How is the university going to measure success on this, since they have changed the reason for it from financial to environmental, at least in what they have written (even though few people believed it).|
No provision for motorcycles in policy or in this survey.Policy is a money making scheme and nothing to do with the enviroment.The charges are the second highest in the country and higher than some London universities.This is just a tax to come to work as if we dont pay enough to travel in this area and we are not paid enough to evan consider paying this outrageous charge.|
|1||(1) What is the money raised going to be used for? Will it be invested in improving public transport?
(2) Recently, bus travel has become very much more expensive (20% increase) while service was substantially reduced.
(3) I have recently started biking in (because of (2)) and find it often quite dangerous. There should be bike lanes that are physically seperated from cars and buses. Did you notice all the flowers in Lewes Rd around Moulscoomb?
(4) The university should lobby the council to introduce schemes that promote public transport use and bike over cars. e.g. (a) congestion charging (b) more bus lanes (c) more and safer bike lanes (d) bikes that are provided for free by the city council (e.g. in Zurich such a scheme is running very successfully)
(5) In my opinion, there should be a car park next to the campus and cars should banned from campus. This would create a much safer and pleasant envirnoment. |
|1||*Public transport should be improved if car parking charges are introduced (cheaper service, new routes, less delays and cancellations)
* I agree that daily charges should be charged pro-rata to the annual rate - otherwise car drivers won't explore other methods of transport
* Car parking space seems to be being reduced at the time they are asking people to pay for it!|
|1||1) Prior to thinking about the strategy it would have been beneficial to assess (from where people live) what the potential for increased use in PT would be.
2) Itroducing charges is a GOOD thing as it makes people think of alternatives, HOwever, charges need to reflect pay level and in conjunction alternative services need to be improved (even if they are largely outside the influence of the University). It seems quite a waste spending money on 'cycle to work' events as the threshold from driving by car to cycling is probably much too high for most people.
Public transport needs improving!|
|1||1. I disagree with this pay cut, and react very negatively to its imposition by the University and to the supineness of my trade union in accepting it. I propose to cover part of the cost by ceasing to pay a union subscription.
2. Although it is possible to travel from my home to Falmer by public transport, it would take 2 hr per day minimum instead of c.30 min and would be more expensive (even than the parking charges). If I am forced to do this the extra time would not come from the rest of my life but from my work time.
3. My answer to Q17, that pay-as-you-go would make me use my car less than now, is because if charged on a pay-as-you-go basis I would stay at home more days and come to work less often - perfectly easy with my particular contract. I would NOT come to work more often by public transport. I would come less. There isn't an option for this response.
4. The imposed system discriminates against scientists, who are expected to come to work every day, cf arts faculty who can cut parking costs if they come 4 days per week in term time only (as quite a few do already and all will now have the incentive to do).
5. It is outrageous that the new pay machines will not give change. I shall be so upset when outraged customers/ vandals/ football supporters/ anti-camera rebels take direct action against them in reprisal.
6. Why are retired staff with incomes below £22,000 p.a. not given the same concessionary rate as those with earnings below this level? They are normally here to contribute gratis to our teaching and research programmes, and this seems a typically generous university response.
7. Why are staff paid under £12,000 p.a. treated more generously under the scheme than undergraduate and postgraduate students with incomes below £12,000 p.a.? That seems fundamentally unfair.
8. Perhaps the best that can be said for the scheme is that it is so scam-friendly that paying the full charge becomes an option that only dummies need take up. We all know people in the concessionary or free categories who come by public transport anyway who we can get to register our cars for us, in return for a lesser payment or a few favours. My union sub should just about cover it.
9. An alternative cost-avoidance option is to arrive sufficiently early to displace the University of Brighton staff who park in Falmer village by the hundred every term day. In the vacation this will be non-competitive. And the university has already annoyed Falmer residents in other ways, so they will probably put up with this too.
10. This is a really effective way of improving staff morale. I personally am determined that every penny the university takes from me by this scam, I shall make sure it pays me back double (all quite legally, by making sure I claim for everything I'm entitled to, don't use my home phone for university calls and take more holiday than I presently do). It is all so totally pointless in any case, given that the positive measures taken to encourage those who easily can to use public transport, have already obviated 90% of the problem. Sledgehammer to annoy a nut, you may well feel if you've read this far.|
|1||1. I think that the parking permit is another way of reducing my annual income.
2. I think the permit scheme is forcing people to use buses that take three times longer to get to the university that it does in a car!
3. I live in Brighton and my partner lives in Lewes, so I need to be able to drive to work from Brighton, so that I can go to Lewes after work. There's no way I'm catching 2-3 buses to see my partner, who lives in a village in Barcombe (there are v. few buses to the village anyway). I also combine my drive to work with other things like recycling and supermarket shopping, so no way I could do that, or a weekly shop on a bus!
4. I am opposed the charges because none of my friends have to pay for parking their cars at work. eg at BT, Sun Alliance.
I think the promotion of more flexible working practices are needed here at the uni, so that people can work from 10-6, 11-7, so that the volume of traffic is staggered more across the day and the mad rush hour is dissipated more.
Hope this helps|
|1||1. It's not so difficult to travel straight from home by train, but often I need to drop off/pick up children on the way to/from work, so it would be very inconvenient and time consuming to use public transport every day.
2. Ridiculous to have changed to charging for Uni. vacations as well.
3. I think there should be cheaper/free parking for visitors.
4. Have tried cycling - find it unpleasant/dangerous along Lewes Road because the cycle lane is so narrow.
5. Thanks for organising this survey!|
|1||1. The charging bands are ridiculously broad, and designed to keep high paid academic staff happy, and effectively tax the lower paid staff. At least 2 more bands should be introduced, one cutting in at around 17,000, and another at around 30,000.
2. If staff are to be charged for coming to work, I do not see why students should pay a lower rate. Exceptions should be made for students with young children, or who are disabled, but in general, if a student is rich enough to own and maintain a car (of which many at Sussex are), they should be rich enough to pay the full price of parking - which should mean lower over all prices for all.
3. I think it is wrong in principle that staff should be changed for coming to work. It is a leap of non-logic to associate parking charges with the availablity of public transport, as the university is a private institute, and its parking changes will not be channeled into public transport. If the university wants to justify parking changes with reference to available alternatives, it should run it's own bus free/subsidised service. It is not the university's job to so forcefully 'reeducate' its staff in environmentalism. I say all of this as someone who nearly always cycles to work, as I can not afford a car. I also find it a financial burden to take the bus/train too regularly.
4. Common sense (and my own experience of when I buy a weekly/monthly travel card) tells you that charging for season parking tickets means people will be inclined to use their car more. Pay as you go would be much more environmentally friendly, if that is truly the rationale behind this policy.
5. Whilst something is better than nothing, the recent 'bike to campus' initiative is laughable, and demonstrates that the university's interests in enviromentally friendly travel are merely tokenistic. If the university really wants to encourage people to cycle to work, it should offer covered cycle stands, light the stretch of cycle path next to the new subway (which is dangerously dark - especially considering students walk there too), provide more shower facilities so staff can be comfortable after cycling in, offer grants (say of between 30-100 pounds) for staff to buy a cycle. However, and again, writing as someone who cycles nearly everyday, cycling is not THE solution - not everyone is priviledged enough to be able to cycle: some people have children/dependents they need to drop off at school/care before travelling to work, some people do not enjoy good enough health and fitness, some people need to carry lap tops and paper work with them to work, others need to be of smart appearance and so can not simply stuff a clean top into their backpack. THE UNIVERSITY NEEDS TO PROVIDE ITS OWN BUS SERVICE BETWEEN CAMPUS AND THE PEER. It wouldnt cater for everyone, but at least that way it would free up parking space and the environment for others.|
|1||1. This is just a way of the university making money.It won't stop people using their cars, because for many people there is no viable alternative to car use; it just means we all take a cut in pay, effectively.
2. It's very fashionable at the moment to knock car-use. However we live in a society that is based on the car and the mobility it brings. For many people it is IMPOSSIBLE to get here by public transport or cycling, so why should we be penalised for this?
3. Useful ideas in the draft Transport Policy plan, about promoting use of motorcycles and scooters were removed - apparently because someone involved considered these forms of transport "dangerous". Funny how it doesn't stop the university promoting cycling, which mile for mile is far more dangerous than car use.
4. It really angers me that we are constantly being pressured to work more efficiently, both in terms of teaching and research, while at the same time being encouraged to waste our time struggling to get to work by time-inefficient foms of transport. For me to get to work by public transport, I would have to get two separate buses - neither of which (the last time I bothered to use them) ran to time. A ten-minute car journey is replaced by a forty-to fofty-minute bus journey - where is the sense in that? If I did cycle to work, where would I put the laptop, the marking, the books, etc? I know that you can fit panniers on a bicycle, but there are limits to what you could carry on one trip!
5. Most of all, I resent the way the university thinks it can dictate to me how I live my life. The decision about whether or not I take exercise or use public transport should be up to me - not up to my employer! This is ill-conceived and poorly thought-out social engineering - pretty much in line with whatever's going through the mind of the road planners in Brighton, who seem to be trying to make the town as car-unfriendly as possible, but without FIRST ensuring that a decent viable alternative to the car is in place first.|
|1||1. What will happen to any profit made on this scheme, will it be put back into better faccilities for cycle riders, will it go into the university coffers or will it go as profit for a company that will oversee the scheme?
2. What will happen if most people refuse to pay the cost i.e. mass protest
3. What happens if you cannot find a space on one day, can you reclaim the money (if you have paied up front)
4. Will spaces such as the VCs reserved space outside Sussex house become fair game or will some people still be more equal than others
5. Will reserved spaces exist for the medical staff associated with the new medical school (all thoese medics crying we need spaces as we need to go to and from the hosptial, even though a bus service exists)
|1||a charge for parking is a cut in salary. our salaries are unacceptably low, therefore a parking charge is unacceptable|
|1||Alternative travel is not helpful to me.If I travelled by bus I would need to take 2 buses to get here each day and the journey would take at least 1.5 hours (no train station) so I'd spend 15 hrs pw travelling (under 5 hours by car). I would not have chosen to live in an area not served well by public transport and not easily accessible to the University had I known that car parking would be charged at such a huge cost.|
|1||Although I don't have a car, I disagree with car parking charges because they are so unfriendly to visitors. Furthermore, some staff don't have an alternative e.g. if they live north of the Downs. I suspect parking charges are intended to run at a profit but I wonder whether they will turn out to be given the costs of running the scheme. |
|1||Apart from the obvious views shared with others, like I disagree with it in the first place as I feel that I'm paying for the privilage to come here to work, I would like to know if they intend bumping up the charges after the first year? I haven't seen anything to say that they intend to keep this amount fixed for e.g. 5 years. What do they plan?
Also what happens if I was to get a pay rise and my salary goes over the £22,000? Do I have to pay the balance between the old salary and the new till the end of the year? Should that ever happen to me, I'll feel like not wanting the pay rise, just so that I can save £150.
I'd just like to say that they don't take into consideration that some people's salary is already spoken for each month in bills, food etc; so how the hell are we supposed to find an extra £150 a year?...Not pay the electricity bill and get cut off?...Cut down on food?...Not buy my primary school daughter new shoes?
And what's happening about another exit off campus? The getting off at the end of the day is STILL a nightmare!
Thanks for fighting our corner Jeremy, as these transport people are having a laugh.|
|1||Appears significantly to fail to address the issues of: staff who use their cars for university business; share a car with another; work part-time and have difficulties finding spaces (as equally for those who use their cars for univ business and have to return to park); useless public transport for staff in certain areas (like my own), especially if they have childcare/school-run responsibilities. Scheme seems primarily designed to generate income. Like many people I resent having to pay extra to work for the univ when we're in an out-of-town site - if I worked in town I could happily go in and out on a regular and reliable service (5, 5a) and would do so. I ALSO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DOUBTS THAT SOME SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY WILL BE CHARGED EQUALLY AND WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHY EXEMPTIONS SHOULD BE MADE. What will be the criteria for "essential users"??|
|1||As a working part-time mother, I have to use a car to be able to drop off children at school and nursery and then to be able to get to work on time. It would be almost impossible not to use a car because of these reasons, as by the time I had got to school and nursery and then caught a bus which would go via Brighton, it would more than likely be time to turn around and come back, and thats without fitting in working time at the University!!!!!!
Also, will paying for car parking charges guarantee a parking space? As quite often, it takes 5-10 minutes driving around campus to find a parking space, and I would not be pleased if I was paying for a space and was unable to park. Plus, will there be any pay increase, to take into account the fact that we'll be worse off because of paying to park?|
|1||As both my partner and I work on campus (full time) the only way we can get into work in time to give lectures etc (i.e well before 9.00am and not pay £3 each for peak fare) is to purchase a weekly/monthly rail pass which for both of us comes to about £1000/year. Compare this with the cost of petrol/maintanence/insurance/tax (most of which we would still have to pay) means using the car to travel to work is sill the most cost effective. What is frustrating is that one of us often has to travel home by train to collect our daughter from nursery. We could in theory dispense with the car or at least drastically reduce its use to come to work but to do this means pre-paying for parking or rail travel one of which is then not used. The alternative is paying well over the odds for daily (especially) Rail or parking.
The only way I can see us being able to consider using the car less is a. A large pay rise, B. A reduction in chidlcare costs, C. a reduction in the railfares. Not sure which is the most unlikely!
|1||As I have said previously, the proposed charges are particularly burdensome to postgraduate students in science who MUST sometimes work late in order to perform their experiments. This is particularly frequent for those dealing with labile or living material in Life Sciences. Many of these students are female and rightly cautious of walking or using public transport in some areas after dark. How will the University cope with potential damages claims if someone is assaulted or even raped under circumstances where only the University's charges prevented them using their car to return home after working late? I think there should be a lower rate of charges (or even a waiver) for postgraduate students performing experimental work, i.e. they should be treated as workers earning less than 12000 pa. Their work indeed contributes to the University's research output in the same way as other research workers.|
|1||As somebody who lives in the country, 20 miles from the University, where public transport is not available at the times I need it to get to and from work I have no choice but to drive or face a journey time of approx 2hrs 30 mins each way. I therefore feel that I am being held to ransom by charges which, supposedly, are designed to encourage the use of public transport and I feel that there should be exemption from or reduction of, parking charges for those of us in this situation. Besides this I can't help thinking that the University will be breaking the terms of the contract under which I was employed (although no doubt they have this all tied up somehow).|
|1||As someone who does not own a car (partly, but not exclusively, on environmental grounds) I wholly support the concept that parking on campus should be payed for. HOWEVER, the transport plan was originally couched in terms that stressed the environmental justification for introducing parking charges. I am absolutely appalled that it now appears that it will encourage car drivers to buy an annual permit, the cost of which they will feel obliged to justify by driving onto campus on days when they otherwise might have cycled / walked / taken the bus or train. Charing less for an annual permit than for occaisional use is absolute insanity in environmental terms. Why not just hand out free petrol vouchers and insist that only 4x4s with engines bigger than 3.0 litres can park on campus! The current proposal simply has to be changed if the University wants to retain any shred of credibility in terms of its transport and environmental policies.
|1||At present I drive when I teach at 9.15 am as I cannot reliably arrive by train for this time unless I catch a train at 6.35am (whereas if I drive I can comfortably leave at 7.45 to arrive between 8.30 and 8.45). At other times I get the train. The effect of the parking plan is that I would not be able to teach at 9.15 am, unless I buy a parking permit, or pay the daily charge.
Purchasing an annual parking permit (at the suggested, prohibitive rates) would mean that I would rarely use the train, as I would already have paid for parking. But in paying the daily charge I would be being punished for both my responsibility towards my students in seeking to ensure that I am not late for teaching, and my instincts towards environmental protection which currently encourage me to get the train where possible. This is a problem which also arises on the days when I am required to be on campus until 6.00pm, when I regularly do not arrive home until 8.15 pm
The prohibitive rates for both the annual permit and, particularly, daily parking are counter-productive. The only way it would work for me is if my teaching were all between 10.15am and 5.00pm, which has not, as yet, been possible to arrange.
(Moving to Brighton is not an option as house prices are beyond the reach of my salary.)|
|1||At the time I travel to work there is no public transport and it appears we will not be classed as essential car users. Even if public transport is available the time taken getting to and from work will impact greatly on my working day adding a considerable amount of time on to a 12hr working shift. |
|1||Banning students who live on campus from parking here does nothing to address the policy agreed by council. Banning most of those who live off-campus from driving here during office hours in term-time would have a dramatic beneficial effect. Such a policy would not involve charging anyone any more than a nominal termly fee for permits (for those still entitled) to cover just the true cost of operating the permit scheme, but would clearly be more effective than the present scheme. I suggest that such a policy should be phased in for undergraduates, one year at a time, by publicising it in the prospectus, starting in about 1994 when we knew this traffic/parking/pollution crisis was on the way. Introducing any restructive policy for students that has not previously been publicised in the relevant prospectus for a given intake year is wholly unacceptable.|
|1||bearing in mind that I have to travel in from London to work by public transport, the current increases in rail fare, reduction in services coupled with a reduction in the bus services in Brighton and the increase in the bus fare, I've worked it out to be cheaper and more reliable to buy a car and drive to campus from London, than spending hours making a journey from London to campus using public transport. |
|1||Because of poor public transport it takes me tmore than wice as long to get to work by train instead of by car. I think there should be a discount for those living a distance of more than 1-hour-by-public-transport away.
Daily charging should be more. Staff working here throughout the year
should pay less given public transport is so poor.
|1||Bike security is a major issue, and does not appear to be taken seriously by senior management or security staff. Provision of bicycle racks away from main buildings and /or not overlooked is a gift for bike thieves. I have yet to see the racks recently installed adjacent to the main science car park actually being used!|
|1||bike sheds needed|
|1||Bus transport from Lewes (since the buses come from far beyond this section of the route) is completely unreliable. I have to allow at least an hour each day for waiting at bus stops. With a child at school I cannot leave early and if I rely on public transport I cannot guarantee arriving on time at early lectures etc. On days when I am lecturing early I have no choice but to use my car. I can't keep 150 students waiting while I am standing at a bus stop!|
|1||Buses don't run at the hours I work unless I take two buses and go via the town centre which would put an extra two hours on my journey time per day.I have had a back operation which has left me with a twisted foot that is prone to breaking there fore I can not walk long distances or cycle to work.|
|1||Buses expensive, trians ridiculously expensive. Do make us take a pay cut just because we have no choice in how we get to work.|
|1||Can someone explain how charging for car parking will "improve the choice of transport available" to me.|
|1||car parking charges should only apply to new employees or students from august 1st . It wasnt on conditions of employment for employees or prospectus for students prior to august 1st 2003. so it is not fair to impose this AFTER agreeing employment or studentship. |
|1||Car sharing should be made more feasible. Perhaps simply by using e-mail within departments to generate a list of drivers willing to share and their routes?|
|1||Car traffic and speed of cars on campus should be reduced. The campus should be predominantly a pedestrian/cycling zone, they should have the right of way, cars should go dead slow.|
|1||changing the proposal from only term time to all year was a bit underhand.
|1||Cheaper daily rates for parking would encourage people to use cars only when necessary (e.g. staying late or carrying home heavy packs of papers, books etc.) People should have an incentive to use the car less, not be penalised for occasional use.|
|1||Couple of comments
1) I was very surprised to see that undergraduates living on campus are expecting to be allowed to have a car without any restrictions or difficulties at all. This does not encourage an attitude which takes public transport into account. Furthermore I have lost count of the number of times when students have arrived very late for a tutorial and blamed lack of parking for the delay. As I point out, there are other ways of getting here, and if they drive regularly, they should know about the parking problems anyway. Bad excuse
2) The university could perhaps start up a few car-share schemes.
3) I cycle, and always have, and have cycled in big cities in several countries, so am very comfortable and confident in traffic. This is not a universal position. Many people are frightened of traffic, and, sadly, as a result, are dangerous cyclists, and soon stop cycling. I believe there is a "cycling safety school" in Brighton. Maybe students (and staff!) could be encouraged to take courses. Surely if enough people joined, SU members could get a discount.
4) Although events such as the mass cycle from the Level during national bike week raise awareness of the bike and transport in general, cycling in a huge group on a busy road is neither representative of what it is really like, nor particularly safe on the whole.
P.S. You will never know what waterproof trousers are made for untill you have cycled to the university every day in winter!!|
|1||Covered bike racks are already full in term time. The only ones that are useful are the tubular inverted U shaped ones since they allow you to lock the front wheel and the frame of the bike. All others are useless and are typically empty even when these are crammed. More of these will be needed if parking charges are introduced.|
|1||Cycling to work would be safer and more reliable if the cycle lanes were more extensive and not covered in broken glass. Will parking money be spent on adressing this issue?
A cycle route could and should be created runing through Stanmer Park towards the Patcham Area - so that people living towards Hove and Portslade have an alternative to having to go through the Town. |
|1||Cyclists needed covered lockable sheds. Bicycle sheds need not be environmentally obtrsusive|
I do not think [management] give a damn about the Environmment, except that space that is around their own or the Universities pocket.
I'm thinking off paying in 1p coins and applying on 31st July!!|
|1||Despite all the excuses about wanting to protect the environment, the only real reason for charging for parking is to make money. If only the university could be honest about this. I also do not believe that the parking charges will cause a significant reduction in the number of people bringing their cars to work. Most people drive to work because it is necessary for various reasons. When you think about it this is not surprising as the university is situated out of town on a dual carriageway. Unfortunately most people do not live within easy walking distance of a bus or train which will take them to the university, or if they do the journey time is prohibitively longer than using a car and the times of buses and trains do not fit in with their work schedule. If you live close enough and you are resonably fit you can cycle but there are quite a few people who live 15 or more miles away and the roads are too dangerous to cycle on unless you are feeling suicidal, especially on dark winters evenings. On top of all this the university is getting bigger and more people will be working here. They will all need to travel here somehow. Does the university really think that the public transport system will be able to cope with all of the extra people wanting to use it. My train in the morning is already full and on somedays South central are short of carriages which means that people are forced to stand. The car parks are already full to bursting. It is obvious that what we need is more parking spaces because it is unrealistic to expect the public transport system to be able to cope with inceased numbers of commuters. Many people will be put off taking a job here because of the transport problems. What does the university really expect people to do? Sprout wings and fly to work -eh! I think that they should get real.
|1||Does not take into consideration parents that do a school run:
Car sharing, Public Transport, Bicycle are no alternatives.
Parents of young children = No viable options
|1||Due to the fact that other employers are not passing the parking levy on to staff I think that the parking permit charges are horific. I also feel that the idea that people that come to work by car are also infact paying for peoples sallaries. If the university wishes to employ someone they should foot the bill and should not pass this on to the car driver. |
|1||During the next year I expect a mixture of casual employment and short term contracts. There appears to be no fair category into which I fit. Although I would need to come in to the University most days I would be expected to pay the most expensive (hourly) rate.|
|1||Either of the above would have more green credentials.
The policy is more to do withn a cost shift than on environmental grounds.
A joint approach with Brighton University would add weight to approaches to transport authorities/ companys.
The 'old' Travel Card that included train travel in the BATS area would entice more people on to public transport?|
|1||Faculty should have exclusive car parks.
Students should be dissuaded from driving between car-parks (e.g., accommodation to classes).|
|1||Firstly, I don't mind paying annually for parking since I am driving to work everyday. However I EXPECT a guaranteed parking space.Secondly, I don't understand why postgraduates who get paid less than £12,000 are charged and staff who get less than £12,000 are exempt from charge.
|1||Firstly, I frequently choose to work late. I enjoy cycling and using the train during the day and early evening, but prefer to use the car if I am working late for security reasons (I am female - whether that makes a difference). I object to being penalised for this, although the scheme overall makes excellent environmental sense if implemented in the way suggested here (ie charging appropriately for occasional daily use to encourage the use of public transport when possible).
Leading me to my second point - I definitely agree that the daily rate should be adjusted to match the annual rate to encourage the use of alternative means of transportation - this is the only way the objectives of the council can honestly be met... otherwise it reeks of moneymaking rather than concern for environmental issues... thankyou Jeremy for the opportunity to voice this opinion! I hope it makes a difference. |
|1||Frankly I shall simply come in less often (only as often as is necessary).|
|1||From August I will have retired and will come in to Sports Pavilion regularly. if I have to pay £2.00 I shall try to park on grass verge or Falmer village as I usually only come for max. of 45 mins. Will there be secure cycling racks?|
|1||Has/will the university ever produce a document showing where the money charged for parking will go? i.e. to ensure adequate spaces for annual pass holders (i.e. FT staff who cannot afford to live in areas with direct links to the uni) vs pay as you park (more than likely students who live within easier reach of public transport and do have the option to use it) and all the builders currently occupying spaces. And is any of this money going to be spent on improving exit from uni at the end of the day (and therefore "reducing the impact of University generated traffic on the environment and local community"!!!)|
|1||How can they charge for NOT providing an actual parking space. They should at least provide a garenteed parking space for money received in advance and we have already paid tax on that payment. A lot of the money will be going to an overpaid Transport Manager
Using the train involves changing once inward and twice on outward travel.
Time taken approx 3hrs per day as against 1/2hr by car both ways. An extra 2-1/2hrs out of my life plus the chance of getting wet. A visit to my Doctor or Dentist etc could mean having to take the day off|
|1||I agree there it should be a charge for car parking in the campus. However, the price must be reasonable. In many other universities, even some located in the city centre, the parking charge is not so much high. Why not do a survery to find out the price in other universities?|
|1||I am in favour of measures to discourage congestion and pollution, but I resent paying outside of term time, and I resent paying only for the right to look for a parking space rather than for a guaranteed space. Like many women working in HE, I am primary carer for two school-age children, and relying on public transport in the mornings wil not get me to work on time. This is the only reason I continue to use a car, and I'd like to have seen some concessions for parents in similar circumstances.|
|1||I am one of those people who should use public transport - I live very close to Brighton London Road Station and would do so if it was cheaper. I would also like to use my bike but am too scared to cycle along the Lewes Road at 8.45 a.m. It is much too dangerous and there is no where to shower or change in Sussex House as far as I am aware.|
|1||I am totally opposed to these charges because it is taking a salary cut which is hard when you don't earn a lot, and it was not agreed to when we were employed by the University.
Charges should only be for NEW employees and students as from 1 August 03.|
|1||I am very concerned that learners on my Open Language courses will be discouraged from applying - we already have one withdrawal. Although the tutors who come in for a very short amount of time will pay a reduced rate, what they really need is a guaranteed place and not a salary cut.|
|1||I believe that an employer that asks the employees to pay in order to come to work is unacceptable. I have been working in different University around Europe and I never came across a similar unreasonable request.|
|1||I believe that the propossed car park charges have not taken into account people who have no alternative to using the car. I disagree with the propossed charges, they cannot 'encourage' people like me to use alternative transport. The Idea of car pooling is essentially a cop-out when people have completely different working hours (eg research scientist versus administrative staff). The university has seen massive expansion over the last year alone with not a single additional parking space been made available. This is incredible and in my opinion implies neglect on the part of the planners. I resent having to pay for parking at my work place. Afterall this is not central London!! I believe the charges will discourage people from working here. It really does nothing to create a good working environment. The amount of £300 also appears excessive. My car has in the past been vandalised in the science car park and the response from security was less than satisfactory. I often seen dumped cars occupying spaces in the science car park. Does this charge imply greater protection??? It is disturbing to hear that the charge does not even guarantee a parking space. This really is unbelieveable. A blanket charge also seems unfair. Charging by usage would be obvious. If these charges come in, it seems that the University will make an awful amount of money for essentially doing nothing. I resent the quise of environmental protection being used as an excuse to charge staff to park at work. |
|1||I bring my young son into the creche here and from next year, my second child will attend the University creche. Under the new scheme no allowances are made for people who have to do this, especially those of us who are forced to live far from the campus (20 miles) because of the prohibitively expensive local housing market. Sometimes environental justice and social justice are at odds with one another and environmental concern is of course, more profitable. |
|1||I came to work by train for one year and then reverted to my car -mainly because I feel safer, I can go to the gym opposite and not have to walk down a dark path next to the railway, or stay late and not worry about a deserted, cold station. Nothing is more important than feeling safe, and for that I am obliged and prepared to pay. It makes little sense to use public transport when the fixed costs of having a car are already so high - ( I think I spend 700.00 a year on fixed costs) and car parking will just be another one of those fixed costs - and the variable costs of transport are higher than petrol. I spend 1.20 on petrol travelling by car - the train is 2.80. If the parking is only 1.00 I still save. If there was nighttime security at the station, and surrounds, and cctv I would probably be more prepared to use the station/route to the gym, but it would still have to be a substantial saving on my petrol/parking charges to make the train attractive. The university could also run its own hopper style buses from Brighton and Lewis, or arrange a round robin pick up at various places in town - punative measures may work but will probalby just piss us off and not reduce car use at all. The carrot of free/very cheap transport would make me use it. If the staff feel that strongly then they should follow our European friends and arrange a mass boycott of the scheme and just drive in anyway.|
|1||I can see why people drive with public transport in its present state. By bike it takes we 20-25 minutes by bus it averages around 40 minutes, I'm sure driving would be faster (and as I own a space in Brighton convenient I just disagree with driving in cities).|
|1||I can't help feeling the university is charging to make money. To counter this, the university should make public its accounts associated with charging. If there is a surplus, then the money should be used, via consultation, to benefit the university community, e.g. a swimming pool, improvements to local facilities, ...|
|1||I disagree with the grounds for introducing charges as I feel it will make little to no difference to the amount of traffic onto the university campus.
If charges are to be introduced they should at the very least be reduced to be comparable with other institutions.|
|1||I do believe in principle with car park charges. However, I MUST drive to work most days because I conduct home visits for research. I must drive to these because of extensive kit, etc. I would be inclined to take the bus or cycle on those days if there were some sort of financial incentive. The current (proposed) system provides none.|
|1||I don't think all cases are being taken into account. My personal situation is that I am a mother who has two children to drop off/pick up at separate schools. It is impossible to get public transport and I feel as though I'm being punished for this! |
|1||I dont think it is reasonable to charge for parking on a campus University. I work long hours, often finishing at 8pm. If I then had to take public transport home, I would never see my children. Perhaps the University would rather I worked less, brought in less grants and cared less about the sucess of the University?|
||I expect the Vice Chancellor and all other senior managers, plus the transport
manager, will give public example of their environmental beliefs by: -not excluding
themselves from paying charges (by making themselves 'essential car users')
-often coming to work by means other than car
|1||I feel that parking charges are a pay cut that should be more effectively challenged by campus unions. If charges are deemed essential then they should be for WEEKDAYS IN TERM-TIME ONLY|
|1||I feel that the parking plan does not address the issue of people who have decided, for whatever reason, that they cannot move to Brighton. On the various questionnaires that I have seen no-one has asked the question "How far do live from the University?"
As someone who has a 35 mile journey to Sussex it would be almost impossible for me to travel by public transport. The journey could involve 3 or even 4 trains. I would love to be able to move to Brighton and travel in by bus /train. However I don't have a permanent position here and do not feel that I can move house based on a fixed term contact.
However high the charges are they will not alter my decision to travel by car. (However, I might start looking for a job elswhere)
|1||I fully support measures which encourage the use of public transport, however, my half hour car journey to work would become over an hour long by bus as I would have to get two buses. This would not only affect my "work-life balance" but also what I consider to be my very flexible (always in favour of the University) approach to my working hours. I am often here early and very rarely leave before 18.00. If I had to travel by public transport I would arrive for 09.00 and leave at 17.30 with no impromptu (unpaid) overtime being worked. I believe that I am left with no choice but to pay for car parking.|
|1||I have a concern about the policy not recognising the needs of parents who have to use cars to bring children to the creche/nursery.|
|1||I have a disabled daughter who attends a Special School, (as a single parent) I have always tried to work as many hours as I possible can around her schooling and transport. Although public transport is available for where I live - using it would mean I would either have to work less hours or spend less time with my family and also have to pay additional childcare costs. Frequently I am taking my daughters directly to out of school activities and need the car to take them there. I am afraid although I am on a low income and on means-tested benefits I will continue to use my car as a life-style choice and have to cough up whatever the University imposes.|
|1||I have a handicapped 12 year old child (autistic - and I have a blue disability badge for him) who I have to take to school (at Falmer) on my way to work so if I were to use public transport that would mean two sets of fares so would work out expensive. Since I am part-time on low salary (therefore low income) I do not feel I should have to pay car park fees just to earn a living. It it were enforced I would probably have to look for a job nearer home.|
||I have many issues relating to this plan which would take alll day to discuss.
I have tried to discuss them in a constructive civil manner [...]. One of my main issues is
that upon my appointment at Sussex I was unable to afford anywhere nearby to
live. I therefore had to commute everyday the 145 mile round trip from Southampton.
Last year I was able to to move closer though Brighton's prices meant that
I had to move to Pevensey Bay.To travel from both of these places by public
transport would take 4-5 hrs an day and be very expensive!
Yet upon asking I'm supposedly an non essential car users! To me It seems that
because I cannot afford to live within public transport distance from work
I get further financial penalities. The University doesn't care about the Environment
they are using this as a capital making scheme. If the charges where to pay
for the improvements then where will all the money be going in years four and
five when many of the the startup cost will have been recouped?
|1||I have worked for the University for nine years and consider free parking a part of my employment conditions. These charges now are, in effect, a pay cut for me. Why can't the university be grateful for decent hard-working staff and grant them a waiver on the £300 fee. Do they want to lose us all?|
|1||I have worked here for nearly 20 years and I was encouraged to work here due to the free ample parking. Because of this I moved to Worthing and with having young children and working part time I need to drive to work. My conditions of service have been altered and I am very upset about it. I have particular problems dropping off children in Worthing means I cannot get to campus before 9 am when we are likely to find a space. I fear that from September I will have to pay for a space that I will not find. Going by train is not an option time wise for collecting children from school and dropping them off
all the way away in Worthing. Plus the cost of return rail travel to and from Worthing would be more expensive and more time consuming for me.|
|1||I haven't heard of any plans to increase available parking spaces despite it already being an enormous problem which I presume will only get worse when the new buildings are up and running. I feel that to insist on paid parking without guarantee of a space is ridiculous. I also currently object to wasting my time whilst at work hunting for a parking space across campus. I'm assuming that the university are hoping that bringing in additional charges will reduce the load but this seems to be a very short term plan especially as new buildings seem to spring up on top of the current parking spaces at a rapid rate. Additonally getting off campus after work is a nightmare which could be improved with a few simple changes. Perhaps reducing the time people queue with their motors running to go home every night would have beneficial effects on the environment. Also whilst I do not ride to work currently this is partly because cyclists on the road to Woodingdean are a danger to themselves and others. A cycle path along that road would not be a bad idea.|
|1||I live 13 miles away from the University and travelling by train and bus (the quickest way) would cost at least £10 a day.
Travelling by bus would cost less and I would prefer to do this but would necessitate me catching a bus at 0645 from Steyning where I live to get to Brighton to just miss a bus to get me to the University. A cold and draughty wait in winter would result in me arriving at the University particularly early for work but catching the bus from Steyning an hour later would mean that I could not arrive in time to begin work at 9 am. Getting home in the evening would be a similar nightmare and I would have to leave early - well before 5 pm.|
|1||I live in a rural area poorly served by public transport. On late nights trains are often cancelled on the branch line and I would be left stranded i.e. have to take a taxi. |
|2||I live in Hove (poet's corner) and would like to cycle to work in the summer but feel there is no good, safe cycle route from where I live. (I don't feel safe cycling with busy traffic). Also the bus route from where I live takes ages. Why can't we have a free/cheap park and ride scheme to the university. I pay a fortune for rent/council tax already. Brighton is not cheap!!! Yet another charge for car parking is going to severely effect my bank balance especially as I may be going part-time next year.|
|1||I really think this is just a tax on my already pathetic income - I already "forced" to live in an area where there is no viable alternative means of transportation. Unless we can all work at home (and/or we are living in another country where there is good public transport), I don't think this can resolve any issues about the car parking, ... I don't think the University is really listening to people like us, ...|
|1||I see the charge as being a pay cut (£300+Tax) when public transport will still cost me more than I am paying + the car parking charge|
|1||I strongly object to having to pay for the right to 'hunt' for a parking space, should we be ‘forced’ to pay then adequate spaces should be available for all pre-paying car park users. Advance thought and action should have been taken in order to accommodate the increase in use of car parks that new buildings will / have incurred and for car park space 'lost' to new buildings. No information has been forthcoming with regard to those who are absent from the University for periods of Maternity Leave. I believe this plan to have been inadequately thought out before being imposed.|
|1||I suppose the majorirty of the staff working for the university also has a family to run. They do not simply use their cars to come to work, but also to do the shopping , pick up kids e.t.c. on the way. By not using the car they would have to leave much earlier, which could seriously hinder their progress with their jobs. Getting home by public transport, but then using the car just as much for doing the jobs which they could have done on the way back from work would cause just as much damage to the environment.
Besides, this university is a so called campus university, so one of the major attraction for staff and students would be the possibility of easy access by any means aof transport, including cars.
In case the parking charge is going to be introduced I can not see any guarantee, that the income generated by the charges is going to be spent on either improving the traffic situation (access to and from the university) or improving the public transport. Or would that mean that staff and students can have reduced fares on public transport? The only real measure that would effectively reduce the usage of cars would in fact be of the introduction of a much reduced fare on public transport to the university and not the taxing of already underpaid staff and students without any income. |
|1||I tend to only use the car when I need it for University-related work, such as collecting laboratory supplies or transporting large amounts of marking on research data to and form home.
An environmentally-sound transport policy should try and reduce car usage. By charging a higher rate for daily usage, the policy will tempt annual-policy holders to use their cars MORE, increasing environmental impact.
Many faculty working in non-science areas have less need to come in outside of term time, whereas those working in laboratory-based research need to come in more out of term. By charging out of term time, the system is effectively taxing those who work whose main activities are not restricted to term time.|
|1||I think charging is the only solution to the environmental costs of car use. I would be strongly in favour of a pay-as-you-go option, so that on days when it is pouring with rai, or I'm feeling too old and knackered I can chose to drive. Most of the time (80%) or more, I cycle (from Kingston)
Perhaps non car users could be given an annual bonus (or reduced teaching load ....) !!!!!|
|1||I think charging should be on a daily basis, as this would encourage using public transport and teleworking.|
|1||I think if people have paid for an annual permit, especially if they are paying 300 pounds, it will only encourage them to use the car every day to make it worth while.
Also, if the charge is to cover the 'cost of the car parks', how much is spent on the car parks now?, I only ever remember the biols car park being resurfaced once in 29 years! Aren't we only going to cover the cost of:
a) setting up the scheme
b) policing the scheme|
|1||I think that it's outrageous to charge without the guarantee of a space. Staff shouldn't have to pay, or at least, should be subsidised if they live beyond a certain distance from the University.|
|1||I think that parking space should be readily available for those who wish to occassionally use their cars - annual fees encourage people to use their cars all the time|
|1||I think the largest problem with parking is due to under graduates travelling from the other side of campus to lectures. Parking is rarely a problem other than in term-time. |
|1||I think the University clearly needs to reduce car usage for many reasons, a carrot and stick approach is needed. Not just stick. Local buses and trains have a huge number of users because of the university and more concessionary rates for Uni. staff should be available.|
|1||I think the University has a captive market so is guaranteed income from parking charges whether or not staff and students agree to it. I can understand charging for parking in the city/town centre, but not at a campus set amongst countryside. I presume (I may be wrong) that the majority of people that drive to the campus do so because they need to, i.e. they live in an area where public transport is limited to the University. 90% of staff in my department live in villages in East Sussex, for example. I drive to work because I drop my son off to school on the way here, and pick him up on the way home, and if I was to use public transport I would not be able to fit in my required 29 hours per week. If parking charges are introduced, the rates should be in-line with charges in Brighton and Hove. For example, in Brighton you can still buy parking vouchers which charge either 50 pence per hour or £1 depending how near the city centre you are. As we are so far out of the city centre, it could be assumed therefore that the going hourly rate should be 50 pence. In Hove where payment machines have been introduced, the charges are (I think) 10p for half an hour, 30p for one hour, and 50p for two hours (I may be a few pence out, but these charges are reasonable charges, I think).
I think encouraging people to use greener methods of transport, and putting car-sharing schemes in place, for example, and providing subsidised public transport, that runs regularly, is necessary, and would automatically encourage less car use on campus.
On the day that I don't collect my son from school (on a Monday) my Mother collects him and brings him to a drama class held at 4.15 at the Gardner Arts Centre, (I then collect him when his class ends at 5.15). When parking fees are introduced this means I will be paying for an annual permit, plus my Mother will be paying in order to drop my son off at drama (and I will probably offer to pay for that charge too), and if proposed plans go ahead in the area I live in Brighton I will be paying (in a purely residential area) to park outside my home as well!!! I greatly object to the greed that is behind these parking schemes, sold as green initiatives, and where the supposed benefits to the public (e.g. better - cheaper, more reliable, quicker - public transport) are hard to be seen!
|1||I think the University should be putting pressure onto the Rail companies for a reduction in train fares for UoS staff. The Unizone card gives students approximately half price travel so a similar scheme for staff with a quarter reduction would hopefully encourage more people to consider travel by train. As an aside, I have worked for the University for nine years. When I started my journey took 50mins now it takes 1hr 15mins. With this sort of service people will need a huge encouragement to reduce their travel by car. |
|1||I travel from Saltdean. There used to be 1 bus to the University from Rottingdean at 8.30. This has now been cancelled so I am forced to travel by car, there being no alternative.|
|1||I USE MY CAR PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE CONVENIENCE OF ARRIVING AND LEAVING WHEN I LIKE AND THE TIME IT TAKES TO TRAVEL BY CAR. THIS TIME WOULD INCREASE BY 35 MINS IF I USED THE TRAIN OR BUS.|
|1||I use public transport in term time but the car in vacation time as it allows me to organise my life between 4 kids at home and work better - saves me 45 mins a day.
I think that charging low paid workers (I earn well below the national average wage) is DISGUSTING. My pay is being cut. The university is spending a huge amount of money on these changes and asking its staff to cough up for it.
I fully support public transport but the problem is the unreliablility.
What is totally unacceptable to me is the university charging for the right to look for a place not the car parking place itself. I could spend money and not be able to find a place to park.
We , the support staff, are low paid and work hard and above our duties and I do not wish to have a pay cut . It is an insult.
During vacation time the car park is empty and I definately should not be charged for this. If I drive in it is 15 mins from home to being in the office rather than up yo 45 mins one way. I have four kids and have to be able to sort out my committments in the best way possible. I do use public transport eg I never drive into the town centre.
I am really annoyed at these half baked transport plans. I have heard the university is employing a manager at 40, 000 to be in charge. What a waste of money.|
|1||I use the car when I need to get in early or leave late, or when I need the car for work related purposes. When the charges are levied I will NEVER drive to the university EVER again. The trains are unreliable and double my travelling time the delays are getting worse as time goes on. The reduction in my working time will probably be much greater than the parking charges!
The parking charges makes this university an unwelcoming place to work and to study. THe first impression is that the visitor or new employee is not appreciated, and is actually descouraged from visiting. University of Sussex staff and students already have a massive reduction in disposable income compared to employees at other UK universities in as a result of the high cost of housing. This is just another bill which lowers the quality of life even more for hard pressed university salaries. Campus universities such as Sussex need good road links and plentiful car parking. It should be possible to make more parking spaces and to do this in an environmentally considerate way.
It is interesting that the University is not encouraging staff to work from home. This is a way in which pollution could be reduced, and the parking eased. A campus university such as Sussex will only do damage to it's admissions, productivity and retention by implementing this dreadful and unpopular transport policy. I am determined not to accept this evil pay cut. |
|1||I very much doubt that public transport will be able to cope, even ifonly a low percentage of car drivers convert to public transport, this is especially the case for the buses.
I don't see how charging for parking is "improving the choices of tranport available to drivers".|
|1||I work in CCE where myself and collegues work a lot of evenings (as do our part-time students). Parking charges should not penalise people who use vehicles because they have to travel home late, when public transport is both less reliable/available and (at least in perception if not in fact) less safe. I am sure there are many others on campus who also work late e.g. library staff, bar staff and are in the same position. I use public transport unless I have a late evening, it is not praticable to travel home by train after 8pm as trains to Seaford are only 1 an hour.|
|1||I would be happy to pay for parking provided we could be guarenteed a parking place and not just the right to hunt for a spot.|
|1||I would be more likely to travel by train if there were more trains running after 6:00pm and at weekends. Not only does this include trains running from Falmer Station, but connecting trains from Brighton and Lewes to surrounding areas.|
|1||I would come by bike more often but the cycle path is dangerous, this needs urgent attention expecially around the 'sainsbury's gyratory'. The bus fares have just gone up and there are less buses, I still need to be able to get on and off campus. I teach until 9.00pm buses could be improved in the evening for faculty and students.|
|1||I would consider travelling by bus regularly if the 85A (to Patcham) was more frequent. Working part time, it is impossible to get home during the middle of the day.|
|1||I would just like to add that due to location in which I live public transport is not impossible I would have to travel twice the distance, catch two buses and the journey would take twice as long. I think the misconception here is that anyone that uses car can get to the university by other means, they seems to forget that the small minority are not all living next to a train station, or have able to use a regular bus service, or most importantly have no suitable, safe roads to cycle on.|
|1||I would like to see reduced public transport fares for staff & students.
I would like to see better bike paths.|
|1||I would much rather charges are worked out, depending on where you live.i.e someone living 10 miles from campus should pay less than someone living within a few miles. I have no other way of getting to work other than by car so why should I have to pay the same as someone who could tavel by other means but doesn't? |
|1||I would prefer to walk or cycle to work but I live over 20 miles away in a village that receives no public transport. I have to come to the University each day throughout the year because my work requires it. In this time I generate many 10's of thousands of pounds of research income and academic prestige for the University. If I was writing a book that might earn me 10's of thousands of pounds, I could stay at home, write, collect my salary, and save myself the expense of comming to work.|
|1||I've been obliged to bring the car more than I want to because of school run on the way, but in principle I agree that parking should be paid for if the provision is going to be better than it is now, and if public transport were were less expensive. £1 or £2 a day to park is still going to be cheaper than taking the train. |
|1||If Car drivers are having to pay to park, then we should at least be guaranteed a parking place, I have looked into the possiblity of travelling to work by train, but it takes to long, and cost too much,and could then no longer afford to keep my car, hence losing the voluntary work I do. Perhaps Norman Tebbitts words should be used here, where he urged to people to get on their bikes to look for work, that is what I have done and am now being penalised for it, and I also feel that this is another tax on car users and underhand at that.|
|1||If I had to use public transport I would leave work at 5:30 pm to get home at 7:00pm instead of leaving at 6:30pm to get home at 7:00 therefore doing 5hrs per week less work for the university.
I also car share of sorts in taking my wife to work on the way here to save her a 2 hour journey by foot and public transport.
The cost of public transport and time for both of us outways the cost of parking and therefore the policy will not encourgae me to use public transport but just raise money for the university.
|1||If the area is of such outstanding beauty that we have to pay to park our cars to come to work, how come Brighton & Hove football stadium is to be built on our doorstep? Will all supporters be travelling by train/bus? Where's the concern for the enviornment and beauty in this instance?
Why would I use public transport when it would take me 2 buses and the best part of an hour each end of the day to get to and from work when by car it's 10-15 minutes?|
|1||If the University didn't employ a largely superfluous Transport Manager at an exorbitant salary would there be any need for parking charges?|
|1||If you have young kids you need a car (getting to nurseries etc.)
If you leave the car at home then you need a resident's permit.
So you pay twice for parking.
Also, with unreliability of trains, collecting kids from nursery by train is a lottery.|
|1||In other car parks you find a space and then pay. Here we will pay in advance for the year and there is no gaurantee of a parking space. Are we to get refunds when we can not park. This does not seem to be a fair contract when all it gives you is permission to look for somewhere to park.|
|1||It assumes we all live in Brighton, Lewes or London where public transport is much easier. I live in Shoreham which is 10 miles away. On a bad day, a train journey can take up to 45 mins - 1 hour and can involve changing twice; on a good day it might go straight through and take 30 mins. What in that is going to encourage me to take public transport?|
|1||It disadvantages those of us who live far from campus. I commuted from East Worthing by train for 5 years. Then I bought a car, because I needed it for fieldwork (i.e. my research). I could not support both the expense of running a car and rail season tickets, so I drive to work every day. This takes half the time and costs significantly less. Parking charges should be on a scale that reflects how difficult and expensive the alternatives really are. I save an hour every day by driving, and several hundred pounds a year. A £300 / year parking penalty will not make rail a cheaper option for me, nor, I am sure, for many others living outside the Brighton/Lewes areas..|
|1||It doesn't take into account difficulties you might have with getting to work by public transport ie. location of bus stop/train station in relation to house|
|1||It fails to answer the main problem for me, which is the lack of a frequent bus service between Woodingdean and the university|
|1||It is blatantly clear that the reason to introduce this fee is the money, not any environmental issue. Simply, any public transport costs more than £300 per year, therefore nobody is encouraged to leave the car at home. |
|1||It is not always easy for everyone to use public transport, if I lived in Brighton or closer I would however to get here by public transport would take a 30 minute walk to train station then 2 trains and I would be unhappy about doing the walk alone at night when I sometimes work quite late. Also it is unclear whether postgraduates will be treated as staff or students when the charges are brought in. GTA's are counted for staff for most things as they are on the payroll and on a very low wage and in my opinion should be treated as staff earning under £12000 not as students.
[The Transport Manager] did not know how postgraduates would be charged when I approached her.
I would also like to point out that the biggest cause of environmental harm through pollution has got to be caused by the ridiculous ques to get out of the university in the evenings. it can take 15 minutes to get as far as the roundabout and out of uni and that is 15 minutes of fumes pumping into the environment. I think something needs to be done about that first as it is counterproductive otherwise. Thanks|
|1||It seems that it will be cheaper for me to pay for the annual permit. I would prefer to pay on a daily rate as I had decided that I would work from home more often in order to avoid coming on to campus and paying parking fees. It is not possible for me to use public transport as I am usually dropping off/collecting children from school. I certainly think that making the annual rate cheaper is not going to discourage people from travelling by car on days when they have another, possibly less convenient, alternative.|
|1||it show little or no cosideration for the work force. the university had a policy of its employees living within 20 miles of the campus. much of that are is not served by an adaquate, reliable public transport service. It is unlikely to benifit the environmnet and will produce many negative effect, eg availablity of faculty who dont have to be here to do their research. it is an unjust tax against the science areas. it will discourage invitations for people to visit. ie teachers parents school kids etc. overall it can only do harm to us all.
i do wonder if there wouldnt be a case of sueing the university under the new stress in the workplace laws for an unecessary burden of stress this policy will cause. not to mention the effective pay cut we all get|
|1||It took me three quarters of an hour yesterday to try to get to Brighton from the University for a 4.00pm appointment. I failed and left the bus at 4.10pm (having left my office to get a bus at 3.10pm) at the Lewes Road Depot getting my husband to leave work early to pick me up and get me into Brighton (Churchil Square) albeit late for my appointment.
It also takes me one and a half hours to travel to the University from where I live by public transport - it takes fifteen minutes by car. I arrive at my office early and very often leave late, if I am forced to use public transport the University will loose out on the time I put in as I would stick to a 7.5 hour day instead of 9-12 hour working day.|
|1||It would be helpful to include a question as to why, if you live relatively close to the University, you do not use Public Transport i.e. child care, school drop offs, dependents etc|
|1||It would make more sense to simply ban the use of car parks during the working week for those living on campus, or within a 10 minute walking radius of train stations in Brighton and Lewes.|
|1||It would take me 90 mins from home to university in EACH direction by public transport. I cannot afford 3 hours travelling time each day. The parking charges are nothing short of a pay cut and are very much higher than charges levied elsewhere, including city-centre universities.|
|1||It's muddled. Charging for the right to hunt for a space will cause resentment at a time when the number of spaces available is falling. The University has NOT done enough to ensure that there is adequate public transport to discourage car use. I use the car as it's a question of life/work balance. I would simply have to spend hours a day using public transport to get in and quite honestly I am not prepared to do that. |
|1||Latest proposals fail to be equitable or deterring; still favour Btn. residents who have choices. What of part year people (it is unclear) - if "FTE" will pay £1 per day for 150 days working - in effect paying more per day than full year workers yet recieving less in pay! (i.e. annual charge for 30 weeks) Have any studies been made re. train capacity - it is tight standing room only (morn & eve) at present - if more to use the (unsubsidised, expensive, dirty, unreliable) ) trains (and are no buses to Lancing) how are we to squeeze in? Would not object to a fee for C.P. wear and tear. P.S. have always brought two, non-driving, colleagues to work, will this count as car-share?!|
|1||Live in North London and commute (until I find somehere to live down here) amazed at the unreliability, uncomfortableness and dirtiness of the trains.
Surely the University, a major employer, can bring pressure to bear on the train companies to improve their services?
These need to be not only more frequent, reliable, clean and comfortable, but more "joined-up" to use the New Labour phrase. I cannot count the number of times when the train into Brighton from Falmer has failed to make a connection with the fast train to Victoria: when you ask station staff they say "the trains don't connect".
And why are there virtually no fast trains from Victoria to Brighton inthe morning peak?
|1||Make all routes to the uni safe for cycling esp. Ditchling road top end near Stanmer Park. A few more 86 buses through day, evening.
|1||Many postgraduates who are required to be here full time (9-5) earn well under £12, 000, yet are not exempt as staff are from the charges, why? |
|1||Much more focus should be placed on PUBLIC transport:
a) the university encouraging its improvenment locally
b) the university actively PROMOTING the use of public transport by offering subsidies and/or interest-free loans to staff - and some sort of incentive to students.
I am a green and still drive. The more draconian the parking charges (and, I suspect, the congestion and irritation of using the new schemes) the more likely I am to change my ways. Terrible but true.|
|1||My car journey from Hassocks takes 13 minutes. It would be 50 minutes by train (change at Brighton) and over an hour by bus. Cycling over Ditchling Beacon every day is NOT an option if you are not a fitness fanatic! Anything other than car travel will seriously affect either my time spent at University doing useful work or the time that I spend at home with my wife and kids.
The proposed car parking charges are an absolute disgrace, since we are effectively being taxed to come to work and are actually no better off at all. There is no chance whatsoever of any significant reduction in car use for anyone who lives outside of the BN1 postcode area, where bus/train options are reasonable. Outside of term time there is no real car parking problem. Why not just charge £1 per day for the 30 weeks of term time = £150 per annum? This would be half the £300 cost currently being threatened.
|1||my opinion on parking charges is that the university are using the enviomental issue as an excuse,all they want to do is create more money to fund other ridiculous projects that will be a complete waste of time and of course more jobs for the boys or girls.Hopefully all the unions can get together and let the vice chancellor and the registrar know that a better policy is needed and if not all union members won't pay.|
|1||My partner and I both work full-time at the University. Public transport from our home area is very restricted. We often need to come in at different times, on top of which we have to use a car to transport our (18-month old) child daily to and from kindergarten on the way to and from work. We are therefore trapped in the University's charging system whatever it is. Could there not be some flexibility in the amounts charged depending on different circumstances?|
|1||My responses to 12-14 are based on the assumption that the parking charges are a net revenue-raiser for the University, and thus represent an overall reduction of staff wages. I would not object if they were revenue-neutral.
I also feel strongly that there should be concessions for those who bring children to the creche and nursery. It is not feasible in most cases for parents to bring young children by public transport or bike, so the charges can have no 'green' effect here and simply represent a tax on parents - often already short of money - by the University.
|1||No consideration given to people who live due south of the University. The Falmer Rd has no footpath, cycle path, and a very poor bus service from Woodingdean and nothing from the coast. Makes travel from Rottingdean, Saltdean, Ovingdean unfeasible except by car, due to the time and cost any public transport alternative would take (bus into Brighton and bus/train out to Falmer). It is NOT safe to cycle direct, and walking is hazardous as no footpath available past Woodingdean.|
|1||no, only that because I have to drop 2 children off at school on the way to work - and I live in Westdene. So although I'd love to come to work using subsidised public transport, it is impossible. |
|1||Not a bad scheme, but I am disappointed that retired staff who are still active in teaching and or research and contributing to the work of the university, usually without payment, and in many cases still bringing in grant overhead money to the university are not being treated as students or low-earning faculty, rather than being charged at the full rate.
I would prefer the daily charges to apply only in term time, to reduce pressure on spaces, but regardless of the final outcome on this, it is important to charge visitors all through the year, to prevent park-and-ride use by outsiders.|
|1||Object to not being allocated a dedicated space but being charged for it |
|1||On environmental grounds, all users should pay the economic rate for car parking, with only very limited exceptions that should be subsidised by the University, e.g. people with disabilities which make car more appropriate transport. There should be no long-term subsidies for car-use. However there should be a transitional subsidy, say for up to 5 years, for existing lower paid staff and students. After this period all users should pay the same rate. (The lower rate for all students, so that staff are effectively subsidising student car-ownership, is particularly offensive as well as environmentally wrong.)|
|1||Over the years whenever charging for car parking has come up I have always made the comment "If they choose to build a University out of town then they must expect people to use their cars to come here". It was a perk put forward at my interview in 1979 of free parking! There are a lot of people who do live out of town who perhaps would not have applied for a job at the University if it had meant going into town to work if it had been built in Brighton. Now we are paying for this scenario. What makes me so angry is the assumption by a lot of people on the environmental bandwagon that everybody lives in Brighton or Lewes, is virtually on the level, has buses and trains at their fingertips or is extremely fit to be able to bike into the university on cycle tracks provided on every road in the county. We are not all in this category so why should people be penalised because they do not live in the city or Lewes and have no option but to travel by car.
As it happens my sister and I do share the driving - she drives one week and I drive the next week. We live in the back end of Saltdean. Publice transport - no trains, just buses - would take us at least two hours, if not more. This is 4 hours on top of a days work 5 days a week and I find this unacceptable both ends of the day and in the winter in the dark. I am 57 my sister is 63 and there is no way we are getting on a tandem winter and summer, to cycle to work just to please the "environmentalists". The Falmer Road is extremely dangerous for cyclists as it is rather narrow and we are not prepared to put our lives at risk. We do our bit with recycling but cannot do much about our small cars which are necessary to get to our jobs of many years to earn the money to live. After all they do not burn a lot of fuel or emit a lot of fumes either. The buses are probably a lot worse as far as fumes are concerned anyway, although obviously they do take a lot more people. Of course this will affect the mums who have to drop their children off at school and then come into work and I expect they can ill afford this extra amount. At the end of the day, sad as it might be, the car is here to stay and if we have to pay, we will have to pay but, in effect, this is a drop in salary for us car owners. It might have been a lot better if we were sure of getting a parking place but we are not necessarily going to get a parking place. What about when some of the car parks are closed? I had heard a rumour that EDB car park (one of the biggest) was closing for quite some considerable time. Where are we all supposed to go, I ask myself. At least we have our own IDS car park which relieves the pressure somewhat, but it is not big enough for everybody here at IDS.
|1||PARKING FEES SHOULD ONLY APPLY TO TERM TIME WHEN USAGE IS AT ITS MAXIMUM.WHY SHOULD OCASIONAL CAR USERS HAVE TO PAY HIGHER DAILY FEES!|
|1||People who drive tell me there are not enough parking spaces on campus. If there is a charge to park, then there should be enough spaces to go around everyone who has paid.|
|1||Personally there is no way I would be able to get here sensibly using public transport. Car share is out of the question because of my hours. My answer to the last question is that I disagree with the parking charges altogether!|
No plan for parking can work unless there is widespread agreement about its objectives and the effectiveness of its strategy.
This year's plan, different and worse than last year's plan, seems designed only to succeed in angering a very great many poorly paid
people. As it stands, without concession to those who live beyoind reach of public transport, without improvements in public transport and
its increasing NOT DECREASING costs, it is the University which stands to loose a lot - even those who won't bother to drop in to the University for seminars, or give it the once over as prospective students, or come so readily themselves to give seminars, for instance.
THIS plan needs to go back to the Drawingboard for substantial revision of very many details which are perhaps coming to light with this Questionnaire. If any money is to be taken from employees then there must be a lot more than a license to hunt to show for it!
And however worthy the environment is as a cause for good works, it is plainly not the University's business to establish public policy by charging their employees to do it while also cutting their effective working time.|
|1||Primarily my family comes first and the car buys me time to support all their daily needs both before and after work.I could not support them by any other means of transport.
I am supposed to start work at 9am. In practice and with good-will it has to be earlier to allow preparation as the timetable starts at 9am. The local bus is not an option as I would arrive late.
If I am financially penalised by car parking charges at work I, my family and the effectiveness of my delivery of service here at work would be considerably more than just "out of pocket".
It is plain from these proposals that family friendly policies at Sussex are dead and that the management here does not have a green heart but a greedy one along with its greedy eye on income from not only employees and students pockets but that of potential football fans.
This proposal should be abandoned and the transport problems of the country be dealt with by the Government.
|1||Proposals as are compromise safety for staff and students since contrary to specific assurances given at the time, individuals will be identified on their vehicles. This gives potential for vandalism and stalking|
|1||Rather than providing incentives to use public transportation, this scheme begins by punishing travellers who use alternate transport. Some companies subsidize the cost of season tickets, as an added benefit to salary. With the worsening of the train service, its gross and unreasonable expense and lack of convenience, there is not much that could convince me to turn an 8 minute trip into a one and half hour journey with two trains, a lack of reliability and questionable safety both mechanically and personally.|
|1||Reasonable journeys on public transport become difficult or impossible when one has children to drop off/pick up before/after work. If public transport is not a feasible option every day then under the current proposal there is little incentive to use it at all if one doesn't already do so.
Imposing what is equivalent to a tax, in some cases >1%, on members of staff who are not able to get to work on public transport will do little to improve morale or engender goodwill. With national pay scales might Sussex car drivers paying for an annual permit receive the lowest take home pay in the sector? How does the University expect to improve its standing with what could be a significant number of resentful staff?
|1||Salaries are low enough without having a pay cut for the honour of working in Sussex University|
|1||second time filled in as original lost.
still puzzled by complicated charging mechanism that doesn't fit Transport policy.
|1||Senate approved only term time charging and this should have been adhered to. I don't agree with charging during the vacation. Summer teaching operations necessitate large numbers of very temporary staff teaching for just an hour or a couple of hours and I think they should not be charged.|
|1||shambolic and/or devious
why no progress yet on car sharing?|
|1||Should exempt people who have to travel by car to campus because they have children in the nursery from charges as essential users|
|1||Since we were asked for our comments last year there has been no change to bus journeys between Lewes and the university, except that Stagecoach have put their fares up again. Return from bus station to uni costs £2.20 cf £2.40 to Brighton. From Malling estate/street £2.70 return to university.|
|1||South Central have now introduced a summer time table for their trains - meaning there are now less trains than before.|
(more about environmental improvements than Transport Policy specifically, but I thought I add them anyway)
i) provide lighting along the pedestrian/cycle track from the entrance to the University (to the right of the subway) - this is especially important during the winter months when it is dark.
ii) maintenance and repair to the cycle track on campus on the path from Sussex House to Bramber House - it is full of holes and bumps
iii) maintenance of the trees/shrubs along the pedestrian/cycle track (as above) and further down the road towards Coldean Lane, e.g. cutting back branches and bushes. Not sure who is responsible for it - the University? Brighton & Hove Council?
Thank you for organising this survey.|
|1||The basic issue for me is that I find myself working a 12 hour day and cannot afford to spend an extra hour a day using public transport. If I worked fewer hours I would happily spend more time on public transport.|
|1||The charge at £1 a day for term time only would encourage me to travel by public transport more often, but at the rate they are now suggesting the whole year round, when I buy a permit (if it stays the same) I will drive in everyday to get my moneys worth and many of my colleagues have said the same.
There is no need to 'cover the cost' of a car park they already exist. Isn't it about time this University stopped money grabbing and started treating their workers with a little more consideration?!|
|1||The charges are so low that it won't discourage anyone and just becomes 'another bloody cost'. The University should be seeking to reduce the number of cars on campus not just charge an easily collectable fee. We all know where the excess cars come from, just look around in term time and vacation. Student loans wouldn't be so high if they didn't have a car to run.|
|1||The charges are VERY high cf other Universities. If there are no spaces available on any day, and I pay by annual permit I am effectively being robbed.
Not that it will encourage people to stay out of the University at a time when cooperative effort is really needed.
I am not in a position to use alternative transport and fulfil my obligations to the University in terms of teaching to late ( no public transport) |
|1||The charging policy discriminates most against those employees who joined the university in recent years and because of riduculously high property prices in Brighton and Hove were forced to live much further away from the university. We are already penalised by the non-availability of adequate public transport links, cannot be expected to cycle 40 miles per day on roads which are a positive hazard to cyclists and already pay more to get to work in terms of fuel and milegage costs. Having moved from the North where public transport is far more readily available I am incensed that the university is further taxing me for the 'privilege' of working in an underpaid employment sector in one of the most expensive areas of the country. The university should not be surprised if this 'initiative' reduces further the attractiveness of Sussex in affordability terms to those it may wish to recruit|
|1||The footpatsh and cycle paths between kempton, brighton and the campus, as well as bus fares and frequency should be drasticaly revised and improved before any charges is applied for car parking. Parking charges should only be introduced once a decent alternative to driving is in place. People with children should not pay when they have no reasonnablealternative to driving. A parking space should be guaranteed to those who pay for one !!
|1||The improved bus service to campus has now been reduced as B&H busses have reduced the 25 service and increased their charge by 20%. This increase in charge also make it cheaper for me to run a car than to use public transport. The improved bus services offered also don't include other areas of brighton off the main 25 routes and thus anyone living elsewhere would not notice these improvements. Also, as a DPhil student I work unsociable and variable hours meaning that times when I need to get in and go home the bus/train services don't run i.e. in for 5am & out at 1am, making use of public transport a non-viable option.|
|1||The new parking strategy assumes that everyone lives in Brighton on a regular bus route, near a train station, or within walking or cycling distance from the university. I am one of the people who come into work from the back or the East Saltdean area. It would take three buses to get me to work and would probably take 2 hours or more. As I am 63 yrs a bike is out of the question what with the terraine (many steep hills) and the weather, let alone the traffic on the Falmer road plus the fact that I live nearly 8 miles away from the University. I certainly wouldn't work at the University without having a car. I would also like to say that I share a car with my sister who also works at the University. One week we use her car and the next we use mine, so we are effectively already car sharing. |
|1||The no.25 Bus service has worsened in the last year, which is hardly an incentive for car users to make the change. And the train is too expensive. I'd like to see the return of the combined bus/rail annual ticket.|
|1||The parking fees will not alter the habits of people who have difficult or possible journeys.
The current fees will not cover all the administrative and maintenance costs so the University will need to either increase the fees further or subsidise the scheme.
|1||The Policy penalises those younger members of staff (Faculty and Non-Faculty) who, because of property prices and relatively low salaries, are forced to live further from the University where either (1) public transport is non-existant or difficult to access; or (2) they are made to choose between travelling on public transport at peak fares or running a car and paying for parking. It's central to the problems of the policy that those who are paid the most (and so can afford to pay) most frequently live the closest (and so can access public transport more easily and at cheaper rates). Those living further out are already paying a premium in travel costs in getting to work - they are now being asked to pay additional costs on top of this. This all smacks of simply being another revenue generating scheme by the university - the costings for the scheme don't convince me that all the money generated will be needed to maintain carparks and the salary of a Transport Manager; neither can I see the continuation of a massive parking problem if all residential first year students are disallowed from bringing cars on to campus.|
|1||The ride share shceme should be implemeted - it could solve all of the problems!
Concessions should be given to those libibng in rural areas - if want to be a University of Sussex not just of Brighton and Lewes.
Charges should be earmarked for the construction of a mutlistory car park!
|1||The transport policy CLEARLY assumes staff live in Brighton and have access to public transport. I live in 30 miles aways and have 2 young children whose needs have to be taken into account. In order to fulfil all of my professional and family responsibilities I have to drive to the university to afford me the necessary independence and flexibilty to fulfil my roles. The public transport links are scarce and unreliable. As a part time tutor my earnings are negligible. If the university introduces exorbitant parking charges the university is exerting huge pressure on my ability to continue with the work I enjoy and am extremely motivated by!|
|1||The University does very little for cyclists. Access to the University is poor and dangerous. There is no safe place to park bikes. The shower facilities in Biology are minimal. The daily charhe for cars, which cyclists may use when it is raining or because they are carrying large bundles of exam skripts is much to expensive. All staff should be given a free daily permit for one day per week, encoraging the use of alternative transport on most days.|
|1||the University has no green issues in mind. It simply wants us to pay for its car parks. The £300 figure was a guess at what most staff would stand without protest through industrial action.... If this causes EVERYONE to leave their cars at home, would the University consider the exercise a success or a failure? |
|1||The university plan, as currently constituted, seems more concerned with income-generation than environmentalism: there is barely any consideration of how to improve the take-up or quality of public transport. The recent 20% hike in bus charges is a serious disincentive, not least because the no 25 bus service is still erratic at peak times. |
|1||The University should continue to press for integrated public transport arrangements in the Brighton area.|
|1||The university should not introduce charges whilst restricting the amount of parking space through erecting portacabins or any other 'temporary' features.|
|1||There have been several changes in pricing policy since the original consultation. All changes have served to increase the cost for many users (I welcome the no-fee for lower paid). The policy takes no account of transport needs (almost impossible to get in via public transport from some areas), and does not differentiate by engine size or other widely used methods of 'greening' car use.|
|1||There is currently not sufficient consideration for those of us who need to use our cars for work. I do not in priciple object to using public transport to get to work but in my working day I have to visit patients in areas such as Hastings, Littlehapmton, Uckfield and rural areas in between. At the moment I cannot find anyone including
[the Transport Manager] who will discuss what qualifies as "essential car use". I also object strongly to such an expensive charge when there are not sufficient car spaces for those of us that have paid. |
|1||There is plainly pressure on the University's parking facilities, though there are some productive measures that would assist. A) Enforce the ban on first-year UG cars B) Limit all student parking C) Impose a more modestly priced parking programme.
The University is attempting to introduce new curricula, a new admin structure, and improve RAE ratings--it would seem straightforward and plainly obvious to management that to produce these changes requires good morale among employees. Charging them extraordinary sums for parking here is not the way to create morale, rather to destroy it. |
|1||There is supposed to be a scheme whereby existing car-sharing arrangements are preserved and credited with reserved spaces for sharers. To date I have seen no details published on this (although I have kept all correspondence :-) and yet we are less that six weeks from the start of charging. This whole affair strikes me as mis-managed, thrown together without proper thought and is rapidly becoming a complete farce.|
|1||This policy is not a 'green policy', it's just to make money for the University! |
|1||This policy is selective punishment of car drivers, who pay tax anyway. For people, who have to use a car because of health reasons or because public transport is not available to them, takes too long or is too unreliable, this equals a salary cut. The University is at the city border and there is no reason, to my view, why not more parking areas should be created. The University is expanding, it is an employer for many people and obviously there is a need for more parking areas. There are no traffic jams on the roads to the University in the morning or evening. Therefore there is no obvious reason for a traffic reduction.
The buses in Brighton are very unreliable and the bus net does not cover well all destinations, e.g., there is no direct connection to Patcham (takes fifty (!) minutes one way from University to Patcham). Often the buses do not stop, because they are full, i.e. they are already at the edge of their capacity for some destinations. During student holidays, which do notapply to staff, there is a reduced service.
The new parking policy is just a way to take many away from the employees. If there is a parking fee, the University should make a special price for employees. They have to come to the University, because they work there. £300 for an annual permit is the highest price for a parking permit I would have to pay so far at a University. Compared to parking areas at other Universities abroad the parking area at Sussex University is not very good:
It' s an open air parking, not a garage. If not noticed by chance by University employees, accidents can and do happen there without any proof who did it. Especially students are very inclined to cause damage and drive away...
The buses in Brighton are the worst I saw so far (compared to Freiburg in Germany or Zurich in Switzerland).
They would fit a traffic museum and don't seem to posess shock absorbers. The bus net is not very good and the ticket prices are horrendous.
|1||This questionaire doesn't reflect my true position. I work part-time because I am also a carer. Buses don't leave campus at the time I do. I work part-time so I do not have to take time off work for my other responsibilities but it does mean I have to use my time efficiently. A car enables me to do that. I will resent paying to park on campus because I have no transport alternative.|
|1||Those of us who are expected to use our cars to come in to the University at weekends and evenings to deal with problems, emergencies etc. should refuse to do this on the grounds that the University is penalising us during the day but expects us to make our cars available when it suits. In future the University should send a taxi to collect staff who are expected to attend problems out of hours..|
|1||Those of us who have children in the creche need to come in by car and this could be taken into account.
I would certainly try to minimise my presence here, and studnets would find me less available
Frankly, it is grossly unfair not to give those who work here all the time, as opposed to study here for a few years, a greatly reduced rate. |
|1||Three problems as I see it:
1 - the charges are higher than necessary to resolve the parking problem. Now that on-campus students cannot bring in a car, the problems are significantly reduced.
2 - charges should be term time only - parking is easy in the vac.
3 - daily parking should cost a little more (i.e. there has to be a discount for the annual pass or no one would buy it) but if it is too high then I suspect many faculty will work at home more often. This would make the uni a quieter but poorer environment. Also, admin staff do not have this option.
Mike Barrow, Economist.|
|1||To charge for parking and not to have a space to park if you are late because of an accident on the A27|
|1||Transparency needed in demonstrating that car parking charges lead to environmental improvement and any income generated used for that purpose (e.g. to facilitate non-use of cars)|
|1||Unfortunately the system does not guarantee a parking space, as someone who has to leave and come back at times|
|1||University has an out-of-town campus and must provide adequate parking for those who work and visit. New carparks should be a high priority. Over the last few years a large amount of new build has gone up and the university population will rise with new medical school. Why no proportionate increase in parking?
I believe that another reason also underlies the university's decision to implement parking charges, viz. to increase revenue. |
|1||University parking system must not add any significant living costs to members of staff. The idea to use heavy charges to deter the use of car is totally wrong. It at least harms those who have no choice but using a car.
A charge on daily basis can be introduced but must be low, no more than 50p/day to members of staff.
|1||University staff should not have to pay more for car parking than other public sector workers. If parking charges are to be introduced across the university sector, then charging should be the same everywhere (as are salaries). If they are not to be introduced across the entire sector, what is the justification of Sussex doing it?
I have heard a rumour that Arts faculty are negotiating to work at the university only two days a week in order to reduce parking charges (or environmental load). If this is true (and acceptble to the university), then the parking charge will be a tax on science.|
|1||Use of public transport from where I live (north Brighton) to travel to and from work is near-impossible, given the few scheduled buses serving the area, the necessarily long and irregular hours I work as a member of teaching faculty, and the near spilt-second timing necessary for picking up and delivering children to after-school activities. Many people are in a similar position, yet their needs have not been recognised - or at least, not considered - in the evolution of the travel plan. For such people it is not a question of resistance to using public transport that results in travelling to and from work by car - it is a practical necessity. Given the lack of a practical alternative, people like me resent in the strongest terms the introduction of the parking charges, which represent a substantial reduction in their earnings. This is especially true given the comparatively poor wages in the university sector, the uncertain use that will be made of the income from the scheme and the greed of the university in implementing the scheme. I have a strong commitment to environmental issues, but am totally unconvinced by the environmental credentials with which the university tries to sell this scheme to us. I would like to see strong resistance to its introduction.|
|1||What about motorcycles which are missing from this? I assume they will remain free as we have to park in the most out of the way places anyway|
|1||What arrangements are being made for people who arrive mid morning due to university business off campus first thing in the morning? |
|1||What happens if I get emeritus status from September ? I suspect it may not be worthwhile - I could end up paying to do a little work.....|
|1||What happens when you have "looked" for a car parking space and find there are none available? Your only choice is to park where you can, and if not in a legal area then you know there is a great possibility you will be clamped and fined! But then What are we really expected to do when this situation arises - drive out of campus, try and find somewhere else to park or go back home?!!! It takes me 10 minutes to get to work using the A27 by-pass, if I used public transport it would take me anything from 1-1.5 hours and I am not prepared to travel this way! And the solution is.......change my job (well that is one idea I could think of)|
|1||While I have no objection to paying for services I use -- including maintenance of car parks etc -- I object strongly to the University's moralising stance of charging exorbitant fees in order to discourage driving. Such "social engineering" is the remit of government alone, through taxation and other means, and should not be the business of the University. It may seem appropriate to those who can afford nice houses in Lewes and Brighton to price the rest of us off the road; but those of us who have had to move further afield to find affordable accomodation are being penalised. There *is* no alternative means of transport available from outlying villages.
Why not take things one step at a time? They are banning resident student parking: why not see what the consequences of that are before introducing further draconian measures? The claim is that supply:demand = 1:2, but what is that based upon? As the car parks are currently full, I don't see that they have any way of measuring it. I suspect that demand is probably only slightly above supply -- I've always been able to find parking; in only one instance in the past 4 years has it taken me half an hour to do so.
Q19 is difficult. I would object if I paid annually but for various reasons found that I was thereby paying for days that I did not use, i.e. it definitely should not be more expensive to pay annually than daily. The best answer (assuming any fees at all): scratch cards, with a fixed cost per card, that can be bought in bulk by salary deduction.
Finally, I'd like to see some guaranteed parking for faculty, or at least the retention of an "overflow" car park like the current fee-paying one by the sport centre. If a student doesn't make it to a lecture because he can't find a parking space, it's one thing. If the lecturer doesn't make it, it's a big problem!
Many thanks for taking on this task.
|1||With two small kids (toddler and baby, who go to the University creche) it is basically impossible to get to the University by public transport (from Lewes). The major problem is the crossing of the railway line at the station: you can either hope that somebody from the public helps you to carry baby, toddler and pram over the bridge (has happened only ones to me so far), or you have to walk up to an old bridge several hundred yards up the line and then back on a narrow pavement with heavy, fast traffic zooming past you, while you try to clutch onto your toddler and navigate your pram at the same time... Why is there no means of crossing the railway line AT THE STATION for disabled people and people with prams and small children??
Other suggestion: are you planning to make the annual parking tickets interchangeable between cars (i.e., so that two people can get together, buy one annual parking ticket and travel together to University, using each car alternately)? That might encourage car-sharing.|
|1||Working as a Security Officer for Sussex University means that our start and finish times are outside public transport start times, this makes it impossible to get to work by any other means of transport. We in the Security Office have no other way of getting to work than by car and should be exempt from all charges. ( please ask at the Security Office for a breakdown of our shift pattern ) this will show you how impossible getting to work would be by public transport.|
|1||Would like to have buses that don't go to Brighton Uni falmer campus all the time - it can sometimes make a long journey even more unbearable on a busy, crowded bus.
Better pathways and bus shelters at the top of campus as the bus leaves are much needed.
Cyclists always look so vulnerable when they're cycling on the road to and from campus...|
|1||Would'nt be such a problem if the charge for public transport was reduced. As a PhD student I earn less than £7500 and find it difficult to meet costs without the parking charge. It is difficult for some people to get public transport to the university and would make the journey a 2 hour one. |
|1||Yes as a mother with a child at the nursery on campus, although there are buses which go from near where I live they are not at a convenient time to get a small child up and ready to get out - plus having to carry all their gear and I would then arrive too early at the campus for the nursery start time. I would like to see more concessions for parents with young children. Also is there any concession for when a whole family use their car to go to campus as compared to car sharing (in that car sharers can share the cost of parking by sharing an annual pass)? Our car is completely full up as both my husband and I work on campus as well as our child going to the nursery so we would not have any more space to take part in a car sharing scheme (and I think this is the case for a few families who use the nursery).|
|1||Yes, I am concerned that as a graduate teaching assistant I am not counted as a member of staff earning <£12,000. Despite tutoring and demonstrating every term and earning much less than £12,000 I will still be expected to pay. I do not object to the idea of paying for car parking in principle. I would much rather travel by train if they were more reliable and it didn't take 4x as long as it does to drive. I commuted here on the train from Redhill for over a year and am well aware of the problems with public transport! Charging those who can't afford to pay is not the answer!|
|1||You must build staff bike sheds with good bike security to encourage bike use before you start to charge for parking.|