University of Birmingham Staff and Student Travel Survey

2016 University of Birmingham Staff and Student Travel Survey

Executive Summary The University of Birmingham has been conducting a travel survey amongst staff and students since 2008. The aim of the survey and the resultant action plan is to gain an understanding of staff and student travel habits, identify areas for improvement, reduce single occupancy car usage and in turn help reduce our carbon footprint. An online questionnaire was designed and made available for staff and students at the University of Birmingham, through emails and links on the University intranet, with paper copies of the survey made available for staff without access to a computer. The survey period lasted from 16 th May to 16 th June 2016 and attracted a response rate of 13.1% for students and 31.8% for staff, providing a fair representation of staff and student travel behaviour. Response rates improved in both categories compared to 2013 with 1,077 more responses being submitted. Unfortunately the University has seen a 3% increase in single occupancy car usage amongst staff. The percentage of staff car sharing, travelling by bus and train has decreased since 2013 however active travel methods walking and cycling have increased slightly. Amongst students there has been a decrease in single occupancy car usage especially amongst postgraduates where there has been a reduction of 2.8% since 2013. This is in contrast to the 2013 report which saw a decrease in single occupancy car usage by staff accompanied by an increase by students. The rise in single occupancy car usage by staff can be attributed to a move away from public transport particularly the train which has seen a 2% decrease since 2013. Bus usage amongst staff has decreased by 0.8% since 2013. Levels of cycling across both groups have remained relatively static with small increases amongst staff and postgraduates. Walking to the University remains the most popular method for undergraduate students and there have been increases amongst postgraduates and staff also. 2

Contents Executive Summary Page 2 Section 1: Introduction Page 6 Background Page 6 Campus Location Page 6 University Sustainable Travel Plan Page 6 Report Structure Page 7 Section 2: Methodology Page 7 Section 3: Survey Results and Analysis Page 8 Response Rate Page 8 Campus Location Page 9 Campus Arrival Time Page 10 Main Travel Method Page 11 Comparison of modal shift since 2008 Page 12 Occasional Travel Method Page 16 Occasional travel for car users Page 18 Car travel in relation to distance travelled Page 19 Viable Alternative Travel Method Page 20 Car Park location Page 21 Reasons for travelling by car Page 23 Encouraging sustainable travel amongst students Page 24 Encouraging sustainable travel amongst staff Page 28 Respondents open comments and suggestions for improvement Page 32 Section 5: Recommendations Page 35 Student specific Page 35 Staff specific Page 38 Section 6: Conclusion Page 40 3

Appendix Appendix A: UoB Staff post codes based in the UK Page 44 Appendix B: UoB Staff post codes based in the West Midlands Page 45 Appendix C: Staff that either walk or cycle Page 46 Appendix D: Students that either walk or cycle Page 47 Appendix E: Staff commuting by bus Page 48 Appendix F: Students commuting by bus Page 49 Appendix G: Staff commuting by train Page 50 Appendix H: Students commuting by train Page 51 Appendix I: Staff motorists Page 52 Appendix J: Staff motorists (zoomed in) Page 53 Appendix K: Students who commute by vehicle Page 54 List of Tables Table 1: Survey response rate Page 8 Table 2: Campus location Page 9 Table 3: Main travel method Page 11 Table 4: Staff travel habit trends (2008-2013) Page 13 Table 5: Student travel habit trends (2008-2013) Page 15 Table 6: Occasional travel method Page 16 Table 7: Occasional travel method of single occupancy car users Page 18 Table 8: Distance travelled by car Page 19 Table 9: Most viable alternative travel method for car users Page 20 Table 10: Car parking location Page 21 Table 12: Cycle comments Page 32 Table 13: Bus comments Page 33 Table 14: Train comments Page 34 4

Table 15: Walking comments Page 34 List of figures Figure 1: Campus arrival time Page 10 Figure 2: Main travel method Page 11 Figure 3: Travel method modal shift for UoB staff (2008-2013) Page 13 Figure 4: Travel method modal shift for UoB students (2008-2013) Page 14 Figure 5: Car park location Page 22 Figure 6: Reasons for travelling by car Page 23 Figure 7: Reasons for travelling car: staff and student breakdown Page 23 Figure 8: Measures to encourage students to walk Page 24 Figure 9: Measures to encourage students to cycle Page 25 Figure 10: Measures to encourage students to travel by public transport Page 26 Figure 11: Measures to encourage students to car share Page 27 Figure 12: Measures to encourage staff to walk Page 28 Figure 13: Measures to encourage staff to cycle Page 29 Figure 14: Measures to encourage staff to travel by public transport Page 30 Figure 15: Measures to encourage staff to car share Page 31 5

Section 1: Introduction This report sets out the key findings of the 2016 University of Birmingham staff and student travel survey, undertaken between 16 th May and 16 th June 2016. The survey acts as the primary mechanism for measuring the impact of the University s Sustainable Travel Plan. The survey results provide valuable information about staff and student travel behaviours, whilst also gauging both groups awareness and perceptions of the sustainable travel options that are available to them. The results help to inform the University s ongoing Sustainable Travel Plan and with a similar travel survey taking place for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham as well as Birmingham Women s Hospital and the Mental Health Trust, this provides an opportunity for a collaborative approach to be taken when analysing the travel issues within the local area. Campus Location The University s main campus is located in Edgbaston, approximately 4 miles from Birmingham City Centre, in an accessible urban location. The main campus is well served by a range of public transport options and is the only University in the United Kingdom to have a mainline train station located on campus. The University operates a controlled car park management system to ensure the correct usage of the main campus parking facilities. Car parking is predominantly offered to staff on a pay-as-yougo basis to try and increase the use of alternatives modes of travel where possible. Students are not allowed to park in central areas of campus unless they are disabled or have been granted special dispensation. University of Birmingham Sustainable Travel Plan 2010-2015 The University s Sustainable Travel Plan outlines the strategic framework that aims to encourage more staff and students to travel to the University via more sustainable methods by 2015. Developed by the University Travel Plan Steering Group, the focus is to implement a range of initiatives that encourage and deliver sustainable travel activity. 6

The main objectives are to: Reduce unnecessary vehicle usage by staff, students and visitors Promote the use of sustainable modes of travel by staff, students and visitors Reduce the proportion of staff, students and visitors parking at the University Encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel for work-related journeys Reduce the environmental impact of traffic associated with the University The Action Plan sets out all of the Travel Plan measures and objectives in a clear time specific manner. The Action Plan provides a framework to assist the achievement of the Travel Plan objectives and targets. Report Structure Following this introductory section, section two of the report outlines the methodology of the study and then section three details the survey findings with specific reference to the progress made towards the sustainable travel plan targets. Section four describes the travel issues faced by staff and students with a physical impairment. Section five outlines a series of subsequent recommendations to reflect the survey results. Section six provides an conclusion. Section 2: Methodology Following consultation with the University Sustainable Travel Coordinator, it was decided that the survey questions should be similar to those in the 2013 travel survey. Subsequently these questions were reviewed for inclusion, alterations with additional questions being created to tailor the survey to the needs of the sustainable travel plan and assist the collection of data for Scope 3 emissions and GIS analysis. The survey content was reviewed by a number of key stakeholders at different stages of its construction, which allowed amendments to be made in light of feedback. The survey was created online using Survey Monkey, with the link to the survey being emailed to staff and students and a reminder email circulated for students. Paper surveys were 7

also made available for staff without regular access to a computer. Students were employed to collect survey responses on campus directly from staff and students. This method proved very successful with over 1000 responses collected. Launched on 16 th May 2016, the travel survey remained open for one month. In order to raise awareness and increase the survey response rate all staff and student emails were sent out in conjunction with engagement events across campus, use of social media and traditional methods such as flyers and posters. Section 3: Survey Results and Analysis Response Rate Response rates were calculated after obtaining staff employment statistics from Human Resources and this indicated that there are 7,385 staff currently working at the University. This is a significant increase on the 6,300 staff total in 2013 which can partly be attributed to the decision to formalise a number of contracts to make them permanent members of staff. Student statistics were obtained through accessing enrolment statistics on the University mailing list and this revealed that a total of 30,665 students were enrolled at the University, during the survey period. Using these figures, the response rate was calculated, as seen in Table 1. Table 1: Response Rate Response Rate Total Percentage of total Staff 2350 31.8% Student 4019 13.1% Total 6369 16.7% Table 1 shows that just under a third of staff completed the survey (31.8%) with just over 1 in 10 students participating (13.1%), which provides a useful indicator for staff and student travel behaviour. Response rates were improved across all categories despite the significant increase in numbers which shows that communication methods are working and engagement with the survey is improving year on year. 8

Table 2: Campus location Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff Total N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Main Campus (Edgbaston) 2458 93.2% 1228 88.9% 2217 94.3% 5903 92.7% Selly Oak Campus 62 2.4% 50 3.6% 38 1.6% 150 2.4% Dental School 26 1.0% 7 0.5% 26 1.1% 59 0.9% Shakespeare Institute 0 0.0% 7 0.5% 4 0.2% 11 0.2% Ironbridge Institute 2 0.1% 4 0.3% 2 0.1% 8 0.1% Table 2 shows that the majority of survey respondents selected the main campus, in Edgbaston, as their main place of work or study (93.2% undergraduate, 88.9% postgraduate and 94.3% staff). This is representative of the majority of teaching and corporate service activity taking place in this location. A small proportion of staff and students nominated either the Dental Hospital or the Selly Oak Campus as their place of work or study, with teaching also taking place at these locations. In addition a similarly low proportion of staff and students selected other study/work locations, which accounts for staff and students on placement and also distance learners. The report shall focus on the travel issues that affect staff and students that commute to the main campus in Edgbaston, to allow for a more concise analysis. However travel issues for the other University locations shall be referred to in the analysis of open responses and also form part of the recommendations section. 9

Figure 1: Campus Arrival Time Arrival time at University 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff Figure 1 shows that the majority of staff and students arrive between 08:00 and 10:00 however there are differences in the arrival time patterns between staff, undergraduates and postgraduates. The peak arrival time for staff is between 08:31-09:00, with a sharp decline following thereafter. Similarly, the peak arrival time for undergraduates is also between 08:31 and 09:00 and although the number of arrivals also sharply declines after 9:00, it does slightly recover before 10:00 and 11:00, which can be explained by lecture start times. Conversely, the majority of postgraduates arrive between 08:31 and 09:31 and unlike undergraduates there are no secondary peaks after this initial peak. Main Travel Method One of the compulsory questions in the survey asked respondents to specify which main method of travel they used to travel to the University. The results for the split of the main travel method to campus are shown in Table 3 below. 10

Table 3: Main Travel Method Main Travel Method by Groups Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff N (%) N (%) N (%) Car/Van single 121 4.7% 208 15.3% 882 37.9% occupant Car/Van shared 31 1.2% 22 1.6% 170 7.3% Bus 193 7.4% 124 9.1% 162 7.0% Train 304 11.7% 339 25.0% 569 24.5% Metro 5 0.2% 2 0.1% 3 0.1% Walk/Jog 1819 70.1% 521 38.4% 339 14.6% Bicycle 111 4.3% 129 9.5% 189 8.1% Motorcycle/Scooter 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 9 0.4% Taxi 8 0.3% 11 0.8% 4 0.2% Total 2596 100.0% 1358 100.0% 2327 100.0% The data in Table 3 can also be demonstrated proportionally in Figure 2. Figure 2: Main Travel Method 100% Main Travel Method 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Taxi Motorcycle/Scooter Bicycle Walk/Jog Metro Train Bus Car/Van shared Car/Van single occupant 0% Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff Figure 2 shows that car travel, as a single occupant, is the most popular travel method amongst staff, with 37.9% travelling as a single occupant and 7.3% as a shared journey. 11

This is a larger proportion than both student groups, with 15.3% of postgraduates and 4.7% of undergraduates travelling as a single occupant, in addition to car sharing being lower in these groups (1.6% for postgraduates and 1.2% for undergraduates). In terms of public transport, there is a similar modal split for staff (7% for bus travel, 24.5% for train travel and 0.1% for metro travel) and postgraduate students (9.1% for bus travel, 25% for train travel and 0.1% for metro travel). Whereas the proportion of undergraduates commuting by public transport is slightly lower (7.4% by bus, 11.7% by train and 0.2% by Metro). Nearly 75% of undergraduates travel to University by active methods, with 70.1% choosing to walk/jog and 4.3% choosing to commute by bicycle. In comparison 47.9% of postgraduates commute by active methods, of which 38.4% walk/jog and 9.5% cycle. Both student groups have a larger proportion of people commuting by active methods in comparison to staff where 14.6% walk/jog and 8.1% cycle. In addition travel by taxi and either motorcycle or scooter is a less frequently used travel method for all groups (0.5% undergraduates, 0.9% postgraduates, and 0.6% staff). Modal shift since 2013 The University of Birmingham Sustainable Travel Plan used the 2008 staff and student travel survey results as a baseline, from which, targets were devised to encourage sustainable travel between 2010 and 2015: Achieve a 5% reduction in the proportion of staff and student single occupancy car journeys Increase the proportion of staff and students walking and/or cycling to the University Increase the proportion of staff and students using public transport to access the University Increase the proportion of staff car sharing The modal shift of staff and student travel habits between 2008 and 2016 are displayed in Figure 3 and Figure 4. 12

Figure 3: Travel method modal shift amongst staff 2008-2016 Travel method modal shift for UoB Staff (2008-2016) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2008 2013 2016 Table 4: Travel method modal shift amongst staff 2008-2016 Staff travel method trends (2008-2016) 2008 2013 2016 Change from 2008 Change from 2013 Car/Van single 39.3 34.9 37.9-1.4% 3.0% occupant Car/Van shared 9.3 8.6 7.3-2.0% -1.3% Bus 6.6 7.8 7 0.4% -0.8% Train 24.1 26.5 24.5 0.4% -2.0% Walk/Jog 10.3 13.3 14.6 4.3% 1.3% Bicycle 8.8 7.9 8.1-0.7% 0.2% Taxi 0 0.1 0.2 0.2% 0.1% Motorcycle/Scooter 1.2 0.8 0.4-0.8% -0.4% Other 0.4 0.2 0.1-0.3% -0.1% Table 4 shows the modal shift of staff travel habits between 2008 and 2016. The University has failed in its aim of achieving a 5% reduction in single occupancy car 13

usage amongst staff and has in fact seen an increase of 3%. Similarly car sharing is showing a downward trend amongst staff despite the University having signed up to its own car sharing scheme with Liftshare. Bus and train usage has also decreased amongst staff since 2013. There has been a significant reduction of 2% in staff using the train. Encouragingly active travel methods of walking and cycling continue to show moderate increases. The percentage of staff walking or jogging to the university has increased by 1.3% since 2013. Cycling amongst staff has only shown a minimal increase of 0.2% however the current percentage of 8.1% of staff cycling is well above the national average of 2.8% (2011 Census data). Figure 4: Travel method modal shift amongst students 2008 2016 70 Travel method modal shift for UoB Students (2008-2016) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2008 2013 2016 14

Table 5: Travel method modal shift amongst students 2008-2016 Student travel method trends (2008-2016) 2008 2013 2016 Change from 2008 Change from 2013 Car/Van single 9 9.9 8.3-0.7% -1.6% occupant Car/Van shared 3 1.7 1.3-1.7% -0.4% Bus 12 7.7 8-4.0% 0.3% Train 17 16.4 16.3-0.7% -0.1% Walk/Jog 55 57.9 59.2 4.2% 1.3% Bicycle 4 5.7 6.1 2.1% 0.4% Taxi 0 0.3 0.5 0.5% 0.2% Motorcycle/Scooter 0 0.1 0.2 0.2% 0.1% Other 0 0.3 0.2 0.2% -0.1% The table above shows the percentage of students travelling to the university via single occupancy car journeys has decreased slightly. A reduction of 1.6% does not come close to matching the 5% reduction target set out in the Sustainable Travel Action plan however it is encouraging that the trend is downwards. Public transport usage amongst students has remained at almost the same level as 2013 with a 0.1% decrease of students using the train and 0.3% increase in bus usage. Active travel methods of walking and cycling are both showing moderate increases amongst students. As expected walking is the dominant method of transport of students with a large percentage living within the surrounding area. Cycling has also shown a moderate increase. 15

Occasional Travel Method Table 6: Occasional Travel Method Occasional Travel Method Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff N (%) N (%) N (%) Car/Van single 173 10.2% 150 15.0% 434 25.1% occupant Car/Van shared 244 14.4% 82 8.2% 183 10.6% Bus 161 9.5% 118 11.8% 255 14.7% Train 423 25.0% 239 23.9% 394 22.8% Metro 8 0.5% 3 0.3% 4 0.2% Walk/Jog 400 23.6% 249 24.9% 257 14.8% Bicycle 156 9.2% 84 8.4% 135 7.8% Motorcycle/Scooter 4 0.2% 4 0.4% 13 0.8% Taxi 124 7.3% 69 6.9% 56 3.2% Total 1693 100.0% 998 100.0% 1731 100.0% Table 6 shows that a sizable proportion of staff (25.1%) occasionally travel by car as a single occupant, this is a larger proportion than both undergraduates (10.2%) and postgraduates (15%). It also appears that there are similar proportion of staff and students that occasionally car share (10.6% staff, 8.2% postgraduates and 14.4% undergraduates). In terms of public transport, there is a similar occasional modal split for staff (14.7% for bus travel, 22.8% for train travel and 0.2% for metro travel) and both student groups. Nearly a quarter of postgraduate students use the train occasionally (11.8% for bus travel, 23.9% for train travel and 0.3% for metro travel). The proportion of undergraduates occasionally using the train is again high but lower for bus use (9.5% by bus, 25% by train and 0.5% by Metro). Active travel methods such as walking and cycling are increasing amongst postgraduate students, 33.3% of postgraduates commute by either bicycle (8.4%) or on foot (24.9%). 16

This is a large percentage increase (11.1%) in the number of postgraduates occasionally using active travel methods from 22.8% in 2013 (7.6% cycle and 15.2% walking). It is encouraging to see such a large percentage increase of postgraduate students occasionally choosing active methods of travel and shows there is scope for even further improvement. There has been a similarly large increase in the number of undergraduates occasionally using active travel methods compared to 2013. 32.8% of undergraduates occasionally travel by active methods (9.2% cycling and 23.6% walking) compared to 19.8% in 2013 with 10.1% commuting on foot and 9.7 by bicycle. These figures are encouraging because they show that a sizable proportion of staff and students do occasionally commute by public transport and active travel methods. The following section focuses on the occasional travel habits of single occupancy car users and this shall therefore provide a better indication of where the Travel Plan can encourage single occupancy car drivers to adopt their occasional method as their main method. 17

Occasional Travel for Car Users The University is seeking ways in which to reduce the proportion of single occupancy car journeys made by staff and students. By filtering out the occasional travel method of the respondents that travel by car as a single occupant, as their main method, the University can investigate the best ways to encourage these groups to adopt their occasional as their main method. Table 7 shows the occasional travel method of single occupancy car users. Table 7: Occasional travel method for car users Occasional Travel Method for single car users Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff Total N % N % N % Car/Van as a single occupant 14 11.6% 34 16.3% 51 5.8% 99 Car/Van as a shared journey 9 7.4% 12 5.8% 60 6.8% 81 Bus 16 13.2% 10 4.8% 110 12.5% 136 Train 36 29.8% 60 28.8% 263 29.8% 359 Walk/Jog 9 7.4% 17 8.2% 83 9.4% 109 Bicycle 1 0.8% 7 3.4% 43 4.9% 51 Motorcycle/Scooter 1 0.8% 2 1.0% 8 0.9% 11 Taxi 1 0.8% 3 1.4% 16 1.8% 20 Total 87 71.9% 145 69.7% 634 71.9% 866 Table 10 shows that public transport is the most frequently used occasional travel method for staff and student car users. Train travel is the most frequent occasional travel method (29.8% undergraduates, 28.8% postgraduates, and 29.8% staff). Bus travel is also a frequently used occasional travel method (13.2% undergraduate, 4.8% postgraduate, 12.5% staff). In addition, commuting by foot also appears to be a popular occasional travel choice (7.4% undergraduate, 8.2% postgraduate, 9.4% staff). These figures provide encouragement and direction for where best to further reduce single car occupancy. With public transport services being the most frequently 18

nominated occasional method, measures can be developed to target these people in order to encourage them to adopt public transport as their main travel method. It is clear from the map in Appendix K (page 58) that there are large clusters of staff living in close proximity to each other driving as a single occupant so there is also potential to increase the number of staff car sharing. Car Journey Distance The University is striving to reduce the amount of car journeys made by staff and students that live within a ten mile radius of the main Edgbaston campus. Table 11 shows the distance that staff and student car users commute. Table 8: Distance travelled by car Distance travelled for single car users Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff N % N % N % Total Less than 2 miles 13 10.7% 15 7.2% 44 5.0% 72 2-5 Miles 22 18.2% 44 21.2% 310 35.1% 376 6-10 Miles 36 29.8% 27 13.0% 239 27.1% 302 11-15 Miles 26 21.5% 28 13.5% 131 14.9% 185 16-20 Miles 6 5.0% 11 5.3% 44 5.0% 61 21-30 Miles 10 8.3% 22 10.6% 60 6.8% 92 Over 30 Miles 8 6.6% 61 29.3% 54 6.1% 123 Total 121 100.0% 208 100.0% 882 100.0% 1211 Table 8 shows that 67.2% of staff that commute in a single occupancy car live within a ten mile radius of the University. This has increased from 66% in 2013. This is a larger percentage than both student groups (58.7% undergraduates and 41.4% for postgraduates). The percentage of undergraduates who live within a 10 mile radius and drive to campus has increased since 2013 from 52.8% but encouragingly the number of postgraduates has reduced from 45.4%. 19

Table 9: Most viable alternative travel methods for car users Most Viable Alternative Travel Method for single car users Undergraduate Postgraduat e Staff Total N % N % N % Car (single occupant) 14 11.6% 14 6.7% 52 5.9% 80 Car (shared journey) 14 11.6% 13 6.3% 73 8.3% 100 Bus 15 12.4% 24 11.5% 159 18.0% 198 Train 44 36.4% 96 46.2% 306 34.7% 446 Metro 0 0.0% 1 0.5% 2 0.2% 3 Walk/Jog 2 1.7% 6 2.9% 58 6.6% 66 Bicycle 5 4.1% 9 4.3% 65 7.4% 79 Motorcycle/Scooter 0 0.0% 2 1.0% 4 0.5% 6 Taxi 1 0.8% 2 1.0% 10 1.1% 13 No viable alternative 13 10.7% 21 10.1% 101 11.5% 135 Total 108 89.3% 188 90.4% 830 94.1% 1126 Respondents who stated that they currently travelled in a car on their own were also asked to state their most viable alternative travel method. Amongst staff public transport was deemed the most viable alternative with 34.7% stating the train and 18% the bus. This pattern was also reflected with both student groups with 36.4% stating the train and 12.4% the bus with 46.2% of postgraduates identifying the train and 11.5% the bus as their most viable alternative. It is interesting to note that a higher percentage of staff identified active travel methods of walking and cycling as viable than both student groups. 14% of staff who currently drive as a single occupant consider walking or cycling to work viable which indicates there is scope to increase the number of staff using these methods as well as public transport. Car Park Location Respondents that indicated that they travel by car, as a single occupant or shared were asked where the vehicle was usually parked. Table 10 and Figure 5 shows where staff and students park when travelling to the University. 20

Table 10: Car parking locations (staff and student) Parking Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff Total N (%) N (%) N (%) Other 346 32.2% 154 23.6% 131 8.3% 631 Nearby 275 25.6% 142 21.8% 81 5.1% 498 residential street (under 1 mile away) Residential street 49 4.6% 29 4.4% 16 1.0% 94 (over 1 mile away) Public off-street 59 5.5% 29 4.4% 14 0.9% 102 car park Selly Oak 24 2.2% 16 2.5% 17 1.1% 57 campus car park University car 109 10.2% 82 12.6% 137 8.7% 328 park (non-card swipe) University car 49 4.6% 43 6.6% 994 63.0% 1086 park (card swipe) University car 162 15.1% 157 24.1% 189 12.0% 508 park (pay and display) Total 1073 100.0 % 652 100.0 % 1579 100.0% 3304 Table 10 shows that the majority of staff members park within University car parks accessible via card swipe (63%) with a further 12% using pay and display car parks. The most popular category for undergraduate (32.2%) students was Other which could indicate that they are parking their cars at University halls of residence (which is chargeable) or more than a mile away on a residential street. In contrast to this 25.6% of postgraduates are parking in nearby residential streets with a further 24.1% using University pay and display car parks. The number of postgraduates parking on nearby residential streets has increased substantially since 2013 from 7% to 25.6%. This is likely due to parking restrictions introduced restricting students from parking in some 21

areas of campus. Students are authorised to park in some of the publicly accessible areas of campus but have to pay the full daily rate. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Figure 5: Car Park Location Car Parking UoB 0% Undergraduate Postgraduate Staff Other Residential street (over 1 mile away) Selly Oak campus car park University car park (card swipe) Nearby residential street (under 1 mile away) Public off-street car park University car park (non-card swipe) University car park (pay and display) 22

Reasons for travelling by car To help understand why staff and students commute by car, both groups were allowed to select the reasons for why they travel by car, as illustrated in Figure 6. Other Not applicable as do not drive to university No nearby convenient public transport Too far to walk or cycle Health reasons or disability Satisfy work/study commitments Convenience Safety Cheaper than public transport Quickest travel method Carer responsabilities Provide lift for other people Activities before work Figure 6: Reasons for travelling by car Factors to travel by car 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 7: Reasons for travelling by car broken down by staff and students Factors to travel by car Staff Undergraduate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Activities before work Carer responsibilities Cheaper than public transport Convenience Health reasons or disability No nearby convenient public transport Provide lift for other people Quickest travel method Safety Satisfy work/study commitments Too far to walk or cycle Not applicable as do not drive to university Figures 6 and 7 shows that staff, undergraduates and postgraduates have similar reasons for commuting by car. Convenience is the main motive for commuting by car for staff and both students groups with all groups also specifying that the car is the quickest 23

travel method. Furthermore staff and postgraduate car users specified that a lack of convenient public transport nearby was also a reason for travelling by car, whilst both student group car users also feel that distance is also factor, in terms of it being too far away for them to walk or cycle. Measures to encourage sustainable travel amongst students Encouraging students to walk/jog Students were asked what measures would most encourage them to walk to University; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 8: Factors that would encourage students to walk Other Not applicable as do not drive to No nearby convenient public Too far to walk or cycle Health reasons or disability Satisfy work/study commitments Convenience Safety Cheaper than public transport Quickest travel method Carer responsibilities Provide lift for other people Activities before work Factors to travel by car 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 The most important factors in encouraging students to walk to university is shown to be having other people to walk with and improvements to lighting and security on routes. With regards to the second point, the University has recently installed a new well lit route from the Vale and there is an upcoming project to improve lighting on the canal towpaths in the city which could help alleviate some of these concerns. Figure 8 shows that 26% of students stated that they live too far away to walk, which suggests that distance is a deterrent. 24

Encouraging students to cycle Students were asked what measures would most encourage them to cycle to University; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 9: Encouraging students to cycle Encourage students to cycle Other Nothing would encourage me Improved signposting of cycle routes I live too far away to cycle Other people to cycle with Option to trial a bike Financial assistance purchasing a bike Availability of hire bikes Improved safety (lightning on routes) Improved cycling infrastructure close to campus Brompton Bike Hire (folding bikes) Cycle security hub Improved cycle security on campus 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Figure 9 shows to encourage cycling, students would most like to see improved cycle infrastructure on roads close to campus (43%) which suggests that issues surrounding road safety are the main obstacles in encouraging more students to cycle. In addition, 30% of students would also be encouraged to cycle if there was improved cycle security on campus. Cycle parking facilities on campus are of a high standard and theft of bikes has been steadily decreasing on campus due to the improved storage facilities and the use of D Locks; therefore this perception needs to be challenged via increased promotion of the availability of discounted D Locks and best practice when locking bicycles. Similar to walking, distance also appears to influence whether students could be encouraged to cycle. 22% of students stated that they live too far away to cycle. This is a notably smaller proportion than the 32% of students that live too far away to walk, 25

which therefore suggests that there is more scope to encourage students to cycle rather than walk. Encouraging students to travel by public transport Students were asked what measures would most encourage them to travel by public transport; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 10: Encouraging students to use public transport Encourage students to travel by public transport Nothing would encourage me No nearby public transport links Less crowded services More reliable services More frequent services Improved security on transport Improved ticket and timetable information Increased discount on tickets Interest free loan for a season ticket 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 10 shows that students would be most encouraged to travel by public transport if there was an increased discount on tickets (52%). In addition, students would also be motivated if there were improvements made to the frequency (36%) and reliability (36%) of public transport services. It is also encouraging to note that just 12% of students feel that they do not live near to a public transport link. This suggests that there is scope for the majority of students to commute by public transport. 26

Encouraging students to car share Students were asked what measures would most encourage them to car share; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 11: Encouraging students to car share Encourage students to car share Other Nothing would encourage me Guaranteed lift home in emergency or if let down by drivers Incentives for car sharers Guaranteed and free parking for car sharers Finding car share partners with similar study hours Dedicated University car share scheme 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Figure 11 indicates that having guaranteed and free car parking (42%) would be a big encouragement for students to car share. Other important factors for students when considering car sharing are being able to find a car share partner who works or studies similar hours (39%) and having a dedicated University of Birmingham car share scheme (34%). The University does already have an online car sharing platform for staff and students but the number of members is minimal which demonstrates that a campaign to promote this scheme could potentially boost signups significantly. 27

Encouraging sustainable travel amongst staff Encouraging staff to walk/jog Staff were asked what measures would most encourage them to walk to University; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 12: Encouraging staff to walk Encourage staff to walk Other Nothing would encourage me I live too far away to walk Personalised travel and planning advice Improved shower and changing facilities More locker and storage facilities Improved lighting and security (en route) Safer crossing facilities Wider pavements Less traffic Walking apps/wearable tech incentives Free pedometers Other people to walk with 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 12 shows that staff would be more motivated to walk to work if there were improved shower and changing facilities (13%) and improved lighting and security on the route (11%). It appears that distance is a major obstacle that discourages more staff to walk, 55% of staff stated that they live too far away to walk. 28

Encouraging staff to cycle Staff were asked what measures would most encourage them to cycle to University; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 13: Encouraging staff to cycle Encourage staff to cycle Other Nothing would encourage me Improved signposting of cycle routes I live too far away to cycle Other people to cycle with Option to trial a bike Financial assistance purchasing a bike Availability of hire bikes Improved safety (lightning on routes) Improved cycling infrastructure close to campus Brompton Bike Hire (folding bikes) Cycle security hub Improved cycle security on campus 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Figure 13 shows that in terms of measures that would encourage cycling, staff would most like to see improved cycle routes on local roads (28%) which suggests that similar to students, staff feel that road safety is the major barrier for discouraging cycling. In addition, 18% of staff would be more encouraged to cycle if there was an improvement to cycle security on campus. Similar to walking, distance is also a barrier when encouraging staff to cycle with 33% of staff stated that they live too far away. This is a much smaller proportion than the 55% of staff that live too far away to walk, which suggests that there is more scope to encourage staff to cycle than there is to encourage staff to walk/jog. 29

Encouraging staff to travel by public transport Staff were asked what measures would most encourage them to travel by public transport; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 14: Encouraging staff to use public transport Encourage staff to travel by public transport Nothing would encourage me No nearby public transport links Less crowded services More reliable services More frequent services Improved security on transport Improved ticket and timetable information Increased discount on tickets Interest free loan for a season ticket 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Figure 14 shows that staff would be most encouraged to travel by public transport if there was an increased discount on tickets (36%). In addition, staff would also be motivated if there were improvements made to the reliability (33%) and frequency (30%) of public transport services. It is worth noting that the University already offers a 25% discount on annual bus tickets for staff so there may be scope to further publicise this. It is also encouraging to note that, similar to students, only 10% of staff feel that they do not live close enough to a public transport link. This therefore shows that there is scope for the majority of staff and students to commute by public transport due to the level of public transport service coverage 30

Encouraging staff to car share Staff were asked what measures would most encourage them to car share to the University; they were asked to choose up to four options. Figure 15: Encouraging staff to car share Encourage staff to car share Other Nothing would encourage me Guaranteed lift home in emergency or if let down by drivers Incentives for car sharers Guaranteed and free parking for car sharers Finding car share partners with similar work hours Dedicated University car share scheme 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Figure 15 shows that finding a car share partner (38%) with similar working hours is key for encouraging staff to consider car sharing. Another incentive for staff would be guaranteed and free parking on campus (34%) for car sharers. The University will be introducing dedicated parking bays for car sharers in September 2016 which should help to encourage more staff to car share. Widening awareness of the University s dedicated car share scheme Liftshare is also key to encouraging more staff. 31

Open Responses Respondents were given the opportunity to provide qualitative comments on their travel and issues they would like to raise. These are broken down in to categories and summarised in the below tables. Table 12: Summary of comments relating to cycling Route Suggestions Segregated and safe cycle routes on major roads leading to campus Wider pavements and dedicated cycle routes on Edgbaston Park Road, Kings Heath, Selly Park and Harborne Improved signposting of cycle routes Improved provision for bikes on trains especially during peak time Improvements required for cycle access at South gate Lack of facilities to support cycling Changing and storage facilities in buildings across campus Easier access to canals for bicycle travel Safety issues on or around campus Several respondents stated that they had stopped cycling to campus due to near misses Heavy traffic around campus puts people off Lower speed limits on Edgbaston Park Road, Selly Oak, Bristol Road Measures required to enforce lower speed limits Lack of sufficient and secure cycle parking facilities Initiatives to raise the profile of cycling Covered bike shelters Parking facilities at Aston Webb building More Park and Ride schemes/spaces More CCTV on bike shelters Someone to cycle with for support Increase confidence to cycle / cycle training Tax incentives for those who commute carbon free Free bike repairs 32

Table 13: Summary of comments relating to buses Service Provision No direct routes from Harborne, Moseley, Bromsgrove, Kenilworth, Kings Heath, Solihull Faster bus lanes Public transport overcrowded, especially in peak times Frequency Improved services in early mornings and evenings 48, 76 bus lines could be more frequent 76 bus schedule could match lectures time Reliability Reports of buses number 48, 11, 76, 99 not being reliable Safety/Comfort Smart ticketing and contactless payment Safer conditions at night Integrated transport system Cost Discounted travel season tickets for staff Part-time staff buses discount Students bus passes Subsided tickets / season pass for both train and buses Free student travel to campus Shuttle Bus Service Students ask for a stop in Selly Oak Students ask for shuttle bus service between university halls 33

Table 14: Summary of comments relating to train travel Station facilities Improvement of University Station: wider platforms and waiting room on both sides More ticket machines and staff, especially at peak times Customer service from staff Ticket machines unreliable Reduced parking charges at stations More Park and Ride facilities More early morning and late night trains and increased frequency on Sunday; Route Issues Trains with more carriages, especially during peak times Overcrowding on peak time trains Reliability Services from Bloxwich North in particular overcrowded and delayed Reliability of London Midlands service Frequency Timetable unsuitable Frequent cancelations Call for more train times to and from Worcester Cost and Payment Smart ticketing and contactless payments Issues Train tickets scheme for cross-country users Integrated transport system Students raised issue of their railcards not being valid at peak times Table 15: Summary of comments relating to walking External Issues Improved crossing point at the following places: Somerset Road, Pritchatts Road, Pritchatts Road roundabout and Vincent drive Improved footpaths and lighting on the canal, Metchley Park Road, Hintlesham Avenue, Cannon Hill Park and Edgbaston Park Road Students reporting high insecurity in Selly Oak, especially at night Improved security and police patrol in Selly Oak Cleaner streets, especially during wintery weather Campus Issues More lightning and CCTV on campus Crossing point at Multi-storey car park onto Pritchatts road Lack of facilities More changing and storage facilities 34

across campus to support walking/jogging Initiatives to raise the profile of walking Free pedometers Relocation funding to within walking distance Park and walk facilities Less traffic pollution Section 5: Recommendations The results of the 2016 survey have provided a reversal in travel patterns between students and staff. After seeing a decrease in single occupancy car usage amongst staff and an increase amongst students in 2013 the opposite has occurred in 2016. This is a concerning trend amongst staff after the significant decrease from 2008 to 2013 especially when considering that the increase can be directly attributed to a move away from public transport. Active travel methods of walking and cycling have remained constant across both groups with slight increases in cycling encouraging. Recommendations to improve student travel In terms of encouraging walking and cycling to the university, it is recommended that the following measures are taken into consideration, when updating the Sustainable Travel Plan Publicise and promote the new Route to the Vale shared usage path to new students to combat the issues around safety of walking and cycling on Edgbaston Park Road Work with local stakeholders and Birmingham City Council to improve the safety of pedestrians along Edgbaston Park Road and Vincent Drive in particular via the introduction of various measures such as crossing points and wider pavements Increased marketing and publicity around bike security and the availability of discounted D Locks on campus from both Urban Cycles and the Security Office. Further promotion of best practice and an emphasis on personal responsibility in 35

terms of cycle security is required to challenge the perception that bike theft is a major issue on campus. Work with Birmingham City Council to push for improved cycling infrastructure on roads around campus with a particular focus on Edgbaston Park Road and Bristol Road (A38) Increase awareness of new access to canal towpath at University station which will be completed in October 2016 to help reduce barriers to people cycling to the site. Increasing awareness of towpath quality as a cycling route due to recent resurfacing. Promotion of increased lighting on local canal towpaths Continue to improve and promote cycle parking facilities on campus More student focused promotion of cycle road shows with special events taking place at the halls of residence. Further promotion and growth of the student bike hire scheme Measures undertaken since 2013: Additional cycle parking facilities have been installed at the Guild of Students, University Square, The Bramall, Howarth Building and the Poynting Building as well as a covered shelter close to University station. A new covered shelter has been installed outside Centre Court residence and 44 additional spaces created at the new Green Community residence within Tennis Courts. A safety campaign video aimed at pedestrians/cyclists and motorists behaviour on campus has been produced and widely distributed. Introduction of student bike hire scheme in September 2014. In terms of public transport, the following recommendations should be given consideration for updating the University Travel Plan: Increase awareness of additional ticket machine at University Centre 36

Install a further ticket machine on campus to reduce pressure on University station at peak times. Increased promotion of the savings that can be made when buying travel passes for longer periods rather than buying individual journeys Undertake a review of University Station and work with London Midland to see what can be done to improve customer experience in the short term Work in partnership with National Express West Midlands to set up a discounted bus service for either the 98 or 99 routes for University of Birmingham students, upon production of a student card. Student discounts would also be welcomed for the 61, 63 and x64. Discuss with the London Midland the possibility of a special student discount for day tickets in peak times on the cross city line due to the ineligibility of their student rail card before 10am. Also to undertake a review of University Station and its capability to deal with time periods of high footfall. To further encourage car sharing, the University should consider the following measures: Promote car sharing amongst students and the University s dedicated car sharing scheme Liftshare Extend the trial of dedicated car sharing spaces for car sharers to parking areas that students regularly use The University may also consider some additional mechanisms in order to address the pressures that surround car parking: Since 2013 new criteria has been introduced to discourage students from driving to the campus. Students who live within 10 miles of campus are no longer eligible for a permit unless there are extenuating circumstances Actively discourage new students from bringing their car to university accommodation ahead of them joining. 37

Recommendations to improve staff travel In terms of encouraging walking and cycling to work, it is recommended that the following measures are taken into consideration, when updating the Sustainable Travel Plan: Use postcode data from survey to set up walking groups to encourage staff to walk to work together Increase the number of shower and changing facilities available to all staff on campus as well as promoting our existing resource Regular and inclusive cycling activities such as led rides and maintenance courses to help encourage cycling and remove barriers Further promotion and growth of the short term loan bikes for staff Work in a collaborative manner with local stakeholders and Birmingham City Council to push for improved cycle routes on local roads Promotion of improved cycle access to canal at University Station after its completion in October 2016 Promotion via social media and other methods of cycling as a viable form of transport for staff who live within 5 miles of University Continue to improve the quality of existing and new cycle parking facilities with a shift to providing more covered shelters in areas in the vicinity of the library. Regular attendance at staff events such as Wellbeing days to promote active travel to staff and raise awareness Measures have been undertaken since 2013: On site bike shop Urban Cycles have been on campus since 2014 offering free basic servicing for all staff and student bikes, bikes and accessories for sale. In terms of public transport, the following recommendations should be given consideration for updating the University Travel Plan: 38

Increased promotion of the 25% annual travel pass discount available to staff. Use travel survey responses and postcode data to work with National Express West Midlands to assess route provision and services. This should focus on areas such as Harborne, Kings Heath and Moseley. Work with partners such as Birmingham City Council and Transport for West Midlands (formerly Centro) to push for increased bus lane provision to make bus travel quicker and more reliable. Work in partnership with National Express West Midlands to assess bus route provision for areas such as Harborne and Kings Heath and a realignment of the number 11 bus route to come closer to the University and QEHB site. Work in partnership with Centro and London Midland to undertake a review of University Station and its capability to deal with time periods of high footfall. To further encourage car sharing, the University should consider the following measures: Promote the University s dedicated car sharing scheme Liftshare Dedicate car parking bays to staff who car share Consider making car parking free or at least discounting for people who car share regularly Consider a collaborative approach with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and Birmingham Women s Hospital in order to increase the potential pool of car sharers. The University may also consider some additional mechanisms in order to address the pressures that surround car parking and discourage single occupancy car use: An increase in car parking costs for staff More flexibility in terms of flexible and home working arrangements to reduce the need for staff to travel Section 6: Conclusion 39

From analysing the results of the 2016 staff and student travel survey, it is evident that the University has so far had mixed results in terms of reaching the Sustainable Travel Plan target of a 5% reduction in single occupancy car journeys by 2015. For staff, the University has suffered a setback in its aim to achieve a 5% reduction in single occupancy car journeys amongst staff with a 3% increase. This increase is particularly concerning in light of the fact that the previous survey in 2013 had shown a 3% decrease in this sort of journey. The number of staff walking and cycling to the University has remained relatively constant with minimal increases since 2013. It is clear that the increase in single occupancy car usage amongst staff can be attributed to a modal shift away from public transport. Amongst students there has however been a 1.6% reduction in single occupancy car usage which is encouraging. Unfortunately car sharing has also seen a decrease of 0.4%. Active travel methods of cycling and walking have remained consistent amongst students and shown moderate increases. Bus usage has increased amongst students while train travel has decreased which is likely due to issues with University station. It is clear from the results of this survey that University staff are shifting away from public transport and returning to their cars. This is a worrying development given the implications for local congestion, air quality and the university s carbon targets. Staff have made it clear that the experience of using University station is a major deterrent to train use. The station is over capacity and platforms are overcrowded. Another issue is around the reliability of London Midlands service to the station and the lack of staff at the station. Wholesale improvements are required to increase staff usage of the training. Suggested improvements include increased staffing, improved reliability of ticket machines and increased promotion of the additional ticket machine on campus to help alleviate queues at peak times. A reduction in ticket prices for university staff would undoubtedly help incentivise its use and the university should seek negotiations with London Midlands to achieve this. There is a negative perception of bus travel amongst both staff and students. This stems from the service being expensive, unreliable and prone to anti-social behaviour. 40

As the University already offers a significant discount for staff on an annual bus pass there is little more that can be done with regards cost. This discount needs to be promoted to staff prior to them joining the organisation and staff encouraged to buy tickets using direct debit to make savings. Since the survey was conducted a leaflet promoting all forms of sustainable travel has been added to the welcome pack for all new staff members that details all of the sustainable travel initiatives and discounts on offer for staff. Previously staff have only been provided with information on car parking ahead of joining the organisation. The University needs to work in partnership with the neighbouring hospital trusts and the Green Travel District to engage with major stakeholders such as Birmingham City Council and TFWM to seek new bus routes and increase the proliferation of bus lanes. Only once bus travel is more convenient, quicker and cheaper than car travel will staff look to change from their cars. The results of this survey show that active travel methods such as walking and cycling have remained fairly constant across both staff and student groups. Unsurprisingly a high percentage of undergraduate students choose to walk or cycle to the University as a large percentage either live on campus or in the surrounding area. Whilst levels of cycling amongst staff are well above the national average there is still scope for improvement as large numbers of staff live within 5 miles of the campus but are choosing to drive. The largest barrier to staff cycling to campus is the lack of cycling infrastructure on the surrounding roads and the perceived risks to safety as a result. Whilst the University can and will lobby for an increase in segregated cycle infrastructure near the campus via the Birmingham Cycle Revolution project the responsibility for improving this ultimately lies outside of the University s control. The University needs to focus on promotion of off road cycling routes such as the canal and nearby Rea Valley Route which provide a safe and traffic free environment. The improvement of access to the canal towpath by the addition of bike wheeling ramps and a less steep gradient will help alleviate a significant barrier to cycling to the campus. This work will be completed in November 2016 and coupled with the recent resurfacing of the towpath provides a high quality off road cycling route that passes through the 41

campus. Promotion of this route and the improved access is key especially when considering a lack of safe infrastructure is the largest barrier to people cycling. There is also a perception amongst both staff and students that parking bikes on campus is a risk and that thefts are common. This perception needs to be challenged and good practice promoted as the majority of thefts that occur on campus are due to the use of low quality locks or bikes not secured properly. Since 2013 the University has invested in increasing and improving cycle parking on campus and will continue to do so. There is a need to increase softer measures to help promote cycling and remove barriers to it which are already being undertaken by the university s newly appointed Sustainable Travel Co-ordinator. Since the survey was completed a new staff loan bike scheme has been implemented, regular led rides for staff and students have been set up and a maintenance course has taken place. All of these measures give staff and students more opportunity to get involved with activities and help remove barriers to cycling. Awareness of the services Urban Cycles offer on campus needs to be increased as well as a number of respondents mentioned it would be good to have access to free servicing on site which they already offer. There needs to be greater promotion of the services offered by Urban Cycles as a number of respondents stated that they thought having free servicing on campus would encourage them to cycle more. The results of the survey indicate that there may be limited scope to increase levels of walking amongst staff due to distance. There may be some scope to encourage walking through reward apps such as Better Points which can encourage behavioural change. The new path linking the Vale to main campus will provide a safer and more pleasant route on to campus for students but should also be promoted as a route for staff to walk from Edgbaston and the surrounding area. Car sharing amongst staff and students is currently minimal. The dedicated car sharing platform Liftshare has had limited signups and there is a need to promote this further especially to staff. It is clear from the postcode mapping conducted with survey data that there are large clusters of staff living in areas such as Harborne, Kings Heath, 42

Moseley and Northfield. There is undoubtedly scope to increase the number of people who car share to the University and in turn reduce the number of cars on campus. Dedicated spaces for car sharers are being introduced in September 2016 to act as an incentive for people to take up car sharing. Incentives coupled with better promotion of the benefits and the Liftshare platform should lead to increased awareness and numbers of users. 43

Appendix B: UoB Staff based in the UK 44

Appendix C: UoB Staff based in the West Midlands

Appendix D: Staff who either walk or cycle to University 46

Appendix E: Students who either walk or cycle to University 47

Appendix F: Staff who commute by bus 48

Appendix G: Students who commute by bus 49

Appendix H: Staff who commute by train 50

Appendix I: Students who commute by train 51

Appendix J: Staff who commute by vehicle 52

Appendix K: Staff who commute by vehicle (zoomed in for detail) 53

Appendix L: Students who commute by vehicle 54