MyGlasgow News

Many thanks to everyone who took part in the consultation exercise on the future of car parking on campus.  The responses were extremely helpful and will be used to shape the revised scheme, which we will consult on in the autumn.  In the meantime, please find below a summary of the responses and a set of questions and answers arising from the feedback received so far.  If these documents prompt any further comments or queries, please submit these to CarParking@glasgow.ac.uk by Thursday 31 August.

Dr David Duncan

Chair, Car Parking Review Working Group

Consultation Response

This stage in the consultation received 108 individual responses.

The vast majority of these are in agreement the current arrangements need to be revised.  

The consultation on the principles have raised a number of questions and highlighted areas for further consideration and discussion to inform the detail of a new scheme.

(Q1.) Do you agree that the current arrangements need to be revised?

Only two responses specifically said they did not agree that the current arrangements are in need of revision.

The feedback at this stage indicates a general consensus that the current arrangements are in need of revision and there is broad support from the respondents to moving towards a fairer system of permit allocation.

(Q2.) Do you agree with the 8 principles?

In general people have mostly been in agreement with the 8 principles and many people offered specific feedback on some or all principles.

Principle 1 – Fairness and criteria

Specific comments issues relating to criteria:

• Concerns around the definition and monitoring of ‘business needs’ – particular concern that this will favour senior staff.  Two people asked if this could link to mileage claims. (14 responses covered this)
• Caring needs noted as important.  Concerns about what constitutes caring needs, potential for this to be abused, and how this will be monitored.  Some mentioned the definition of caring should include elderly  (11 responses covered this)
• Distance and travel time often suggested as important or requested as additional criteria.  This indicates criteria based on Alternative Travel Options needs to be more explicit when describing what measures will be taken into consideration as both time and distance are key factors to be considered.  (9 responses covered this)
• A number of people raised the prospect of positively favouring Car Sharers (6 responses covered this)
• Electric vehicles (3 responses covered this)
• The A-E criteria suggests a ranking of importance  (1 response)
• Multi-trip business needs.  College of MVLS raised specific issues around staff who split their time between sites.
• Consider those on early shifts starting before public transport/Out of hours working (10 Responses covered this)
• Charges based salary/grade with possible exclusion of those +£100k (1 response covered this)

Principle 2: Annual Renewal of Permits

• Many agree that annual renewal is a fair method to take account of new staff and changing circumstances (9 responses covered this)
• A few raised issue of complexities and costs and presumed administrative burden of an annual renewal system (6 responses covered this)
• Concerns that annual renewal makes long term planning (e.g. of caring responsibilities) a challenge (3 responses covered this)

Principle 3: Realistic Charges

• Variable charges for different groups were raised including  those with disabilities, low income staff etc. (5 responses covered this)
• Requests for part-time staff be offered pro-rata discount on permit charge  (3 responses covered this)

Principle 4: Eligibility of Students

• General agreement or acceptance that students shouldn’t be eligible (4 responses covered this)
• Exception: Students with disability/caring needs/exceptional circumstances  (2 responses covered this)

Principle 5: Facilitating Irregular Car Usage

• Roundly welcomed (9 responses covered this)

Principle 6: Encouraging Alternative Means of Transport

• Practicalities of bike travel mean this is not always a suitable alternative (8 responses covered this)
• Issues with public transport  such as time and cost (6 responses covered this)
• Flexible working some commenting not available to all (6 responses covered this)
• A number welcomed interest free loans (5 responses covered this)

Principle 7: Enforcement

• General agreement that better enforcement will be needed
• Some comments that current enforcement not adequate e.g. non-permit holders parking in permit bays

Principle 8: Courtesy and Ease of Use

• General agreement

(Q3.) Are there any other principles which you think we have missed?

Below is a list of further principles suggested, which may require further investigation:

• Travel between Garscube and Gilmorehill – greater awareness of public transport options required (2 responses covered this)
• Allocating permits to individuals rather than cars to further encourage car sharing.  (4 responses covered this)
• Consideration for people who car share with someone who does not work at UofG (3 responses covered this)
• Interest free loans for travel cards (5 responses covered this)
• Motorcycle parking – council offers free parking.  Consider a dedicated motorbike park (4 responses covered this)
• Electric cars – future national policy direction (3 responses covered this)
• The idea of flexible permits welcomed:  consider for those who work at different sites,  shift workers permits, out of hours working (10 responses covered this)
• Integration with smart campus card (1 response covered this)
• Consider temporary permits to cover short term requirement e.g. visiting academic or short term injury/illness (2 responses covered this)
• Safety including provision of good lighting, safe routes etc (3 responses covered this)

(Q4.) Are there any other measures you feel should be introduced?

• Clearer links/transparency between income from car parking and promoting alternative transport (3 responses covered this)
• Consider the need for a multi –storey car park (9 responses covered this)
• Dental school sharing parking with Tay House (1 response covered this)
• Consideration for those who don’t work 9-5 e.g. cleaning & maintenance  (2 responses covered this)
• Non-University permit holders parking in university controlled bays (e.g. Hillhead area) need better enforcement as unfair on permit holders (3 responses covered this)
• Shuttle service to and from other parking options and transport hubs
• Park & ride from Garscube to Gilmorehill for those who live that side of Glasgow (1 response covered this)
• Staff discounts on public transport (6 responses covered this)
• Create more disabled spaces outside the Disability Services building  (1 response covered this)
• Remove all cars off campus except disabled drivers and service vehicles (1 response covered this)
• Everyone getting a few ‘exceptional days’ of car use a year (2 responses covered this)
• Consideration of how these changes may affect local residential areas (Garscube in particular) (3 responses covered this)
• Increase university nursery space (1 response covered this)
• Inform new staff members of parking regulations before they join
• Liaise with other car park providers to negotiate discount for University e.g. Council

(Q5.) Other issues raised

• Complaints about new Council on-street parking zones – cost, time limits (6 responses covered this)
• Gender issues (2 responses covered this)
• Concerns around the involvement of external companies – need to be more explicit that this is a partnership rather than privatisation, and linking to smart campus (4 responses covered this)
• Car parking permit money was meant to fund a multi-storey on Western/Lilybank   (3 responses covered this)
• Staff recruitment and retention issues related to car parking (3 responses covered this)
• Restrict parking at St.Andrews for those based at St. Andrews and Tay House (1 response covered this)
• Could there be team permits for carrying out specific work duties? (2 responses covered this)
• Increase/improve cycle facilities including parking, showers and cycle network (5 responses covered this)

---

First published: 21 August 2017