Transport Assessment (Appendices C – E)
Key Transport Consultants Ltd
April 2021
APPENDIX C
Cycle Parking Technical Note
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TA\TA v1.1.docx
Technical Note TN01
Title Cycle Parking for Student Accommodation
Site Location Clive Booth Student Village, John Garne Way, Oxford OX3 0FN
Prepared by MJ Checked by PM Reviewed by PM
Date 21 April 2021 Version 1.2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared by Key Transport Consultants (KTC) as Transport Consultants to Oxford Brookes University, to inform the design and provision of cycle parking facilities associated with a proposed Student Accommodation (SA) development at Clive Booth Student Village (CBSV), in Headington, Oxford, and to support the production of a Transport Assessment (TA) to accompany a subsequent planning application.
Aim
1.2. This TN aims to: identify current cycle policy requirements in Oxford, with respect to the specific locational characteristics of the CBSV site; outline key design considerations; and highlight any opportunities and shortcomings with current cycle parking provision within the CBSV site, to inform improvements to the overall design of the SA proposal.
Report Structure
1.3. To achieve the aim of this TN, it is structured as follows:
• Section 2 reviews current cycle parking policies for Oxford, highlighting design requirements, and recent policy changes which now offer some flexibility in terms of the minimum number of SA cycle parking spaces that would normally be required at highly-sustainable sites, subject to specific locational, empirical and design considerations;
• To address policy requirements, Section 3 examines the location of the CBSV site in terms of accessibility, permeability, sustainability and its proximity to related university sites and other facilities to demonstrate its suitability for a reduced level of on-site cycle parking;
• In support of this, Section 4 uses empirical evidence of the current occupancy of cycle facilities at the existing CBSV site to calculate an appropriate minimum level of cycle parking provision that may be expected to be used at an expanded SA site; and,
• Section 5 addresses design issues through an assessment of the condition, location and suitability of existing CBSV cycle parking facilities. Key areas for improvement are highlighted to inform future design.
• Details of proposed cycle parking provision for the CBSV development proposals are set out in Section 6 and conclusions are provided in Section 7.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 1
2. POLICY REVIEW
The Adopted Local Plan
2.1. The adoption of the new Oxford Local Plan 2036 (OLP) in June 2020 reiterates the Council’s continuing commitment for encouraging cycling as an active, sustainable and growing form of travel.
2.2. This is partly achieved by ensuring that new residential developments provide appropriate levels of secure and convenient cycle parking (paras 1.63 & 7.37) with ‘Sufficient, high-quality cycle parking… [being] especially important at car free developments’ (para 7.38).
2.3. To prioritise cycling within the city, OLP Policy M1 requires new developments to include high-quality cycle connections to accommodate growth (d), ‘accessible, conveniently located, secure cycle parking in both private and publicly accessible areas’ (e) and notes the provision of on-site facilities such as showers and changing facilities to promote cycle use (f).
General Design Considerations
2.4. OLP Policies M1 and M5 both indicate that good cycle parking design is a key factor in promoting cycle use at new developments. It is noted that the retrofitting of bike stores can detract from the quality of the overall design and, for flats in particular, secure, convenient cycle parking should be thought out early in the design process (OLP para 6.44).
2.5. Policy M5 (shown overleaf) highlights that cycle parking should be accessible, conveniently located, covered (where possible enclosed) and secure, with a level access to the street.
2.6. Policy M5 also states cycle facilities should be adequate to accommodate appropriate levels of cycle parking for the needs of all cycle users including disabled persons, bicycle trailers, cargo bicycles and facilities for electric charging infrastructure.
2.7. A mix of private/public, sheltered and secure cycle parking is therefore required to attract a range of users. Short-stay (visitor) cycle parking should be positioned near the main building access, whilst secure, covered facilities for residents should avoid the need to wheel cycles through hallways with a level, convenient access route to the street provided (para 7.39).
2.8. The use of Sheffield Stands (suitable for 2 bikes) is generally acceptable, subject to adequate space and access (CDS para 7.38), but it notes that the use and ownership of electric bikes is expected to increase which require not only secure, convenient storage but charging infrastructure (para 7.39).
2.9. General cycle design guidance is also provided in the Oxfordshire Cycling Design Standards: A Guide for Developers, Planners and Engineers (CDS) (OCC 2017) which refers to Manual for Streets (Department for Transport 2007) principles and Streets for All (Historic England 2008) guidance.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 2
Quantity of Cycle Parking Provision
2.10. Minimum residential cycle parking standards are detailed in Appendix 7.4 of the OLP (extract below)
2.11. Although new SA sites normally require a minimum 1 cycle space per bedroom (i.e. a ratio of 4:4), to avoid unnecessary overprovision at highly-sustainable sites, some flexibility is provided by Policy M5 (below). This allows for a lower quantity of SA residential cycle parking provision subject to:
I. The site being accessible and conveniently located close to institutions where most occupants will be studying;
II. It being demonstrated through a TA that, as a result of the site location, there is existing unused cycle parking capacity; and,
III. Proposed cycle parking provision is well designed, meets standards, and in appropriate locations within the site.
2.12. The full text of Policy M5 is included overleaf.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 3
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 4
3. SITE LOCATION ASSESSMENT
Introduction
3.1. This section of the TN assesses the location of the CBSV site to demonstrate its suitability for reduced levels of on-site cycle parking, in line with OLP Policy M5 requirements.
Proximity to Related OBU Sites
3.2. Figure 3.1 illustrates that CBSV is conveniently positioned within the wider OBU Headington Campus. Lecture venues in Marston, just over 400m (about 5 minutes’ walk, “as the crow flies”) to the north; directly to the south around Headington Hill; within Headington itself and on nearby Gipsy Lane, just over 400m to the south-east, are all within a short walking distance and are therefore likely to result in low levels of cycle journeys.
3.3. These OBU sites are considered likely to be the main study locations for a majority of resident students at CBSV given their free choice of accommodation sites and the convenience it offers. This is supported by existing occupancy patterns provided by OBU, with walking being the primary mode choice for journeys of less than 15 minutes (OBU Travel Survey 2019).
Figure 3.1: CBSV Site Location, Connecting Routes and Proximity to OBU Facilities
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 5
Site Accessibility and Permeability
3.4. As Figure 3.1 illustrates using dotted lines, the CBSV site benefits from a high level of connectivity and permeability to adjacent footpath routes. There is an existing direct connection through the CBSV site, between Marston Road in the east, via John Garne Way, to Pullens Lane in the west. This provides convenient links with Headington Road which, although suitable for both cycling and walking trips, reduces the travel time for short journeys which may encourage lower levels of resident cycle ownership.
3.5. Further traffic-free routes are available to the south via Cuckoo Lane which runs along the sites southern boundary and connect to Headington Hill Hall and over Headington Road using a footbridge to Cheney Student Village. It is important to note that currently Cuckoo Lane is designated as a public footpath and cycling is not permitted without a Cycle Track Order. Oxfordshire County Council is investigating upgrading Cuckoo Lane to provide a cycle route although a final scheme and timetable for delivery are currently unclear.
3.6. Figure 3.2 below shows isochrones of the approximate walk times from the CBSV site. Key related OBU sites are within about a 10-minute walk, although given the likely fitness levels of many of the students and their knowledge of the quickest routes (including through buildings), this could be reduced further.
Figure 3.2: Walking Travel Time Isochrones (Source: www.journeyplanner.travelwest.info)
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 6
3.7. It is recognised that not all student journeys will be between their accommodation and the teaching spaces at the University. The University Sports Centre is another potential destination for students but this is also at Headington and so likewise a relatively short walk from CBSV. For journeys further afield, students at CBSV are entitled to inclusive travel (ie no charge) on the BROOKESbus services. Even so, some students living at CBSV will want access to a cycle to enable flexible travel or recreational use.
Section Conclusions
3.8. This section of the TN demonstrates that the CBSV site is located within a short walking distance of other OBU sites, including those where students are most likely to be studying. Due to this close proximity, and given the range of access route from the site, many resident students are expected to choose to walk rather than cycle. For routes further afield inclusive travel (ie no charge) on BROOKESbus is available for residents of CBSV, which supports a case for a reduced cycle parking provision. Nevertheless, some student’s resident at CBSV will choose to cycle to other destinations or use a cycle for recreational use and so good quality cycle parking is important.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 7
4. EVIDENCE OF CURRENT CYCLE PARKING USE
Introduction
4.1. To support a reduced level of on-site cycle parking, in line with OLP Policy M5 requirements, this section provides empirical evidence of the current occupancy levels of cycle facilities at the existing CBSV site. This is used as a guide to inform calculations of an appropriate minimum level of cycle parking provision that may be expected to be occupied at an expanded SA site.
Survey Data
4.2. To confirm the available cycle parking capacity and current usage, two separate surveys were undertaken at CBSV: one in November 2017; and a second in March 2018 (see Appendix A). No recent surveys have been undertaken due to Covid-19 restrictions.
4.3. These surveys identified that there are currently 669 formal cycle parking spaces within the wider site, including 94 within the Post-Graduate Centre and 322 in the retained parts of CBSV. Within the red line proposed development area, there are currently around 251 cycle parking spaces plus 6 Bike Bins for the 640 units (total of 257) at a rate of 0.4 cycle parking spaces per existing student resident.
4.4. The two surveys were undertaken at different times of the day to attempt to identify the daily peak in cycle parking occupancy (some minor variances due to access issues are observed):
• The November 2017 survey was undertaken in mid-afternoon (approx. 13:00 to 15:00) and identified a cycle parking occupancy of around 20.9% with 53 of the 253 surveyed cycle spaces being used across the development site. This equates to only 8% of resident students storing a bike on-site (1:12), assuming a maximum of one bike per person per study room;
• In comparison, the March 2018 survey was undertaken in the early morning (i.e. when many students were still in bed) and identified a cycle parking occupancy of around 22%, or 57 cycle spaces being occupied of the 257 surveyed. This equates to only 9% of resident students storing a bike on-site (1:11), assuming a maximum of one bike per person per study room.
Section Conclusions
4.5. This section demonstrates that the CBSV site currently shows a low level of cycle ownership (rate of 1:11), well below the minimum cycle parking policy requirements outlined in the OLP of 4 cycle spaces for every 4 student bedrooms (rate of 1:1) and the current provision of 0.4 spaces per unit (2:5 ratio).
4.6. These patterns may be expected to continue with any expanded operation and addresses the requirements of Policy M5 as being suitable for reduced levels of cycle parking.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 8
5. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CYCLE PARKING
Introduction
5.1. It is recognised that the quality of cycle parking facilities is a key factor in the uptake of cycle use and that any future CBSV proposals should promote better design, expecting some increases in cycle use.
5.2. Section 5 addresses design issues through an assessment of the condition, location and suitability of existing CBSV cycle parking facilities. Key areas for improvement are highlighted to inform the design at CBSV including: the facilities required; current areas of high demand within the site (i.e. under- provision); and opportunities for the betterment of user amenity and accessibility to encourage cycling.
Location of Cycle Parking
5.3. The plan provided in Appendix B shows the specific locations of existing on-site cycle spaces, and the general parking facilities provided across the wider CBSV site (including the Post Graduate Centre and CBSV building outside of the red line boundary for completeness) . These are spread across the site to maximise their benefit and convenience for residents.
5.4. Survey data in Appendix A shows that only one of the CBSV cycle parking stores within the red line boundary was at its capacity (10 cycles at Site 34) on both survey days. This cycle store is centrally located, on the southern end of Block G, close to a connecting through traffic-free route and junction point. No other cycle parking site exceeded 50% occupancy within the development area, although three cycle stores outside of the red line boundary were shown as being slightly over capacity.
Quality of Current Cycle Parking
5.5. The photos provided in Appendix C illustrates why some of the existing CBSV cycle parking facilities may be unattractive to potential cycle owners and users, and highlights facilities that are better used.
5.6. The cycle survey in Appendix B shows that although some 104 spaces of the 257 are covered (40%), no secure cycle shelters are currently provided, with CCTV only covering one of the 17 cycle stores. Certain locations appear underused or inconveniently positioned, and have limited or no lighting (11%).
Opportunities for Improvement
5.7. Future CBSV proposals should include an appropriate level of high-quality, secure cycle parking in as convenient location as possible for the accommodation blocks. Short-stay (visitor) cycle parking should be located close to the building accesses.
5.8. Improved, sheltered and secure cycle parking is therefore required to attract a range of users. To better accommodate the range of future users’ needs, the design should be flexible enough to accommodate bicycle trailers, cargo bicycles and facilities for electric cycle charging infrastructure.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 9
6. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
6.1. The CBSV development will provide a total of about 1035 rooms which represents a net increase of about 573 rooms.
6.2. To encourage cycling, the CBSV development is proposed to provide a total of 470 cycle parking spaces in secure internally located and locked stores for the 1035 residents. At a ratio of nearly 1 space per 2 rooms, this is a significant increase in quantum and quality of the existing provision and is considered sufficient to promote higher levels of cycle use without unnecessary overprovision.
6.3. These stores are to include a mix of facilities to accommodate bicycle trailers, cargo bicycles and facilities for electric cycle charging infrastructure. In addition, 31 existing cycle spaces will be retained and 6 secure bike bins/lockers will be relocated within the scheme. A further 100 external sheltered and secure cycle spaces will also be provided initially.
6.4. 70 external spaces will also be provided for short-stay visitor cycle parking, with Sheffield Stands located close to the building accesses at various points across the site. In total, therefore the scheme will initially provide a total of 677 cycle parking spaces. This also provides secure and sheltered cycle parking for staff at the nursery and Welcome Centre.
6.5. To provide flexibility and accommodate any future increase above the proposed provision, additional locations for possible expansions in cycle parking capacity will be designed in from the outset to allow expansion up to a total of 1045 spaces, ie an additional 368 cycle spaces. The Travel Plan will monitor usage of the cycle parking and, if necessary, additional stores will be erected in the locations identified most convenient for any identified shortfall. Full details of the locations will be provided in the planning application.
6.6. This cycle parking strategy is considered to be policy compliant, and an appropriate and sustainable approach. It avoids the construction, and the associated carbon impacts, of significant cycle storage that is considered unlikely to be used but, if the enhanced cycle storage facilities leads to a dramatic increase in cycle use at CBSV, space is protected for the provision of additional stores, with the OBU Travel Plan monitoring usage.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 10
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1. This TN outlines current cycle parking policy requirements for the proposed student accommodation development at CBSV. It demonstrates that the site is considered suitable for reduced levels of cycle parking provisions in line with OLP Policy M5 requirements.
7.2. On-site cycle surveys showed a current peak cycle parking occupancy rate of 9% (1 space:11 bedrooms) which is well below the normal policy requirement of 1:1 and the current provision of 0.4 spaces per unit (rate of 1:2.5, or 2 spaces for every 5 resident students).
7.3. As the CBSV site is sustainably located, in close proximity to associated OBU study sites, with short, convenient and permeable connecting walk routes available, it is likely that low residential cycle parking occupancy rates will continue with any expansion, and a majority of trips will be undertaken on foot. Inclusive travel (ie no charge) on BROOKESbus is also available to students at CBSV for longer journeys.
7.4. It is accepted that the poor quality of some existing facilities on the CBSV site may be unattractive to potential users and therefore contribute to this current low occupancy.
7.5. To address this, and provide suitable cycle parking facilities, the CBSV development cycle parking proposals are to provide 677 spaces initially, including 70 spaces for visitors.
7.6. The planning application will show where an additional 368 covered and secure cycle parking spaces could be constructed if monitoring through the Travel Plan identifies the need for additional spaces.
7.7. It is considered that this represents a policy compliant, low carbon and sustainable solution to cycle parking at the expanded CBSV site.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx 11
APPENDICES
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx
APPENDIX A
CYCLE PARKING SURVEY DATA TABLES
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx
Cycle parking - usage on Campus Date 21/03/2018 Time 07:22 - 08:10 Number Location Number of Used Percentage of Location Description Locking Sheffield Stand (Y or N) Number of Spaces Number Space spaces used Devices 21 Block M Butterflies 12 N 12 3 25% 22 Middle Block M 7 Y 14 3 21% 23 Front Block M North 7 Y 14 3 21% 23 Front Block M South 4 Y 8 0 0% 24 Block L Middle Back 6 Y 12 2 17% 24 Block L Middle Front 7 Y 14 4 29% 25 Block L Road 6 Y 12 0 0% To be retained 26 Block C Front 4 Y 8 3 38% 27 Block K Front 5 Y 10 5 50% outside of red line - retained K Block Bike Bin 3 28 Nursery Front 6 Y 12 1 8% 29 Block A Front 10 Y 20 6 30% 30 Nursery Back 5 Y 10 0 0% 31 Back Block B 10 Y 20 6 30% 32 Back Block F 5 Y 10 3 30% 32 Middle Block F 9 Y 18 0 0% 33 Front Block F 14 Y 28 5 18% F Block Bike Bin 3 34 Back Block G 5 Y 10 10 100% 36 Front Block J 3 Y 6 2 33% 35 Middle Block G 7 N 7 0 0% 37 Steel Framed Building 3 Y 6 1 17% 38 Hut North East of Block P 47 Y 94 12 13% 43 Middle Block P,N and Q 6 Y 12 15 125% 39 Back Block Q 17 Y 34 35 103% 41 Back Block T 47 Y 94 15 16% 42 Middle Block W,X,T and V 45 Y 90 30 33% ALL 581 164 28% Excluding PGC 257 57 22%
\\192.168.16.5\KeyTransport_Data\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV\Cycle usage on Clive Booth v2 Oxford Brookes University - Cycle parking audit - 2/11/2017
Number of Cycle Location parking No. of Parking Parking Location Number of Spaces Sheffield stands % Occupancy CCTV Lighting Notes Reference spaces/sheffield spaces used Covered Secure stands
21 CB 12 12 N 1 8% Y N N Y Back of M block, butterfly stands 22 CB 7 14 Y 3 21% Y N N Y Middle of M block 23 CB 11 22 Y 4 18% N N N Y South of L block, between L and M block KEY 24 CB 14 28 Y 3 11% Y N N Y Middle of L block 25 CB 6 12 Y 0 0% N N N Y South of L block 26 CB 4 8 Y 3 38% N N N N South of C block 27 CB 5 10 Y 4 40% N N N Y North of K block 28 CB 6 12 Y 4 33% N N N Y South East corner of the Nursery CBSV Cycle Parking to be Replaced by the 29 CB 10 20 Y 4 20% Y N N Y North of A block 30 CB 5 10 Y 0 0% N N N N West of Nursery New Development 31 CB 10 20 Y 9 45% Y N Y Y East of B block 32 CB 14 28 Y 2 7% N N N Y Middle and Back of F block 33 CB 14 28 Y 3 11% N N N Y North West of F block 34 CB 5 10 Y 10 100% Y N N Y East of G block 35 CB 7 7 N 0 0% N N N Y North of G block, butterfly wheel locks CBSV Cycle Parking Outside of the 36 CB 3 6 Y 2 33% N N N Y North of J block Development Site Boundary (to be 37 CB 3 6 Y 1 17% N N N Y East of Steel Frame building Retained) 38 CB 47 94 Y 10 11% Y Y Y Y North East of P block North of Q block, bikes left by former residents locked 39 CB 16 32 Y 25 78% Y N Y Y in one half of the shelter 40 CB 47 94 Y 28 30% N Y Y Y Post Graduate centre, centre courtyard 41 CB 47 94 Y 9 10% Y Y Y Y North of T block
42 CB 45 90 Y 19 21% Y N Y Y In between V/T block and X/W block, one motorcycle Post Graduate Centre Cycle Parking (to be retained) 43 CB 6 12 Y 14 117% Y N Y Y Centre of S,N,P,Q and R block, 2 attached to pillars
TOTAL 669 158 24% TOTAL WIDER CBSV 575 130 23% SITE TOTAL CBSV DEV 253 53 21% SITE ONLY
APPENDIX B
CYCLE PARKING SURVEY MAP
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx
APPENDIX C
CYCLE PARKING SURVEY PHOTOS
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx
Some existing CBSV cycle parking is lightly used, often partly due to the lack of shelters or being poorly located or maintained. This can result in security issues which does little to encorage cycle use. Some of the external Sheffield stands are, however, convenient for short stay visitors.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx
Where cycle parking is covered and overlooked, a higher proportion of cycles were observed parked. A range of current covered facilities is illustrated below.
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TN\TN01 Cycle Parking at CBSV v1.2.docx
APPENDIX D
Refuse Lorry and Fire Appliance Tracking
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TA\TA v1.1.docx Limit of existing highway
New Avon Fire Turntable John Garne Way
+72.22 G4 60-dbl
+71.48 P9 G1 G2
+71.45 JOHN 10 visitor GARNE ARRIVAL +71.77 SPACE +72.00 10mm P7 +72.38 0
-10mm +72.20 G4 +73.35 +75.00
+72.59
+73.00
+72.50 +73.60 +72.30 +74.09 +72.68 P9 G4
+72.50 +73.44 Existing road retained and resurfaced
NOTE THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LIMITED MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT P2 P1 P3 +73.50 +70.75 P4 +72.90 DRAWING BASED ON LDA DESIGN DWG 7697_100_LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN_G 10.96 CLIVE BOOTH STUDENT VILLAGE OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY
TRACKING OF FIRE APPLIANCE
2.975 4.725 BUILDING 3
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\AutoCAD\1085-006C.dwg New Avon Fire Turntable
: Overall Length 10.960m Overall Width 2.500m C Minor Amendments DRT PM PM 04/21 Overall Body Height 3.441m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.418m DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PASSED BY DATE SCALES @ A3 SIZE ISSUE STATUS DRAWING NUMBER REV. B Layout and tracking updated BE 04/21 Track Width 2.500m A Tracking updated BE 04/21 Lock to lock time 6.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 8.600m BE VW PJM JAN 21 1:250 PRELIMINARY 1085-006 C REV DR CH PA DATE CAD FILE NAME +77.20 100mm gravel drainage channel 400mm h gabion retaining gabion +74.40 TOW +74.50
+74.00 P4 +78.53 +77.13 +77.25 P4 gabion retaining element
+75.61 16 - dbl WOODLAND +77.25 GLADE +77.87 +74.21 +77.30
+77.750 G1 32 - dbl
+77.19 40 dbl +74.48 +75.55
P4
+77.56
+79.34 10mm
+78.05 +77.725 FFL 0
800mm retaining - gabion -10mm
+78.40 TOW +77.60 New Avon Fire Turntable +76.24 P4
+77.28
+78.525 TOW
+77.03 800mm retaining -gabion +76.88 G1 +78.42
+77.725 FFL Existing paths tied into new paths & resurfaced +83.275 with resin bound gravel +83.66
NOTE THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LIMITED MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT +80.61
DRAWING BASED ON LDA DESIGN DWG 7697_100_LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN_G 10.96 CLIVE BOOTH STUDENT VILLAGE OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY
TRACKING OF FIRE APPLIANCE
2.975 4.725 BUILDINGS 1 & 2
New Avon Fire Turntable F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\AutoCAD\1085-007C,008B,010B.dwg
: Overall Length 10.960m Overall Width 2.500m C Minor Amendments DRT PM PM 04/21 Overall Body Height 3.441m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.418m DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PASSED BY DATE SCALES @ A3 SIZE ISSUE STATUS DRAWING NUMBER REV. B Layout and tracking updated BE 04/21 Track Width 2.500m Lock to lock time 6.00s A Layout updated and tracking amended Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 8.600m BE PJM PJM 03/21 BE VW PJM JAN 21 1:250 PRELIMINARY 1085-007 C REV DR CH PA DATE CAD FILE NAME +78.95 G4 32- Single G1 +83.56
+76.09 17 Single THE GARDENS
+77.00 New Avon Fire+76.89 Turntable 3 +76.78 G4 +76.83
P2
2 +81.88 +77.50 +76.750 +77.98
+78.28 +77.75 +78.09 10mm G1 P3 0 -10mm +78.53 10 visitor
+79.30 +77.60
Concrete retaining structure with feature cor-ten cladding +77.600& timber seating tops
+77.750 +77.750
+79.12 NOTE THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LIMITED MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT G2 +80.50 DRAWING BASED ON LDA DESIGN DWG Surface enhancements CLIVE BOOTH STUDENT VILLAGE OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY 7697_100_LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN_G 10.96
TRACKING OF FIRE APPLIANCE
2.975 4.725 BUILDINGS A & B
New Avon Fire Turntable F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\AutoCAD\1085-007C,008B,010B.dwg Overall Length 10.960m : Overall Width 2.500m Overall Body Height 3.441m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.418m Track Width 2.500m DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PASSED BY DATE SCALES @ A3 SIZE ISSUE STATUS DRAWING NUMBER REV. B Minor Amendments DRT PM PM 04/21 Lock to lock time 6.00s A Layout and tracking updated BE 04/21 Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 8.600m BE VW PJM JAN 21 1:250 PRELIMINARY 1085-008 B REV DR CH PA DATE CAD FILE NAME P8 +83.60 +79.85 +84.95 +87.235 +88.15
+84.30 +82.60 +83.60 +84.95 P10
+82.60 P8 +84.50 +89.175 +79.85 G4 Gabion seating/ WOODLAND retaining edge G2 COURTS G2 +88.30
+85.35 +87.25 +88.30 +86.45 P10 Existing pond +85.35 Substation +82.60 +84.5 P1 enhanced +86.45 +87.25 G3 +79.71 P10 G6
+82.60
+80.79 +84.20
10 visitor G4
10mm +84.61 0 +82.67 New Avon Fire Turntable
-10mm +84.00
+84.55
+82.44 4 2
Existing steps G5 refurbished. +83.13
Existing container Existing entrance retained. gate to allotments retained. Existing verge enhanced with woodland ground New gravel path to gate. NOTE THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LIMITED MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT Existing embankment retained - flora mix ground flora enhanced
DRAWING BASED ON LDA DESIGN DWG CLIVE BOOTH STUDENT VILLAGE OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY 7697_100_LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN_G 10.96
TRACKING OF FIRE APPLIANCE
2.975 4.725 BUILDINGS 10, 11 & 12 New Avon Fire Turntable
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\AutoCAD\1085-007C,008B,010B.dwg Overall Length 10.960m
: Overall Width 2.500m Overall Body Height 3.441m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.418m Track Width 2.500m DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PASSED BY DATE SCALES @ A3 SIZE ISSUE STATUS DRAWING NUMBER REV. B Minor Amendments DRT PM PM 04/21 Lock to lock time 6.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 8.600m A Layout and tracking updated BE 04/21 BE VW PJM JAN 21 1:250 PRELIMINARY 1085-010 B REV DR CH PA DATE CAD FILE NAME 65.80 HT:ZYm
CL:65.78 66.05 65.77 ASPHALT 65.99 RS 65.76 IC 67.20 67.48 CATV 65.70 SV SV 67.01 67.15 CL:66.30 66.84 ASPHALT IC IC 65.89 66.17 66.81 SV SV 66.59 SV 67.44 REFUSE COMPACTOR ENTERING SITE FROM JOHN GARNE WAY CL:65.52 CL:65.67 REFUSE COMPACTOR TRAVELLINGSV THROUGH SITE FROM SV 67.20 66.23 BT ASPHALT DK67.00 67.12 CL:65.76 65.83 GU MULTI BOLE 66.81 DK66.75 GU 65.69 MH 66.13 CL:66.39 GU MULTI BOLE 65.80 CL:65.71 65.87 66.54 67.10 INSERT63.37 66.35
66.05 CL:67.36
63.27 65.46
IC 65.77 SV SV 65.75 ASPHALT SV CL:65.80 65.99 65.24 RS 67.71 SV IC 65.17 SV BT ASPHALT 67.03
65.70 SV SV 66.04 CATV SV 67.01 ASPHALT 68.02 GU DK66.98
IC 66.81 SV SPR:5.00m 63.23 IC 65.00 SV 63.33 SV 66.59 SV SV 65.65 CL:65.52
SV 66.23 ASPHALT 65.66 66.71 DK66.74
66.13 BT DK67.00
64.85 66.81 DK66.75 BT
65.69 GU 67.93
MH 66.54
SV 65.46 CL:65.80 SV 66.04 66.35 65.46 66.24 CL:66.44 SV 65.17 65.24 SV ASPHALT GU DK66.98 JOHN GARNE WAY CATV 64.54 64.85 SV BT SV DK66.74 CL:65.23 SV 65.46 66.24
DK63.33 64.39 STN3ASV SV 64.39 64.54 ASPHALT SV DK65.07 65.18 DIA:0.4m RS DK65.07 ASPHALT DK63.32 63.56 63.58 63.68 SV BT SV SV DK64.90 65.86 67.69 ASPHALT RS CATV SV 64.50 DK64.89 DK65.05 65.08 GU 64.96 DK64.90
63.45 SV ASPHALT SV 66.78 SV DK64.00 64.75 CL:65.37 65.5564.86 65.86 DK63.84 66.51 67.40 GU 65.94 66.25 SV DK63.82 DK63.98 64.50CL:64.40 ASPHALT 66.00 MH DK65.05 65.08 MH GU 63.78 65.66 GU 67.63 GU 67.14
64.33 65.14 ASPHALT DK64.89 CL:67.36 HT:ZYm 64.86 MH GU 66.78 ASPHALT
64.75 66.78 65.87 MH CL:65.59 CL:66.08 66.68 65.55 64.13 MH CL:65.37BT ASPHALT 66.21 ASPHALT 2
64.00 GU 65.89 MH 66.79 BRICK PAV 67.73 CAR CLUB ONLY ASPHALT CL:65.39 BT 66.87 66.51 67.00 66.31 ASPHALT 66.83 ASPHALT LP 1 CL:64.40 65.07 66.83 STN4 66.25 JOHNGU GARNE WAY 66.30 65.94 GU GU 65.46 ASPHALT 64.24 65.18 ASPHALT 65.98 LIGHT IC 63.76 64.83 66.94
65.63 LP
MH 66.87 MH 64.00 64.34 65.46 66.78 MH 64.12 CL:64.40ASPHALT ASPHALT 65.00 63.48 RS GRASS 65.66 RS 64.22ASPHALT LP 65.54 BT RS GU 63.87 66.77 67.37 RS MULTI BOLE65.43 CL:67.15 CL:63.24 63.58 64.67 66.74 CL:66.16
RS 64.80 66.00 GU 65.71 65.99 66.44
BT 64.00 65.14 ASPHALT TREE
66.68 DK66.97 67.39 64.19 RUBBER 65.00 65.49 65.95 66.55 DK66.93 ASPHALTRS 67.42 66.05 65.10 BRICK GRASS 67.37 63.86 PAV MAT ASPHALT 63.58 65.64 GRASS MH GU 65.19 64.44 ASPHALT 66.00 66.27
65.00 66.68 MH 63.94 1TREE GRASS 66.78 64.46 GRASS TREE GRASS SPR:1.5m 66.67 SV
DK63.31 DP CL:65.59
DK63.28 CL:66.08 TREE 65.65 DIA:0.1m GRASS SV GRASS TREE 65.26 SPR:1.5m 66.99 64.08 CL:64.22 GRASS TREE DIA:0.1m 66.21 67.50 67.71 IC MH RS GRASS TREE TREE MH 66.18 MH ASPHALT MH SPR:1.5m MH 63.26 MH 66.04 66.73 LP 65.89 65.87 ER 65.97 GU 67.31 66.78 67.32 65.68
65.27 LICHT 67.00 SV 64.06 ER 66.79 BRICK PAV ER 64.91 CONCRETE 65.58 MH CAR CLUB ONLY 65.53 CL:65.39 BT IC 67.48 ASPHALT 64.37 FLOWERS RS 66.87 ER
TREE 67.12 67.09 DP 64.78 67.02 66.31 ASPHALT 65.99 67.20 BT 64.27 BRICK 67.15
ASPHALT 67.44 67.56 TREE PAV CL:66.40 67.01 IC 67.18 SV SV CL:64.22DP SPR:6.00m GU LP 66.00 LP 65.07 67.42 66.83 STN4 66.83 CL:66.30 ASPHALT CL:63.58 GRASS GATE 67.38 66.53 65.69 63.43 IC CL:64.40
66.99 66.84 63.30 ER 64.73 66.30 67.39 66.81 SV BOL SV 67.43 65.46 ASPHALT FLOWERS 66.89 CL:67.74 GU BRICK 66.17 67.46 66.94 PAV BT LP 65.18 66.00 LIGHT 63.84 64.24 BOL ASPHALT 65.98 66.59 67.44 66.75 67.42 64.02 64.83 GU BRICK PAV 65.63 LP 67.23 SV 66.70 66.99 MH 66.87 IL:66.47 SV CL:63.47 BOL 66.85 66.78 67.20 63.87 65.46 66.23 64.34 65.89 ASPHALT HALLS STAFF ONLY BOL 66.97 67.12 67.64 ASPHALT 65.17 67.00 67.34 64.12 67.08 67.61 BT DK67.00 65.00 LICHT 64.86 66.13 66.24 BOL IL:65.99 RS 65.39 66.69 LP IL:65.24 65.54 65.98 GRASS 66.81 DK66.75 64.36 GATE 64.51 64.52 65.66 GU BOL 66.13 DP 64.29 IC GAVEL IL:64.90 67.00 RS IC IC PR HT:0.6M CL:66.39 63.34 64.34 IC 66.00 CL:65.50 IC BOL DK66.80 66.54 63.83 63.89 65.33 CL:65.35 BOL 66.91 GAVEL IC 66.91 67.10 IC ER IC 67.37 GAVEL CL:64.69 BOL BOL 66.01 66.15 66.77 GAVEL BOL 65.93 65.67 BOL 64.67 66.35 64.30 IC IC 66.80
BOL 67.28 63.93 GAVEL 65.31 DP GU GATE IC IC IC 65.51 IC 66.74 BOL 64.72 66.00 CL:67.36 IC 66.00 65.94
66.01 66.89 64.98 ASPHALT ASPHALT ER 64.35 CL:65.91 65.71 65.99
DP SV 66.00 BOL 66.76 66.44 CL:65.09 PAVING SLABS 67.19 ASPHALT
66.86 TREE PAVING SLABS IC
PR HT:1.7M 64.36 BOL
IC 64.19 66.97 67.03 GRASS IC BOL IC DP 66.34 IC 65.49 66.68 64.09 IC TREE 65.95 66.04 DK66.98 MH 65.00
IC SPR:3.00m TREE 66.55 DK66.93 RS GU
66.87 SPR:2.5m
CL:64.29 65.28 CL:65.87 SPR:3.00m ER RS IC 65.19 65.21 66.00 LIGHT 65.10 63.86 PAVING SLABS IC 67.40 ER IC 66.05 ER BOL 67.32 ER 65.21 65.79 66.71 DK66.74 PAVING SLABS GAVEL 66.49 BRICK DK66.97 BOL 64.51 64.76 BOL 63.58 BT 65.64 PAV 64.49 GRASS 67.58 CL:66.44 DP GRASS
66.78 66.24 63.56 66.90 GU 66.81
IC 66.69 63.94
65.78 65.19
63.50 64.26 IC 66.09 67.13 64.0063.91 WOOD 66.01 67.56 66.27 65.90 67.25 IC TREE 66.77 WOOD IC BOL BOL DP 64.92
CL:64.24 67.54 65.95 66.00 GRASS 65.78 66.13 ASPHALT IC GRASS TREE GRASS SPR:1.5m 66.67 BOL 64.46 65.93 66.99 64.52 DP 67.69 66.71
GRASS DK66.81 66.85 65.84 GRASS
HALLS STAFF ONLY STAFF HALLS IC ONLY STAFF HALLS 67.40 66.20 TREE TREE SPR:1.5m DIA:0.1m 65.99 LIGHT ER DP 64.35 GU GRASS TREE DP SPR:1.5m 65.65 64.21 GAVEL GU 67.16 DIA:0.1m 67.14 67.30 65.26 PAVING SLABS 66.93 63.64 SPR:1.5m DIA:0.1m 67.49
66.61 MH 67.44
GRASS 67.10 66.78 TREE 66.81 BOL 66.02 GU 63.54 63.44 63.86 65.98 66.73 CL:66.98 BOL SPR:1.5m DIA:0.1m 66.34 67.25 IC ASPHALT 63.87 GAVEL MH 66.18 MH ER POND CL:67.26 SPR:1.5m ASPHALT DIA:0.1mPAVING SLABS FLOWERS ASPHALT CL:64.23SPR:1.5m MH CL:65.93
IC 65.13 IC CL:67.00 66.51 67.00 IC 66.69 MH 66.04 66.73 LP
ER CL:64.47 66.80
64.45 66.24 LIGHT 65.87 ER 65.93
66.09 65.97
HALLS STAFF ONLY STAFF HALLS HALLS STAFF ONLY STAFF HALLS 67.32 66.25 DP CL:64.93 65.68 66.78 BOL DP
66.08 ASPHALT
63.61 63.55 64.20 BOL DP
64.21 65.27 CL:66.06 LICHT 67.00
BIN 66.00 IC DP DK66.75
63.94 66.15 CL:66.11 64.36 PAVING SLABS DK66.74 ER MH ER 64.91 MH IC 65.00 65.53
64.63 65.73 GU 64.23 65.13 66.11 66.71 FLOWERS ER 67.12 65.79 67.48 DP
WOOD 64.47 66.10 RUBBER GRASS MAT 65.76 BOL 66.76 67.26 IC 67.19 GU 64.3764.43 65.13 66.00 FLOWERS CL:67.15 67.63 64.27 64.6266.14 66.10 RS CL:66.16 ER DP 66.07
64.38 DP 66.02 66.00 67.12
66.88 67.02 BOL 66.77 67.20 IC LIGHT 64.78 67.39 TREE LIGHT CL:67.36 64.24 POND 64.27 PAVING SLABS 65.93 PR HT:0.6M BOL POND 66.43 BRICK 63.99 64.23 64.27 IC TREE GU GU WM 64.25 IC ER
63.58 PAV MH
CL:63.49 ER 66.01 DP 67.18
CL:64.22 66.89 VEHICLES VEHICLES 67.45 SV TREE IC IC DP
67.01 SPR:6.00m
CL:63.55 SV BOL GU LP 66.68
ER 2 67.42 DP NO UNAUTHORIZED NO NO UNAUTHORIZED NO GRASS 67.11 TREE CL:66.45 IC 65.90 DIA:0.80m 64.88 64.87 RS PAVING SLABS GAVEL 66.90 CL:66.08 66.78 67.30 CL:66.92 IC 66.79 RE 67.74 GATE 64.26 LIGHT IC 66.70
64.81 67.04 BOL 67.38 67.17 IC GRASS IC GATE GRASS 66.74 67.1367.25 BOL 66.21 67.50 63.69 GRASS BOL BOL 67.62
64.43 66.99 DP ASPHALT 65.44 CL:65.78 67.61
65.39 66.91 GRASS 66.03
ASPHALT IC 67.02 65.11 65.74 DP 66.00
67.12 BOL BOL 67.31 65.67 ER ASPHALT GAVEL TREE 65.24 65.42 67.73 66.83 RE 67.38 FLOWERS
IC 66.80 DP 66.89 67.01 CL:64.39 65.00 65.73 IC DP 66.79 63.94 BRICK BOL IC SLAB LIGHT 66.93 CL:64.29 65.10 GRASS IC GRASS 66.00 CL:63.96 IC 66.79 DP PAV ER BIN GRASS 67.02 67.13 BT 63.98 ER MH 65.75
66.92 66.87 65.27 ER DP 67.09
67.00 DP
65.06 65.67 IC 63.52 IC 64.23 64.95 65.99
IC GATE BOL BOL BRICK PAV 65.73 67.60 BOL 66.31 ASPHALT IC 64.5164.69 GAVEL 67.51 PAVING SLABS BIN 67.56 IC CL:66.40 67.44
PONDPAVING SLABS 65.63 IC 66.93 GRASS 65.57 IC 66.75 66.83 LP BOL 64.62 BOL IC GU 66.83 IC IC BOL CL:65.09 65.99 66.82 BOL IC GAVEL PAVING SLABS IC MH IC GAVEL LIGHT 66.92 DP DP CL:64.45 DP CL:67.01 66.53 64.00 CL:63.99 GAVEL GRASS 64.74 65.58 66.99 64.34 66.70
IC 65.48 66.30
64.80 65.44 67.56 67.39
66.00 IC 65.69 BOL BOL 65.42 65.46 CL:68.71 DP
F/B BOL BOL 66.85
CL:65.70 66.11 DP ER GAVEL 65.47 67.16 66.80 68.00
63.55 64.7265.70 67.77 MARSTON ROAD MARSTON 67.74 HALLS STAFF ONLY LIGHT 66.00 BOL DP BOL 67.00 ASPHALT ER IC IC ER IC 66.99 LIGHT GU 66.97 DP IC
LIGHT IC 66.80 67.23 65.38 IC 66.94 BRICK PAV
67.08 LP
ASPHALT 66.97 67.63 IC
RS CABIN BOL
LICHT 66.87 LP IL:66.47 DP 66.00 65.54 IC 66.24 66.78
GATE LIGHT 66.13 BOL 67.04 BOL
65.40 DP 68.36 BRICK PAV IC 63.83 CL:67.68 67.34 DP ER BOL GRASS
ER 68.35 63.75 64.52 DP ER 65.39 GRASS DP 64.38 66.69 GU 65.35 65.29 DP 64.24 ER ER MH LIGHT
Low retaining wall with 67.16 CL:63.56 64.26 64.38 64.55 GATE MH LIGHT GRASS 68.41 63.65 63.70 64.52 DP 65.66 BRICK PAV IL:65.99 GRASS RS FLOWERS timber fence to 2.2m high. 66.15 65.98
IC 65.65 65.44 65.35 ER GU 65.54 67.00
63.82 66.01
IC DP 65.43 BOL 67.19 IC CL:64.72 DP 65.67 CL:64.10 64.99 65.65 65.69 GU IC
DP 64.29 65.35 TREE ASPHALT STN2 65.50 65.65 IC BRICK PAV CL:65.95 63.81 BRICK PAV 65.45 ER 67.29 GAVEL 64.49 65.00 IC IC ER IC 63.89 IC IC
BRICK PAV 65.63 SPR:1.00m 64.34 +65.63 +65.65 65.68 66.00 PR HT:0.6M
BRICK PAV Existing wall retained. 67.65 IC BOL DK66.80 BRICK PAV DP CL:65.50 ASPHALT 65.60GU 66.98 IC LIGHT IC +66.30 65.33 CL:65.35 IC DIA:0.07m GU 64.92 65.35 +66.24 IC BOL ER 63.78 CL:64.50 65.93 IC GAVEL 66.91 VEG 67.37 CL:67.74 68.29 IC 66.91 IC LIGHT LIGHT STN17 DP ER 64.29 LIGHT 64.67 LIGHT 68.44 66.77 BOL FLOWERS IC CL:65.33 IC IC 66.01 New retaining wall. BOL BRICK PAV LIGHT GAVEL IC 66.01 66.15
CL:64.69 RS 67.03 LIGHT CL:67.69 68.32
BOL 68.74 BOL 63.82 65.68 66.00 CONCRETE GAVEL DP 65.93 BOL 67.00 SPR:2.50m GATE CL:64.48 +66.24 GRASS 65.91 65.67 66.74 IC 64.3063.79 BRICK PAV IC 68.47 IC CL:63.68 CL:64.34 Existing wall removed. 67.28 67.17 BOLLIGHT CL:65.29 68.27 IC GAVEL CL:68.42 65.99
LIGHT 65.31
63.67 DP 66.44 IC IC VEG 66.49 67.12 IC 68.77 65.51 IC DIA:0.2m BOL 66.15 67.35 LIGHT CL:65.93 ASPHALT TREE 64.72GATE65.05 New tarmac surface. 68.00 GRASS 68.51 66.00
IC LIGHT 66.00 65.94
64.60 IC 66.89 66.01 63.62 LIGHT 68.55 66.34 ASPHALT CL:64.25 64.58 New gate & fence 67.58 GRASS 65.95 66.68 RUBBER 64.35 66.39 68.33 CL:64.28 66.76 68.77 66.55
DK66.93 RS TREE SPR:2.5m SV SPR:5m MH 66.00 ASPHALT 67.12 BOL 66.76 GRASS RS LIGHT LIGHT +67.14 DIA:0.3m CL:68.90 67.19 66.90 CL:65.09PAVING SLABS 67.34 67.37 PAVING SLABS BRICK PAV New sliding gate 68.09 68.55 68.76 CL:66.04 66.86 67.32 CL:64.36 IC BOL MAT
GV 68.62 GV LIGHT DK66.97 DIA:0.2m IC 66.97 66.49 BRICK CONCRETE CL:64.24 LIGHT MH IC 66.76 ExistingBOL road. 68.75 IC IC IC TREE PAV 63.83 63.76 CL:64.58 IC BRICK PAV GRASS MH MH 65.62 DK66.81 SPR:3.00m GRASS CONCRETE TREE 64.21 MH
Existing tree not 68.41 66.87
CL:64.29 CL:65.87 IC IC 65.28 65.21 LIGHT 66.00 SPR:3.00m CL:64.47 68.86 impacted65.19 by works 66.05 LIGHT
PAVING SLABS 67.40 IC 64.71 65.06 LIGHT 68.16 DIA:0.30m ER CL:64.58 RS
IC 68.67 ER BOL ER 65.21 65.79OAK 66.09 67.13 SPR:4m 67.28 66.27 GU BRICK PAV GAVEL 67.25 63.77 PAVING SLABS GU TREE 66.77 68.67
CL:63.70 64.27 68.00 69.05 OAK BOL 63.75 BOL GRASS 68.06 SPR:4m GRASS 69.00 66.00 68.74 SPR:1.5m 66.67 IC 67.04 68.03 BRICK PAV 69.02 GRASS GRASS IC 69.05 65.73 66.78 STN16 68.83 65.84 GRASS IC 66.90 DIA:0.1m BUS MH 65.78 SPR:1.5m 68.41 CL:69.06 69.11 66.81
IC 68.97 MH 66.69
MH 66.99 STOP 63.82 3 65.78 CL:66.02 67.36 DIA:0.1m 63.78 63.70
A069.17 IC 69.06
70.40 70.40 67.49
BRICK PAV 67.22 67.45 66.01 67.10 67.38 WOOD 65.90 CL:65.94 67.42 66.34 67.25 IC
WOOD IC BOL 67.30 MH BOL 66.18 MH CL:64.24 DP 65.95 67.42 CL:67.26 65.78 65.93 66.13 CL:65.93 CL:67.00 IC 65.21 65.78 66.04 66.73 LP
BOL 65.93 66.85 67.00 65.76 DP 66.00
65.94 65.87 ER 65.93 65.97
66.71 67.32
HALLS STAFF ONLY STAFF HALLS IC TREE ONLY STAFF HALLS 66.78 CL:64.22 67.48 65.99 66.20 LIGHT SPR:3.00m CL:66.06 LICHT 67.00 GU DIA:0.15m ER CL:66.61 CONCRETE
65.17 67.16 GAVEL GU 67.30 PAVING SLABS 67.04 67.12 66.93 MH 67.19 FLOWERS BOL 66.02 CL:66.65 66.81 GU RS
64.30 66.61
65.98 66.73 67.12
BOL 67.02
GAVEL PR HT:0.6M POND 67.46 TREE BRICK PAVING SLABS PAV TREECL:64.23 67.18 SPR:6.00m IC 65.13 67.11 LP IC GU 67.42 CL:65.99 65.90 DIA:0.80m 66.80 66.69
66.80 New gate & fence ER 67.04 66.70 CL:66.92 66.99 67.11 67.25 LIGHT 68.33 66.24 67.00 A0 64.45
66.09 67.28 HALLS STAFF ONLY STAFF HALLS HALLS STAFF ONLY STAFF HALLS 68.77 69.62 66.13 DP 67.40 TREE A0BOL BOL ASPHALT BIKE SHELTER 65.73 DP 66.13 MH 64.21 67.12 SPR:5m BIN 66.00 66.07 IC +67.14 DP 66.15 CL:66.11 DIA:0.3m CL:68.90 PAVING SLABS TREE 64.36 66.17 DK66.74 DK66.75 REFUSE COMPACTOR67.40 TURNING IN SITE CL:66.03 66.14 66.08 65.12 IC 65.13 66.71 GU STN4BRICK PAV 64.23 67.06 66.11 FLOWERS New sliding gate 68.09 68.76 65.79 CL:66.75 68.55 WOOD 66.10 67.14 BOL 66.76 67.26 IC 65.13 CL:64.24 64.43 65.13 66.14 66.10 66.00 3 68.62 DP 65.98 66.07 LIGHT 67.60
DP 66.02 10mm
CL:65.79 66.88
66.77 CONCRETE 67.55 IC BOL 67.20 LIGHT 67.32 MH TREE LIGHT Existing road. 68.75 POND 66.42 PAVING SLABS 67.38 CB HT:1.8M CL:69.02 POND 69.62 BOL 64.47 IC 66.43 64.23 BIN 67.11 IC 64.25 CL:65.98 66.90 POND 67.22
CL:64.24 CL:64.40 66.01
0
66.89 67.45 VEHICLES IC VEHICLES BOL GRASS 67.01 FLOWERS BRICK PAV
ER MH NO UNAUTHORIZED NO NO UNAUTHORIZED NO GRASS TREE CL:66.03 65.13 69.68 66.00 67.27 CONCRETE 64.88 64.87 PAVING SLABS RS 67.01 GAVEL 66.90 67.30
IC 64.72 66.79 MH 64.72 65.03 67.13 68.41 CL:68.74 65.01 Existing tree not LIGHT 64.26 64.23 64.81 BOL CL:68.74 64.59 GRASS 65.98 IC GATE 65.82 GRASS IC BOL 67.55 CL:64.25 PR HT:0.6M 67.52 LIGHT CL:64.27 65.39 65.00 65.73 BOL 67.27 68.86 64.43 65.20 BOL 69.62 65.09 DP 67.54 -10mm 67.28 69.66 65.44 CL:65.78 impacted by works BRICK PAV 66.91 GRASS 66.03 65.11 IC 66.00 67.02 65.74 DP CL:67.53 LIGHT 68.16
65.67 BOL CL:67.57 65.42 ER GAVEL TREE 65.24 65.63 65.77 66.83 RE 67.38 67.70 IC 65.57 65.31 66.80 DP RS
65.00 65.73 IC 67.86 BOL IC SLAB
LIGHT 66.93 68.67 65.10 GRASS 66.91 CL:67.53 GRASS IC 67.56 DP 67.26 65.71 66.79 CL:64.39 65.17 CL:65.89 66.00 GRASS GRASS BIN SPR:4m 65.75 ER 64.50 65.59 66.92 64.22 CL:66.00 BRICK PAV DIA:.6m 65.27 ER DP
65.06 65.67 IC 67.00 DP 64.23 BOL 65.99 IC GATE 64.95 65.33 CL:65.63 BOL BRICK PAV HT:12m 65.07 CL:65.73 65.73 67.60 64.69 IC CL:64.25 64.51 GAVEL 66.82 67.51 IC PAVING SLABS 67.57 PAVING SLABS 65.63 IC 66.93 68.67 65.00 IC CL:65.93 69.05
65.07 68.00 65.57 CL:67.61 BOL 64.62 64.69 BOL IC OAK 64.29 64.30 IC CL:65.31 65.99 IC BOL CL:65.09 GAVEL PAVING SLABS 66.82 68.06 BOL CL:64.86 IC IC 67.59 SPR:4m IC LIGHT DP IC GAVEL DP 66.92 DP GAVEL CL:64.45 64.74 65.58 GRASS DIA:.5m TREE 64.30 CL:65.84 64.34 64.32 IC 65.97 65.48 HT:10m SPR:2m 64.80 66.12 65.44 67.56 69.00 65.66 65.83 65.68 67.39 68.74 69.25 DIA:.2m 65.69 IC BOL BOL 65.42 65.46 CL:68.71 66.00 HT:5m
F/B BOL CL:65.70 66.11 DP 68.03 BRICK PAV IC 69.02 ER GAVEL 65.47 65.70 CL:65.82 66.80 68.00 69.66 CL:64.33 66.89 67.74 CL:68.85 BOL DP IC IC ER 66.00 IC LIGHT 66.99 IC 69.05 69.98 CL:66.84 DP LIGHT IC CL:69.02 65.38 IC 68.83 BRICK PAV STN16 CL:67.58 67.63 IC BOL 66.97 67.59 69.09 66.77 CL:68.94 MH 65.54 66.86 IC 67.64 GATE LIGHT CL:69.06 BOL 68.41 69.11 69.47 70.00 65.40 DP 69.63 BRICK PAV 64.31 ER BOL DP GRASS ER MH 64.42 DP ER 64.38 64.44 64.52 64.85 67.54 69.99 65.35 65.29 67.59 DP 68.97 64.40 64.48 CL:69.06 64.24 ER ER 64.56 64.87 MH LP 64.55 Low retaining wall with MH 64.26 64.38 CL:64.42 CL:64.49 FLOWERS 65.55 MH 64.33 LIGHT CL:64.51 DP FLOWERS CL:69.06 FLOWERS PR HT:0.5M timber fence to 2.2m high. CL:67.63 65.65 GU 65.44 65.35 ER 65.32 65.29 DP CL:65.61 65.43 PR HT:0.5M 65.10 DP 65.43 65.29 65.67 65.65 65.69 67.50 GU PR HT:0M 64.99 65.35 65.66 IC 69.83 64.82 65.50 65.65 66.82 64.66 65.45 ER 67.29 CL:67.67 BRICK PAV ER 69.17 64.49 65.50 CL:65.64 IC IC 69.06 BRICK PAV 65.00 65.63 CL:65.65 CL:65.05 +65.63 +65.65 Existing wall retained. 70.40 70.40 BRICK PAV 67.65 BRICK PAV 66.98 DP 65.26 65.73 65.60 67.45 IC +66.30GU IC 65.00 GRASS 65.35 65.62 68.90 CL:64.50 64.92 +66.2465.61 IC 64.76 65.93 VEG CL:67.74 64.58 LIGHT STN17 NOTE THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LIMITED AND MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT WRITTEN THEIR WITHOUT WAY ANY IN REPRODUCED OR COPIED BE NOT MUST AND LIMITED CONSULTANTS TRANSPORT KEY IN VESTED IS DESIGN AND DRAWING THIS OF PROPERTY THE NOTE LIGHT DP 64.44 LIGHT 67.56 BIKE SHELTER VEG FLOWERS LIGHT New67.00 retainingIC wall. LIGHT IC CL:67.20 67.53 CL:67.69 68.32 65.68 CONCRETE DP 69.12 +66.2466.24 PR HT:0.5M 67.54 68.99
66.00 GRASS BRICK PAV Existing wall removed. 68.27 68.47 LIGHT IC LIGHT CL:68.42 VEG 67.21 66.49 67.12 70.39 66.15 CL:68.1067.59 70.42 GATE New tarmac surface. 68.00 GRASS 68.51 69.43 66.76 70.00 SCALE 1:500 LIGHT LIGHT New gate & fence 67.58 68.55 65.00 66.39 66.76 67.35 68.33 CHLK HT:1.8M 69.09 OAKBIKE PARK 70.41
10.201 CLIVE BOOTH STUDENT VILLAGE GRASS OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY
REFUSE COMPACTOR VEHICLE TRACKING KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LTD 26 BERKELEY SQUARE BRISTOL 1.298 1.61 4.128 1.524 BS8 1HP Tel : 0117 920 9430 E-mail : [email protected] Large Tipper
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\AutoCAD\1085-012B & 013A.dwg & University\AutoCAD\1085-012B Brookes Oxford CBSV, F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 Overall Length 10.201m
: Overall Width 2.495m Overall Body Height 2.890m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.341m Track Width 2.471m DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PASSED BY DATE SCALES @ A3 SIZE ISSUE STATUS DRAWING NUMBER REV. B Minor Amendments DRT PM PM 04/21 Lock to lock time 6.00s A Layout and tracking updated BE 04/21 Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 11.550m BE PM PM APR 21 1:250 PRELIMINARY 1085-012 B
REV DR CH PA DATE CAD FILE NAME FILE CAD 64.19 GAVEL 65.00 65.42 65.63 66.83 ER RE 67.38 IC 65.57 66.80 DP DP CL:65.70 65.73 IC BOL IC 67.60 GRASS LIGHT 66.91 66.93 66.11 IC GRASS IC 66.79 DP 65.17 GAVEL GRASS 65.47 BIN MH 64.50 65.59 65.75 ER GU 65.27 ER DP 63.62 67.00
CL:63.98 65.67 IC DP 63.52 IC 64.23 IC GATE 64.95 BOL CL:65.73 BOL BRICK PAV
CL:63.70 65.07 63.57 65.70 64.6965.33IC GAVEL IC 65.00 PAVING SLABS 66.93 GRASS PAVING SLABS IC IC BOL IC BOL IC 64.30 IC
BOL 66.82 GAVEL PAVING SLABS 63.75 65.07BOL IC IC MH LIGHT DP IC GAVEL DP DP GAVEL 65.58 GRASS 64.30 SLAB REFUSE COMPACTOR REVERSING INTO NORTHERN SPACE IC CL:64.03 65.66 65.83 65.44 65.68
66.00 IC 63.96 BOL BOL REFUSE COMPACTOR TRAVELING OUT OF SITE
F/B BOL 63.71 66.11 DP GAVEL 66.80 68.00 ER IC 67.77 63.56 63.75 67.74 INSERT BOL DP ASPHALT ER IC IC ER 66.00 IC LIGHT
66.99 GU 66.00 64.01 63.83 DP LIGHT IC BRICK PAV IC IC 64.00 ASPHALT RS 66.97 67.59 CABIN 64.09 BOL
LP 66.77 66.86 IC DP 65.54 LIGHT 67.64 GATE BOL 64.27 64.17 64.07 DP IC 63.83 BRICK PAV ER BOL 63.68 DP GRASS ER GRASS DP ER 63.83 GU DP 64.44 64.85 65.29 64.0164.23 64.48 65.35 DP GU 64.24 ER 64.87 MH DP CL:64.42 Low retaining wall with CL:63.56 64.26 64.38 MH 64.33 FLOWERS 65.55 LIGHT GRASS 63.65 DP 1 3 FLOWERS RS FLOWERS IC 65.65 GU 65.44 65.35 timber fence toER 2.2m high. 65.38 IC 65.32 65.29 DP 65.43 63.82 IC DP 65.43 67.50 65.66 65.69 GU IC ASPHALT PR HT:0M 64.82 STN2 66.82 64.66 65.00 BRICK PAV ER 67.29
63.81 ER IC 65.50 IC
BRICK PAV +65.6365.63 +65.65 BRICK PAV Existing wall retained. BRICK PAV DP 67.65 64.00 65.26 65.60 IC ASPHALT 67.45 IC +66.30GU LIGHT
63.60 65.9765.35 GU IC +66.2465.61 IC 63.60 64.76 68.29 IC 64.58 LIGHT LIGHT STN17 LIGHT DP 68.44 BOL VEG FLOWERS LIGHT BRICK PAV LIGHT New retainingIC wall. IC 67.53 VEG LIGHT 65.68 68.32 63.82 66.00 CONCRETE DP GATE 3 +66.2466.24 1 67.54 GRASS
IC 63.79 BRICK PAV
63.62 68.47
4 Existing wall removed. 68.27 LIGHT IC RS LIGHT CABIN 67.12 67.21 68.77
66.15 67.59 67.35 68.00 GRASS GATE New tarmac surface. 68.51 63.78 LIGHT 66.76 IC LIGHT 64.09 63.72 63.70 68.55 ASPHALT New gate & fence
66.39 68.33 66.76 LP TREE 68.77 67.27 SPR:5m ASPHALT LIGHT 2LIGHT +67.14 66.90 BRICK PAV
67.06 68.09 68.76
New sliding gate 68.55 GVGV LIGHT 68.62 65.54 LIGHT CONCRETE CB HT:1.8M Existing road. 68.75 MH
GRASS 67.03 BRICK PAV MH
63.62 63.68 CONCRETE 63.65
63.75 Existing tree not 68.41 MH IC 67.55 LIGHT 68.86 67.28 impacted by works BOL LIGHT 68.16 67.86 RS 68.67 SPR:4m BRICK PAV CL:64.33 GU MARSTON ROAD MARSTON 63.77 HT:12m
68.00 64.17 GU 68.67 69.05 65.40 64.07 68.06 69.00
68.74 69.25
68.03 BRICK PAV CL:68.85IC 69.02 IC OAK68.83 STN16 IC 69.09 63.83 64.31 BUS MH 64.31 69.11 63.85 68.41 ER MH BOL 68.97 MH
63.73 DP STOP 63.82 64.42 DP 64.42 DP
68.90 ER 64.52 64.85 BIKE SHELTER GRASS DP 64.38 64.44 64.85 69.12 ASPHALT 65.2968.99 ASPHALT 65.35 65.35 69.43 64.40 69.17 63.89 63.80 64.87 64.24 ER 64.48 64.56 64.87 ER 64.56 BIKE PARK MH ER ASPHALT BRICK PAV Low retaining64.13 wall with GATE 64.55 CL:64.49 64.26 64.38 CL:64.42 CL:64.49 FLOWERS MH 64.33 LIGHT 64.33 70.00 CL:64.51 GRASS FLOWERS timber fenceRS to 2.2m high.FLOWERS IC PR HT:0.5M 65.65 GU 65.44 65.35 65.32 CL:64.06 65.32 DP CL:65.61 65.29 65.43 65.43 IC PR HT:0.5M 65.10 65.10 DP 65.67 63.82 64.99 65.29 65.65 65.66 65.69 64.99 65.35 PR HT:0.5M FLOWERS PR HT:0M 65.50 65.65 64.82 65.45 ER 66.82 64.66 BRICK PAV BRICK PAV CL:65.64 65.55 63.81 64.49 65.50 IC IC 63.89 64.41 IC 65.63 CL:65.65 64.11 BRICK PAV +65.63 +65.65 Existing wall retained. CL:65.05 BRICK PAV
BRICK PAV 65.60 65.26 65.73 +66.30 ASPHALT 65.26 65.00 CL:65.05 GU IC 65.00 65.35 65.62 65.35 64.92 +66.2465.61 CL:64.50 64.92 65.93 IC 64.76 VEG 63.85 CL:64.42 VEG LIGHT LIGHT STN17 IC CL:64.41 64.58 LIGHT LIGHT 64.44 LIGHT FLOWERS LIGHT VEG BOL LIGHT New retainingBRICK64.00 PAV wall. 63.80 LIGHT VEG 65.68 63.82 CL:64.10 CONCRETE 65.00
GU GATE +66.2466.24 CHLK HT:1.8 M 66.00 63.79 BRICK PAV PR HT:0.5M Existing wall removed. LIGHT
LIGHT
ASPHALT63.67 VEG 66.49 67.12 66.15 New tarmac surface. 65.00 LIGHT 66.76 63.78
LIGHT New63.70 gate & fence 66.39 66.76 LIGHT LIGHT +67.1467.12 ASPHALT 66.90 67.06 New sliding gate
GV GV 67.00 GRASS GATE ExistingBOL road. CL:64.24 64.29 REFUSE COMPACTOR REVERSING INTO SOUTHERN SPACE 65.40 REFUSE COMPACTOR EXITING MH
ER BOL 64.00 GRASS SITE ONTO MARSTON ROAD CL:63.99 64.85 65.29 ER 2 65.35 4 64.3464.32 64.87 MH 10mm Low retaining wall with
BRICK PAV 65.55 LIGHT 63.96
PR HT:0.5M timber fence to 2.2m high. 65.65 65.44 65.35 63.71 0 GU
65.32 63.55 65.29 DP CL:65.61 65.43 63.65 DP 65.43 63.51 65.29 65.67 65.65 65.69 63.56 63.75 65.66 CL:64.03 CL:64.33
FLOWERS 65.35 65.50 65.65 ER 65.45 ER 66.82 67.29 BRICK PAV 65.50 CL:65.64 IC +65.6365.63 +65.65CL:65.65 64.23 64.01 63.83
-10mm Existing wall retained.
65.73 BRICK PAV 65.60 66.98 65.26 +66.30 67.45 64.00
CL:65.05 GU 65.00 65.35 +66.24 65.62 ASPHALT 65.93 65.61 RS VEG CABIN 64.09 LIGHT STN17 LP FLOWERS LIGHT New67.00 retainingIC wall. GATE CL:67.20 65.68 CONCRETE 64.17 64.07 +66.2466.24 66.00 GRASS 63.83 BRICK PAV PR HT:0.5M
Existing wall removed. 63.68 63.75 LIGHT GRASS 64.38 GU DP 64.40 64.24 ER VEG LIGHT 67.21 GU CL:63.57 64.13 66.49 67.12 64.38 CL:64.42 66.15 64.26 67.50 63.70 GATE New tarmac surface. 63.65 LIGHT 66.76
63.65 RS FLOWERS IC LIGHT CL:64.06 63.82 IC New gate & fence CL:63.56 66.39 PR HT:0M ASPHALTASPHALT STN2 66.76 67.27 64.66 67.12 63.81 64.49 LIGHT LIGHT +67.14 63.89 64.41 64.11 66.90 67.40 BRICK PAV 67.06 New sliding gate ASPHALT 63.60 IC GU GV 63.78 CL:64.50 IC GV 63.85 CL:64.42 LIGHT CL:64.10 IC CL:64.41 64.58 63.60 Existing road. 63.69 64.44 66.76 67.00 67.38 CB HT:1.8M BOL BRICK64.00 PAV LIGHT 63.80 LIGHT 63.82 VEG GATE NOTE THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LIMITED AND MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT WRITTEN THEIR WITHOUT WAY ANY IN REPRODUCED OR COPIED BE NOT MUST AND LIMITED CONSULTANTS TRANSPORT KEY IN VESTED IS DESIGN AND DRAWING THIS OF PROPERTY THE NOTE BRICK PAV CHLK HT:1.8 M IC 67.03 IC CONCRETE 63.79 Existing tree not CL:63.68 63.62
67.55 63.67 CONCRETE67.28 impacted by works
63.81 63.62 63.78
10.201 CLIVE BOOTH STUDENT VILLAGE OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY
REFUSE COMPACTOR VEHICLE TRACKING KEY TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS LTD 26 BERKELEY SQUARE BRISTOL 1.298 1.61 4.128 1.524 BS8 1HP Tel : 0117 920 9430 E-mail : [email protected] Large Tipper
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\AutoCAD\1085-012B & 013A.dwg & University\AutoCAD\1085-012B Brookes Oxford CBSV, F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 Overall Length 10.201m
: Overall Width 2.495m Overall Body Height 2.890m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.341m Track Width 2.471m DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PASSED BY DATE SCALES @ A3 SIZE ISSUE STATUS DRAWING NUMBER REV. Lock to lock time 6.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 11.550m A Minor Amendments DRT PM PM 04/21 BE PM PM APR 21 1:250 PRELIMINARY 1085-013 A
REV DR CH PA DATE CAD FILE NAME FILE CAD
APPENDIX E
Interim Travel Plan
F:\DATA\Jobs\1085 CBSV, Oxford Brookes University\Reports\TA\TA v1.1.docx
OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY INTERIM TRAVEL PLAN 2016-2018
1
Oxford Brookes University Strategy for Enhancing the Student Experience – At the heart of the strategy are six key principles which describe the distinctive teaching and learning environment at Brookes and shapes the way the University operates:
2
CONTENTS PAGE
Page Number Foreword 4
What are Travel Plans? 5
Why the need for a Brookes Travel Plan? 6
Why an Interim Plan? 7
Vision and objectives of the Travel Plan 10
What has been done so far? 11
CASE STUDY: The award-winning BROOKESbus 12
Achieved transport measures 13
Things to achieve going forward 16
CASE STUDY: Oxford Brookes University parking 18 policy
2018 Targets 19
Monitoring travel plan progress 20
Management of the Travel Plan 20
Communications plan 20
Links 21
3
FOREWORD
Oxford Brookes University occupies a strong position in UK higher education. We have a sound and growing international reputation for the quality of our teaching, learning and research and we are a vital part of and contributor to the local and national economy and society. To support our operations, and as an environmentally sustainable and ethically responsible University, Oxford Brookes has invested considerable effort and resource into minimising the negative transport impacts of our activities. We will continue our commitment to managing the transport we generate in a sustainable manner as we realise our redevelopment aspirations over the next few years.
Oxford Brookes’ Travel Plan has provided the framework for successful delivery of sustainable travel initiatives across the University over the past ten years. Significant progress has been made in encouraging use of alternatives to the car, such as the award-winning BROOKESbus service.
Oxford Brookes is the eighth largest employer in Oxfordshire. With approximately 2,500 staff and almost 19,000 students, the amount of transport we generate is significant but we strive to further improve both service frequency and route choice in response to unprecedented demand. There has also been an increase in use of active and healthy travel modes amongst both staff and students and as a result, improved facilities and infrastructure have been provided at all campuses to support both walking and cycling.
I now have pleasure in introducing the next Oxford Brookes University Interim Travel Plan for 2016-18. We have opted for an interim plan due to the changing nature of the University as explained fully later on in this document the University is evolving and this will have a big impact on the way that staff and students travel. Effective transport management through this travel plan will be key to ensuring smooth and efficient operation of the University as we move forward, and we have set ourselves some challenging targets within the travel plan.
I hope that all staff and students will join me in supporting the aims of the travel plan, and that each of you will play your part in ensuring that we continue to minimise our impact on the environment and the local communities in which we operate.
Paul Large – Director of Infrastructure Investment, Oxford Brookes University February 2016
4
WHAT ARE TRAVEL PLANS FOR?
Travel plans are a strategy for managing the access to a development site with a particular focus on helping to meet the travel needs of the users of the site with an underlying target of reducing the impact of car travel. In association with this, the promotion for the greater use of public transport, cycling and walking and where possible reducing the need to travel are all important issues.
Aims and Objectives
The overall aim of the Travel Plan is:
“To raise the awareness of having a more sustainable environment for all users of the site, which promotes a range of lifestyle and travel choices and reduces reliance on the private car.”
The objectives of this Travel Plan are to:
Reduce the impact and frequency of car travel, with particular focus on reducing single occupancy car trips; Increase the accessibility of the site to wide range of people; Improve the health and well-being of site users Promote and improve awareness of the travel plan process Prepare for geographical changes to the University as set out in our Estates Strategy [https://www.brookes.ac.uk/space-to-think/estate-investment-plan/]
5
WHY THE NEED FOR A BROOKES TRAVEL PLAN?
Ensuring that staff and students have good and easy access to all our campuses is an important part of an individual’s working and learning experience at Oxford Brookes. Staff, students and visitors require certainty that they will have reliable and timely access to the University, and good transport choices must be offered. At the same time, the University needs to manage its limited car parking spaces in an effective, fair and responsible way. Our travel plan provides the mechanism for delivering these requirements.
Integration with wider corporate objectives
This Travel Plan supports a number of wider strategic policies at the University and is integrated into our corporate objectives. This includes:
Brookes Strategy 2020 – which demands that all our activities are sustainable. Our Social responsibility – the fundamental aim of our social responsibility programme is to have a net positive impact as an institution, and that it is this positive impact that underpins Brookes’ values in all of our activities. Our Environmental Management System – which provides the structured framework for managing all of our environmental impacts – including transport. Brookes’ Travel Plan Strategy 2010-15 – which sets out the strategic transport strategy for the University, and upon which this travel plan builds. Our on-going redevelopment proposals – an effective travel plan is a condition of planning permission for our master planning applications.
6
WHY AN INTERIM PLAN?
Estate investment plan - Our ten year estate investment plan
Over the last few years, the Higher Education sector has become significantly more competitive. In order to continue to attract and retain high calibre staff and students, Oxford Brookes University needs to ensure that its excellent reputation for teaching and research is matched by a high quality estate. The University knows that the physical environment is an important factor for students when choosing where to study. 77% of students say that facilities play a significant role in their university choice. Staff and students at Brookes also know, from recent experience, the transformative impact of new facilities and buildings. Abercrombie and the John Henry Brookes buildings have significantly enhanced the learning environment, as well as the look and feel of Headington campus.
The University is keen to continue to invest in its estate. In order to achieve this, the Board of Governors has approved a ten year estates investment plan costing an average of £13m per annum. The plan includes a significant programme of refurbishment activity, some redevelopment projects and the intention to move all teaching, research and support activity from the Wheatley campus. More information on the plans for each campus as they currently stand are available below but the University will be dependent on feedback from staff, students and the local community to develop them further.
Wheatley Campus
We intend to move all teaching, research and supporting activity from Wheatley over the next few years. The plans for the Wheatley campus after this time will need to be considered and agreed in due course.
The Faculty of Business will move into the Clerici building and former library on the Gipsy Lane site after these buildings are modernised. The draft timeline of activities sees this move taking place in 2018. This move will not only improve the staff and student experience but will also allow for more cross-faculty and cross-University working.
The Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment provision will move from Wheatley at a later date, following consultation on location and the re-provision of specialist facilities. We currently expect that this will take place by 2021/22. We know that the best way to achieve a successful outcome for these subjects is to involve colleagues at each step of the decision-making process. A group including Faculty and student representation will be convened to discuss options. There will
7 also be a number of opportunities for the local community to input into these plans. The future provision for these STEM subjects is important to the University and the region, and this process will allow the time necessary to ensure specialist facilities are appropriately planned.
Catering, library and other support services will be maintained at Wheatley until the Faculty of TDE has moved.
Headington Campus
A ten year programme of refurbishment works will be undertaken to improve the quality of a number of buildings on the Gipsy Lane and Headington Hill sites. Some new build may also take place. The first buildings scheduled for modernisation are Clerici, the former library, Main Hall and Sinclair. The latter will improve facilities for the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences based in Gipsy Lane. The Main Hall will also be heavily refurbished. Much of the initial structure will be demolished to create a modern new hall in the same footprint. It will have modern facilities for multiple uses - such as graduation, exams, teaching and events.
Over the next 5 years, the University will also complete the refurbishment and modernisation of all of the floors of the Sinclair building, develop plans to improve Helena Kennedy, refurbish the original half of Abercrombie and modernise the Sports Centre. Refurbishments and modernisations for other buildings will be worked through from 2020 onwards. This includes Fuller, Headington Hill Hall, Main Hall, the old Refectory, Tonge and Gibbs.
Over the ten year period, the University will also consider how to better co-locate the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences.
Harcourt Hill Campus
The ten year investment plan sees the majority of Harcourt Hill’s current buildings undergoing refurbishment during this time period. Staff and students will be consulted on the most appropriate prioritisation and scheduling of this refurbishment activity.
In addition, a group will be formed to consider the possibility of enhancing the Learning Resources provision on the campus, which could potentially see a new facility developed offering similar services to those found in the John Henry Brookes Building. The group will consider the conditions necessary to make this feasible, including the level of teaching and research activity carried out on the campus.
Ferndale Campus Swindon
The University will also see a change in location for the campus located in Swindon in 2016.
8
An evolving University…
Due to the transformations outlined above that detail the changing nature of the University and the many geographical changes taking place, we believe this this will have a large effect on the travel patterns of both staff and students. We see this as a real opportunity to try and change or influence the travel behaviours at the University.
However we feel that with all the changes afoot it is difficult to predict what impact these changes will have. Therefore we have opted to produce an interim plan to cover the years that the changes are occurring.
9
VISION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TRAVEL PLAN
The Vision which underpins our travel plan is:
“For Oxford Brookes University to have a culture of sustainable travel embedded throughout the University; for everyone to be actively involved in reducing their transport emissions and to expect the same level of provision for sustainable travel at their future places of study/workplaces.” Oxford Brookes Travel Plan Strategy 2010-15
The following ‘Drivers’ and ‘Objectives’ support achievement of this Vision:
KEY DRIVERS • Reduce the transport-related carbon emissions of the University. • Meet legislative requirements including the Climate Change Act. • Contribute to the Brookes’ Social Responsibility Programme. • Ensure the University is accessible for staff, students and visitors, therefore facilitating a student experience of the highest standard possible. • Improve the health of staff and students by encouraging active travel.
OBJECTIVES • To contribute to the Masterplan. • To meet Brookes’ carbon reduction commitments. • To introduce an innovative, sector-leading initiative. • To meet the Travel Plan targets.
10
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR?
Oxford Brookes has introduced a range of measures as part of its travel plan to offer staff, students and visitors real transport choices and to encourage use of alternatives to the car. Key measures introduced as part of the travel plan include:
Walking and cycling
• Additional cycle parking provided, including the opening of a new secure bicycle compound at Headington Campus. • Salary sacrifice scheme for cycle purchase introduced for staff with Cyclescheme. • Brompton folding bike hire from Oxford Railway Station. • Introduction of the OXONbike cycle hire scheme. • Discounts for EASIT members in cycle stores, cycle hire and bike insurance. • Business mileage rate for bicycles introduced to encourage staff to use their bikes for business. • Cycle parking facilities have been well maintained - including removal of abandoned bikes. • Continued promotion of bicycle maintenance sessions (‘Bike Doctor’). • Pool bikes introduced at Marston Road. • Cycle safety events at all campuses. • Clear, accessible information about cycle parking facilities provided for all campuses.
Public transport
• New state of the art buses were introduced with low emissions ratings and desirable features such as Wi-Fi, air conditioning and Smartcard ticketing. See case study on next page. • New bus timetable introduced with more buses and longer routes to better accommodate the movements of staff and students. • Bus route refinement. • Increase in the interest free loan available to staff for public transport passes –from £2000 to £5000. [http://www.brookes.ac.uk/travel/staff-travel-offers/] • Real time information available at bus stops. • Discounted train tickets for EASIT members.
Business travel
• Provision of inter-site passes (free to staff) to encourage staff to travel between sites by the BROOKESbus. • Introduction of a new car club scheme and vehicles located on Gipsy Lane and Clive Booth Student Village in partnership with Co-wheels.
11
CASE STUDY: THE AWARD-WINNING BROOKESBUS
The BROOKESbus service was first introduced in 2004 and since 2009 has been a successful partnership with the Oxford Bus Company. Since then all of new fleet have been installed with the innovative Gyro Drive System, resulting in up to 17.9% fuel saving and a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions. The technology is the first in the country to be installed on a commercial bus services and has been developed by an Oxford Brookes Alumnus working with Williams Formula 1.
The new BROOKESbus vehicles are the first Euro 6 buses in Oxford. This technology saves up to 95% of the harmful NOx emissions compared to a Euro 5 vehicle, and in doing so exceeds the minimum standard for operation in the Oxford Low Emission (Zone which is set as Euro 5)
This project combines a number of firsts: The first commercial deployment of flywheel technology to service buses in the UK. The first examples of the ADL Enviro 400 MMC brought into commercial service. The first Euro 6 vehicles brought into service in Oxford.
Other BROOKESbus carbon saving impacts are: Almost 12 million passengers since 2009, saving an estimated 1.4 million car trips each year. The University experienced a 50% increase in students commuting by BROOKESbus between 2009 and 2014 (e.g. 15% modal shift increase in students using the BROOKESbus). A 40% decrease in students commuting by car between 2009 and 2014 (e.g. 10.5% modal shift decrease in students commuting by car).
This project won the Green Apple Award for Carbon Reduction in 2015 and was a finalist for the Green Gown Award for Carbon Reduction in 2015.
12
ACHIEVED TRANSPORT MEASURES
Walking & cycling
Introduced walking-buddy scheme. Improved and promoted shower sites at all Oxford Campuses. OXONbike station at Headington campus. Secure bicycle parking facility introduced at Gipsy Lane. Continued promotion of Bike Doctor.
Public transport
Real-time information introduced at foyers and campus bus stops. BROOKESbus fleet fitted with CO2-reducing Gyrodrives (see case study). Introduced U1X - new express route between Wheatley and Harcourt Hill campus. Increased the interest-free staff loan from £2000 to £5000. [http://www.brookes.ac.uk/travel/staff-travel-offers/]
Parking, vehicle and emission reduction
Worked with Co-wheels to introduce car club car on-site, one is located on Headington campus and another at Clive Booth Student Village (John Garne Way). New parking policy agreed to introduce daily charging for parking at all sites.
Progress in travelling sustainably (2009 – 2014)
Development of the University and the expansion of its halls of residences have altered the needs of staff and students at the University, placing greater need on the BROOKESbus service and introducing the need for stronger promotion of sustainable alternatives and the incentives available for taking them. External factors, such as the rising costs of housing within the city, as well as development of Oxford city itself, have added complications to our efforts to encourage sustainable travel.
Despite these challenges, positive trends have been seen regarding sustainable travel amongst staff and students. Some of the most notable include:
8 percentage point decrease in total car usage amongst staff 10.5 percentage point decrease in total car usage amongst students
13
15 percentage point increase in the number of students using the BROOKESbus service.
The targets set in our previous travel plans were monitored with annual (now bi- annual) travel surveys conducted amongst staff and students and the trends identified, along with the University’s own plans for development, will shape our focuses and targets moving forward. The data collected from these surveys, as well as their reflective trends and proximity to our targets are shown in the tables below:
University-wide (main mode of travel to campus)
KEY
Sustainable travel trend achieved AND target achieved
Sustainable travel trend achieved BUT target not achieved
Sustainable travel trend not achieved AND target not achieved
University-wide (staff) 2009 2012 2014 2009 – 2014 trend 2014/15 target Cycle 17.5% 18% 17.5% +-0 percentage points 21% Walk 11% 12% 15% +4 percentage points 12% Bus (public) 9% 8.5% 10.5% +1.5 percentage points 12% BROOKESbus 7% 11% 10% +3 percentage points 9% Car alone 43% 36.5% 38% -5 percentage points 31% Car share 9% 11% 6% -3 percentage points 10% TOTAL CAR 52% 48% 44% -8 percentage points 41% Other (incl. 3% 3.5% 3% +-0 percentage points 5% train/mbike)
University-wide (students) 2009 2012 2014 2009 – 2014 trend 2014/15 target Cycle 10% 10.5% 8% -2 percentage points 12% Walk 27% 30% 23% -4 percentage points 29% Bus (public) 5.5% 6% 7.5% +2 percentage points 6% BROOKESbus 31% 34.5% 46% +15 percentage points 38% Car alone 15% 10% 10.5% -4.5 percentage points 4.5% Car share 10% 6% 3.5% -6.5 percentage points 6.5% TOTAL CAR 25% 16% 14.5% -10.5 percentage points 11% Other (incl. 1.5% No data 1% 4% train/mbike) available
14
Positive sustainable trends were more prevalent amongst staff than students despite offers for sustainable travel alternatives being offered to both groups. The decrease in parking staff and students was reflected across all Oxford-based sites with the exception of Marston Road which saw a slight increase for both despite there being no student parking available at the site. This is likely due to the limitations of existing public transport links to the site from areas other than the city centre.
The increase of BROOKESbus usage amongst both groups is a reflection of the developments made to the route as well as the expansion of the University’s halls of residence to include areas that students prefer not to walk or cycle from.
With planned redevelopments, Wheatley, Harcourt Hill and Swindon will be key focus areas for the travel plan moving forward. Considering the trends revealed at Marston Road extra considerations for this site will also be made.
15
THINGS TO ACHIEVE GOING FORWARD
Oxford Brookes University takes the transport needs of its staff and students very seriously. With the development of both the University and the city, we realise that the needs of everyone who comes to Brookes will change. For this reason, we encourage staff and students to provide us with feedback on existing services as well as those they would like to see brought into effect, either by contacting us directly or by completing our bi-annual travel surveys. Moving forward, we will continue to consult regularly with the Travel to Work Group to address any issues that have been raised.
Walking
Work with BROOKESactive to relaunch walking-buddy scheme and promote active walks. Update existing walking maps. Produce new walking maps showing routes between campuses, Halls of Residence, and key locations in the city. Develop pedestrian signage for Harcourt Hill, showing distance/time to nearby amenities.
Cycling
Encourage the installation of more covered bicycle parking at all sites (linked to the implementation of the Estates Investment Strategy). Evaluate demand for existing bicycle parking and expand / relocate as necessary. Agree semi-regular Bike Doctor sessions for new Swindon site. Renew Bike Doctor contract. Encourage the installation of lockers at all sites for use by cyclists (and walkers) to store commuting clothes. Introduce new charging scheme for Bike Bins. Work with Oxford County Council to introduce electric bikes to Headington’s Oxonbike station. Facilitate sale of puncture repair and basic maintenance kits. Work with Bike Doctor to create basic maintenance classes for staff/students. Work with Facilities to develop feedback system for cyclists (e.g. request for provisions, highlight obstacles/concerns).
Public transport
Re-evaluate eligibility of groups of students for Inclusive Bus Passes – for example, nursing and post graduate courses.
16
Develop new timetable / routes for services to/from Wheatley in line with the site’s closure. Explore possibility of introducing salary sacrifice scheme for those wishing to park at a Park & Ride. Monitor season ticket costs and raise staff loan limit if necessary. Promote Oxonbike application. Liaise with train operators to provide additional discount for staff and students. Continue to work alongside EASIT to develop discounts for staff. Explore possibility of developing discount bus pass for Swindon students. Monitor CO2 reduction and savings on BROOKESbus fleet following Gyrodrive implementation.
Car share
Introduce new Co-Wheels vehicles at agreed sites. Actively promote new car hire scheme with Co-Wheels.
Electric vehicles
Install additional charging points at Headington to encourage more staff to use electric vehicles. Explore the possibility of introducing electric vehicles into the University’s working fleet.
Visitors
Make information regarding accessing the University simpler and more accessible to visitors. Promote BROOKESbus and sustainable travel options and offers at Open Days.
Car Parking
• Implement the new car parking policy (see case study on next page), as adopted by Executive Board in 2015.
Information provision and marketing
Ensure information on transport pages remains up-to-date. Promote existence of Transport’s Twitter page to encourage more followers. Sustainable transport (events and activity e.g. cycle safety events).
Other
• Develop specialised travel plan for Delta 900 (Swindon) site.
17
CASE STUDY: OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY PARKING POLICY
Oxford Brookes University has limited car parking spaces, with no option of expanding car parks. The University is currently implementing a policy that is fair for everyone and increases the chance that parking spaces are available for those that need to park.
The principles are: There will be a flat rate daily charge that is linked to salary; There will be an online process linked to a virtual permit for car parking. Permits will be required for parking during core hours (7am and 4.30pm Mon-Fri). Visitors will pay for car parking. Permit holders will be exempt from car parking charges outside the core hours.
18
2018 TARGETS
For staff Headington Wheatley Harcourt Hill Marston Road Uni-Wide (GL/HH)
2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 figure target figure target figure target figure target figure target Cycle 20% 21% 13% 14% 10% 11% 20% 22% 16% 17% Walking 19% 20% 5% 6% 10% 11% 8% 9% 11% 12% Bus 11% 12% 2% 3% 3% 4% 13% 14% 7% 8% (Public) BROOK 10% 12% 15% 17% 15% 16% 2% 3% 11% 12% ESbus Car 30% 25% 60% 55% 54% 49% 51% 46% 49% 44% alone Car 8% 8% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% share TOTAL 38% 33% 64% 59% 57% 53% 55% 50% 54% 49% CAR Other 2% 2% 1% 1% 5% 5% 2% 2% 3% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
For students Headington Wheatley Harcourt Hill Marston Road Uni-Wide (GL/HH)
2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 figure target figure target figure target figure target figure target Cycle 10% 11% 2% 3% 2% 3% 12% 13% 7% 9% Walking 37% 38% 3% 3% 6% 7% 16% 17% 24% 25% Bus 8% 9% 2% 3% 1% 2% 14% 15% 7% 8% (Public) BROOK 37% 38% 76% 78% 64% 66% 25% 26% 46% 47% ESbus Car 5% 3% 10% 6% 23% 18% 24% 20% 10% 4% alone Car 2% 0% 6% 6% 3% 3% 7% 7% 4% 4% share TOTAL 7% 3% 16% 12% 26% 21% 31% 27% 14% 8% CAR Other 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19
MONITORING TRAVEL PLAN PROGRESS
Comprehensive University-wide travel plan monitoring surveys have been undertaken an on-going basis since 1999.
We have put significant effort into ensuring we achieve good participation in all our travel plan surveys to ensure a robust data set; each survey year has seen increased response rates amongst both staff and students. The next University- wide travel survey will be undertaken in Autumn 2016, with surveys undertaken bi-annually thereafter. Findings from the monitoring surveys will inform reviews of the Brookes travel plan.
MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAVEL PLAN
Brookes has had senior level management support for its travel plan for many years. The University now invests over £200k per annum in its travel plan and associated measures, with all income from car parking charges ring-fenced for sustainable travel initiatives. This includes employment of a full-time Sustainable Travel Co-ordinator, dedicated to effective implementation of the travel plan.
An appropriate process and management structure for overseeing implementation of the travel plan will be developed by the Social responsibility Steering Group. It is essential that we take a strategic approach to delivering the travel plan as it continues to evolve, if we are to achieve our challenging travel plan targets.
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
Communication of the measures contained within the travel plan will be critical to achieving the desired outcomes of the Plan. The University will continue to provide and improve the provision, promotion and access to sustainable travel information. This will be done through a variety of means:
• University’s Travel webpages • Sustainable travel information on ‘Visit Us’ (web page) • Provision of public transport maps and guides • Sustainable travel information included in staff induction packs
20
• Sustainable travel information included in staff training courses. • Regularly promote sustainable travel at a variety of events. • Regularly promote sustainable travel through emails and newsletters.
LINKS:
Estates Investment Plan: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/space-to-think/estate-investment-plan/
Oxford Brookes University Travel Plan 2010: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/documents/about/sustainability/sustainabletravel2010/
Sustainable Travel Plan: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/documents/about/sustainability/sustainabletravel/
Sustainable Travel: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/travel/do-you-need-to-travel-/
Staff Travel Offers: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/travel/staff-travel-offers/
Student Travel Offers: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/travel/student-travel-offers/
BROOKESkey: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/travel/brookeskey/
21
Oxford Brookes Sustainable Travel Survey 2019
This report was prepared by: Sarah Moore Senior Market Intelligence Officer Strategic, Change and Planning Division Oxford Brookes University February 2020
Dr Ashley Hayden Sustainable Travel Manager Estate and Campus Services Oxford Brookes University February 2020
1
Oxford Brookes Sustainable Travel Survey 2019
Contents
Page Executive Summary 3 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 University Travel Plan 4 2 Methodology 4 2.1 Response Rates 4 2.2 Profile of Respondents 5 3 Survey Finding and Analysis 9 3.1 General Findings 9 3.1.1 Campus Location 9 3.1.2 Main Method of Transport 9 3.1.3 Distance and Time Travelled (by different modes) 13 3.1.4 Campus Arrival and Departure Time 15 3.2 Bus Travel 17 3.2.1 BROOKESbus 17 3.2.2 Other Bus Travel 17 3.3 Car Travel 20 3.3.1 Reason for Using a Car 20 3.3.2 On-Street Parking 21 3.3.3 Parking Permits and Related Issues 21 3.3.4 Alternative Modes of Travel 23 3.3.5 Impact of 2017 Change in Parking Policy 26 3.4 Sustainable Transport 29 3.4.1 Views on Sustainable Transport 29 3.4.2 Travel Offers 30 3.4.3 Bike Doctor 30 3.4.4 Other Feedback 31 4 Conclusions 33 4.1 Transport Options and Travel Times 33 4.2 Peak Times 33 4.3 Bus Travel 33 4.4 Car Travel 33 4.5 Sustainable Transport 34 5 Recommendations 35
2
Oxford Brookes Sustainable Travel Survey 2019 (DRAFT)
Executive Summary
Oxford Brookes is committed to reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) and promoting sustainable methods of transportation. In October 2019, the University launched a Sustainable Travel Survey. Its purpose was to collect information on how people are travelling to the University, why they travel the way they do and how we can improve sustainable travel. The results from this survey will form the basis for the emerging Sustainable Travel Plan (STP), anticipated to be published in Autumn 2020. It will set the vision and ambition for modal usage and to inform the strategic vision of the university to promote sustainable transport. In total 1,431 responses were received to the survey, representing a response rate of approximately 7%. This included 22% of staff (623 in total) and 5% of students (825 in total). The key finding of the survey included: ● Car/van (single occupancy) was the main method of transport for staff traveling to work. ● Bus/coach was the main method of transport for students to get to the university. Cycling contributed to 3% of modal trips. ● For over a third of staff, the average daily commute to work took between 31 and 60 minutes (39%). For students, the daily commute was 30 minutes or less (75%). ● Almost all students (90%) had a BROOKESkey compared to 48% of staff. With the majority of the students using their travel passes on a regular basis in comparison to 65% of staff. ● Students were more likely to have used the BROOKESbus to get to the university (50%) or for leisure (41%) whilst staff were more likely to have used it to travel between campuses for work (32%). ● Just under half of staff (47%) and 13% of students used a car for at least part of their journey to get to the University. The reason for this was that other forms of transport significantly increased journey times and using a car was the quickest and most flexible option. ● Around 40% of staff who used a car to travel to work had parked in nearby streets at some point whilst 50% of car commuting students had. ● Half of Brookes staff have a Parking Permit (44%) whilst 6% of students did. The highest proportion of staff with Parking Permits lived in North Oxfordshire where 75% of staff had one. The lowest proportion lived in Oxford City (13%). ● Almost half of the staff with a Parking Permit indicated they had childcare responsibilities. This also applied to 17% of students with permits. ● In total, 30% of staff permit holders and 18% of student permit holders said that they would consider using more sustainable options for the remainder of their journey, for example, Park and Ride or walking and cycling. ● To reduce car dependency, respondents frequently suggested more direct bus routes to campus, particularly for those living outside of Oxford, subsidised transport and the introduction of more flexible working policies. ● The university introduced a new parking policy 2017. Respondents were asked if this had affected their travel behaviour. In total, 6% of staff and 2% of students indicated they reduced how often they parked, however, the majority indicated no change to their travel. ● 81% of respondents indicated sustainable transport was either very or quite important to them. ● Around two thirds of staff (67%) and half of students (47%) were aware of the availability of Oxford Brookes travel offers. ● Respondents were asked if they had any other feedback on how Brookes could improve sustainable travel. Around half of the comments referred to improving bus routes (49% of comments) whilst 10% referred to subsidised travel costs.
3
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Oxford Brookes is committed to reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) and promoting sustainable methods of transportation. We conduct regular surveys to identify travel patterns and to help develop effective sustainable travel strategies. In 2019, the University launched a Sustainable Travel Survey. The survey was held for six weeks (between Thursday 17 October and Friday 22 November). Its purpose was to collect information on how people are travelling to the University, why they travel the way they do and how we can improve sustainable travel. This would therefore enable the University to: ● Identify issues faced by students and staff in relation to their travel; ● Monitor the effectiveness of the University Travel Plan and any existing travel policies; and ● Guide the development of the Travel Plan and future travel policies.
1.2 University Travel Plan
The results from this survey will form the basis for the emerging Sustainable Travel Plan (STP), anticipated to be published in autumn 2020. It will set the vision and ambition for modal usage and to inform the strategic vision of the university to promote sustainable transport. The STP, will do this by setting a number of measures, initiatives and infrastructure which aim to provide enhance sustainable travel choices and opportunities for our students, staff and visitors when travelling to our campuses. The key drivers of this plan are to: ● Reduce the transport-related carbon emissions of the University; ● Meet national and local legislative requirements including the Climate Change Act; ● Contribute to the Oxford Brookes’ Social Responsibility Programme; ● Ensure the University is accessible for staff, students and visitors, therefore facilitating a student experience of the highest standard possible; ● Improve the health of staff and students by encouraging active travel.
2 Methodology
2.1 Response Rates
A link to the survey was published on various websites and forums around the University with the aim of reaching as many of the approximately 2,800 staff and 18,000 students based at Brookes at the time of the survey as possible. This included publishing links on various websites (e.g. internal newsletters, Transport webpages) and forums around the University (e.g. internal newsletters, Transport, Student Union Twitter). In addition, respondents were entered into a prize raffle to win Amazon gift vouchers worth £20. In total 1,431 responses were gained. This represented a response rate of approximately 7%. This equated to 22% of staff and 5% of students. There is a margin of error of 2.5% on the overall percentages calculated for this report. In other words, the results of the survey (of 1,431 people) may differ from what you might expect if all staff and students had responded, by as much as 2.5% below the survey result or 2.5% above.
4
Table 1: Response rates Number of Respondents Margin of error (%) Population (n) Response rate (%) (n) Students 18,000 825 5 +/- 3.3 Staff 2,800 623 22 +/- 3.5 Total 20,800 1,431 7 +/- 2.5 Totals may add to more than 100% as a respondent could be both a student and a member of staff, for instance.
2.2 Profile of Respondents
Table 2: Number of Respondents by Student/Staff Split Number of Respondents (n) % of Respondents Foundation/Undergraduates 699 49 Postgraduates 127 9 Staff 623 44 Total Students 825 58 Total Staff 623 44 Totals may add to more than 100% as a respondent could be both a student and a member of staff, for instance.
Table 3: Number of Respondents by full time vs part time Number of Respondents (n) % of Respondents Full time 1,277 89 Part time 144 10 Other 10 1 Total 1,431 100
The largest proportion of staff were employed in Directorates (66%) whilst students were evenly spread across each of the four Faculties.
Table 4: Number of Respondents by Department or Directorate
Staff (n) Staff (%) Students (n) Students (%)
OBSS* 51 8 178 22
Business School 51 8 157 19
School of Hospitality Management 0 0 22 3
HLS* 74 12 228 28
Department of Biological and Medical Sciences 15 2 56 7
Department Psychology, Health and Professional Development 5 1 33 4
Department of Sport, Health Sciences and Social Work 21 3 54 7
School of Nursing and Midwifery 24 4 88 11
HSS* 40 6 188 23
School of Education 13 2 29 4
Department of English and Modern Languages 7 1 29 4
School of History, Philosophy and Culture 8 1 35 4
School of Law 3 0 36 4
5
The institute of Public Care 1 0 1 0
Department of Social Sciences 10 2 63 8
TDE* 47 8 227 28
School of Architecture 4 1 38 5
School of Arts 12 2 51 6
School of the Built Environment 13 2 37 4
School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics 11 2 101 12
Directorates 413 66 25 3
Academic and Student Affairs 82 13 1 0
Estates and Campus Services 101 16 3 0
Finance and Legal Services 23 4 2 0
Human Resources 54 9 2 0
IT Services 37 6 4 0
Learning Resources 38 6 0 0
Marketing and Communications 75 12 14 2
Vice Chancellor's Office 4 1 0 0
Brookes Union 3 0 0 0
Total 623 100 825 100 * Total may include respondents not part of any single department
6
The largest number of staff who responded to the survey lived in Oxford in the OX3 and OX4 postcode areas (181 in total). Abingdon was also a key location (50 members of staff lived in the OX14 postcode area). In total, 60% of staff lived outside the Oxford postcode area.
Chart 1a: Number of Staff by Home Postcode
6 7 2
6 6 4 5 5 9 23 + 15 outside 27 5 this area 8 21 14 95 40 14 8 86 20 19 1 7 10 9 50 29 12
9 11
12
7
The largest number of students who responded to the survey lived in Oxford in the OX1, OX2, OX3, OX4 and OX33 postcode areas (657 in total). Only a relatively small proportion of students lived outside of the Oxford postcode area (16%).
Chart 1b: Number of Students by Home Postcode
1 1
4
1 4
1 2 3 + 29 2 outside 2 this area 12 297 2 2 58 21 2 16 260 1 1 1 4
16 2 1 6
8
3 Survey Finding and Analysis
3.1 General Findings
3.1.1 Campus Location Table 5, indicates the majority of respondents were based in Headington: 75% of staff and 67% of students. Wheatley accounted for 10% of staff and 13% of students. A much smaller proportion of respondents were based at Swindon (3% of staff and 3% of students). Table 5: Number of Respondents by Campus
Staff (n) Staff (%) Students (n) Students (%)
Headington/Headington Hill 464 75 552 67
Wheatley 60 10 109 13
Harcourt Hill 41 7 49 6
Marston Road 30 5 94 11
Swindon 16 3 21 3
Other 12 2 - -
3.1.2 Main Method of Transport
Staff
A car/van as a single occupant was the main method of transport for staff to get to their place of work with 35% using this method. This was highest for those based at Wheatley (73%), Swindon (69%) and Harcourt Hill (59%) and lowest for those based in Headington (27%). A bus/coach was used by 19% of staff as their main method of transport, the highest usage being amongst those based in Headington (21%) and lowest for those based in Swindon (0%). Table 6: Main Method of Transport for Staff by Main Campus (% Staff) Headington/H eadington Harcourt Hill Marston Road Staff Hill (%) Wheatley (%) (%) (%) Swindon (%) Total (%)
Car/van as a single occupant 27 73 59 43 69 35
Bus/coach (e.g. BROOKESbus) 21 15 12 10 0 19
Cycle 20 3 10 20 19 18
On foot 12 5 7 7 6 11
Car/van as a shared journey 7 2 2 10 6 6
Train 5 0 0 0 0 3
Motorcycle/sco oter 1 0 2 3 0 1
Combination 7 2 2 7 0 6
Other (please specify) 1 0 5 0 0 1
Base (n) 463 59 41 30 16 621 The main method of transport for those staff living in the Oxford postcode area was cycling (35%), followed by walking (27%) and bus (24%). A small proportion (12%) drove (the majority of whom worked at Wheatley or Harcourt Hill).
9
Elsewhere, bus was the main method for those living in Wheatley (47%) whilst everywhere else, driving was the main method of transport.
10
Students
A bus/coach was the main method of transport for students with 48% using this method. This was highest for those based at Wheatley (58%) and Harcourt Hill (55%) and lowest for those based in Swindon (5%). Walking was the second main method used by 35% of students, the highest usage being amongst those based in Headington (43%) and lowest for those based in Wheatley (7%). A car was used by 11% of students and was highest amongst Swindon students (85%) and Wheatley students (33%). Only 4% of students based in Headington used a car. Table 7: Main Method of Transport for Students by Main Campus (% Students) Headington/H eadington Harcourt Hill Marston Students Hill (%) Wheatley (%) (%) Road (%) Swindon (%) Total (%)
Bus/coach (e.g. BROOKESbu) 48 58 55 37 5 48
On foot 43 7 26 33 10 35
Car/van as a single occupant 3 22 13 15 60 8
Car/van as a shared journey 1 11 4 0 25 3
Cycle 3 1 0 6 0 3
Train 1 0 2 5 0 1
Motorcycle/sc ooter 0 1 0 0 0 0
Combination (e.g. cycle and train) 2 0 0 3 0 2
Base (n) 550 103 47 94 20 814
11
The main method of transport for those students living in the Oxford postcode area was the bus (52%), followed by walking (39%). Elsewhere, bus was also the main method for those living in Wheatley (67%) whilst everywhere else, driving was the main method of transport.
12
3.1.3 Distance and Time Travelled (by different modes)
For a third of staff, the daily commute to work was less than 5 miles in length (33%). A further 23% travelled between 5 and 10 miles. Almost a fifth of staff, however, travelled more than 20 miles (18%). For students, 67% experienced a daily commute of less than 5 miles. Table 8a: How far is your average daily commute to your main place of study or work at the University?
Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%)
Less than 5 miles 33 67 53
5 – 10 miles 23 19 20
10.1 – 15 miles 16 6 10
15.1 – 20 miles 10 3 6
Greater than 20 miles 18 6 11
Base (n) 612 774 1,369
Staff travelling the shortest distances (less than 5 miles) tended to cycle (39%) or walk (32%). Those travelling between 5 and 10 miles tended to travel by car as a single occupant (37%) or take a bus (27%). Car travel dominated journeys of more than 10 miles. For students, those travelling the shortest distances (less than 5 miles) walking (50%) and a bus (42%) were the modes of choice. They were also more likely to take a bus for commutes further afield than staff.
13
Table 8b: Main method of transport for the daily commute (% Staff)
Bus/coach Car/van Combinati Shared Moto (e.g. (single Cyc Wal Tra on (e.g. Oth Base journe rcycl BROOKESbu occupa le k in cycle and er (n) y e s) nt train)
Staff
Less than 5 miles 21 5 0 39 32 0 0 1 1 204
5 – 10 miles 27 37 8 16 1 1 1 7 2 139
10.1 – 15 miles 18 53 13 7 0 4 1 4 0 97
15.1 – 20 miles 8 66 8 3 0 7 3 5 0 61
Greater than 20 miles 13 55 8 0 0 10 0 14 0 111
Students
Less than 5 miles 42 1 1 4 50 1 0 1 0 521
5 – 10 miles 76 7 7 1 5 0 0 4 0 141
10.1 – 15 miles 56 29 4 4 4 0 0 2 0 45
15.1 – 20 miles 30 60 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 20
Greater than 20 miles 21 56 9 0 0 12 0 2 0 43
14
For over a third of staff, the average daily commute to work took between 31 and 60 minutes (39%). For 23% the commute took over 60 minutes. For students, the daily commute was 30 minutes or less (75%).
Table 9a: On average, how long (in minutes) is your average daily commute to your main place of study or work at the University? Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Less than 15 minutes 10 39 26 15 – 30 minutes 27 36 32 31 – 60 minutes 39 19 27 Over 60 minutes 23 7 14 Base (n) 613 774 1,374
Staff who walked took, on average, between 15 and 30 minutes (59%) as did those who cycled (51%). Those who travelled by bus/coach tended to take over 30 minutes (78%) as did those who travelled by car (76% as a single occupant). For students, walking (72%) and cycling (55%) tended to take less time than staff (less than 15 minutes on average). Those who used the bus took, on average, between 15 and 30 minutes (47%) whilst those who travelled by car as a single occupant took over 30 minutes (68%). Table 9b: On average, how long (in minutes) is your average daily commute to your main place of study or work at the University? (% Staff) Combin Bus/co Car/va C ation ach n as a shar y (e.g. (e.g. single ed c cycle BROOK occup Jour l Trai Motor and Oth ESbus) ant ney e Walk n cycle train) er Total
Staff % % % % % % % % % %
Less than 15 minutes 4 7 3 24 21 0 0 3 40 10
15 – 30 minutes 17 18 21 51 59 0 60 8 20 27
31 – 60 minutes 45 52 51 23 20 25 40 22 40 39
Over 60 minutes 33 24 26 3 0 75 0 67 0 23
Base (n) 117 215 39 110 66 20 5 36 5 613
Students % % % % % % % % % %
Less than 15 minutes 20 11 35 55 72 36 NA 0 NA 39
15 – 30 minutes 47 21 35 36 26 0 NA 33 NA 36
31 – 60 minutes 28 38 17 9 2 18 NA 42 NA 19
Over 60 minutes 6 30 13 0 0 45 NA 25 NA 7
Base (n) 367 66 23 22 273 11 NA 12 NA 774
15
3.1.4 Campus Arrival and Departure Time
The peak arrival time for staff at their main campus was between 8.00 and 8.59 am. This was particularly pronounced for Swindon and Marston Road. Staff at Wheatley tended to start slightly earlier with 41% arriving between 7.00 and 7.59 whilst those at Harcourt Hill had a broader arrival time.
Chart 3a: Staff arrival time by Campus Staff - Arrival Times
80
70
60
50 Headington/Headington Hill 40 Wheatley
Percentage 30 Harcourt Hill 20 Marston Road 10 Swindon
0
07.59 09.59
06:59 08:59
– –
– –
Before 06:00 Before
07.00 09.00
06:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 or after 10:00
The peak departure time for staff from their main campus was between 16.00 and 17.59 pm. Swindon had a slightly earlier departure time with 69% leaving between 16.00 and 16.59. As with arrival time, staff at Harcourt Hill also had a broader departure time. Chart 3b: Staff departure time by Campus Staff - Departure Times
80
70
60
50 Headington/Headington Hill 40
Wheatley Percentage 30 Harcourt Hill Marston Road 20 Swindon 10
0
17.59 18.59
15:59 16:59
– –
– –
Before 15:00 Before
17.00 18.00
15:00 15:00 16:00 19:00 or after 19:00
16
The peak arrival time for students at their main campus was between 8.00 and 8.59 am, particularly for those students based at Wheatley, Marston Road and Swindon. Headington and Harcourt Hill students tended to have a slightly longer arrival period (8.00 to 10.00 am or later). Chart 4a: Student arrival time by Campus
Students - Arrival Times
80
70
60
50
Headington/Headington Hill 40
Wheatley Percentage 30 Harcourt Hill Marston Road 20 Swindon 10
0
07.59 09.59
06:59 08:59
– –
– –
Before 06:00 Before
07.00 09.00
06:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 or after 10:00
The peak departure time for students from their main campus was between 16.00 and 16.59 pm (particularly those based at Swindon and Marston Road campuses). Headington, Wheatley and Harcourt Hill students tended to have a broader departure time with Harcourt experiencing a spike between 15.00 and 15.59 pm and another between 17.00 to 17.59 pm.
17
Chart 4b: Student departure time by Campus
Students - Departure Times
90
80
70
60
50 Headington/Headington Hill
40 Wheatley Percentage Harcourt Hill 30 Marston Road
20 Swindon
10
0
17.59 18.59
15:59 16:59
– –
– –
Before 15:00 Before
17.00 18.00
15:00 15:00 16:00 19:00 or after 19:00 3.2 Bus Travel
3.2.1 BROOKESbus
Almost all students (90%) had a BROOKESkey compared to 48% of staff. Almost all students (89%) had used the BROOKESbus during the previous 12 months compared with 65% of staff. Students were more likely to have used the BROOKESbus to get to the university (50%) or for leisure (41%) whilst staff were more likely to have used it to travel between campuses for work (32%). Table 10: Use of BROOKESbus during the previous 12 months % Staff % Students % Total Travel between campuses for work/study 32 30 30 Commuting 24 50 39 Travel for leisure 18 41 31 Other 1 0 1 Not used 35 11 21 Base (n) 623 825 1,431 Totals may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer.
Respondents were asked to rate different aspects of their BROOKESbus experience from the previous 12 months (1 = very poor and 5 = Excellent). Value for Money and the Professionalism of Drivers were the aspects most highly rated, scoring on average of 4.1 out of 5. The lowest rating was for punctuality which received an average rating of 3 out of 5. Notwithstanding the overall feedback was positive and scored either satisfactory or higher.
18
Staff were most impressed with the Drivers and Cleanliness (rating them 4 out of 5 each) whilst students rated Value for Money highest (4.3 out of 5). Table 11: Rating of BROOKESbus during the previous 12 months (all respondents who used the service) Mean score (out of 5) Staff Students All Value for Money 3.9 4.3 4.1 Drivers (e.g. professionalism) 4.0 4.1 4.1 Cleanliness 4.0 4.0 4.0 Convenience 3.8 3.6 3.6 Capacity 3.7 3.6 3.6 Route options 3.4 3.4 3.4 Punctuality 3.4 2.8 3.0 Base (n) 390 675 951
3.2.2 Other Bus Travel In all, 40% of respondents used a bus as part of their normal journey to the University (either for the whole journey or part of it). This comprised 28% of staff and 53% of students. Of these, the BROOKESbus was the most popular company to use (85% of all bus users, 62% of staff bus users and 95% of student bus users). The Oxford Bus Company attracted 36% of bus users; Stagecoach attracted 25%, Arriva 11%, Thames Travel 7%, Red Rose 5% and Swindon's Bus Company 4%.
19
Table 12: Use of buses as part of normal journey to work (% of bus users) % Staff % Students % Respondents BROOKESbus Total 62 95 85 Harcourt Hill to Wheatley via Headington (Brookes) U1 53 44 46 Marston via Headington and Cowley Rd (Brookes) U5 9 50 39 Oxford Bus Company Total 59 27 36 Kidlington to City Centre 2 4 1 2 Sandford on Thames to City Centre 3 2 1 1 Abingdon to Wood Farm via City Centre 4 8 1 3 Blackbird Leys to City Centre 5 2 3 2 Wolvercote to City Centre 6/6C 0 0 0 Barton to City Centre via Brookes 8/9 15 6 9 Bicester via Upper Heyford to City Centre 250 0 0 1 Abingdon to City Centre 35/35A 2 0 0 Abingdon, Redbridge P&R and JR11 X3/X13/13 9 4 6 300 Redbridge to Pear Tree/400 Seacourt to Thornhill Park and Ride via Brookes/500 Oxford Parkway to City Centre (300/400/500) 14 2 6 Heathrow and Gatwick The airline 0 1 1 London (via Brookes)- now discontinued X90 4 5 5 Stagecoach Total 29 24 25 Blackbird Leys to City Centre 1 2 1 2 Woodstock to City Centre 7 0 0 0 Cowley/Wood Farm/JR11/City Centre 10 3 11 8 Carterton/Witney via Botley to City Centre S1 3 0 1 Carterton/Witney via Wolvercote/ to City Centre S2 1 0 0 Chipping Norton/Charlbury/Woodstock/City Centre S3 2 0 1 Banbury to City Centre S4 0 0 0 Bicester to City Centre/(JR11 and Brookes at peak time) S5 1 0 0 Swindon to City Centre S6 2 1 1 Witney via JR11 to Brookes S7 1 0 1 Wantage via Abingdon to City Centre S8 3 1 1 Wantage via Cumnor to City Centre S9 1 0 0 Kidlington via Oxford Parkway and Hospitals to Brookes 700 2 0 1 Park and Ride Thornhill to Hospitals (900 via Brookes) (800/900) 2 1 1 London via Brookes Oxford Tube 5 7 6 Milton Keynes via Bicester to City Centre X5 2 0 1 Thames Travel Total 9 6 7 Watlington to City Centre 11 1 3 2 Wantage/Harwell/Didcot to City Centre ST1 0 1 1 Wantage/Harwell/Didcot to City Centre ST2 1 1 1
20
Wallingford/Didcot/Abingdon to City Centre X2 3 0 1 Wantage/Chilton to City Centre X32/X33/33 2 0 1 Reading/Henley/Benson to City Centre X38/X39/X40 2 0 1 Arriva Total 15 9 11 Aylesbury/Thame/Wheatley to City Centre via Brookes 280 13 7 8 Aylesbury/Thame/Wheatley to City Centre via Brookes X8 2 2 2 Red Rose Total 3 6 5 High Wycombe/Stokenchurch/Wheatley to City Centre via Brookes 275 3 4 4 Other 0 1 1 Swindon's Bus Company Total 2 5 4 Middleleaze to GW Hospital via town centre 1/1A 0 1 1 Swindon to Covingham and Nythe 2 1 1 1 Orbital Shopping Park to Park North via town centre 5 0 1 1 Oakhurst to GW Hospital via town centre 12 0 0 0 Swindon to Eldene and Liden 13/13A 0 1 1 Swindon to Blunsdon 16 1 0 0 Swindon to Sparcells (nearest stop to Brookes) 19/19A/19B 0 0 0 Salisbury to Swindon X5 1 0 0 Other Total 1 4 5 National Express 1 4 3 Megabus 1 1 1 Base: Those who use the bus to get to the University. Respondents could use more than one bus.
21
3.3 Car Travel
Approximately half of staff (47%) and 13% of students used a car for at least part of their journey to get to the University.
3.3.1 Reason for Using a Car
Respondents were asked the main reason for using a car to travel to the University. The overwhelming reason was that other forms of transport significantly increased journey times and using a car was the quickest and most flexible option (30% of comments). Examples included
“No other option, wouldn't be able to get buses to get me to work for when I start”
“Shorter travel time, more convenient as my alternative involves walking one mile then taking two buses, meaning a total travel time of around an hour and a half”
“No alternative, bus journey would be 2.5 hrs each way and trains would go to London first”
Convenience was the second most mentioned reason (14%), followed by the lack of public transport where respondents lived (11%) and caring responsibilities (10%).
Table 13: What is the main reason that you use a car/van? Number of comments % Time saving/distance/flexibility (using public transport significantly increases journey times) 149 32 Convenience 64 14 Lack of public transport where I live 51 11 Caring responsibilities 49 10 More direct than using public transport 42 9 Cheaper than public transport 36 8 Car share 17 4 Public transport is too unreliable/inflexible 13 3 To get to Park and Ride/Train station etc 13 3 Need a car as part of job 10 2 After work commitments 9 2 Health issues 7 1 Safety 7 1 Needing to carry large quantities of items 3 1 Inaccessibility 1 0 Inadequate facilities for cyclists 1 0 Total number of comments 472 100
22
3.3.2 On-Street Parking
Respondents were asked whether they had ever parked on nearby streets when travelling to any of the Oxford Brookes sites or campuses for work or study. Around 40% of staff who used a car to travel to work had parked in nearby streets at some point whilst 50% of car commuting students had. The issue was greatest at Swindon and Marston Road campuses, where over half of car users had parked on the surrounding streets, and least problematic at Harcourt Hill where only 24% had. Table 14: Have you ever parked on nearby streets when travelling to any of the Oxford Brookes sites or campuses for work or study? (% car users) Headington/Headington Wheatley Harcourt Swindon Marston Total (%) Hill (%) (%) Hill (%) (%) Road (%) Yes 41 30 24 82 61 42 No 59 70 77 18 39 58 Base (n) 209 69 34 28 31 378
The main reason for using on-street parking was that the Brookes car parks were full (71% of comments). Table 15: Have you ever parked on nearby streets when travelling to any of the Oxford Brookes sites or campuses for work or study? If YES, please state why: Number of comments % Car park full 111 71 Convenience 21 13 Cost of parking at work 12 8 Not eligible for a parking permit 11 7 Health reasons 2 1 Total number of comments 157 100
3.3.3 Parking Permits and Related Issues
Half of staff had a Brookes Parking Permit (44%) whilst 6% of students did (mainly those students based at Wheatley, Harcourt Hill or Swindon).
The highest proportion of staff with Parking Permits lived in North Oxfordshire where 75% of staff had one. The lowest proportion lived in Oxford City (13%). This was to be expected based on the permit exclusion zones.
23
Chart 5: Proportion of staff with Parking Permits by Postcode Area (% staff)
75%
67%
69%
25% 13%
68% 56%
73%
59%
66% Elsewhere
Almost half of staff with parking permits had childcare responsibilities (48%). This also applied to 17% of students with permits. Of these, half said they would find it useful to have a designated late starter parking bay – 11% of all staff who responded to the survey and 1% of all students.
24
Table 16: How useful would you find a designated late starter parking bay (e.g. parking permitted after 09:30) Staff (n) Students (n) Essential 28 1 Quite useful 39 4 Not particularly useful 35 1 Not at all useful 28 3 Total 130 9 Essential + Quite Useful as % of permit holders with childcare responsibilities 52% 56% Essential + Quite Useful as % permit holders 25% 10% Essential + Quite Useful as % all staff/students 11% 1%
3.3.4 Alternative Modes of Travel
Improvements to Current Parking Arrangements
Permit holders were asked what improvements could be made to the current parking arrangements at the University. A third of comments related to the provision of more spaces either utilising existing spaces more efficiently or building additional capacity (33% of comments).
“Simple - we need more parking spaces by possibly creating an underground multi-storey car park”
“It is vital to have staff parking. The bus is not an option for me. There are not enough spaces - it means you cannot come in for an afternoon meeting for example.”
“More parking spaces, we have only reduced spaces and increased staff capacity at Headington in the past year. There are not enough spaces to cope with the Wheatley move.”
This was followed by wanting to see improvements to the current parking system, either reverting to the process pre 2017 or managing the process better (19% of comments).
“One off payment for permit rather than having to buy a permit and pay to park daily as well - this has incurred me fees where I have forgotten to pay and have paid retrospectively”
“The parking ticket machines at Wheatley are slow and break down extremely often. It would be better if we could pay for the parking via an app/online e.g. through RingGo or something similar.”
Table 17: How do you think the current parking arrangements at the University could be improved? Number of comments % Provide more spaces by, for example, utilising existing spaces more efficiently or building a multi-story car park 95 33 Revert to former parking charge scheme or improve system 56 19 Change parking fees 25 9 Dedicated spaces for those with caring responsibilities/shift workers 25 9 Be more restrictive in permit allocations 24 8 Improve public transport routes to campuses/dedicated staff buses 19 7 Restrict permits for students, particularly those who access them as a result of being student ambassadors 8 3 Greater access to flexible working 7 2 Use Automatic Number Recognition to pay for parking 6 2 Subsidised bus travel for staff 6 2 More efficient use of visitor parking bays 4 1
25
Online app to identify spare space/notify of full car parks 3 1 Dedicated spaces for car sharing 3 1 Better access to parking spaces for those with health issues 2 1 Restrict permit applications from new staff (and put them on a waiting list) 2 1 More electric charging 2 1 Use of incentives 2 1 More security 2 1 Total number of comments 291 100
Permit holders were asked whether they would consider parking off-site and taking more sustainable options for the remainder of their journey, for example, Park and Ride or walking and cycling. In all, 30% of staff permit holders and 18% of student permit holders said that they would consider it.
Table 18: Would you consider parking off site and taking more sustainable options for the remainder of the way, for example, Park and Ride or walking and cycling Staff (%) Students (%) Yes 30 18 No 59 62 Not sure 11 20 Base: those with a permit (n) 266 50
However, over half of staff permit holders (59%) and 62% of student permit holders did not feel they could consider parking off-site and taking a more sustainable form of transport for the remainder of the journey. This was primarily because it would substantially increase their journey time (41% of reasons).
“It already takes me a long time to get to work without having to stop and adding another journey.” “With current traffic around Oxford, it's faster, more convenient and effective to drive straight to work. If public P&R should be used, this would delay travel time (for me) by at least an hour making it impossible to work at Brookes.”
26
Table 19: Would you consider parking off site and taking more sustainable options for the remainder of the way, for example, Park and Ride or walking and cycling? If NO, why not? Number of comments % Would substantially increase journey time 105 41 Cost 44 17 Caring responsibilities 36 14 Lack of direct buses to campus/better bus options/better reliability 26 10 Current park and ride locations inconvenient to get to by car 12 5 Health issues 12 5 Safety concerns relating to cycling 11 4 Need to carry things 4 2 Would impact on ability to fulfil working hours 4 2 Need car for work 3 1 Need more EV charging points 1 0 Total number of comments 258 100
Respondents were asked for ideas about what other measures could be introduced to help reduce the need for Brookes parking permits. The most frequent suggestion was to have more direct bus routes to campus, particularly for those living outside of Oxford (34% of comments). Subsidised transport accounted for 23% of comments whilst the introduction of more flexible working policies accounted for 15% of comments.
27
Table 20: What other measures could be introduced to help reduce your need for a Brookes parking permit? Number of comments % More direct bus routes to campuses especially for those living outside Oxford 59 34 Subsidised public transport 40 23 Introduce more flexible working policies 26 15 Dedicated Brookes shuttle buses from Park and Rides and other locations 22 13 Improve cycling facilities 9 5 Increase permit qualifying distance 5 3 Improve salaries to cover travel costs/allow people to live closer 3 2 Extend Bus Key usage to non-city buses 3 2 Car sharing 2 1 Introduce e-bike loans 1 1 Have dedicated bus service between Swindon and Oxford 1 1 Improve BROOKESbus services outside of semester time when staff still need to use them 1 1 Total number of comments 172 100
Electric Vehicles
Permit holders were asked if they would consider purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle within the next three years. A small proportion of staff permit holders already owned one (4%) whilst a further 35% said that they would consider it. This compares to 26% of student permit holders.
Table 21: Would you consider purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle within the next three years? Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Yes 35 26 34 No 29 36 30 Not sure 32 38 33 I already have one 4 0 4 Base: those with a permit (n) 266 50 312
Of those who would consider having an electric vehicle, approximately half of the staff and a third of the students said that they would be able to charge the vehicle at home. This correlates well with national trends which indicates the majority of people charge at home (DFT, 2019)1
1 Department for Transport (2019) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818810/ electric-vehicle-charging-in-residential-and-non-residential-buildings.pdf
28
Viable Alternative Forms of Transport for Single Occupant Car Users
Permit holders whose main method of travel to the university was by car as a single occupant were asked what their most viable alternative form of transport could be.
The most favoured alternative form of transport to the car amongst this cohort was public transport, mentioned by 32%. Car sharing was suggested by 27%. Over a third of this group, however, said that they had no alternative but to drive as a single occupant (38%).
Table 22: If you travel to University by car/van as a single occupant, what would be your most viable alternative form of transport?
Respondents (n) % Respondents No Alternative 85 38 Public Transport 71 32 Car sharing 61 27 Cycle/e-bike 27 12 Walk 1 0 Other 7 3 Base (n) 222 100 Base: Permit Holders who travel to the University by car as a single occupant. Respondents could give more than one answer.
Car Sharing
Only 7% of staff permit holders and 8% of student permit holders had ever used a car sharing platform. This might increase to 23% of staff permit holders and 18% of student permit holders if there was choice over who they shared their journeys with and how often, and 33% and 40% respectively if they were offered an incentive.
Table 23: Have you considered any of the following (% Yes) Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Have you ever used the car sharing platform (e.g. 7 8 7 Liftshare or Faxi) Would you consider signing up to a car sharing platform if 23 18 22 you had a choice over who you share your journeys with and how often? Would you consider signing up to a car sharing platform if 33 40 35 you were offered an incentive (i.e. priority parking space, vouchers etc.)? Those with a permit (n) 266 50 311
29
Car Use for Work
About one in five members of staff said that they needed a car to fulfil their work commitments at the University (18%). The main reasons for this included: ● Travel between campuses for evening teaching; ● Placement visits; ● Travel between campuses in a limited time slot; ● Visiting events around the country; ● Outreach worker travelling to schools; ● Out of hours community meetings; ● To visit suppliers; ● Travelling to Associate Colleges; ● To transport materials; ● Travel between Oxford and Swindon; ● Working on all campuses and needing to take equipment to each.
3.3.5 Impact of 2017 Change in Parking Policy
Oxford Brookes implemented a new parking charging policy in March 2017, changing from an annual flat rate fee based on salary to a pay as you go fee (also based on salary) but charged per day of parking. All respondents were asked whether the changes to the parking charges had made them change their travel methods to and from the University. Only 5% of staff and 2% of students claimed that it had. This indicates that the parking policy implemented in 2017 had no affect towards individuals' travel behaviour. Table 24: Did the changes to the University’s parking charges (implemented in March 2017) make you change your travel methods to and from the University?
Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Yes 5 2 3 No 69 33 48 Not applicable/wasn’t here is 2017 26 65 48 Base (n) 619 814 1,415
For those where their method had changed here are some of the changes: ● Cycle when sunny ● worked from home more often ● It has been more difficult to find parking spaces, therefore, have to arrive earlier ● From car to bus ● It wasn't the change in charges; it was the lack of available parking that made me change my travel method. ● This encouraged me to cycle the whole distance or from the Park & Ride ● I now primarily travel by bus which impacts on my ability to get my daughter to her activities on time. This puts an additional 45-60 mins each way on my travel time and we are constantly late getting to activities. Some of these she has had to stop because I can no longer pick her up. This has also impacted on us attending open lectures etc at Brookes because we are walking too late at night ● Cycle twice per week ● Main difference was a) mechanism of payment, b) availability of space since staff/student parking amalgamated. ● Changed from car to bus - but the parking charges weren't the main factor ● Switched from car to coach ● Gave up on using park and ride as parking on campus was cheaper and more convenient but I probably would have
30
done so anyway as the Thornhill park and ride was too unreliable - I was failing to collect my kids from school on time on a regular basis. ● I was already using train and cycle for health reason but this addition added to my reasons ● Use the car on fewer days, and use the train/cycle more ● It made me more tempted to drive in if I thought I would get a space ● Cycle 2 times a week ● From car to bus ● Made me get the bus. ● Use of bicycle ● I drive less, but I’m late for uni more ● Now come by bus - car park charge plus stress of driving ● I used to walk to University, however my role changed and required me to travel frequently to and between different Halls. ● Yes because I had to take the bus and it was inconvenient because I'd prefer my car. ● I worried about the extra cost. ● I have periodically caught the bus from Swindon. ● I walk rather then come by car ● Had to take two buses ● Personally don't like paying everyday would rather pay for a full years permit every Jan. ● Park and commute by bike when at Headington Campus ● Can no longer use car. ● It's become a lot worse, very difficult to travel to the university with full busses that are always late. The fact that students cannot bring cars is ridiculous and makes university life very difficult for some with certain issues that are not deemed serious to the university. ● Parking is too expensive ● Bus instead of cars ● Car to bus ● I made sure to choose an accommodation closest due to unreliable buses ● Didn’t bring my car ● Change in bus ● BROOKESbus ● Mixed with cycling on fine days ● I drove ● No, but my travel method changed when OBBS moved from Wheatley to Headington. ● Had to park at the Park and Ride rather than the university.
Those respondents with a parking permit were asked whether the changes made them change the frequency with which they parked at Brookes. For only 6% of staff and 2% of students did it make them park less frequently than before the changes came in. For the majority there was no change in usage.
31
Table 25: Did the changes to the University’s parking charges (implemented in March 2017) make you change the frequency with which, on average, you park at the University each week? Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Park more frequently 2 2 2 No change in frequency 69 31 63 Park less frequently 6 2 5 Not applicable/wasn’t here is 2017 23 65 30 Base (n) 269 52 317
32
3.4 Sustainable Transport 3.4.1 Views on Sustainable Transport Around half of respondents felt that sustainable transport was very important to them (48%) whilst another 33% felt that it was quite important. There was no difference in views between staff and students. Table 26: How important is sustainable transport to you (i.e. alternative forms of transport to the car)? Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Very important 48 47 48 Quite important 34 33 33 Not particularly important 12 13 12 Not at all important 2 2 2 No opinion either way 4 5 5 Base (n) 596 725 1,304
Those respondents who viewed sustainable transport as very important were already likely to be using alternative forms of transport to the car. For example, 77% of train users viewed sustainable transport as very important as did 72% of cyclists. Only a quarter of car users similarly viewed sustainable transport as very important. Table 27: How important is sustainable transport to you (i.e. alternative forms of transport to the car)? (by main method of transport) No Not opinion Very Quite particularly Not at all either important important important important way Base (n) Bus/coach (e.g. BROOKESbus) (%) 54 30 10 2 4 449 Car/van as a single occupant (%) 22 44 21 5 7 268 Car/van as a shared journey (%) 25 52 13 4 7 56 Cycle (%) 72 19 6 0 3 127 On foot (%) 50 34 10 2 4 318 Train (%) 77 10 10 0 3 30 Motorcycle/scooter (%) 60 0 20 0 20 5 Combination (e.g. cycle and train) (%) 65 28 7 0 0 43
Reasons for these views
There was widespread agreement amongst staff that making more use of sustainable transport would help the planet (particularly in the context of the current climate crisis). It was acknowledged that Oxford is heavily congested and polluted and that opportunities should be taken wherever possible to travel around the city sustainably. However, there was a conflict between sustainability and the practical issues of getting to the University on time for work or study. This was particularly a concern for those who lived further away from the University and for whom sustainable alternatives were either not readily available or would involve excessive travel times and expense.
33
3.4.2 Travel Offers Two thirds of staff (67%) and half of students (47%) were aware of the availability of Oxford Brookes Travel Offers at the time of the survey. Of those who were aware, the most popular Travel Offer was the BROOKESkey used by 30% of staff and 38% of students. Given that 48% of staff and 90% of students claimed previously in the survey to have a BROOKESkey this suggests that a significant proportion of respondents are not aware that this is part of the Brookes Travel Offer. Table 28: Of those who were aware of Brookes Travel Offers, do you currently use any of the following? Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) BROOKESkey 30 38 35 Discounted travel with University photo ID card 34 30 31 NUS Travel discounts on coach and train tickets (with £12/year NUS extra card) 9 4 6 Bike Doctor 11 1 5 Cyclescheme (Tax-free Bicycles and Equipment) 6 0 3 Interest-free loans for travel tickets and bicycles 5 0 2 Easit account 3 0 2 Campus Park and Ride scheme 2 1 1 Discounts on bike essentials (with a student ID) 1 0 1 Co Wheels car club (student discounts) 1 0 0 Cyclists Expenses Claim 1 0 0 Base (n) 404 340 736
Respondents were asked what measures and incentives could be introduced to increase sustainable travel trips to the University. Suggestions included: ● More direct bus routes to Brookes campuses, especially from outside of Oxford; ● Cheaper bus travel; ● More reliable bus services; ● Better cycling facilities including covered bike storage and showers; ● Free BROOKESkey for staff and extend beyond Oxford; ● LED displays at bus stops; ● More electric vehicle charging points; ● Lobbying to improve cycle networks; ● Incentives for car sharing; ● BROOKESbus for Swindon; ● Free and frequent bus shuttle from P&R or other off-site car parks; ● Electric vans for staff; ● More opportunities to work from home with better connectivity; ● Green car loans; ● Discounted train travel; ● Integrated public transport tickets outside of Oxford; ● Prize draws for sustainable travel; ● Subsidies for using public transport; ● Better lighting in South Park for walking after dark; ● Working time compensation for longer commutes.
34
3.4.3 Bike Doctor In total, 26% of staff and 3% of students had used the Bike Doctor services. One in ten respondents would like to see the Bike Doctor service increase in frequency from its current weekly (on average) interval. This includes 16% of staff and approximately a third of those who have used the service (36%). Table 29: Would you like the weekly (on average) Bike Doctor services increased at the University? Staff (%) Students (%) Total (%) Yes (e.g. every day) 16 9 12 No 20 15 17 Not applicable 64 76 71 % of those who have used the service 36 42 36 Base (n) 574 676 1233
Demand for a more frequent Bike Doctor service came from those respondents based in Headington (13%), Marston Road (12%) and Wheatley (11%). The results outline the importance of the Bike Doctor offer to promote sustainable travel at the University. Table 29: Would you like the weekly (on average) Bike Doctor services increased at the University? Headington/Heading Wheatley Harcourt Swindon Marston ton Hill (%) (%) Hill (%) (%) Road (%) Total (%) Yes (e.g. every day) 13 11 9 3 12 12 No 17 19 14 12 16 17 Not applicable 70 70 78 85 73 71 % of those who have used the service 38 27 25 0 27 36 Base (n) 877 131 71 33 110 1233
3.4.4 Other Feedback
Table 30, reflects respondents feedback on how Brookes could improve sustainable travel links to and from the university. Around half of the comments referred to having improved bus routes (49% of comments) whilst 10% referred to subsidised travel costs. These reflect the importance of having a good quality, direct and inexpensive public transport system that links staff and students to the University, not just within Oxford but from the major settlements beyond.
35
Table 30: Feedback on how Brookes can improve sustainable travel links to and from the University Number of comments % Improved bus routes 148 49 Travel costs/subsidies 30 10 Cycling routes/facilities 26 9 Bike doctor 21 7 Dedicated Brookes shuttle buses 20 7 Parking issues 14 5 EV and charging 10 3 Car sharing 10 3 More information 9 3 Flexible working 5 2 Safety 3 1 More incentives 2 1 Cable car/trams 2 1 Swindon issues 2 1 Reduce volume of student cars 1 0 Walking 1 0 CO2 Tax 1 0 Total number of comments 305 100
For staff the most important aspects of sustainable travel links appear to be improvements to bus routes and services, cycling facilities and travel subsidies.
Table 31a: Feedback on how Brookes can improve sustainable travel links to and from the University (Staff Comments) Number of Staff Comments % Improved bus routes 58 36 Bike Doctor 21 13 Cycling routes/facilities 21 13 Dedicated Brookes shuttle buses 20 12 Travel costs/subsidies 18 11 EV and charging 10 6 Parking issues 10 6 Car sharing 9 6 More information 6 4 Flexible working 5 3 Safety 2 1 More incentives 2 1 Cable car/trams 2 1 Swindon issues 2 1 Reduce volume of student cars 1 1 Walking 1 1 Total number of comments 161 100
36
For students, the most important issues relating to sustainable travel links were improved bus routes.
Table 31b: Feedback on how Brookes can improve sustainable travel links to and from the University (Student Comments) Number of Student Comments % Improved bus routes 91 76 Travel costs/subsidies 12 10 Cycling routes/facilities 5 4 Parking issues 4 3 More information 3 3 Bike Doctor 2 2 Car sharing 2 2 Safety 1 1 More incentives 1 1 CO2 Tax 1 1 Total number of comments 119 100
37
4 Conclusions
4.1 Transport Options and Travel Times Using a car is the main method of transport for staff to get to work across all campuses, especially the outlying campuses of Wheatley, Harcourt Hill and Swindon. Buses and cycling are also well used, particularly to get to the Oxford campuses. For those staff living in the Oxford and Wheatley postcodes, cycling, walking and buses are the main transport options. However, beyond these postcodes the car is seen as the necessary transport option. Students are more reliant on public transport or walking for their journeys to the University. The exception is Swindon where the majority travel by car. The staff commute is relatively lengthy. Around 60% spend 31 minutes or more travelling to work including around a quarter who travel for over 60 minutes. This mostly involves bus or car travel. Students have a shorter commute with three quarters travelling for 30 minutes or less. These journeys tend to involve walking or travelling by bus. Not many students cycle. 4.2 Peak Times Peak arrival times for staff and students vary across campuses. For staff, the peak is typically between 8 and 9am compared to staff at Wheatley who start earlier whilst those at Harcourt Hill have a broader arrival time. The peak arrival time for students at their main campus is also between 8 and 9am, particularly for those students based at Wheatley, Marston Road and Swindon. However, Headington and Harcourt Hill students tended to have a slightly longer arrival period (8.00 to 10.00 am or later). In terms of departure, staff tend to leave their main campus between 4 and 6pm in the afternoon. Swindon has a slightly earlier departure time (between 4 and 5pm) whilst staff at Harcourt Hill tend to have a broader departure time, reflecting their broader arrival time. The peak departure time for students is between 4 and 5 pm (particularly those based at Swindon and Marston Road campuses). Headington, Wheatley and Harcourt Hill students tend to have a broader departure time with Harcourt experiencing a spike between 3 and 4pm and another between 5 to 6pm. 4.3 Bus Travel Around a quarter of staff and half of students use a bus as part of their normal journey to the University. Of all the bus services available to them, BROOKESbus is the most frequently used, particularly by students. The Oxford Bus Company and Stagecoach are the other providers most frequently used. The most used services by students are the U1, U5 and the number 10 from Cowley, whilst for staff it is the U1, the number 8/9 from Barton, the Park and Rides from Redbridge, Seacourt and Thornhill and the 280 from Aylesbury via Wheatley. Students are much more likely to have a BROOKESkey than staff. Whilst they are more likely to use the BROOKESbus to get to and between University campuses they are more likely to use it for leisure as well. Staff tend to use the BROOKESbus primarily to travel between campuses or as part of their commute. When asked to rate the BROOKESbus service, value for money and the professionalism of the drivers comes out top whilst punctuality comes out bottom. 4.4 Car Travel Around half of staff use a car as part of their journey to the University compared to one in ten students. The overwhelming reason for using a car is that it is the quickest and most flexible option when set against available public transport, particularly for those who live a long way from the University. Long journey times, unreliability, the need to switch between modes and the costs of public transport all make the use of a car a necessary option in order to get to work on time and meet other commitments and responsibilities.
38
Almost half of car users have used on-street parking to park. This is primarily because the Brookes car parks have been full. On street parking can be viewed as a problem by local residents and it can also be very disruptive for staff and students who may be required to move their car every 2-3 hours if they are parked in a time limited space. Just under half of staff have a parking permit compared with a small number of students (mainly those students based at Wheatley, Harcourt Hill or Swindon campuses). Staff with permits tend to live outside the Oxford postcode area in line with current permit exclusion zones. Around half of permit holders have caring responsibilities. Many experience problems of full car parks when they get to the University after a nursery/school drop off and a significant proportion would find it useful to have dedicated late starter parking bays to help with parking. A third of permit holders would like to see an increase in the number of parking spaces provided by the University to help mitigate the parking problems. Parking could also be improved by looking again at the parking arrangements and, in particular, daily charging brought in in 2017. Many respondents complained about the reliability of the parking machines and poor online connectivity make payment difficult. The survey also shows that the new arrangements have not reduced the number of car users as hoped. A third of permit holders would consider parking off-site and using other transport options to complete their journeys if these options were improved. Suggested improvements include more direct bus routes to the campuses, particularly for those living outside of Oxford; A dedicated shuttle bus from the park and rides or other locations in order to encourage staff to leave their cars beyond the ring road; Subsidised public transport to offset the advantage of cheaper parking at Brookes; Flexible working opportunities to encourage fewer journeys. Two thirds of permit holders are reluctant to give up driving, however, as they are concerned about increases travel times, cost and caring responsibilities. There is quite a lot of support for Electric Vehicles with a third of permit holders saying that they would consider purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle within the next three years. Around half of these said they could charge them at home. The impact of the council’s workplace parking levy will therefore need consideration how it would affect this cohort of users. Car sharing has had only a limited take up in the past although there is some interest amongst permit holders, particularly if incentives such as dedicated parking spaces were made available. One in five members of staff said that they need a car to fulfil their work commitments. This includes for outreach work, visiting students on placements, travelling to non-Brookes campuses and needing to transport equipment. 4.5 Sustainable Transport Four out of five respondents felt that sustainable transport is important to them. It is acknowledged that Oxford is heavily congested and polluted and that opportunities should be taken wherever possible to travel around the city sustainably. However, there is a conflict between sustainability and the practical issues of getting to the University on time for work or study. This is particularly a concern for those who live further away from the University and for whom sustainable alternatives are either not readily available or would involve excessive travel times and expense. There is a reasonable level of awareness amongst staff and students of the University’s Travel Offers although more could be done to promote them. Suggestions for increasing sustainable travel trips include more direct buses, cheaper and more reliable bus travel, better cycling facilities, extending the BROOKESkey beyond Oxford and electric staff vehicles. One in ten respondents had made use of The Bike Doctor although this was more likely to be amongst staff than students as students are less likely to cycle. There was limited support for the service to be increased in frequency even amongst those who have used the service.
39
5 Recommendations and conclusions
The survey shows that there is already a high degree of sustainable travel being undertaken by those staff and students who live in the Oxford postcode area. Therefore the emerging STP should focus on the areas outside of this area. The issue for the university is that more than half of its staff currently live outside this area and it will prove a challenge to get staff out of cars in areas where a reliable public transport network does not exist or involves a number of modal changes. At the moment commutes are lengthy, even by car, without the added complexity of a poor public transport network. There is, however, an appetite for change, particularly for those car users without caring responsibilities but sustainable alternatives need to be as quick, flexible and affordable as car use. This could include: ● Reviewing the car parking policy. There is an appetite for individuals to use alternative forms of transport and to pay an annual car parking permit rather than daily tariffs. To reduce car travel at the university a complete overhaul of the parking policy and applicable tariffs is required. ● Better flexible working arrangements available to all, not just those with sympathetic managers. ● Subsidised travel offers. For example, potentially the BROOKESkey be made available for free to all staff and students who want it and could it be extended beyond the city and to other bus operators? ● Better cycling facilities to encourage more cycle journeys. This could include more provision of covered bike racks, bike boxes, maintenance stands, more showers and drying facilities. ● Better promotion of information about travel options, safe walking routes, travel offers etc. ● Improve the BROOKESbus routes, for example, express services between campus and Oxford’s Park and Rides.
● A small proportion of staff/students currently own an EV vehicle although this is likely to increase within the next few years. Consideration will need to be given towards facilitating this shift away from petrol propelled car travel. However, the majority of respondents indicated they could charge at home. This policy will likely be affected by the council’s emerging Workplace Parking Levy.
● Incentivise people who travel to the university by a sustainable form of transport, for example, additional holiday allowance or a university contribution towards annual season’s tickets. ● The University’s in house Bike Doctor is popular amongst users and the frequency of the services seems to be meeting demand. There is potential scope to review increasing the number of days primarily at the Headington and Marston Road campuses.
Improving other sustainable options to help reduce single occupant journeys would need consultation with other organisations and providers (local council and stakeholder groups): ● Better and safer cycling routes; ● More direct bus options for the Eastern Arc (like the proposed Abingdon and Kidlington route); ● Better and more direct subsidised bus routes from outlying towns; ● Shuttle buses from all park and rides and/or from new dedicated car parks outside the ring road;
40
● Improved bus and cycle provision to the Swindon campus.
There are also major developments by Brookes that will impact on future transport options. The closure of the Wheatley campus is likely to have an impact on bus availability for staff that live in and around the village. This is likely to increase the demand for parking at Headington. The refurbishment of Clive Booth Hall and the proposed reduction in car parking will also have an impact on the supply and demand for parking. Local and national planning policy to promote low carbon and reduction in car use. In particular, with the introduction of the Zero Emission Zone and the proposed Workplace Parking Levy will have a direct impact on the emerging travel strategies and policies implemented at Brookes. The survey has outlined many recommendations and potential local and national uncertainties. However, what has been clearly identified is the over reliance on the car for travel to and from university and a willingness to want to make a change to more sustainable forms of transport. Tackling climate change at a university, local and national level will require radical and unpopular strategies and policies to influence modal shift.
41