The University of Sheffield Student and Staff Travel Survey 2012 Report on Findings January, 2013 Prepared for: Prepared by: Darren Hardwick, The University of Sheffield Travel Plan Services Ltd Suite 2, Stonebridge Court 151-153 Wakefield Road Horbury Wakefield WF4 5HQ
Revision Record Revision File Ref. Date Prepared by Checked by Status A 498_20130124_Travel Survey Report 24/01/2012 RB PL Draft Copyright Statement This report is the copyright of Travel Plan Services Ltd. The information, ideas and other intellectual property set out in this report and supporting technical appendices are the property of Travel Plan Services and are for the sole benefit of The University of Sheffield in respect of the 2012 Travel Survey of both staff and students. Travel Plan Services Ltd. requires that the information, ideas and other intellectual property set out in this report are: Not shared with third parties and particularly with direct or indirect competitors of Travel Plan Services Ltd; Not conveyed to other consultants or personnel without the prior approval of Travel Plan Services Ltd.; and Not copied in part or in whole.
Contents Chapter Title Page 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 Background and Context... 1 2. THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL... 2 Introduction... 2 Campus Location... 2 Campus Accessibility... 2 University Travel Plan Programme... 3 Travel Plan Monitoring... 3 3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY, DELIVERY AND RESPONSE RATES... 4 Overview of Methodology Adopted... 4 Survey Period and Response Rates... 4 4. SURVEY FINDINGS AND REVIEW - STUDENT... 6 Summary Information... 6 Home (Parental/Family Home) Location and Trips... 9 Term Time Location... 13 Day to day travel patterns... 16 Distance Based Review... 19 Car Ownership... 20 Car Drivers... 21 Car Sharers... 24 Public Transport Users... 27 Park and Ride... 28 Cyclists... 29 Hospital Shuttle Service... 31 Additional Comments... 31 Cross Tabulated Analysis... 32 Gender... 32 Year of Study Assessment... 35 Accommodation Assessment... 36 5. SURVEY FINDINGS AND REVIEW STAFF... 38 Summary Information... 38 Home Location and Distance Summary Assessment... 41 Day to Day Travel Review... 43 Changing Travel Patterns... 46
Car Drivers... 48 Car Sharers... 51 Bus Commuters... 53 Train Commuters... 55 Supertram Commuters... 57 Park and Ride Users... 59 Cyclists... 61 Motorcyclists... 63 Additional Comments and Observations... 63 Gender... 64 Category of Staff... 67 6. CARBON IMPACT OF COMMUTING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD... 70 Introduction... 70 Methodology... 70 Headline Carbon Emissions... 71 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS... 72
Appendices Appendix A Public Transport User Comments (Students) Appendix B Cyclist Comments (Students) Appendix C General Comments (Students) Appendix D Staff (Normal) Workplace Locations Appendix E Comments from Commuters by Bus (Staff) Appendix F Comments from Rail Commuters (Staff) Appendix G Supertram Commuter Comments (Staff) Appendix H Park and Ride - Commuter Comments (Staff) Appendix I Cycling Commuter Comments (Staff) Appendix J General Comments (Staff) Appendix K Carbon Assessment Calculations
1. INTRODUCTION Background and Context 1.1 Travel Plan Services Ltd (TPS) have been commissioned to undertake a full travel survey of both staff and students at The University of Sheffield ( the University ) by Darren Hardwick in the Department of Estates, who has responsibility for both car park management and also the delivery of University s travel plan programme. 1.2 Section Two of the report will provide a brief overview of the University and the previous travel surveys that have been undertaken to review and monitor the effectiveness of the travel plan programme. The report will then move on in Section Three to summarise the methodology adopted for the survey programme. 1.3 Section Four then details the survey responses and the headline assessment of findings of both surveys. Section Five is an assessment of the carbon impact of commuting to and from the University and Section Six provides a summary and conclusions. 1
2. THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL Introduction 2.1 The University has a long running commitment to the promotion of sustainable travel options aimed at encouraging and supporting travel choices amongst students, staff and visitors alike. Whilst this report does not concern the level of accessibility or campus context, a brief summary of context and issues has been included in this section to frame the results of the travel survey programme. Campus Location 2.2 The University s main campus is located on the edge of Sheffield City Centre in an urban and highly accessibly location as illustrated in Map 2.1 Map 2.1 Campus Location Campus Accessibility 2.3 The main campus, which accommodates both academic and support/professional services, is well served by a range of public transport options (both bus and tram) and is within walking distance of Sheffield Rail Station. 2.4 To ensure use of the available on site parking is equitable there is a robust car park management strategy in place including proactive enforcement of parking restrictions. This ensures public 2
transport or active travel modes are more cost effective and preferable for those who live in locations suited to their use. University Travel Plan Programme 2.5 The University, for both operational and sustainability purposes, has a long running commitment to the promotion of sustainable travel practice. With a dedicated staff resource, formal travel plan policy and a range of proactive measures covering car sharing, car park management, discounted public transport and infrastructure provision for cyclists and walkers, many of the normal barriers to sustainable travel have been addressed. Travel Plan Monitoring 2.6 An integral part of the travel plan programme is a regular programme of monitoring to capture data on a range of issues from overall modal split (proportion of staff and students that travel by each mode of transport). 2.7 Table 2.1 summarise the findings of the most recent travel surveys for both staff and students and will be used to assess the effectiveness of the programme in recent years. Table 2.1 Summary Modal Split Statistics Mode Staff (2010) Student (2010) Car Alone 25% 5% Car Share 7% 1% Bus 15% 12% Cycle 9% 4% Other Public Transport 14% 5% Walk 24% 74% 2.8 The findings of the surveys are used to set targets for maintaining or increasing the proportion of staff and students who travel to the campus by sustainable modes of travel. 3
3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY, DELIVERY AND RESPONSE RATES Overview of Methodology Adopted 3.1 The 2012 survey concerned itself with both student and staff travel patterns and was delivered, as done in previous years, as an online survey. The survey focussed on a series of questions which captured a range of information on normal and occasional commuting practices. The staff survey concerned itself with the regular commuting practices/patterns as well as occasional modes of travel (frequency and mode) and business travel requirements. The student survey was more complicated as it essentially dealt with three different areas Home (parental/family) location and mode of travel to get to university at the start of the academic year; Frequency and mode of travel for return trips during the academic year to parental/family home; and Day to day commuting to campus requirements. 3.2 The benefit of using an online survey portal, designed and hosted by TPS, was that a greater level of detail on specific issues could be undertaken without lengthening unnecessarily the survey length for those who did not need to answer additional questions through filtering. Appendix A contains a thematic map to both online surveys to illustrate the way in which questions were filtered through the survey process. 3.3 A prize draw incentive was offered for those who completed (in full) the survey with a 50 voucher (high street retailer of choice) for each survey. Survey Period and Response Rates 3.4 The survey was open for two weeks during December 2012 and was promoted through a range of internal communication channels and direct correspondence from Darren Hardwick. 3.5 As will be outlined in the following section, the staff survey included a question on the department that respondents worked within. This allowed the TPS team to provide regular updates on response rates. 3.6 Table 3.1 summarises the total number of complete responses to the survey (excluding all those where a respondent only partially completed the survey) and the response rate as a proportion of all staff or students this represents. 4
Table 3.1 Response Rates Sector Total Number of Completions Response Rate Staff 1706 30% Student 1461 6% 3.7 Whilst student responses as a proportion of total students is relatively low, with 1461 full surveys, the data collected is statistically reliable due to the sample size achieved. 3.8 The following section will take each survey in turn and provide an overview of the findings, firstly by outlining the findings of each question in turn before considering cross tabulation analysis of travel patterns and issues. 5
4. SURVEY FINDINGS AND REVIEW - STUDENT Summary Information 4.1 The first section of the survey considered outline summary information on respondents as follows: - Gender 4.2 As outlined in Table 4.1 and Chart 4.1 there were significantly more responses from females to the survey. Table 4.1 Gender Split Gender Number of Responses Percentage Male 383 31% Female 872 69% Chart 4.1 Gender Split 31% 69% Male Female Year of Study 4.3 The next area to be considered in the survey was that of study level. This was in part to assess the willingness of students to complete the survey but was also analysed (in a later section) to see if there are travel patterns linked to the year group of student respondents. 4.4 The results illustrate a dominance in responses from undergraduates, which is not unexpected given the total population of students at the University. It is interesting to note however that 1 st year undergraduates made up 25% of responses. This may be due to the fact that many are new to Sheffield and will be more interested in transport and travel issues that those with well establish travel patterns and behaviour. 6
Table 4.2 Year of Study Year of Study Number of Responses Percentage 1 st Year Undergraduate 318 25% 2 nd Year Undergraduate 240 19% 3 rd Year Undergraduate 209 17% 4 th Year Undergraduate 82 7% Postgraduate (Research) 184 15% Postgraduate (Taught) 174 14% Other 46 4% Chart 4.2 Year of Study 4% 1st Year Undergraduate 14% 25% 2nd Year Undergraduate 15% 3rd Year Undergraduate 6% 17% 19% 4th Year Undergraduate Postgraduate (Research) Postgraduate (Taught) Other Academic Department 4.5 The survey then considered the academic departments to which student below as summarised in Table and Chart 4.3. This question was included in the survey so that during the survey period there would be additional opportunity to check response levels. Table 4.3 Academic Departments Faculty Number of Responses Percentage Arts and Humanities 256 20% Engineering 162 13% Medicine 206 16% Science 253 20% Social Sciences 307 24% International 5 0% Other 66 5% 7
Chart 4.3 - Academic Departments 0% 5% Arts and Humanities 25% 20% 20% 17% 13% Engineering Medicine Science Social Sciences International Other Main location for studies 4.6 The survey then considered the main location for studies. Given the minimal number of responses for non city centre locations (i.e. Northern General Hospital and AMRC) there was no need to analyse these findings further. Table 4.4 Main Location for Studies Faculty Number of Responses Percentage City Centre Campus 1152 92% AMRC Waverley 5 0% Northern General Hospital 9 1% Hallamshire Hospital/Medical School 48 4% Other 41 3% Chart 4.4 Main Location for Studies 0% 1% 4% 3% City Centre Campus AMRC Waverley Northern General Hospital 92% Hallamshire Hospital/Medical School Other 8
Home (Parental/Family Home) Location and Trips 4.7 The survey then collated data on the home location of students when they applied to study at the University. Home Location Summary 4.8 Table 4.5 summarises the continental split of family home locations. Table 4.5 Home (family/parental) location Location Number of Responses Percentage UK 969 80.9% Rest of Europe 78 6.5% Asia 112 9.3% Africa 5 0.4% North America 17 1.4% South America 12 1% Australasia 5 0.4% Mode of Travel Start of Semester 4.9 Respondents were then asked to state the mode of transport they used to access the University at the start of the academic year. Table 4.6 Mode of Travel for journey to Sheffield Mode Number of Responses Percentage Car (alone) 118 10% Car Share (with parents/family member) 497 42% Car Share (with other students) 15 1% Bus/Coach 46 4% Train 198 17% Tram 11 1% Plane 199 17% Taxi 1 0% Other 90 8% 9
Chart 4.5 Mode of Travel for journey to Sheffield Car (alone) 0% 8% 10% 1% 17% 17% 42% Car Share (with parents/family member) Car Share (with other students) 4% 1% Bus/Coach 4.9.1. For UK based students the following modal split was recorded for the trip to the university campus at the start of term. Table 4.7 Mode of Travel for journey to Sheffield UK based students Mode Number of Responses Percentage Car Alone 117 13% Car Share (with parents/family member) 491 54% Car Share (with other students) 14 2% Train 195 21% Tram 8 1% Bus/Coach 36 4% Cycle 6 1% N/A already live in Sheffield 48 5% Chart 4.6 Mode of Travel for journey to Sheffield UK based students Bike 1% 1% 4% Bus/Coach 21% 13% 1% Car Alone 5% 54% Car Share with other Students Car Share with Parents/Family N/A - Live in Sheffield Train 10
4.10 It is not unexpected to note that car share (with parent/family) account for more than 50% of responses; due in part to the fact that students often have to bring a significant amount of personal possessions with them at the start of term and parents frequently want to be part of this process. 4.10.1. The distribution of UK based applicants has been mapped against mode of travel as illustrated below: - Map 4.1 Distribution (by mode of travel) of students parental/family home Frequency of Trips to Family Home During Term 4.11 Respondents were then asked to state the frequency with which they return to their parental/family home during the academic year, the results of which can be found in Table 4.8 and illustrated in Chart 4.7. Table 4.8 Frequency of trips to parental/family home Frequency Number of Responses Percentage Every weekend 145 12% Most Weekends 47 4% Once a month 171 15% Once every two months 273 23% Only during term holidays 345 29% Rarely or Never 193 16% 11
Chart 4.7 - Frequency of trips to parental/family home 29% 17% 12% 23% 4% 15% Every weekend Most Weekends Once a month Once every two months Only during term holidays Rarely or Never Mode of Travel for trips to parental/family home during term time 4.12 The final part of this element to the student survey considered the mode of travel normally used by students when undertaking return trips to parental/family homes during term time. illustrated the majority of students travel home during term time using public transport (a total of 56%) with train alone accounting for 50% of trips. It should be noted that of those that travel by plane for trips home, over 95% of these respondents only return home at the end of term. Table 4.9 Mode of travel for trips to parental/family home Mode Number of Responses Percentage Car Alone 114 10% Car Share 52 4% Train 591 50% Bus/Coach 64 5% Tram 8 1% Plane 179 15% Taxi 1 0% Not Applicable 119 10% Other 47 4% As Chart 4.8 Mode of travel for trips to parental/family home 0% 10% 4% Car Alone 4% 10% Car Share 15% Train Bus/Coach 1% 6% 50% Tram Plane Taxi Not Applicable 12
Term Time Location 4.13 The next part of the student survey concentrated on the type and location of respondents homes during the academic year. Accommodation Types 4.14 Firstly respondents we asked to confirm the type of term time accommodation they stayed in. This data was then in due course analysed to identify differences in travel patterns based on accommodation. Table 4.10 Accommodation Type Mode Number of Percentage Responses University owned student accommodation 324 27% Private sector student accommodation 232 19% Shared student house 376 31% Parental/Family Home 120 10% Other 152 13% Chart 4.9 Accommodation Type 10% 13% 27% University owned student accommodation Private sector student accommodation 31% 19% Shared student house Parental/Family Home Other 13
Accommodation locations 4.15 The general distribution of term time locations is illustrated in the following maps. Whilst there is clearly a concentration in the Sheffield area it is also interesting to note the extent to which students come to the University and the opportunity to further encourage car sharing that comes with such a distribution. Map 4.2 Student Locations (North of England) Map 4.3 Student Locations (South Yorkshire) 14
Map 4.4 Student Distribution (Sheffield) 15
Day to day travel patterns 4.16 The following section summarises the most important information collected through the travel plan process that relating to the day to day travel patterns of students. Overall Modal Split (for those living off Campus) 4.17 The first, and headline data, relates to the normal mode of transport used by students. Table 4.11 Main Mode of Transport Mode Number of Responses Percentage Change on 2010 Survey (as proportion of all responses) Car Alone 43 4% -1% Car Share 15 1% 0% Bus 94 8% -4% Bicycle 51 4% 0% Train 42 4% Supertram 27 2% +1% Park and Ride 4 0% Walk 870 76% +4% Chart 4.10 Main Mode of Transport 76% 4% 1% 8% 5% 4% 2% 0% Car Alone Car Share Bus Bicycle Train Supertram Park and Ride (Supertram) Walk 4.18 The significant increase in walking is worthy of note, where it would seem an increasing number of students who previously travelled to the campus by bus now walk. This is especially encouraging given the fact that the survey was undertaken during December when weather conditions are not conducive to active modes of travel. 16
Distribution of home (term time) location by mode of travel 4.19 The distribution of students term time addresses in relation to their mode of travel is illustrated in the following maps. Map 4.5 Home Location by Mode of Travel (North of England) Map 4.6 Home Location by Mode of Travel (Regional) 17
Map 4.7 Home Location by Mode of Travel (Sheffield) 18
Distance Based Review 4.20 In addition to outlining the spread of home (term time) locations by mode of transport the following table and chart illustrates the average journey length by each mode. This has been used for the carbon assessment but also illustrates the extent to which journey length directly impacts upon travel choice. Table 4.12 Distance review by mode of transport Mode Average distance per person (per day in miles) Average distance per person (annual)* Bicycle 4.3 645 Bus 5.2 784 Car (alone) 28.5 4281 Car Share 7.5 1131 Park and Ride 27.5 4125 Tram 8.8 1314 Train 70.2 10524 Walk 2.5 369 * Based on average 150 days attendance per annum. Chart 4.11 Distance review by mode of transport 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bicycle Bus Car (alone) Car Share Park and Ride Tram Train Walk 4.21 The extent to which train travel is significantly higher than other modes of transport is quite normal; representing a travel distance from home of 35 miles. This would indicate that the train is the preferred mode of travel for those commuting from other urban centres in the region. 19
Car Ownership 4.22 Regardless of regular mode of travel, all students were asked about their car ownership status. This was to capture information on students who bring cars to Sheffield with them whilst not using them as a normal mode of transport on a day to day basis. Table 4.13 Car ownership/access levels Number of Responses Percentage Students with access to a car 440 38% Students with no access to a car 731 62% 4.23 It is interesting to note that some 38% of student respondents brought a car to Sheffield yet only 5% (including car sharers) of respondents use their car as their normal mode of travel to campus. Those with access to a car where therefore asked to state where they normally parked their car. Table 4.14 Locations used by students to park cars overnight Number of Percentage Responses At parents/family home 266 59% On street 111 25% Car park/drive at private student accommodation 27 6% University Car Park (Endcliffe Village) 6 1% Other 40 9% Chart 4.12 Locations used by students to park cars overnight At parents/family home 6% 1% 9% On street 25% 59% Car park/drive at private student accommodation University Car Park (Endcliffe Village) Other 20
Car Drivers 4.24 The following section will outline the results of the questions asked to those who normally travel to the campus by car (alone). 4.25 Car drivers first were asked to select from a list of options the reasons why they normally travel by car. Respondents were invited to select up to three options therein the percentage displayed relates to the proportion of all car drivers that selected that option. Table 4.15 Justification for travelling by car. Reason Number of responses Percentage of all car drivers Length of journey 28 65% Reliability of journey time 15 35% Flexibility 18 42% Personal choice 7 16% No practical alternative 17 40% No public transport option 5 12% Childcare issues 6 14% Out of hours working/studying 10 23% Other 7 16% Chart 4.13 Justification for travelling by car. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4.26 It is not unexpected to discover that the most popular response related to the length of journey incurred to access the University. As will be explored in a later section of this report to illustrate the extent to which car drivers predominantly are those student that live within the parental home and travel to Sheffield on a daily basis. 21
4.27 Car drivers were also asked to state where they park during the day whilst at the University, the results of which can be found in Table 4.16 and Chart 4.14. Table 4.16 Car Parking used by students Reason Number of responses Percentage of all car drivers University operated car park 16 37% On street 17 40% Private car park 6 14% Other 4 9% Chart 4.14 Car parking used by students 14% 9% 37% University operated car park On street 40% Private Car Park Other 4.28 With only 37% of students using the University car parks the demand for on street parking amongst students is significant. It is assumed that those with University parking permits will be those students with extenuating circumstances such as the need to work outside of normal hours, have no public transport alternative or other personal circumstances that make public transport unviable. 4.29 The survey then captured data on the types of cars used by students. This question was asked to add additional accuracy to the carbon assessment but it is interesting to note the popularity of petrol cars compared to diesel. 22
Table 4.17 Car Driver Vehicle Types Vehicle Type Number of responses Percentage Petrol Less than 1.4 litre 15 35% Petrol 1.4 to 2.0 litre 17 40% Petrol more than 2.0 litre 1 2% Diesel Less than 1.7 litre 3 7% Diesel 1.7 to 2.0 litre 6 14% Diesel more than 2.0 litre 1 2% 4.30 Finally car drivers were asked if they would be willing to consider car sharing. It is promising to note that 42% would consider car sharing with a further 28% possibly willing to consider it and further promotion of the university car share scheme may well increase the current car share level amongst students. Table 4.18 Willingness to Car Share Number of responses Percentage Yes 18 42% No 13 30% Possibly 12 28% Chart 4.15 Willingness to Car Share 28% 30% 42% Yes No Possibly 23
Car Sharers 4.31 The next set of questions related to those who already car share to get to the University on a day to day basis. Firstly the number of people car sharing together was assessed and as illustrated in the following figures, there was a wide spread of responses. It should be noted at this point that the sample size of those who completed the question is relatively low and as such may not represent a true reflection of all car sharing amongst the student population at the University. Table 4.19- Number of other people car sharers travel with Number of Car Sharers Number of responses Percentage 1 4 29% 2 1 7% 3 1 7% 4 3 21% Varies Day to Day 5 36% Chart 4.16 - Number of other people car sharers travel with 36% 29% 1 2 21% 7% 7% 3 4 Varies 4.32 Students were then asked who they normally car share with. This was to assess the extent to which car sharing has been entered into to save money (by actively seeking a similar match) and how much is organic (i.e. due to dropping family members off at work/school). As illustrated the majority of car sharing takes place with other students. Table 4.20 Car share classifications Number of responses Percentage Other students 10 71% Members of staff 1 7% Family members 2 14% Friends 0 0% Other 1 7% 24
Chart 4.17 Car share classifications 7% 14% 0% 7% 72% Other students Members of staff Family members Friends Other 4.33 Car share respondents were then asked the same questions as car drivers in relation to their parking arrangements and vehicle type (if the respondent was the car driver in the car share arrangement) the results of which have been summarised in the following tables/charts. Table 4.21 Car park location (car sharers) Reason Number of responses Percentage of all car drivers University operated car park 2 14% On street 7 50% Private Car Park 1 7% Other 4 29% Chart 4.18 Car park location (car sharers) 29% 14% University operated car park On street 7% 50% Private Car Park Other 25
Table 4.22 - Vehicle Type Review (for use in carbon assessment) Vehicle Type Number of responses Percentage Petrol Less than 1.4 litre 6 43% Petrol 1.4 to 2.0 litre 2 14% Petrol more than 2.0 litre 0 0% Diesel Less than 1.7 litre 0 0% Diesel 1.7 to 2.0 litre 1 7% Diesel more than 2.0 litre 0 0% Other 5 36% 26
Public Transport Users 4.34 This section of the survey concentrated on exploring the factors that would improve the travelling experience for existing public transport users. Students were invited to select up to three options that best described the improvements they would like to see to public transport. The percentages stated are therefore as a proportion of all public transport users. Table 4.23 Areas for improvement in public transport Response Number of responses Percentage of all public transport users More seats available at peak times 77 47% Cheaper standard fares 108 66% Better quality of vehicle 27 17% Improved customer service of bus drivers 20 12% Real time information on the university website 38 23% Smart ticketing 44 27% Other 24 15% Chart 4.19 Areas for improvement in public transport 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 More seats available at peak times Cheaper standard fares Better quality of vehicle Improved customer service of bus drivers Real time information on the university website Smart ticketing Other 4.35 It is interesting to note that capacity and cost factors scored highest in the survey with a relatively small proportion identifying the need to improve the quality of vehicle or customer service. 4.36 Please refer to Appendix A for comments made by public transport users about their issues/concerns and observations on commuting by public transport to the University. 27
Park and Ride 4.37 Those students who make use of a park and ride site were asked a series of question relating to location and parking availability. Due to the very small number of respondents in this category the findings have been summarised without recourse for an analysis. Table 4.24 Park and Ride site used Number of responses Percentage Location Halfway (Tram) 2 50% Meadowhall (Tram) 1 25% Valley Centertainment (Tram) 1 25% Table 4.25 Does the site have adequate parking facilities Number of responses Percentage Yes 4 100% No 0 0% 28
Cyclists 4.38 The University has a strong commitment to promoting and encouraging cycling and has delivered a range of benefits/services specifically targeted at students. Therefore this section first considered the areas existing cyclists would like to see improvements before moving on to exploring take up of existing offers/initiatives. Table 4.26 - How should the University prioritise its efforts to improve facilities and conditions for cyclists over the next three years? Response Number of responses Percentage of all cyclists Improving shower and changing facilities 13 25% Improving bicycle security on campus 23 45% Improving secure and sheltered cycle parking facilities 33 65% Organising more cycle events and promotions 8 15% Expanding the provision of discounted low cost bikes and 19 37% accessories Working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes 37 73% Other 6 12% Chart 4.20 - How should the University prioritise its efforts to improve facilities and conditions for cyclists over the next three years? 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Improving shower and changing facilities Improving bicycle security on campus Improving secure and sheltered cycle parking facilities Organising more cycle events and promotions Expanding the provision of discounted low cost bikes and accessories Working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes Other 4.39 It is interesting to note that 73% of existing cyclists would like to see the University work with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes with only a small proportion requesting improvements to shower and changing facilities. This may be in part to the fact that students do 29
not tend to stay on campus all day and therefore are less inclined to want to shower and change after the commute into the University. Table 4.27 - Have you taken advantage of the free 1-2-1 adult cycle training available to all students? Number of responses Percentage Yes 4 8% No 47 92% Table 4.28 - Have you taken advantage of the regular Dr Bike or CycleHut services? Number of responses Percentage Yes 13 25% No 38 75% Table 4.29 - Did you buy a bike through the refurbished bike scheme at UoS? Number of responses Percentage Yes 4 8% No 47 92% 4.40 Cyclists were then given the opportunity to make any further comments about their commute by bike. These can be found in Appendix B. 30
Hospital Shuttle Service 4.41 Those students who indicated that they are based (for some or all of the time) at the Northern General Hospital were then asked if they used the H1 Bus Shuttle service between the two sites. Table 4.30 Use of H1 Shuttle Service Number of responses Percentage Yes 100 52% No 91 48% Additional Comments 4.42 The last section of the student survey provided the opportunity for respondents to provide any feedback or comments on travel and transport issues. Often this provides a detailed insight into the true concerns and perceptions of commuters. 4.43 Appendix C contains the full, unedited, comments made by respondents. 4.44 The final section of the travel survey analysis considers some key themes to illustrate the extent to which travel behaviour alters on the basis of key external, internal and personal circumstances. 31
Cross Tabulated Analysis 4.45 The final section of the student survey considered the impact of a range of factors on travel behaviour. Gender 4.46 The first factor to be considered was that of gender to assess the impact travel mode and associated choices. Table 4.31 - Gender Vs Modal Split Mode of Travel Male Female All Students Car Alone 4% 4% 4% Car Share 1% 1% 1% Bus 8% 8% 8% Bicycle 7% 3% 4% Train 3% 4% 4% Supertram 2% 2% 2% Walk 74% 75% 76% Other 1% 2% 4% Chart 4.21 Gender Vs Modal Split 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Male Female All students 10% 0% Car Alone Car Share Bus Bicycle Train Supertram Walk 4.47 Whilst gender has a minimal impact on the travel patterns of students across the majority of modes it is interesting to note that cycling is significantly more popular amongst male students. Table 4.32 - Gender Vs Car Ownership Levels Car Ownership Male Female Yes 36% 38% No 64% 62% 32
Table 4.33 - Gender Vs justification for travelling by car Reasons for travelling by car Male Female Length of journey 57% 69% Reliable journey time 36% 34% Flexibility 50% 38% Personal Choice 36% 7% No practical alternative 21% 48% No public transport option available 75% 14% Childcare issues 14% 17% Out of hours working/studying 14% 28% Chart 4.22 - Gender Vs justification for travelling by car 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Male Female 4.48 Without undertaking an in-depth assessment of journey start/end point it is difficult to assess the validity of individual responses to this question. It should also be noted that the figures are the proportion of existing students who travel by car (alone) which is a relatively small proportion. Table 4.34 - Gender Vs. Willingness to Car Share Willingness to car share Male Female Yes 50% 38% No 25% 34% Possibly 25% 28% 4.49 It is interesting to note that a significantly higher proportion of male students were willing to consider car sharing. 33
4.50 The following table/chart compares take up levels in relation to the wide range of support available to cyclists at the University. This has been considered to further explore the possible reasons for more males than females travelling by bicycle on a daily basis. Table 4.35 Gender vs cycle support take up Cycle Training Male Female Taken advantage of 1-2-1 Cycle Training 8% 7% Taken advantage of fee Dr Bike/CycleHut Services 29% 22% Bought a bike through the refurbished bike scheme 4% 11% Chart 4.23 Gender vs cycle support take up 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Male Female 5% 0% Taken advantage of 1-2-1 Cycle Training Taken advantage of fee Dr Bike/CycleHut Services Bought a bike through the refurbished bike scheme 34
Year of Study Assessment 4.51 The following table/chart illustrates the extent to which the year of study student s fall within has an impact on their normal travel patterns. It is worthy of note that undergraduates (all four years) returned a much higher level of walking and less car dependency. It may well be that this is due in part to the working/study patterns of post graduates and the fact that many will study from home; particularly for research postgraduates. Table 4.36 Year of Study Vs. Modal Split Mode 1st Year UG 2nd Year UG 3rd Year UG 4th Year UG Postgraduate (Taught) Postgraduate (Research) Car Alone 2% 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% Car Share 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% 2% Bus 9% 7% 5% 1% 12% 13% Bicycle 2% 3% 3% 5% 9% 7% Train 2% 3% 2% 0% 7% 8% Supertram 2% 2% 4% 1% 2% 5% Walk 82% 82% 83% 84% 62% 57% Other 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% 3% Chart 4.24 Year of Study Vs. Modal Split 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1st Year Undergraduate 2nd Year Undergraduate 3rd Year Undergraduate 4th Undergraduate Postgraduate (Taught) Postgraduate (Research) 35
Accommodation Assessment 4.52 The final section of cross analysis on the student travel survey considers the impact that term time accommodation has on travel patterns for the daily trip to the University. Table 4.37 - Accommodation type vs. normal mode of travel University owned accommodation Private sector student accommodation Shared student house Parental/family home Car Alone 0% 2% 0% 27% 4% Car Share 0% 0% 2% 4% 1% Bus 4% 5% 5% 20% 8% Bicycle 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% Train 0% 1% 0% 26% 4% Supertram 0% 3% 1% 8% 2% Walk 92% 86% 87% 5% 75% Other 0% 0% 1% 6% 1% All Students Chart 4.25 - Accommodation type vs. normal mode of travel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% University owned accommodation Private sector student accommodation Shared student house Parental/family home All Students 4.53 It is interesting, if not unexpected, to see that those students who live at their parental/family home have significantly higher rates of car, train and bus use. This is undoubtedly due in part to the fact that these student s home locations are more geographically disparate. It was also felt that this might also be attributable to increased access to a car, particularly for those who live at their parents house. This has been assessed in the following section. 36
Table 4.38 - Accommodation type vs car ownership/access Access to a Car University owned accommodation Private sector student accommodation Shared student house Parental/family home Yes 24% 29% 37% 67% 38% No 76% 71% 63% 33% 62% All Students Chart 4.26 - Accommodation type vs car ownership/access 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Yes No 20% 10% 0% University owned accommodation Private sector student accommodation Shared student house Parental/family home All Students 4.54 As anticipated there is a significant swing towards those with access to a car who live at the parental/family home. It is also interesting to note that car ownership/access is higher for all groups than the proportion of people who travel by car on a day to day basis. 37
5. SURVEY FINDINGS AND REVIEW STAFF 5.1 The following section of the survey considers the headline findings of the staff survey. Summary Information 5.2 The first part of this considers summary information on respondents. Gender 5.3 Firstly the survey considered the gender balance of responses which illustrated a strong bias in favour of female respondents. Table 5.1 Gender Split Response Number of responses Percentage Male 517 36% Female 932 64% Chart 5.1 Gender Split 36% 64% Male Female 5.4 The survey then considered the employment types of respondents, giving three broad categories for respondents to select from. Table 5.2 Staff Category Department Number of responses Percentage Academic 444 305 Professional Services 533 36% Support Services 417 28% Other 97 7% 38
Chart 5.2 Staff Category 28% 6% 30% Academic Professional Services 36% Support Services Other 5.5 In order to assess the extent to which workplace location impacts upon staff travel choices the survey then invited staff to provide details of the building they are based within. These have been summarised by geographical area in the following table and chart and a full assessment is included within Appendix D. Table 5.3 Summary of Work Locations Location Number of Responses Percentage Main Campus 1186 83% Hallamshire Hospital (inc. dental school etc) 179 12% Northern General Hospital 11 1% AMRC 27 2% North Campus 20 2% Student Village 9 1% Chart 5.3 Summary of Work Locations Main Campus 1% 2% 1% 1% 12% 83% Hallamshire Hospital (inc. dental school etc) Northern General Hospital AMRC North Campus Student Village 39
5.6 The survey then considered the employment status of staff. This data was used to analyse the impact of working arrangements on travel patterns which will be discussed later in this section of the report. Table 5.4 Work Status Number of responses Percentage Full Time 1165 78% Part Time 330 22% Chart 5.4 Work Status 22% Full Time 78% Part Time 40
Home Location and Distance Summary Assessment 5.7 The survey then considered the length of commutes undertaken by each mode of transport. Overall the average distance travelled by a member of staff for the normal commute to and from work is 14.4 miles (total two way distance). This differs by mode as illustrated in Table and Chart 5.5. Table 5.5 Distance Review Mode Average Daily Distance Per Person (miles) Average Annual Distance Per Person* Bicycle 8 1804 Bus 10 2339 Car Alone 25 5527 Car Share 15 3269 Park and Ride (bus) 20 4563 Park and Ride (Tram) 20 4586 Tram 8 1858 Train 68 15324 *based on an average 225 working days per year Chart 5.5 Distance Review 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bicycle Bus Car Alone Car Share Park and Ride (bus) Park and Ride (Tram) Tram Train 5.8 In a similar result to that recorded in the student survey the average distance travelled by train is significantly higher than other modes; yet still represents a distance from home of 34 miles suggesting the train is used predominantly by those travelled from other local urban centres. 5.9 To further illustrate the distribution of home postcodes compared to mode of transport please refer to the following maps. 41
Map 5.1 Staff Home Location by Mode (North of England) Map 5.2 Staff Home Location by Mode (Regional) Map 5.3 Staff Home Location by Mode (Sheffield) 42
Day to Day Travel Review 5.10 The survey then moved on to consider possibly the most important element of the survey programme; that being the normal mode of transport used by members of staff. Table 5.6 Staff Normal Mode of Transport Mode Respondents Percentage Car Alone 324 22% Car Share 138 9% Bus 201 14% Bicycle 122 8% Train 59 4% Supertram 131 9% Park and Ride 25 2% Motorbike/Scooter 10 1% Walk 362 24% Other 65 4% Varies day to day 45 3% Chart 5.6 Staff Normal Mode of Transport 4% 3% Car Alone Car Share 24% 22% 9% Bus Bicycle Train 1% 2% 9% 8% 14% Supertram Park and Ride Motorbike/Scooter 4% Walk Other 5.11 The results show an encouraging level of sustainable travel and a maintenance of the low levels of car dependency achieved over recent years. The survey results have been compared to previous years in Table 5.7. 43
Table 5.7 Modal Share Comparison Mode 2010 2012 Difference Car Alone 25% 22% -3% Car Share 7% 9% +2% Bus 15% 14% -1% Bicycle 9% 8% -1% Train 4% Supertram 14% 9% +1% Park and Ride 2% Motorbike/Scooter 0% 1% +1% Walk 24% 24% 0% Other Not Available 4% Varies day to day Not Available 3% 5.12 The slight increase in total public transport use is positive, as is the increase in car sharing and decrease in car (alone) travel. 5.13 The survey then considered the normal start and finish times of staff to establish if there are any potential barriers to sustainable travel linked to working arrangements. As illustrated in Charts 5.7 and 5.8 normal working hours dominate for the majority of staff. Chart 5.7 - Normal Arrival Time 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Before 07:00 07:00-07:15 07:15-07:30 07:30-07:45 07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:30-08:45 08:45-09:00 09:00-09:15 09:15-09:30 After 09:30 Varies 44
Chart 5.8 - Normal Departure Time 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Before 16:00 16:00-16:15 16:15-16:30 16:30-16:45 16:45-17:00 17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00 18:00-18:15 18:15-18:30 After 18:30 Varies 45
Changing Travel Patterns 5.14 The following questions were intended to highlight the potential reasons for people changing their primary (normal) mode of transport in recent years in an attempt to assess the extent to which this was down to internal or external factors. Table 5.8 - Number of staff whose primary (normal) mode of transport has changed in the last three years Respondents Percentage Yes 332 22% No 1161 78% 5.15 Those respondents who indicated that their travel mode has changed in the last three years were then asked to state how they previously travelled. The findings (as illustrated in Chart 5.9) show an encouraging decrease in unsustainable travel amongst those that have changed in the last three years and reaffirm the effectiveness of the travel plan programme. The increase in walking and cycling is a particularly positive trend. Chart 5.9 - Previous Modal Split Vs Current Modal Split 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Current Previous 5.16 Staff were then asked to state if a range of factors had influenced their changing travel patterns, both internal and external. Whilst for many staff the main driver was personal circumstances, there was a noticeable effort amongst staff to change modes for health and fitness reasons, no doubt illustrated in the increase in walking and cycling amongst this group. 46
Table 5.9 Factors influencing modal change Factor Respondents Percentage of all respondents Increased cost of parking permit 14 4% Improvements to public transport services 4 1% Improvements to public transport ticketing and information 1 0% Range of discount public transport tickets 7 2% Improvements for cyclists 7 2% Availability of parking spaces 26 8% Changes in personal or work circumstances 150 47% Rising cost of fuel/car insurance 28 9% Health and Fitness 45 14% Safety Concerns 14 4% Other 137 43% Chart 5.10 Factors influencing modal change 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 47
Car Drivers 5.18 The survey then considered the reasons why those people who travel by car (alone) do so. Respondents to this question were able to select up to three factors and therein the percentages quoted represent the proportion of all car drivers that selected the option. Table 5.10 Reasons for travelling by car alone Factor Respondents Percentage of all respondents Length of journey 166 48% Reliable journey time 134 39% Flexibility 156 45% Personal choice 44 13% No practical alternative 116 34% No public transport option 36 10% Childcare issues 107 31% Out of hours working/studying 46 13% Other 82 24% Chart 5.11 Reasons for travelling by car alone 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 48
5.19 Car drivers were then asked if they have a university parking permit and if not where they normally park. It is unsurprising to note that 58% of car drivers currently hold a Category B permit, illustrating that they have a legitimate need to travel by car due to either personal or work related factors. Table 5.11 Parking Arrangements for those travelling by car (alone) Respondents Percentage YES I have a Cat A Permit 21 6% YES I have a Cat B Permit 199 58% YES I have a Cat C Permit 43 13% NO I park on street in the local area 49 14% NO I park in a private car park 7 2% Other 23 7% Chart 5.12 Parking Arrangements for those travelling by car (alone) YES I have a Cat A Permit 2% 14% 7% 6% YES I have a Cat B Permit 13% 58% YES I have a Cat C Permit NO I park on street in the local area NO I park in a private car park Other 5.20 Car drivers were then asked for details of their vehicle for the purpose of reporting on carbon emissions as illustrated in Table 5.12. Table 5.12 Vehicle Type Assessment Car (alone) Car Type Respondents Percentage Petrol less than 1.4 litre 100 29% Petrol 1.4 to 2.0 litre 120 35% Petrol more than 2.0 litre 9 3% Diesel less than 1.7 litre 33 10% Diesel 1.7 2.0 litre 57 17% Diesel More than 2.0 litre 16 5% Hybrid Car 5 1% Electric Car 0 0% Other 1 0% 49
5.21 The final question asked of car drivers were asked related to their willingness to consider car sharing. Encouraging some 27% indicated they would, if a suitable car share match could be identified and a further 36% stated they would possibly consider it. Table 5.13 Staff (Car Drivers) willingness to consider car sharing Respondents Percentage Yes 91 27% No 129 38% Possibly 122 36% 50
Car Sharers 5.22 The staff survey then collected information from existing car sharers on existing issues and travel patterns. The first question established the number of people typically car share with. Unlike the equivalent student result the vast majority of staff who car share currently do so with one other person as outlined in Table 5.14 and Chart 5.13. Table 5.14 Car Share Partners Number of Car Sharers Respondents Percentage One Person 116 76% Two People 28 18% Three People 4 3% Four People 2 1% Varies day to day 2 1% Chart 5.13 Car Share Partners 3% 1% 1% 19% 76% One Person Two People Three People Four People Varies day to day 5.23 Respondents were then asked to state who they normally car share with. With 35% of car sharers doing so with other members of staff there is a clear indication that for many staff car sharing is a viable alternative to coming by car alone. This may be in part due to the fact that the majority of staff work normal office hours and therefore don t have their car share options reduced due to the working practices of themselves or others. 5.24 It is anticipated that within the 57% of staff who car share with family members a proportion of trips will be to drop dependents off on the way to/from work as opposed to traditional car sharing arrangements. 51
Table 5.15 Car Share Classifications Car Share Partner Respondents Percentage Other University members of staff 53 35% Students 1 1% Family members 86 57% People working for other organisations in the local 7 5% area Other 5 3% Chart 5.14 Car Share Classifications 5% 3% Other University members of staff 35% Students 56% 1% Family members People working for other organisations in the local area Other 5.25 Car sharers (where possible) were then asked to state their vehicle type for the purposed of calculating the carbon emissions from this mode of transport, the results of which can be found in Table 5.16. Table 5.16 Car Sharers Vehicle Classification Car Type Respondents Percentage Petrol less than 1.4 litre 48 32% Petrol 1.4 to 2.0 litre 34 23% Petrol more than 2.0 litre 1 1% Diesel less than 1.7 litre 17 11% Diesel 1.7 2.0 litre 25 17% Diesel More than 2.0 litre 5 3% Hybrid Car 0 0% Electric Car 0 0% Other 21 14% 52
Bus Commuters 5.26 The following section considers the comments made by those respondents who currently travel by bus. The first question dealt with their ticket choices and it is interesting to note that 30% of respondents currently buy a single/return ticket, regardless of the fact that it is their normal mode of transport. There was very little uptake of TravelMaster (multi operator) tickets amongst buys uses, assumably due to the fact that most people that commute by bus do so using one service and therefore can benefit from the reduced cost of a single operator ticket. Table 5.17 Bus Commuter Ticket Type Review Response Number of Percentage responses First Weekly 19 9% First Monthly 45 21% Stagecoach Weekly 18 8% Stagecoach Monthly 4 2% TravelMaster Weekly 2 1% TravelMaster 28 Day 4 2% Optio Weekly 24 11% Optio Monthly 0 0% Standard Single/Return Ticket 65 30% Other 37 17% Chart 5.15 Bus Commuter Ticket Type Review 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 53
5.27 The survey then asked bus users to state what they thought could be done to improve their commute by bus. The results, as illustrated in the following table and chart, suggest that ticket cost and capacity are the key issues to current users. Table 5.18 Areas for Improvement in Bus Service Provision Response Responses Percentage of all train commuters More seats available at peak times 72 33% Cheaper standard fares 90 41% Better quality of vehicle 39 18% Improved customer service of bus drivers 47 21% Real time bus information on the university website 47 21% Smart (electronic) ticketing 33 15% Nothing 10 5% Other 100 46% Chart 5.17 Areas for Improvement in Bus Service Provision 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5.28 Current bus users were then given the opportunity to provide any further comments on their journey by public transport. These are included within Appendix E. 54
Train Commuters 5.29 As with bus users, those who currently commute by train were asked to indicate their choice of ticket, the results of which can be seen in the following table and chart. Again single/return tickets accounted was the most popular individual choice. However all National Rail period tickets accounted for 35% when combined. Table 5.19 Train Commuter Ticket Type Review Ticket Type Number of Percentage responses National Rail Weekly 8 13% National Rail Monthly 12 19% National Rail Quarterly 2 3% National Rail Annual 4 6% TravelMaster Weekly 1 2% TravelMaster Monthly 8 13% TravelMaster Annual 1 2% RailMaster Weekly 0 0% RailMaster Monthly 5 8% RailMaster Annual 0 0% Single/Return 19 30% Other 3 5% Chart 5.18 Train Commuter Ticket Type Review 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 55
5.30 When asked what factors respondents would like to see to improve their commute by train 52% said additional seating capacity and 56% noted they would like to see cheaper standard fares. When compared to the responses from those who travel by bus it is interesting to note that a significantly higher proportion raised issue with vehicle standard with almost a third of rail commuter respondents selecting this option. Table 5.20 - Areas for Improvement in Train Service Provision Improvement Responses Percentage of all train commuters More seats available at peak times 33 52% Cheaper standard fares 35 56% Better quality of vehicle 18 29% Improved customer service 4 6% Real time bus information on the university website 8 13% Smart (electronic) ticketing 10 16% Nothing 5 8% Other 12 19% Chart 5.19 - Areas for Improvement in Train Service Provision 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.31 Those who currently commute by train were then invited to make any further comments, the results from which are contained within Appendix F. 56
Supertram Commuters 5.32 Those respondents that travel by Supertram were asked to note their ticket choice. It is unsurprising to note that the majority (75%) buy either a Stagecoach weekly or monthly ticket due to the fact that most people will travel using only the Supertram network given the distribution of tram users illustrated in the mapping earlier in this report. Table 5.21 - Supertram Commuter Ticket Type Review Ticket Type Number of Percentage responses Stagecoach Weekly 55 41% Stagecoach Monthly 46 34% Stagecoach Annual 0 0% TravelMaster Weekly 1 1% TravelMaster Monthly 1 1% TravelMaster Annual 1 1% Standard Single/Return 21 16% Other 10 7% Chart 5.20 - Supertram Commuter Ticket Type Review 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5.33 When asked what improvements respondents who travel by Supertram would like to see it is interesting to note the high proportion, some 60% of respondents, noted they would like to see real time information at the tram stop. Given the high frequency of the tram network this is possibly an unexpected result and may illustrate some timetable reliability issues worthy of further investigation. 57
Table 5.22 Areas for Improvement in Supertram Service Provision Improvement Responses Percentage of all tram commuters More seats available at peak times 77 57% Cheaper standard fares 62 46% Better quality of vehicle 1 1% Improved customer service 4 3% Real time bus information on the university website 12 9% Real Time information at the tram stop 82 60% Smart (electronic) ticketing 26 19% Nothing 6 4% Other 16 12% Chart 5.21 Areas for Improvement in Supertram Service Provision 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5.34 Those who currently commute by Supertram were then invited to make any further comments which have been summarised in Appendix G. 58
Park and Ride Users 5.35 Whilst there were only a minimal number of respondents who indicated that they currently travel by park and ride (P&R) the following tables and charts illustrate the P&R locations used and the parking issues faced by staff who make use of the service. Table 5.23 P&R Locations Used by Staff Location Responses Percentage Halfway (tram) 5 20% Meadowhall (Tram/Train/Bus) 3 12% Malin Bridge (Tram) 3 12% Middlewood (Tram) 4 16% Nunnery Square (Tram) 1 4% Valley Centertainment (Tram) 5 20% Abbeydale/Tesco (Bus) 2 8% Other 2 8% Chart 5.22 P&R Locations Used by Staff 5 4 3 2 1 0 5.36 Unlike in the case of the student survey findings, some 20% (5 respondents) noted that their choice of P&R site had parking issues. This may be due to the time of day that staff access the site during the peak commuting period. 5.37 The sites where respondents noted inadequate parking were Meadowhall (75% [3 responses]) and Valley Centertainment (25% [1 response]). 59
Table 5.24 Parking Capacity Issues at P&R Site Responses Percentage Adequate Parking 20 80% Inadequate Parking 5 20% 5.38 Those that commute using the park and ride were then invited to make any further comments in relation to their journey. These can be found in Appendix H. 60
Cyclists 5.39 In a similar result to that witnessed with the student travel survey, the biggest area where existing cyclists wanted to see the University focus its efforts over the coming three years was working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes. Table 5.25 How should the University prioritise its efforts to improve facilities and conditions for cyclists over the next three years? Response Number of responses Percentage of all cyclists Improving shower and changing facilities 46 35% Improving bike security on campus 56 42% Improving secure and sheltered cycle parking facilities 86 65% Organising more cycle to campus events and promotions 10 8% Expanding the provision of discounted low cost bikes and 30 23% accessories Working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes 109 82% Other 13 10% Chart 5.24 How should the University prioritise its efforts to improve facilities and conditions for cyclists over the next three years? 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Improving shower and changing facilities Improving bike security on campus Improving secure and sheltered cycle parking facilities Organising more cycle to campus events and promotions Expanding the provision of discounted low cost bikes and accessories Working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes Other 5.40 The next questions asked of existing cyclists was the extent to which they currently take advantage of internal support measures. The findings are illustrated in Tables 5.26 and 5.27 and Chart 5.25. 61
Table 5.26 - Proportion of respondents who have taken advantage of the free 1-2-1 adult cycle training available to all staff Responses Percentage Yes 13 10% No 120 90% Table 5.27 Proportion of staff that have taken advantage of the regular free Dr Bike or CycleHut Services Responses Percentage Yes 55 41% No 78 59% Chart 5.25 Summary of staff take up of cycle support measures 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Use of 1-2-1 Cycle Training Use of Dr Bike/CycleHut Yes No 5.41 Cyclists were then invited to provide any further comments or feedback, the results of which can be found in Appendix I. 62
Motorcyclists 5.42 There was, as expected, only minimal response from motorcyclists and the only question included within the survey was intended to capture engine information for the carbon assessment process. This is summarised below: - Table 5.28 Motorcycle Assessment Engine Size Responses Percentage Up to 125cc 2 20% 125cc to 500cc 2 20% More than 500cc 6 60% Additional Comments and Observations 5.43 The last section on the staff survey provided respondents with a final opportunity to offer comments/suggestions or to raise issues. These responses can be found in Appendix J. 5.44 The final section of the travel survey analysis considers some key themes to illustrate the extent to which travel behaviour alters on the basis of key external, internal and personal circumstances. 63
Cross Tabulated Analysis 5.45 The final section of the staff travel survey analysis considers a range of factors and assesses the extent to which they impact on travel behaviour. Gender 5.46 Given the high proportion of female to male responses to the travel survey some analysis of gender differences in travel behaviour and views has been captured in the following section. Table 5.29 - Gender Vs. Mode of Travel Male Female All Staff Car Alone 17% 24% 22% Car Share 9% 10% 9% Bus 10% 16% 14% Bicycle 14% 4% 8% Train 5% 3% 4% Supertram 8% 10% 9% Park and Ride (Tram) 1% 2% 1% Park and Ride (Bus) 0% 1% 0% Motorbike/Scooter 1% 0% 1% Taxi 0% 0% 0% Walk 27% 24% 24% Work from home 0% 0% 0% Varies day to day 4% 3% 3% Other 4% 4% 4% Chart 5.26 - Gender Vs. Mode of Travel 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Male Female All Staff 0% 64
5.47 It is interesting to note that car use is lower amongst male members of staff compared to women. Likewise active travel (cycling or walking) is higher amongst males and females make more use of the bus and tram for journeys in the local area. 5.48 On the basis of this the following table summarises the differences between male and female staff respondents when asked why they travel by car (alone). Table 5.30 Gender Vs Reason to Travel by Car Reasons for travelling by car Male Female Length of journey 51% 48% Reliable journey time 48% 36% Flexibility 53% 43% Personal Choice 18% 11% No practical alternative 37% 31% No public transport option available 12% 10% Childcare issues 22% 35% Out of hours working/studying 21% 10% Other 11% 29% Chart 5.27 Gender Vs Reason to Travel by Car 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Male Female 5.49 Whilst there are clear variations in each response category, the biggest proportionate difference can be found in the childcare issues response where more than 50% more females selected this option than male respondents. 65
Table 5.31 - Gender Vs. Willingness to Car Share Willingness to car share Male Female Yes 26% 27% No 44% 34% Possibly 30% 38% 5.50 With active travel more popular amongst male respondents the following summarises the extent to which both genders take advantage of the range of options available to them. Table 5.32 - Gender Vs. Uptake on Cycle Support Measures Cycle Training Male Female Taken advantage of 1-2-1 Cycle Training 6% 18% Taken advantage of free Dr Bike/CycleHut Services 35% 52% 5.51 The high level of take up on both cycle training and Dr Bike/CycleHut services amongst female respondents is surprising. responses. This could however be due to the relatively small number of Table 5.33 - Gender Vs. Cycle Supporting Measures Male Female Improved shower and changing facilities 35% 36% Improved bicycle security on campus 43% 41% Improved secure and sheltered cycle parking 68% 55% Organising more cycle events 5% 14% Expanding the provision of low cost bikes and accessories 23% 23% Working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes 81% 84% Chart 5.28 - Gender Vs. Cycle Supporting Measures 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Improved shower and changing facilities Improved bicycle security on campus Improved secure and sheltered cycle parking Organising more cycle events Expanding the provision of low cost bikes and accessories Working with Sheffield City Council to improve local routes Male Female 66
Category of Staff 5.52 The next factor assessed was the differences between categories of staff; both in terms of staff type (academic, professional services and support services) and also employment basis (full and part time). Table 5.34 Staff Classification Vs. Mode of Travel Academic Professional Services Support Services Car Alone 15% 23% 26% Car Share 4% 11% 13% Bus 11% 13% 16% Bicycle 15% 5% 5% Train 6% 4% 2% Supertram 8% 9% 11% Park and Ride (Tram) 0% 2% 2% Park and Ride (Bus) 0% 0% 8% Motorbike/Scooter 0% 1% 1% Taxi 0% 0% 0% Walk 31% 26% 16% Work from home 0% 0% 0% Varies day to day 4% 2% 2% Other 5% 3% 6% Chart 5.29 Staff Classification Vs. Mode of Travel 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Academic Professional Services Support Services 0% 5.53 This assessment illustrates the fact that academic staff are significantly more likely to travel by active sustainable modes of travel (walking and cycling) compared to other staff groups with support service staff more likely to drive and use local public transport options (bus and tram). 67
5.54 One factor that could influence this is home location and the following map has been produced to illustrate the general spread of home locations. Map 5.4 Staff Classification Vs. Home Location (Regional) Map 5.5 Staff Classification Vs. Home Location (Sheffield) 5.55 As can be seen whilst from a regional perspective (in the first map) there is little noticeable pattern in terms of home locations, on a more local level there is a concentration of academic staff in the Sheffield area, within easy walking/cycling distance, whereas support and professional services staff are located more disparately which could account for the higher levels of car use and public transport. 5.56 Furthermore in the case of respondents from Support Services a high proportion will work shifts which make more sustainable travel choices less attractive or realistic. 68
Working Practice 5.57 The last assessment considers whether there are noticeable differences in travel behaviour between full and part time staff. Table 5.35 Employment Status Vs. Mode of Travel Full Time Part Time Car Alone 19% 32% Car Share 10% 6% Bus 13% 16% Bicycle 8% 8% Train 4% 2% Supertram 9% 8% Park and Ride (Tram) 1% 2% Park and Ride (Bus) 0% 0% Motorbike/Scooter 1% 0% Taxi 0% 0% Walk 27% 16% Work from home 0% 0% Varies day to day 3% 4% Other 4% 6% Chart 5.30 Employment Status Vs. Mode of Travel 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Full Time Part Time 0% 5.58 The high proportion of car use (and small proportion of walkers) amongst part time employees may be due to the fact that many have to work outside of normal office hours when public transport alternatives are not realistic. 69