study 100% Frequency of response 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% More than 25 miles miles miles miles miles 1-2 miles Less than 1 mile 20% 10% 0% Undergraduate Postgraduate - research Postgraduate - taught As could be expected based on the main mode results, a greater proportion of undergraduates live within a mile of the campus at which they are based. By contrast, over 10% of taught post-graduates travel more than 25 miles, which supports the higher level of train and car use amongst this study category Overall, around 70% of undergraduates travel by active modes, comparative to around 70% living within 2 miles of the site. Around 60% of research postgraduates travel by active modes while just over 65% live within 2 miles of their primary place of study. For taught postgraduates, around 60% travel by active modes while 55% live within 2 miles. Main mode per student type Figure 3.11 below shows how the main mode of travel varies between full time and part time students. 19

25 Figure 3.11: Main mode per student type Frequency of response 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk 20% 10% 0% A full time student A part time student Other The results indicate that full time students are more likely to travel by active modes while part time students are much more likely to travel by single-occupancy vehicle. However, it should be kept in mind that there are only 74 part time student responses in the data set versus 1400 full time students. 3.5 Journey legs In addition to indicating their main mode of travel, students were asked about all of the different modes they used during their journey and how far they travelled by this mode. These details were used for calculating the carbon footprints of student travel to the University, and the results are summarised by each mode below. Walking A total of 1177 respondents walk at some point in their journey to the University, with 66% walking between 0.5 and 1.5 miles. The average distance walked is 1.06 miles. Cycling A total of 221 respondents cycle for all or part of their journey to the University, travelling an average distance of 1.66 miles. The maximum distance travelled by cycle is 12 miles, with the largest number of students cycling between 1 and 2 miles. 20

26 Motorcycle / scooter Only 8 students stated that they travel to the University by motorcycle, travelling an average of 14.5 miles. One student travels less than a mile, and 3 travel more than 10 miles Of these motorcycles, two have small engines (less than 125 cc), 4 have medium engineers (125 to 500 cc) and two have large engines (more than 500 cc). Car travel students reported travelling by single occupancy vehicle for all or part of their journey, travelling an average of just under 17 miles. However, this figure is distorted by a small number of students travelling very large distances. The median of 7.5 miles is a more accurate reflection of distance for this category respondents travel as a car driver with passengers, for a median distance of 5 miles. The largest number of students (36%) reported travelling between 2 and 5 miles students stated that they travel as a car passenger, for a median distance of 3 miles. Of the 36, 18 travel between 2 and 5 miles, and 7 travel for less than 2 miles. By contrast, 9 travel for more than 30 miles All car users were asked about the engine capacity and fuel type of the vehicle they travel in, with the results combined and shown in Figure A total of 251 responses were recorded for this question. Figure 3.12: Engine capacity Car Diesel litres (medium) 8% Diesel - up to 1.7 litres (small) 4% Petrol - I don't know 1% Petrol - more than 2 litres (large) 4% Diesel - more than 2 litres (large) 2% Diesel - I don't know 2% Petrol litres (medium) 30% LPG 1% I don't know 4% Petrol - up to 1.4 litres (small) 44% The most common vehicle type is a petrol vehicle with a small engine, accounting for 44% of the total. An additional 30% travel in petrol vehicles with medium engines. No students reported travelling in hybrid or electric vehicles For those respondents who travel to University by car (with/as a passenger) the number of people occupying that vehicle are shown in Figure responses were received for this question. 21

27 Figure 3.13: Number of vehicle occupants 4 8% 5 or more 3% 1 8% 3 24% 2 57% Most respondents reported that there are 2 vehicle occupants, with 24% stating that there are 3, with 11% travelling in a group of 4 or more. Despite the question being asked only to car sharers, 8% of respondents stated that they were the only vehicle occupant, possibly misunderstanding the questions and instead answering how many passengers they carry. Bus / coach A total of 244 students travel by bus or coach for all or part of their journey, with an average journey length of 3.6 miles. 35% of all bus journeys are between 2 and 3 miles. A total of 46 students (19%) travel 2 miles or less by bus. Hospital Hopper Only 14 students reported travelling on the Hospital Hopper, for an average of 2.9 miles. The largest number of students (6 out of the 14) reporting travelling between 2 and 3 miles by Hospital Hopper. Train respondents travel by train for all or part of their journey. The median journey length is 32.5 miles, further supporting that train travel is most viable for longer trips. Of those that reported travelling by train, 83% (40 respondents) stated that they travel 20 miles or more to reach the University. Taxi Only 15 students reported using taxis to travel to the University, for an average journey of 3.5 miles. This includes two students that travel less than a mile. 22

28 students reported sharing their taxis with 2 or more people, with nobody reporting they share with just one other person. 3.6 Carbon footprint The University of Leicester is to take part in the Carbon Reduction Commitment scheme, a carbon trading scheme to be launched in April 2010 which aims to help improve energy efficiency and cut carbon emissions The student dataset gained through the student travel survey has allowed an estimation of the Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ), Methane and Nitrous Oxide emitted from students travelling to University. The annual emissions have been calculated based on the 2009 DEFRA Greenhouse Gas Conversion factors. These factors are considered the industry standard for transport-related emissions and express Methane and Nitrous Oxide as tonnes of CO 2 equivalent A number of assumptions have been made when conducting the analysis in order to standardise the methodology. On a number of occasions, the worse case scenario has been assumed to create a more robust analysis. The assumptions made in the student model follow those of the staff model, however, in addition it is assumed that students only make one return journey to the University on each day they travel and that students travel to University consistently as stated below during term time (26 weeks) and vacation time (26 weeks). Distance learners are also excluded from this analysis The assumption has also been made that the modal split remains consistent throughout the year, for weekdays and weekends both during and outside of term time Accurate distances students travel to the University have been gained for 11% (1,472) of full-time students using data gathered in the travel survey; the carbon model needs to account for all students that regularly travel to the University to provide an accurate emission baseline so this 11% has been factored up to account for 100% of all full time students based on the assumption that there are a total of 13,000 full-time students at the University of Leicester. (At this time this figure is a loose assumption that may need to be ratified.) Part time students have been excluded because their travel patterns vary more considerably and a sufficient data set has not been acquired on their travel to make assumptions about their travel as a whole Because of these assumptions, the modal split is slightly different to that present earlier in the chapter, which included part-time students The following details have also been taken into account as part of the findings of the student survey: 86% of students (excluding part time students and distance learners) are on campus per day on average, Monday to Friday, during term time; 23% of students (excluding part time students and distance learners) are on campus per day on average, Monday to Friday, during vacation time; 16% of students travel to the University, on average, each weekend day during term time; and 12% of students travel to the University, on average, each weekend day during vacation time The student mode split determined in the survey and average annual distances travelled to University by each respective mode have been factored up to account for the remaining students expected on campus during each of these time period to estimate the additional carbon emissions. 23

29 It is estimated that student travel to University annually emits 2729 Tonnes of carbon equivalent into the atmosphere, of which 2152 Tonnes are emitted during term time and 577 Tonnes are emitted during vacation time. Table 3.1 gives the breakdown of emissions per mode per weekday/weekend and term time versus vacation time, while Table 3.2 compares the overall trip share per mode to the total CO2 emissions per mode. Table 3.1: Carbon emissions - students Mode Total CO2 emissions (Tonnes) Term time - weekday Term time - weekend Vacation time - weekday Vacation time - weekend Annual total Bus / coach Car driver (travelling alone) Car driver (with passengers) Car passenger Cycle Motorcycle / scooter Other Taxi Train Walk Total Table 3.2: Emissions per mode - students Mode Mode share CO2 emission share Bus / coach 16% 14% Car driver (travelling alone) 7% 61% Car driver (with 2% 7% passengers) Car passenger 2% 3% Cycle 11% 0% Motorcycle / scooter 0% 3% Other 0% 0% Taxi 1% 1% Train 3% 11% Walk 58% 0% As can be seen, car drivers without passengers account for the largest proportion of emissions, representing 62% of all emissions while only accounting for 9% of the mode share. Train users also contribute considerably to the total emissions, with only 3% of students accounting for 11% of all emissions Reducing single-occupancy vehicle use amongst students would result in the greatest reduction in the total tonnes of CO2 produced, while encouraging public transport users to travel by active modes would also result in a measurable reduction in total emissions. 24

30 4 Travelling to the University by car 4.1 Introduction This chapter details motorised vehicle use amongst University of Leicester students, including those that stated they travel by car, taxi or motorcycle/scooter for all or part of their journeys to campus. Their reasons for using the vehicle and where they park it during the day are also summarised. (In the following questions, motorcycle, scooter and taxi users are all included, but car is used for simplicity). 4.2 Reason for car use Students who travel to the University by car were asked to rank their primary reasons for doing so; the top three responses are shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Reasons for car use Quickest journey time Cheapest option Convenience Health reasons Personal security Lack of an alternative Personal comfort Dropping off / collecting children Need car to run other errands Frequency of response 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Quickest journey time was the most frequently cited reason for students travelling by car as the first choice of reason as well as overall. This was followed in popularity by convenience and there being no viable alternative. By comparison, very few students ranked health reasons, caring needs or personal security as a reason for travelling by car The primary reason for using a car, per gender, are shown in Figure 4.2. Please note that while only the top three ranked options were considered in this question, they have been added together to simplify the responses. 25

31 Figure 4.2: Reasons for car use by gender Female Male 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of response Quickest journey time Convenience Personal security Personal comfort Need car to run other errands Cheapest option Health reasons Lack of an alternative Dropping off / collecting children The reasons for car use are relatively consistent amongst males and females, with males slightly more inclined to rank the quickest journey time and females more likely to state convenience. While females were more likely to cite dropping off or collecting children as a reason, this is not particularly prevalent amongst either gender. 4.3 Car sharing In total 4% of respondents currently car share for all or part of their journey, either as a car driver or a car passenger. This is compared to 9% who drive alone All car drivers and passengers were asked what they would find most beneficial if they already car share or might be prepared to do so. Responses are shown in Figure

32 Figure 4.3: Encouraging car sharing Help identifying suitable car share partners Guaranteed ride home Shared fuel costs between car sharers Dedicated parking spaces Other Frequency of response Dedicated parking spaces was the most popular measure to encourage students to car share, which could be expected considering the unavailability of parking for students at present. This is followed in popularity by shared fuel costs between car sharers Car users who do not currently car share with another University student were asked what they perceived to be the primary barrier to doing so. Responses are shown in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Perceived barriers to car sharing I do not know anyone to car share with I do not feel comfortable sharing my vehicle I travel to the University irregularly Other Frequency of response 27

33 4.3.5 The most frequently cited barrier to car sharing was not knowing anyone to car share with, followed by students stated that their travel to the University is too irregular. Amongst other answers, a number of students stated a lack of flexibility in car sharing. Scope for increasing car sharing There is relatively little scope for encouraging car sharing amongst students without introducing formal parking for car sharing students. If the University is proposed to offer dedicated car parking to students who car share, this is could be a strong motivating factor for students to car share. However, it is also likely that such an arrangement might also encourage students who currently walk, cycle or use the bus to car share, given that the majority of students live relatively close to campus and already travel sustainably, so such a measure could be counter-productive to the aims of the travel plan. It would be better to help them find car sharing partners. It wouldn t be cost-effective to set up a scheme just for students, but they could be involved through a scheme set up for staff, with whom it there is more scope for change. 4.4 Parking Students that drive to campus, either with or without passengers, were asked where they parked their car while they were at the University. 228 students answered this question. Their responses are shown in Figure 4.5 below. Figure 4.5: Parking location Station car park 2% Other 11% Off street - University car park 10% Off street - private car park 14% On street (without charges) 43% On street (parking charges) 20% The majority of students stated that they park on-street, 43% without parking charges and 20% with parking charges. This indicates that introducing parking charges in areas where parking is currently free, increasing enforcement of existing parking restrictions or increasing the rates to park on-street would help to discourage students from driving to the University Of those that responded other, most did not give a specific location and some stated they were dropped off. 28

34 5 Encouraging travel by other modes 5.1 Introduction The following chapter examines the scope for increasing the uptake of walking, cycling and public transport amongst University of Leicester students, including what would most encourage them to travel alternatively and what they currently perceive as barriers to using these modes. 5.2 Walking Students were asked whether they currently walk for all or part of their journey to the University, or whether they would consider doing so in the future. The responses are shown in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Scope for increasing walking I don't walk currently but might in the future I walk 5% occasionally, e.g. once a month 7% I walk regularly, e.g. once a week 10% I would not consider walking 13% I always walk 65% As would be expected given the predominance of walking in the split of main modes, the majority of students stated that they already always walk to the University. A total of 5% stated that they might consider walking in the future and 13% stated that they would not consider walking. 17% walk regularly or occasionally; these could be targeted to increase their walking to every day. In addition, 6 students stated that they have a medical or physical condition that prevents them from walking (equivalent to less than 1% of the total) The responses to this question in reference to the existing main modes of travel used by students are shown in Figure 5.2 below. 29

35 Figure 5.2: Scope for increasing walking per existing main mode Frequency of response 1, I always walk I walk regularly, e.g. once a week I walk occasionally, e.g. once a month I don't walk currently but might in the future I have a medical or physical condition tha... I would not consider walking Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk Students that stated that their main mode was walking predominantly replied that they always walk to the University. Cyclists were somewhat evenly distributed amongst each group Amongst those that stated that they don t currently walk but might in the future, 39 out of 65 are existing bus users. If the University is able to encourage existing bus users to walk to the University, this may free up some capacity on the buses, possibly in turn encouraging existing car users to travel by public transport of the 176 students who said they would not consider walking are existing car users, and a further 33 are cyclists Students that currently walk some of the time and students that might consider walking in the future were asked to rank their top three choices on what would most encourage them to walk, or walk more, to the University. In total, 250 students responded to this question. Their responses are shown in Figure

36 Figure 5.3: Encouraging walking Improved showers and changing facilities More lockers and storage facilities Safer crossing facilities on route Improved lighting / security on route A walking buddy or group More information on pedestrian routes Park & Stride Frequency of response 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice The most popular response to this question, both as a first choice and overall, was improved lighting and security on routes. Students were also asked to detail any parts of their walking route in need of improvement. The responses can be found in full in Appendix 2, with improved lighting and security most frequently requested within Victoria Park The second most frequently cited response overall was for safer crossing facilities on route and the second most popular first choice was for a walking buddy or group It should be noted that all three of these responses are closely aligned with student safety, implying that this a major concern for students walking to the University, more so than a lack of facilities once they arrive on campus While it may be most beneficial to undertake discussions with Leicester City Council, the University can implement certain measures to help overcome safety fears. For example, walking buses could be set up for students to walk through Victoria Park in groups during hours of darkness In terms of on-site facilities, students most frequently requested lockers and storage facilities. Students may have to frequently carry heavy books, papers, etc. to and from campus and allowing students to leave these in a safe place might help encourage students to walk more frequently Students that would not consider walking were asked about their primary barrier to doing so, with their responses shown below. 31

37 Figure 5.4: Barriers to walking I do not live within walking distance I am uncertain of walking routes I do not feel safe walking Lack of facilities at the University Bad weather There are no barriers to walking Other Frequency of response Not living within walking distance was the most frequently cited barrier, followed by other. Amongst the other responses, 15 of 18 respondents stated that they prefer to cycle to the University. 5.3 Cycling As with walking, students were asked whether they currently cycle for all or part of their journey to University or if they might be prepared to do so in the future. Responses are shown in Figure 5.5. A total of 1380 students responded to this question. 32

38 Figure 5.5: Scope for increasing cycling I would not consider cycling 45% I have a medical or physical condition that prevents me from cycling 1% I always cycle 9% I cycle regularly, e.g. once a week 6% I cycle occasionally, e.g. once a month 4% I don't cycle currently but might in the future 35% While only 9% of students stated that they always cycle to the University, an additional 10% stated that they cycle either regularly or occasionally and 35% stated that the might cycle in the future. These responses imply that there is considerable scope for increasing the number of students that cycle to the University The responses to this question in reference to stated main mode of travel are shown in Figure

39 Figure 5.6: Scope for increasing cycling per existing main mode Frequency of response I always cycle I cycle regularly, e.g. once a week I cycle occasionally, e.g. once a month I don't cycle currently but might in the future I have a medical or physical condition tha... I would not consider cycling Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk Amongst those that might consider cycling, 71% (339 out of 478) currently walk to the University as their main mode of travel and most students that cycle regularly or occasionally also walk as their main mode. Whilst targeting walkers to switch to cycling would not be a direct aim of the travel plan in terms of reducing environmental impact, increasing the number of cyclists is beneficial in itself because as cycling numbers increase, so does the perception that it is safe and the norm, which in turn may lead to other transport users trying cycling % of existing car users stated that they would not consider cycling, but 21% stating that they would consider cycling. Existing car users account for 8% of those that stated they might cycle in the future (39 respondents) Of existing bus users, 40% (77 respondents) stated that they would consider cycling When combined with the responses from the question on walking, it becomes clear that there is more scope for modal shift away from bus use and onto active modes more so than from car use to active modes Students that cycle regularly, occasionally or might cycle in the future were asked to rank what would most encourage them to cycle, or cycle more often, to the University. Their responses are shown in Figure students responded to this question. 34

40 Figure 5.7: Encouraging cycling Improved showers and changing facilities More cycle parking on site More secure cycle parking on site Discounts on a bicycle and related accessories More lockers and storage facilities Improved cycle routes Improved lighting / security on route A cycling buddy or group More information Bicycle confidence training On-site / nearby bicycle repair service Appropriate Park & Pedal facilities Frequency of response 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice The most popular first choice and the most frequently cited response overall was for more secure cycling parking on site, which was cited in 90 more responses as a first, second or third choice than simply requesting more cycle parking on site. This implies that students are particularly concerned about security when leaving their bike on campus The second most frequently cited response was that discounts on a bicycle and related accessories might encourage them to cycle. Improved cycle routes was also important, cited by over 200 students as their first, second or third choice Aside from cycle parking, there was comparatively little support for additional facilities on campus. Improved showers and changing facilities was listed as a first choice for just under 50 respondents, while more lockers and storage facilities was ranked most frequently as a third choice Less than a hundred students each ranked having a cycle buddy, more information, bicycle confidence training, a bicycle repair service or park & pedal facilities as their first, second or third choice in helping to encourage them to cycle. However, where improving cycle lanes is outside the University s control, these measures could improve students confidence in cycling, thus reducing the perceived need for more cycle lanes Students that would not consider cycling were asked to rank what they see as the primary barrier to doing so. 551 students responded to this question, with their responses shown in Figure

41 Figure 5.8: Barriers to cycling I do not live within cycling distance I am uncertain of cycling routes to the University Lack of cycle routes I feel unsafe cycling I am not a confident cyclist Lack of secure cycle parking Lack of facilities at the University I do not own a bicycle Bad weather I prefer to walk to the University There are no barriers to cycling Other Frequency of response Aside from students stating that they already walk to the University, not owning a bicycle was the most frequently cited barrier to cycling, with over 120 students stating this as their primary reason for not cycling. When combined with the 256 students that ranked discounts towards the purchase of a bicycle and associated equipment as a measure that would encourage them to cycle, there is considerable evidence that not owning a bicycle or being able to afford one is a considerable obstacle for students that might otherwise consider cycling Just fewer than 120 students cited distance as their primary barrier and just under 100 stated that either that they feel unsafe cycling or are not a confident cyclist Of those that stated other, several students that they live too close to campus to make cycling advantageous and a few students cited the need to carry heavy books and laptops Students were also asked to detail any areas of their cycling route that are in need of improvement, the responses to which can be found in Appendix 2. As with walking, Victoria Park was again frequently mentioned by students as an area of concern, as was New Walk. Cycle parking Existing cyclists were asked to describe the cycle parking facility that they currently use, with their responses shown in Figure

42 Figure 5.9: Current cycle parking facility The closest to my place of study More secure facilities farther from place of study More overlooked facilities beyond place of study Covered cycle parking beyond place of study None - I use a folding bike Other Frequency of response The vast majority of student cyclists stated that they park closest to their place of study, choosing this option over seeking out more secure, more overlooked or covered cycle parking elsewhere on campus Existing cyclists were then asked what improvements they would most like to see to cycle parking on campus. The results are shown below. Figure 5.10: Preferred cycle parking facility More secure facilities closer to my place of study More overlooked facilities closer to my place of study Covered cycle parking closer to my place of study Other Frequency of response The results show that students would in general prefer secure facilities over just covered facilities. 37

43 5.4 Public transport Students were then asked whether they currently use public transport for the journey to University or if they might use it in the future. Their responses are shown in Figure Figure 5.11: Scope for increasing public transport I would not consider using public transport 58% I always use public transport 16% I use public transport regularly, e.g. once a week 6% I don't currently use public transport but might in the future 10% I use public transport occasionally, e.g. once a month 10% The results show that 16% of students always use public transport with an equal proportion using public transport some of the time. Only 10% of students that don t currently use public transport would consider using it in the future The responses to this question according to existing main mode are shown in Figure

44 Figure 5.12: Scope for increasing public transport use per existing main mode Frequency of response I always use public transport I use public transport regularly, e.g. once... I use public transport occasionally, e.g. o... I would not consider using public transport I don't currently use public transport but m... I have a medical or physical condition that... Other Taxi Train Hospital Hopper Bus / coach Car passenger Car driver (with passengers) Car driver (travelling alone) Motorcycle / scooter Cycle Walk Amongst those that stated they don t currently use public transport but might in the future, walking is the predominant existing main mode. Amongst existing car users (as either driver or passenger), 15% of existing car users reported using public transport occasionally and a further 16% stated that they would consider using public transport Those that stated they use public transport some of the time or might in the future were asked what would encourage them to use both the bus and the train or to use them more often. Their responses are shown in Figure 5.13 and Figure

45 Figure 5.13: Encouraging bus use Cheaper fares Up-to-date travel information More direct bus services Quicker journey times More frequent bus services More reliable bus services Less crowded services Better standard of buses More bus stops Covered bus stops More secure bus stops Real-time bus information Nothing would encourage me to travel by bus Frequency of response 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Figure 5.14: Encouraging train use Cheaper fares Up-to-date travel information More frequent services More reliable services Better standard of trains Less crowded services Better waiting areas More convenient train stations Improved walking routes from the train station Improved bus service from the train station Nothing would encourage me to use the train Frequency of response Ranking 1 Ranking 2 Ranking Cheaper fares was the most frequently cited response for encouraging both bus and train use. More frequent and more reliable services were also frequently cited for both bus and train For bus use in particular, the need for more direct routes and quicker journey times was important Students overall are more willing to use the bus than the train, in that far more students claimed that nothing would encourage them to use the train than the same response for 40

46 buses; this could be due to not living far enough away from the University to warrant taking the train The primary barriers to using public transport, as stated by students, are shown in Figure Only students that stated that nothing would encourage them to use public transport were asked this question. Figure 5.15: Barriers to public transport I always walk or cycle to the University There are no convenient bus or train routes between my home and the University I need my car for other commitments There are no barriers to using public transport Other Frequency of response The most frequent response was that students already walk or cycle to the University, with 500 responses this is a positive result. There were nearly 100 other responses for this question, with many students again stating that they lived too close to the University for public transport to be viable, and a large number of students also claiming that public transport was too expensive to be a viable option. 5.5 GIS Postcode Analysis A GIS analysis using the postcodes given by student respondents has also been carried out to support the preceding analysis. In total, 1,103 postcodes were successfully plotted. The postcodes have been used to investigate the geographical distribution of users of different travel modes to look at the propensity for change. Postcode maps displaying these results can be found in Appendix Table 5.1 shows the current number of respondents living within 1, 2 and 5 mile buffer zones (as the crow files) of the University and travelling by foot, bicycle, bus and SOV. 41

47 Table 5.1: Travel modes used in 1, 2 and 5 mile zones around the University Mode Distance Count % Plotted Postcodes Walk Cycle Bus SOV (total 1,103*) 0-1 mile % 1-2 miles 66 6% 2-5 miles 4 0% 0-1 mile 62 6% 1-2 miles 43 4% 2-5 miles 7 1% 0-1 mile 16 1% 1-2 miles 97 9% 2-5 miles 32 3% 0-1 mile 12 1% 1-2 miles 15 1% 2-5 miles 22 2% * - This is not the entire student population The GIS analysis found 27 students living within 2 miles of the site who currently drive to University alone, 12 of whom who live within 1 mile of the University. Perhaps of greater note, the GIS analysis found 113 students living within 2 miles that currently use public transport Table 5.2 shows the number of car users who live within zones that can be broadly assumed to be reasonable areas from which students can walk, cycle or use public transport. Table 5.2: Students car users who would consider walking, cycling or using public transport Mode Distance Count % Plotted Postcodes* Walk 0-2 miles 3 0.3% Cycle 0-5 miles % PT PT zones 5 0.5% * - Not all student postcodes were plottable, as with the staff dataset From this data it appears that there are relatively few students who currently drive that could be easily encourage to change to more sustainable modes, but with a larger data set this could show a more positive picture Those living within 5 miles, which can be cycled in approximately 30 minutes, are more likely to become everyday cyclists, while those living more than 5 miles away may be more likely to cycle occasionally. 5.6 Scope for modal shift to non-car modes The responses of existing car users have been examined to determine the scope for modal shift away from private vehicles. 42

48 Table 5.3: Potential shift from car use Response Number Percentage Car users that would walk 12 6% Car users that would cycle (but not walk) 31 16% Car users that would use public transport (but not 8 4% walk or cycle) Total 51 27% In total, 27% of existing car users would either consider walking, cycling or use public transport. A total of 29 car users said they would consider using public transport, but the majority of these respondents stated that they would also consider cycling. 43

49 6 Travel between University of Leicester sites 6.1 Introduction This chapter discusses student travel between different University of Leicester sites, including how frequently they travel, which sites they travel between, and the mode of transport used for this travel. 6.2 Frequency of travel Students were first asked how frequently they travel between their main place of study and other University of Leicester sites. Their responses are shown in Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: Frequency of travel between University of Leicester sites 1, Frequency of response Never Rarely Once a month 2-3 times a month Weekly 2-3 times a week Daily Other % of students stated that they never travel to other University of Leicester sites, with an additional 8% doing so less than once a month. By contrast, 15% of students claimed they travel once a week or more. 6.3 Locations Students who stated they travel between University of Leicester sites were then asked to specify which sites they typically travel between. While the question specifically asked students to exclude journeys undertaken by foot, it is clear that many students did not take this into account when responding. Results are summarised in Table

50 Table 6.1: Travel between campuses Journey Frequency of response Two sites within main campus 154 Main campus to/from Leicester Royal Infirmary 123 Main campus to/from North Campus 46 Main campus to/from Leicester General Hospital 46 Main campus to/from Glenfield Hospital 38 Leicester Royal Infirmary to/from Leicester General Hospital 33 Leicester Royal Infirmary to/from Glenfield Hospital 29 Leicester General Hospital to/from Glenfield Hospital As can be seen, when students travel between sites it is most commonly to or from one of the University Hospitals, with Leicester Royal Infirmary of particular importance. 6.4 Main mode for travel between University of Leicester sites Students were then asked what main mode of transport they used for travel between sites. Figure 6.2: Main mode for travel between University sites Other 39% Taxi 2% Hospital Hopper 13% Cycle 15% Motorcycle / scooter 1% Car driver (travelling alone) 9% Car driver (with passengers) 5% Car passenger 3% Public bus 13% Other was cited most frequently, with students predominantly stating that they walk. As students were asked to exclude walking trips this indicates that the question was not completely clear to many respondents Amongst the remaining students, cycling was cited as the more frequent mode used to travel between sites, accounting for 15% of journeys, following by both the Hospital Hopper and the public bus, each accounting for 13% of trips Lone car travel accounted for 9% of these trips, with car sharing comprising an additional 8%. This shows the proportion of car sharers is higher compared to SOV travel for intersite travel than commuting (where car sharing is 4% compared to 9% SOV). The travel plan should build on this existing good practice to encourage more car sharing in general. 45

51 6.5 Barriers to sustainable modes Students that do not currently cycle between sites were subsequently asked what they saw as the primary barrier to doing so, with responses shown in Figure students responded to this question. Figure 6.3: Barriers to cycling between University of Leicester sites I have a medical or physical condition I am uncertain of cycle routes between sites I feel unsafe cycling I am not a confident cyclist Lack of secure cycle parking at one or both sites Lack of showers, changing facilities or lockers I do not have access to a bicycle Bad weather I need to carry large or bulky items Other Frequency of response The most frequently cited barrier was that students did not have access to a bicycle, with 34 responses. Feeling unsafe and not being a confident cyclist were also important, indicating a potential need for organising student cycle training. Amongst other responses, many responses stated that the sites were too far apart to cycle between Students that do not currently travel by public transport between sites were asked about their primary barrier to doing so. It should be noted that only 50 students responded to this question. Responses are shown in Figure

52 Figure 6.4: Barriers to travelling between University of Leicester sites by public transport I have a medical or physical condition There are no direct bus routes between sites The bus routes between sites are not reliable Bus routes between sites not frequent enough The fares are too high The buses are too crowded I need to carry large or bulky items Other Frequency of response Other was cited most frequently with these responses varying considerably. A lack of direct bus routes was also cited by 10 respondents while the fares being too high was cited by 9 students. 47

53 7 Travel between home and University 7.1 Introduction Students were asked about their travel between home and the University, with emphasis placed on understanding the travel patterns of international students % of respondents live within the UK and the remaining 16% (215 respondents) travel from abroad. The following analysis looks at the travel habits of these students who live outside the UK. 7.2 Frequency of travel International students were asked how many times they travelled home during the last academic year as well as how many times they intend to travel home during the current academic year. Responses are shown in Table 7.1. Table 7.1: Frequency of travel to home Number of trips per year Last academic year This academic year > As can be seen, the largest number of students (43%) did not travel home at all during the last academic year, followed by 26% making only one trip home For the current academic year, 33% of students plan to travel home once, with 23% travelling home twice and 21% not planning on travelling home at all. 7.3 Mode of travel International students were then asked about their main mode of transport when travelling home. Responses are shown in Figure 7.1.

54 Figure 7.1: Main mode of travel to home (international students) Car (alone) 1% Bus / coach 2% Other 4% Eurostar / train 3% Ferry / boat 2% Plane 88% Nearly 90% of students travel home by plane, followed in popularity by train or Eurostar. Of those that responded other, most did not indicate their alternative mode and three responded plane. 7.4 Home locations International students were then asked what city they travel to when travelling home, listing the closest major city to aid with the analysis process There did appear to be some level of misunderstanding with the intent of this question, as 27 students stating London, 9 Birmingham and 3 Manchester. The implication would be that these are the cities that these students fly out of when travelling home, however no information has been provided on where they fly to The continents of origin amongst students that listed foreign destinations are shown below. Table 7.2: Home continent of international students Continent Frequency of response Europe 58 Asia 66 Africa 9 Oceania 0 North America 26 South America The largest number of students come from countries in Asia, including 20 from China, 15 from India, 7 from Malaysia and 5 from Pakistan.

55 7.4.5 Students come from a large number of European countries, with 10 coming from Germany, 5 from the Netherlands and 5 from Switzerland For North America, 12 students come from Canada and 11 from the United States.

56 8 Distance Learners 8.1 Introduction As explained earlier in this report, the responses of distance learners have largely been omitted from the analysis as they will rarely visit the campus and as they make up a significant proportion of the total responses (5%) their answers could skew the results However, it is important to study the travel patterns of distance learners, in particular to look at how they impact upon the carbon footprint of the University respondents stated that they were enrolled on a distance learning course and their results are analysed below Of these, 85% were taking post-graduate courses (59% taught, 26% research). 8% stated that they were undergraduates. 8.2 Frequency of travel to University Of the 87 distance learners, 75% said that their studies are not based on a campus. 14% said that their studies were based on the Main Campus (12 responses), 4% on the North Campus (3 responses) and 1 person was based at Leicester Royal Infirmary. The other responses showed that some students were based at other Universities, including Peterborough and Northampton Universities When asked about travel to campus during the week, 85% said they are not on campus during any day of the week, this falls to 80% not being on campus during vacation time. Of the 87 distance learners who responded, only up to 5 stated they will be on the campus on each day, generally coming in late afternoons Monday-Friday and throughout the day Saturday The distance that distance learners live from the University is shown below in Figure 8.1:

57 Figure 8.1: Frequency that distance learners live from the University Less than 1 mile 7% 1-2 miles 3% miles 3% miles 5% More than 25 miles 80% miles 0% miles 2% As expected, 80% of distance learners live more than 25 miles from the University. Under this distance, respondents live a varied distance from the University, with 7% stating that they live less than a mile; these people will account for the majority of trips to the University and will benefit from both the promotional messages and improvements to facilities that the travel plan will bring. 8.3 Travel mode share The travel modes used by distance learners when they do travel to the University are shown in Figure 8.2. Only 46 responses were received from distance learners for this question, so each response equates to just over 2% of the total respondents to the survey.

58 Figure 8.2: Travel mode share of distance learners Taxi 2% Other 15% Walk 2% Cycle 4% Car driver (travelling alone) 36% Train 28% Hospital Hopper 0% Bus / coach 4% Car passenger 7% Car driver (with passengers) 2% The mode accounting for the largest number of distance learners travelling to the University is single-occupancy vehicle, making up 36% of the total. A further 9% car share as driver or passenger. Encouragingly, 28% travel to the site by train Given the relatively low number of responses amongst distance learners, no further analysis will be undertaken amongst this sub-group.

59 9 Recommendations 9.1 Introduction Student travel to the University of Leicester is, for the most part, already inherently sustainable, with over half of the students walking to campus and only 13% travelling by car. However, given the size of the student population, the cumulative impact of vehicular travel by this minority is considerable The results of the student survey indicate that strides can be made towards encouraging more students to travel by active modes to the University, with particular scope for modal shift away from bus use This chapter details the key points that have arisen through the analysis of the student survey results and provides recommendations on how these issues can be addressed. 9.2 Recommendations Cycling The survey found that there is great potential to increase cycling amongst students, with 35% of students stating that they don t cycle currently but might in the future. However, further analysis found that 71% of these students currently walk as their main mode of travel. While both are environmentally friendly modes, walking can be seen as preferable to cycling as walking does not need to be supported by additional infrastructure at the University, e.g. cycle parking. Efforts should therefore be concentrated on promoting cycling to existing bus and car users. However, increasing the number of cyclists in general can stimulate further increases in cyclists from less sustainable modes as perceptions of cycling as being unsafe or an unattractive mode of travel are overcome The following measures were highlighted in the student survey as being instrumental in encouraging students to cycle, or to cycle more, to the University: Walking Install additional secure cycling parking on campus. Secure (e.g. gated) parking is preferred to covered parking, although covered parking would also be welcomed. Develop a cycle route map of the area surrounding the University, highlighting alternative routes along quieter streets. Investigate finding discounts for students wishing to purchase a bicycle or related equipment. Investigate organising cycle training to improve confidence on the road Walking is the predominant mode of transport for students travelling to the University. The survey findings indicate that the majority of students currently living with two miles of their primary place of study currently walk. However, there are students living within a mile of the University that still drive or use public transport, and students have overwhelmingly stated that they are concerned about their safety while walking to the University Analysis of the data has determined that the scope for increasing the mode share of walking comes primarily from existing bus users, while most of those currently driving live too far from the University for walking to be a viable option as a main mode.

60 9.2.6 Students that walk some of the time or might consider walking in the future stated that they would most like to see improved lighting and security on route, alongside safer crossing facilities. With the open text answers, lighting in Victoria Park was frequently cited, as well as crossing facilities along University Road The following measures could help to improve the pedestrian environment for University of Leicester students: Undertake discussions with Leicester City Council regarding lighting through Victoria Park, Nelson Mandela Park and along New Walk. Undertake discussions with Leicester City Council regarding the condition of pavements and pedestrian crossings along University Road. Consider designing a winter walking guide, highlighting well-lit alternative routes to the University. Consider implementing a walking bus schedule for Victoria Park, whereby students can meet at a predetermined point and walk through the park as a group. Investigate installing additional lockers for students to store items on campus. Public transport In addition to encouraging some existing bus users to travel actively, there is also some limited scope for encouraging existing car users to travel by public transport. The travel plan does not need to emphasise encouraging public transport amongst students, but a number of things may be kept in mind should the University decide to place emphasis on encouraging public transport use, including: Investigate cheaper fares or discounted monthly/annual passes for buses. Undertake discussions with local bus providers regarding the frequency of services to the University and the hours of operation, with students citing buses are too infrequent and overcrowded during peak times and do not run late enough in to the evenings. Managing car use Most students that currently drive to the University do so either out of convenience or because it offers the quickest journey time. Comparatively few students drive because of lack of an alternative, indicating that there is scope for reducing the number of students driving A lack of parking has been cited by many students in open questions as a barrier to using the car and most students that currently drive park on-street around the University, most without charges. To make it more difficult for students to park in the surrounding area, Leicester City Council may wish to investigate the introduction of more parking enforcement Should it become more difficult to find parking around the campuses, the University may need to investigate including students in a car parking management scheme. It should be noted that only a small number of students would be expected to qualify for permits, these being primarily part-time students who may travel longer distances to the University or may need to travel quickly between the University and their place of work. Travelling between University of Leicester sites Most students do not travel between University of Leicester of sites, with most of those that do travel going from the main campus to one of the hospitals or travelling between the hospitals.

61 Not having access to a bicycle was listed by the largest number of students as the primary barrier to cycling between sites. The University may want to investigate trialling a pool bike scheme for students travelling between sites, or between academic sites and halls of residence The results on barriers to using public transport between sites is inconclusive, given the small number of respondents to this question, but it can be assumed that any measures put forward for staff would also help students overcome similar barriers they face.

62 Appendix 1 GIS mapping

63 Appendix 2 Other survey responses