Staff Travel Survey
Draft Report March 2008
Confidential Executive Summary
This report presents the findings from a staff travel survey conducted at Staffordshire University between 29 October – 9 November 2007. A total of 752 responses were registered in the on-line survey (18 of which were completed via the paper survey). After data cleansing for incomplete responses and duplicates – a total of 741 returns were recorded, representing a 42% response rate.
75% of staff travel to the University 5 days a week. The average journey time (regardless of mode) is 30 minutes door to door.
In a typical week, 79% of staff travel to and from work by car. Of this figure, 70% of staff who drive to the University do so as a single occupant. 48% of staff that live within a one-way trip distance of 1-3 miles are driving as single occupants. Car driving becomes more dominant by distance although a significant proportion travel by car at distances of up to 6 miles.
Staff who drive to work do so for reasons of convenience over public transport, flexibility, speed and distance of travel. Most staff (93%) who drive to work park in a University authorised car park.
Public transport, walking and cycling account for only 20% of staff travel.
Staff rate public transport frequency and reliability as the highest priority transport options.
Introduction
This report presents the findings from a staff travel survey conducted at Staffordshire University from 29 October – 9 November 2007. This report contains summary frequency data for all the survey questions and selected text data.
The survey utilised was designed by the HEFCE funded Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement project (see www.heepi.org.uk for further details). It was developed by several Universities and to date has been used to survey staff at 18 institutions1.
Designed specifically for the education sector, the survey has the following benefits:
Ø Electronic and hosted on an external server Ø Off the shelf package offered at cost Ø Possibility to alter survey to suit local parameters i.e. site specific names Ø Allows benchmarking of performance through standardised questions Ø Allows institutions to quickly and effectively survey staff and students
The survey was conducted to support the implementation of a University Travel Plan and associated environmental improvements at the University.
Methodology
Details of the electronic survey including the url, password, incentives and need to survey were advertised to staff by a variety of means including:
Ø Information posted to HSEU website 29/10/2007 Ø Email sent to University Green Group members 29/10/2007 Ø Information posted to Environmental Forum 29/10/2007 Ø Notices posted on 'All Staff' on 29/10 & 07/11/2007 Ø Email sent to all staff inboxes on 30/10 & 05/11/2007
In addition, a further 153 paper copies of the survey were printed and distributed to professional support staff within Estates and Hospitality and Leisure Services. This data was entered manually into the online survey.
The survey was hosted on a 3rd party server. The data was exported into excel, checked for duplicates, errors or empty records and a final data set was then analysed using basic descriptive statistics. The descriptive statistics and text data from the initial analysis are included in this report. Variations in response rate for individual questions or parts of questions are attributed to some respondents not completing the full or part of a question. All values in the table are reduced to one decimal place which may lead to slight discrepancies against the totals which have been kept at 100%.
1 Between 2003 – 2007, with 8 of the Universities also surveying students. Findings
Sample size and characteristics
A total of 734 responses were registered on-line with a further 18 completing the paper survey (which were manually entered into the online survey), making a combined total of 752. 11 entries were stripped from the sample as these were deemed to be either incomplete responses or duplicate entries. Not all staff responded to every question.
741 complete entries equates to a 42% response rate. Numbers of staff per employment category for December 2007 provided by the Personnel Department can be found in appendix one.
Age & Gender
The survey sample was broadly representative of the gender split at the University. In the survey the female to male split was 57% / 37% (6% not specified) compared to 59% / 41% of the total staff population at the University.
Gender & Age Staff % Male <21 3 0.4 Male 22-24 2 0.3 Male 25-34 50 6.7 Male 35-44 66 8.9 Male 45-54 86 11.6 Male >55 67 9 Male Total 274 37
Female <21 5 0.7 Female 22-24 15 2 Female 25-34 79 10.7 Female 35-44 130 17.5 Female 45-54 126 17 Female >55 64 8.6 Female Total 419 56.5
Not specified 48 6.5 Total 741 100
Employment type
Employment Type Total % Academic 246 33.2 Researcher 22 3 Management 104 14 Professional Support 369 49.8 Total 741 100
The majority of staff whom participated in the survey work full time.
Employment status Staff % Full -Time 581 78.4 Part -Time 160 21.6 Total 741 100
Mobility
4.3% of the staff sample state they have a disability that affects their travel arrangements.
Mobility difficulties Staff % Yes 32 4.3 No 667 90 Not specified 42 5.7 Total 741 100
Postal Addresses
Overall, 75.8% of staff live in the County of Staffordshire, with a ST postcode. The most dominant areas within the ST postcode area are ST4 (15.5%), ST5 (11.8%), ST16 (9.7%) and ST17 (11.5%).
Other dominant areas, outside of the above include SY (3.7%, greater Shrewsbury, Oswestry areas), TF (3.5%, greater Telford areas), WS (2.8%, greater Cannock, Lichfield areas), CW (5.0%, greater Nantwich, Crewe areas). Appendix two lists postcodes for the staff sample.
How do staff travel to and from the University?
Method of travel
Overall, 80.1% of the staff travel sample is via unsustainable modes of travel (including car as driver or passenger, taxi and motorbike/scooter) whilst 19.6% of staff travel sustainably (via walking, cycling or public transport).
Ø 69.6% travel to the University by car
Ø Public transport (bus and train) account for just 9.2% of staff journeys, 5.3% and 3.9% respectively
Ø 3.8% cycle to work
Typical method to/from University Staff % Car / Van as single occupant 516 69.6 Car / Van sharing 69 9.3 Bus (public local service) 39 5.3 Walk / Jog 49 6.6 Bicycle 28 3.8 Train 29 3.9 Taxi 1 0.1 Motorbike / Scooter 8 1.1 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 2 0.3 Total 741 100
Usual frequency of travel per week
Most staff travel to the University everyday, with 75% travelling to work 5 days a week, with an additional 2.1% of staff travelling 5 or more days a week.
11.5% of staff travel to work 3 days a week or less.
Usual number of days per week travel to University Staff % 0 4 0.5 1 8 1.1 2 16 2.2 3 57 7.7 4 84 11.3 5 556 75 6 12 1.6 7 4 0.5 Total 741 100
Distance of travel to work
The average travel distance is 12.4 miles with the furthest respondent travelling 130 miles. 28.6% live / travel within three miles of their place of work.
Travel on the Day of Survey
Most staff reported their usual daily commute to the University – with 89.2% of staff reporting on their usual commute.
Journey of day of survey Staff % I didn’t travel as I worked/studied at my term-time home 19 2.6 I didn’t travel for other reasons (e.g. illness) 7 0.9 I made my regular (i.e. most days of the week) commute to a university site 661 89.2 I travelled to a different university site than the one that I normally commute to 29 3.9 I travelled to a non-university site 9 1.2 None of these statements apply 16 2.2 Total 741 100
Time of arrival
Unsurprisingly, over two thirds (70.4%) of staff arrive at the University before 9.00 and 85% by 9.30.
Usual time of arrival Staff % By 8.00 91 12.3 08.01 - 08.30 211 28.5 08.31 - 09.00 219 29.6 09.01 - 09.30 108 14.6 09.31 - 10.00 22 3 10.01 - 12.00 20 2.7 After 12.00 18 2.4 Not specified 52 7 Total 741 100
Travel Distance on day of survey
Just over a quarter of staff (26.3%) travel a single trip distance of between 1 - 3 miles from home to the University.
Single trip distance to work today (miles) Staff % Between 1 - 3 miles 195 26.3 Between 4 - 6 miles 108 14.6 Between 7 -10 miles 98 13.2 Between 11 - 15 miles 85 11.5 Over 16 miles 196 26.5 Not specified 59 8 Total 741 100
A cross tabulation showing usual method of travel by distance for staff is shown below.
Staff travel distance by Mode of travel
Distance Method of travel Staff % Between 1 - 3 miles Car/van as single occupant 94 48.2 Car/van sharing 20 10.3 Bus (public local service) 14 7.2 Walk/jog 45 23.1 Bicycle 17 8.7 Train 0 0 Taxi 1 0.5 Motorbike/scooter 2 1 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 0 0 Not specified 2 1
Between 4 - 6 miles Car/van as single occupant 73 67.6 Car/van sharing 14 13 Bus (public local service) 10 9.3 Walk/jog 0 0 Bicycle 6 5.6 Train 0 0 Taxi 0 0 Motorbike/scooter 3 2.8 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 1 0.9 Not specified 1 0.9
Between 7 - 10 miles Car/van as single occupant 80 81.6 Car/van sharing 10 10.2 Bus (public local service) 2 2 Walk/jog 0 0 Bicycle 1 1 Train 4 4.1 Taxi 0 0 Motorbike/scooter 1 1 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 0 0 Not specified 0 0
Between 11 - 15 miles Car/van as single occupant 66 77.6 Car/van sharing 12 14.1 Bus (public local service) 2 2.4 Walk/jog 0 0 Bicycle 0 0 Train 4 4.7 Taxi 0 0 Motorbike/scooter 0 0 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 0 0 Not specified 1 1.2
Time spent travelling
Around a third of staff (32.3%) travel for 16-30 minutes door to door. 33.8% of journey times to work on the day of the survey took more than 31 minutes with 5.3% lasting more than an hour.
Travel time to work door to door on day of survey Staff % Up to 15 minutes 189 25.5 16-30 minutes 239 32.3 31-45 minutes 152 20.5 46-60 minutes 59 8 Over 60 minutes 39 5.3 Not specified 63 8.5 Total 741 100
Car Drivers
Parking
92.6% of staff that drove parked at a University owned car park. This high figure is not surprising given that the University does not control or charge for parking.
The questionnaire was designed to route those who drove to the University on the day of completion through to a section specifically about driving and parking.
Insignificant numbers of staff (1.7%) park their cars outside of University owned car parks, although 5.7% of staff park in ‘other’ areas. An element of this may include those staff that were car share passengers resulting in the vehicle going on to a forward destination.
Parking Location on day of survey Staff % Residential street under 1 mile from University 1 0.2 Residential street over 1 mile from University 3 0.6 Non-residential street 0 0.0 Public off-street car park e.g. NCP 5 0.9 University car park 502 92.6 Park and ride car park 0 0.0 Other 31 5.7 Total 542 100
Numbers in vehicle
86.2% who drove to the University on the day of the survey drove alone.
Number in car Staff % Just driver 467 86.2 Driver + 1 passenger 60 11.1 Driver + 2 passengers 13 2.4 Driver + 3 passengers 2 0.4 Driver + more than 3 passengers 0 0 Total 542 100
Reasons for using car
Staff that drove on the day of the survey were asked what their main reasons for travelling via the car were. The prime reasons for doing so are: lack of convenient public transport (327), speed of the car (303) and the increased flexibility the car offers (250).
Reason2 Staff responses I need to use my own car for University business 144 I use my car before/during/after work for non-University business 165 Alternatives forms of travel aren’t safe 37 I use the car because I have a disability or other health reasons 26 Its cheaper to use the car than public transport 112 There isn’t a convenient public transport service 327 I provide others with a lift 55 Its quicker to travel to the University by car 303 I prefer the comfort and privacy of travelling by car 155 I can park cheaply at/close to the University 119 Its too far to walk/cycle 209 Its too hazardous or unsafe to walk/cycle 127 I don’t have enough information about alternatives 15 I have to carry books/equipment 139 My car provides more flexibility 25 I have childcare commitments (e.g. school, nursery) 112 Other 51
Alternatives to the car
30.4% of car drivers stated they did not have a feasible alternative to driving to work on the day of the survey.
For the remaining car drivers, the bus (21%), train (15.5%) and car sharing (14.4%) are the most popular alternatives.
Alternative to car Staff % Car share 78 14.4 Bus (public service) 114 21 Walk/Jog 33 6.1 Bicycle 28 5.2 Train 84 15.5 Taxi 23 4.2 Motorbike/Scooter 13 2.4 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 2 0.4 No viable alternative 165 30.4 Total 542 100
Public Transport Services
Staff that travelled to work by public transport on the day of the survey were routed through to a section specifically regarding public transport.
9.2% arrived at the University by public transport including bus or train.
Journey mode to University Staff % Bus (public local service) 39 5.3 Train 29 3.9
2 Note respondents were asked to select all reasons that applied.
Method of payment
Mode Method of payment Staff % Bus Annual travel pass 1 3.2 Termly travel pass 0 0 Monthly travel pass 4 12.9 Weekly travel pass 8 25.8 Day ticket 8 25.8 Other 10 32.3 Sub total 31 (100) Train Annual travel pass 0 0 Termly travel pass 0 0 Monthly travel pass 4 15.4 Weekly travel pass 4 15.4 Day ticket 17 65.4 Other 1 3.8 Sub total 26 (100) Total 57 100
Method of payment (bus / train combined) Staff % Annual travel pass or electronic top-up card 1 1.8 Termly travel pass 0 0 Monthly travel pass/ticket 8 14 Weekly travel pass/ticket 12 21.1 Day ticket 25 43.9 Other 11 19.3 Total 57 100
Reasons for using Public Transport
Reason3 Staff responses I don’t generally have access to a car 25 I generally use a car to travel to University but today the car was 0 unavailable for some reason It's cheaper to use public transport (when parking is taken into account) 7 It's safer to travel to University by public transport 5 It's more convenient to travel by public transport 14 It's quicker to travel to University by public transport 12 I am able to read or do work on public transport 19 I don't want to use a car to travel to University because of traffic 13 congestion It's more environmentally friendly to use public transport 23 It's too far to walk or cycle 20 It's too hazardous or unsafe to walk or cycle 5 Other 13
Intersite Travel
Respondents were asked a series of questions to ascertain whether they are required to travel between sites, and if so, how they travel.
Intersite travel requirement in a typical week Staff % Yes 268 36.2 No 432 58.3 Not specified 41 5.5 Total 741 100
3 Note respondents were asked to select all reasons that applied.
Destination of Intersite travel Staff % Stoke / Stafford 224 83.3 Other 45 16.7 Total 269 100
The predominant travel to ‘other’ destinations includes the University’s satellite campuses/buildings at Shrewsbury, Telford, Oswestry and Lichfield.
Typical method of Intersite travel Staff % Car / Van as single occupant 231 86.5 Car / Van sharing 13 4.9 Bus (public local service) 17 6.4 Walk / Jog 0 0 Bicycle 1 0.4 Train 3 1.1 Taxi 0 0 Motorbike / Scooter 2 0.7 Park and Ride 0 0 Other 0 0 Total 267 100
Respondents were then asked whether they every used a car for University business trips e.g. site visits, meetings, conferences etc.
Car user for University related travel Staff % Yes 459 61.9 No 240 32.4 Not specified 42 5.7 Total 741 100
Frequency of car use for University related travel Staff % Daily 14 3.0 Between 2 – 4 times a week 88 18.8 Once a week 64 13.6 Between 1 – 3 times a month 129 27.5 Less than once a month 172 36.7 Never 2 0.4 Total 469 100
Respondents were asked to indicate how many car business miles on average per month they travel, the average being 167 business miles per month (based on 407 responses). The maximum travelled per month is stated as 5,000.
Travel Viewpoints
A set of possible travel policy options were presented in the survey and respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance that should be placed on each policy in relation to the University Travel Plan. Most notably:
· Staff rate more restrictive / expensive parking on campus as the most unimportant travel policy. Surprisingly though, only 26.6% (197) of staff feel opposed to this · More reliable and more frequent transport routes are also of high importance to staff, 50.6% (375) and 42.6% (316) respectively
Staff rating of travel policy options
Option Very Quite Neutral Quite Very Not Response important important unimpt. unimpt. spec (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Encourage and support more people working from 34.7 33.1 20.8 3.6 3 4.9 741 home Improved vehicular security 26.3 29.4 31.3 5.4 2.6 5 741 in and around the University Improved cycle routes in 33.1 34.1 22 3.6 2 5.1 741 and around the University Improved pedestrian routes 34.8 31.7 20.2 4.9 3 5.4 741 in and around the University Showers and storage 36.3 34.1 18.2 4 1.6 5.7 741 facilities for cyclists/walkers Easier / cheaper parking on 28.5 21.7 28.9 8.1 6.6 6.2 741 campus More restrictive / expensive 11.2 11.7 30.9 12.7 26.6 6.9 741 parking on campus University support for travel 24.8 25.1 30.2 6.6 5.8 7.4 741 costs More reliable public 50.6 25.6 12 2.2 2 7.6 741 transport More frequent public 42.6 26.2 17.8 2.4 3.2 7.7 741 transport on existing routes New public transport routes 42.6 23.6 21.7 2.6 1.6 7.8 741 New / improved car sharing 23.2 29 31.4 4.7 3.5 8.1 741 scheme Fleet of University cars for 8.8 16.2 32.8 15.5 18.6 8.1 741 hire Encouraging fewer people 21.1 31.6 28.7 5.8 4.5 8.4 741 to drive to the University Improved personal security 30.5 31.4 22.5 4.3 2.2 9 741 in and around the University Instigation / improvement of 26.7 33.3 20.5 2.7 1.8 15 741 University bus service
Highest Priority Travel Plan Measure
Respondents were then asked which they felt of the above options should be given the overall priority when developing the Travel Plan. The policy alternatives that received the highest level of support in terms of % indicating highest priority are:
· Encourage and support more people working from home - 24.7% (183) · New public transport - 8.9% (66) · More reliable public transport – 8.2% (61)
Attitudes to travel policy options and issues at University
One of the final questions of the survey offered respondents the opportunity to comment on aspects of current transport and travel provision and issues at the University. This generated a large volume of responses. The raw text data is found in appendix three.
A large majority of comments however fell under four broad categories:
· Policy and Planning · Parking – costs and facilities · Public Transport cost, reliability and frequency · Cycling
Some of the key statements made by staff are summarised below:
Overall Policy Planning
“…In general initiatives such as this are poorly thought out because they are developed in isolation and are more focused on having an 'acceptable' policy rather than recognising that it is a balance between many competing pressures…”
“…Beaconside is not a town centre campus and its links to the town are fairly poor. The Weston Road is particularly congested and I often walk faster than cars drive along. I sadly have to breathe their emissions…”
“…I think bonuses should be given to people accordingly for how they travel to work…”
“…Need to support alternative travel arrangements while not penalising those whose multi-site activity is essential...”
“…The University used to have a travel centre and you could get a reduced travel pass for staff. This should be re-introduced to encourage more staff to use public transport…”
Some staff feel unsafe and anxious when travelling to and from the campus
“…it’s dangerous to park at leek road when you leave late at night…”
“…staff who work late and leave eg 8pm feel vulnerable when walking back to their vehicles…”
“…When it is dark I do not feel safe walking home from the University…”
“…I finish at 9.00pm on a Tuesday and leaving the building and walking to the car is not always pleasant. Two weeks ago I had the windscreen wipers stolen from car in the staff car park…”
Many staff are unhappy with current car parking provision at Staffordshire
“…Car parking on all University sites is now inadequate for the number of users - but this should not be used as an argument for more car parking space (which is 'dead' space). Instead we need to have fewer cars on campus…”
“…The parking in the College Road car park is terrible. People park all over the pavements getting in the way of pedestrians even when there are spaces free. It would be useful if some kind of policing took place to stop this happening…”
“…Charge for parking in university areas - through staff / student pass only system - doesn’t need to be too expensive but mandatory. Visitors need to pre-registered or are sanctioned through the university (free day- pass). Set aside some 'free’ short-stay parking…”
“…I would find it extremely unacceptable to have to pay to use a car park at my place of work…”
“…I find it extraordinary that the university has not instigated a clear and fair charging policy for on campus parking. 15 years ago when I studied and worked at Warwick University parking charges were introduced…”
“…Clamp down on public use of university car parks (particularly Leek Road site) Refuse entry to campus for vehicles not registered. Clamp down on illegal parking (parking on double yellows and outside marked parking bays)…”
“…Car parking can be chaotic. Security staff appear to make up the rules on the hoof. Too many cones restricting genuine staff from parking…”
“…I would support charging for car parking at Leek Road (in particular) - especially if it helps to discourage parking on the grass or on yellow lines. There also seem to be a number of non-university users of Leek Road car parking…”
“...Perhaps if more car parking was available specifically for residential students they may be more inclined to leave their car and walk onto campus. I have seen many students drive what would be a 5 minute walk...”
“…Our big issue is that students want car parking (so we need it for recruitment) and we don't have space for everyone to park. To thrive therefore we need to discourage staff car use to promote parking for students…”
“…Current parking arrangements are a nightmare! Why are students in Stafford Court allowed to DRIVE to the Beaconside campus??”
“…Increased free car parking capacity should be a major consideration for the university as it expands…”
“…In the past insufficient attention has been paid to travel/parking issue when developing university sites. Renting out university car parking spaces to other organisations doesn't help!”
Bus and train services in Staffordshire are experienced or perceived as slow, expensive, unreliable, infrequent
“…the unreliability of trains coupled with the high costs of them means it is not practical…”
“...It takes me 20 minutes to drive to University. Or 1 hour 10 minutes and 2 buses…”
“…I used to come on the train every day and then cycle to the campus; this was stopped purely as the train was more expensive and was late most days…”
“…I would have to catch a bus and a train each way so each journey would cost me far too much money…”
“…I would need to change trains twice so the train route is too inconvenient and, whenever I use it, is unreliable…”
“…I do feel that train travel needs to be made a more financially attractive alternative to compete with cars…”
“…The Baker bus needs to leave AFTER the hour not ON the hour. The Baker bus should not go on the A500 where there are no bus stops. Consideration should be given to transport (Baker buses) between sites for evening lectures & those who work late…”
“…Working from home should be encouraged - it can easily be done when required…”
Cycling
“…there are no facilities to encourage students to use the local cycle network. Back 2 Bikes in Stafford, a charity, sells 2nd hand bikes fully safety checked from £15…”
“…Could the university provide cheap/interest-free loans for staff to purchase bicycles?”
Cycling/Walking Facilities
“…Need cycle park and cycle paths. One student I spoke to thought bikes were not allowed on campus...”
“...Need safer road crossings around University site especially Beaconside...”
“…I have recently started to ride a bicycle but due to the lack of cycle lanes I don't feel confident and safe enough to use it to travel to work. There also needs to be shower facilities on the College Road campus…”
“…Facilities for cyclists are woefully inadequate. We should be encouraging more people to cycle to work…”
“…Having access to showers following a cycle ride/ walk/ jog to work would be great…”
“…It would be really useful to have shower facilities within the faculty itself for if people cycle - I have cycled in the summer and found it ok but only because there were no students in to smell my sweat!...”
“…Take some of the absurdly disproportionate space allocated to car parking and make secure cycle accommodation a priority not an after thought…”
“…If better facilities were available I would cycle into work on the days I didn't need to travel…”
“…The lack of bike sheds at Beaconside is dismal. Seeing students damaging trees to fasten their bikes due to nowhere else to put them is a shame…”
Cycling/Walking can be seen as dangerous and impractical in Staffordshire
“…Cycling and walking are perceived as dangerous because bad and aggressive driving is not prevented…”
“…Road design in Stoke makes cycling highly dangerous…”
“…Although I live only a few miles from the university there are no footpaths on part of the road. This would be potentially dangerous for pedestrians especially during the winter months…”
“…I am from a one car family and find it too hazardous to walk to walk as there is no allocated footpath - I attempted to walk once but it is far too dangerous hence my use of the car!”
“…I have recently started to ride a bicycle but due to the lack of cycle lanes I don't feel confident and safe enough to use it to travel to work…”
“…Should be a pedestrian crossing on the Beaconside road near the University's road exit. The current situation is very dangerous for students crossing over unassisted as the road speeds can be quite high and the roundabout is very busy...”
Motorcycles
“…I would like to see better motorbike parking…”
“…Better and more facilities need to be provided for parking of bicycles motorcycles and scooters. The campuses favour car use by providing many parking spaces for cars - bike users feel they cannot use these spaces as they would be taking up a car space…”
“…Improved motorcycle security would be a big bonus - there are ground anchors installed in front of Trent but these are not convenient...”
Intersite Travel
“…The free intersite bus service should have been kept…”
“…The main problem about using the bus between Stafford and Stoke for me as a senior manager is the length of the journey and the frequency of the service. This can turn what would take a couple of hours (including a meeting) into 4+ hours…”
“…The loss of the free inter-site mini bus has had a significant impact on student attendance…”
“…Travel is often unnecessary if meetings could use video conferencing instead…”
Appendix One - Current Staff Numbers, 12 December 2007
Occupancy Male Female Total Part- Full-time Part-time Full-time time Management 54 1 35 1 91 Academic 286 34 178 68 566 Research 5 1 8 14 Professional Support 288 45 387 353 1073 Total 633 81 608 422 1744
Appendix Two – Postcode data
Area Postcode Staff Response % B 16 2.4 CB 1 0.1 CH 4 0.6 LL 1 0.1 CV 2 0.3 S 1 0.1 CW 34 5.0 DE 7 1.0 M 5 0.7 NG 4 0.6 SK 6 0.9 ST 515 75.8 SN 1 0.1 SY 25 3.7 DY 2 0.3 TF 24 3.5 WA 4 0.6 WS 19 2.8 LE 2 0.3 WV 6 0.9 ST only ST19 3 0.6 ST14 5 1.0 ST12 6 1.2 ST20 6 1.2 ST8 7 1.4 ST21 8 1.6 ST11 11 2.1 ST2 15 2.9 ST13 16 3.1 ST9 17 3.3 ST10 17 3.3 ST6 20 3.9 ST18 21 4.1 ST1 22 4.3 ST3 25 4.9 ST7 33 6.4 ST15 33 6.4 ST16 50 9.7 ST17 59 11.5 ST5 61 11.8 ST4 80 15.5