Cambridge University Environmental Consulting Society
STAFF BICYCLE PARKING REPORT
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
1.
AIM
2.
OBJECTIVES
3.
BACKGROUND
4.
METHODOLOGY
§
Methodological
problems
5.
ANALYSIS
§
Field survey
§
Maps
§
Questionnaire responses
6.
CONCLUSIONS
7.
APPENDICES
§
App. 1: Form used for Departmental
Cycle Parking Provision Survey
§
App. 2: Staff Questionnaire
§
App. 3: Breakdown of sites by
departments or University bodies
§
App. 4: Location of surveyed sites
1. Aim
The
aim of this report is to provide a framework for the advising on future
development of staff cycle parking facilities within the building sites and
individual faculties and departments of the University of Cambridge. The
improvement of bicycle parking in quality and quantity is an important factor
in the encouragement to use cycling as the usual mode of transport to work and
hence reduce the environmental impact of car-traffic in Cambridge.
2. Objectives
·
To produce a
thorough quantitative and qualitative survey of (paid academic and
non-academic) staff bicycle parking facilities in the University.
·
To relate the
survey data to the needs of the sites with regards to the number of staff and
their demands.
·
To relate the
survey data to the City Council Parking Standards and the Travel for Work
report.
3. Background
According
to its Policy on Environmental Issues, the University is committed “to encourage modes of
transport by staff and students which minimise the environmental impact”. The
primary target of the Cambridge Traffic and Transport Working group,
responsible for the University Transport Plan, is a decrease in the number of
commuter journeys undertaken by University staff by private car. With regards
to cycling, the subsidiary target is to increase in the number of commuter
journeys undertaken by University staff by bicycle.
Furthermore,
Cambridge City Council Parking Standards for University faculty buildings state
that: “Secure cycle provision shall be made at all sites….for members of staff
at a rate of one secure cycle space for every two members of
staff.” In this context, CUECS (Cambridge University Environmental Consulting
Society) aims to be an important source of information for the planning bodies
in the University that manage the provision of cycle parking facilities, in
order to achieve the objectives of the University Transport Plan. Security is a
main focus of this study as some 3000 bicycles are stolen in Cambridge annually
of which only 200 are ever recovered.
The November 2000 Travel for Work
survey states that University of Cambridge staff are generally in favour of
more environmentally sustainable modes of getting to work, with 41.2 per cent
coming by bicycle, followed by 35.7 per cent travelling as a single car
occupant. In the October 1999 report,
50.2 per cent of the staff said that they would consider cycling as an
alternative to their usual way of transport to work, while another 26.5 per
cent said it was a possibility. The principal issues to overcome in the
promotion of cycling amongst non-cycling staff were safer road conditions
(identified by 57 per cent as ‘very important’) and more priority routes (44.7
per cent), followed by better quality bicycle parking provision, i.e. more
secure (34.3 per cent) and more covered (28.6) parking. An increase in bicycle
parking spaces was also considered a very important change needed to encourage
cycling by 22.3 per cent.
Factors that were considered to be ‘important’ or ‘very
important’ in encouraging staff to cycle more often for all of part of journeys
to work (TFW, 1999)
Local
government and police have control over safety and cycle routes, whereas cycle
parking is under the direct management of the University. This makes cycle
parking the most important issue that the University must address with regards
to encouraging cycling.
4.
Methodology
Two
main tasks were undertaken relating to the first two objectives outlined above:
Firstly,
a survey of present staff bicycle facilities was undertaken. Departments do not
always have control over their facilities such as in the case of the Sidgwick,
Downing, and New Museums Sites. Instead, Site Committees (composed of
Department Administrators, Estate Management and Building Service
representatives and Safety and Security officers) have oversight of car and
bicycle parking, rather than the departments directly. Parking facilities are
thus common, and staff are not required to use the spaces closest to the
Department, although they are more likely to do so. As such, a simple relationship between number of
staff cycle racks and number of staff in a department would be misleading. We
decided therefore to make our analysis at the level of the site (including also
the Chemistry and Engineering departments amongst others due to their size).
All
departments and university bodies in the main Cambridge sites were covered:
Sidgwick Site, Downing Site, New Museums Site, Mill Lane Site, Old
Addenbrooke’s Site, West Cambridge Site, Cavendish Laboratories, Chemistry /
Scott Polar Institute, and Engineering. Facilities were assessed using a predetermined
set of criteria and inputted into a standardised form (Appendix 1).
The form
distinguishes between various types of actual cycle rack as well as their
location and attendant facilities, if present. The cycle racks themselves were
classified as one of three types: secure
and official, insecure and official,
and unofficial. A Sheffield Stand
(Photograph 1) has been classed as secure and official as have various other
designs that allow bicycle frames to be locked (e.g. Photograph 2). Racks where
only bicycle wheels can be locked are classed as insecure but official and
include V-shaped (butterfly) racks (Photograph 3), and concrete stands
(Photograph 4). Unofficial parking is provided by railings or simply open space
where bicycles are left. These divisions were made so that they corresponded to
Cambridge City Council and Cambridge University Transport Plan Standards.
Secondly, a
questionnaire was produced (Appendix 2) in order to assess needs and demands of
staff in various departments. It was distributed to departmental cycle
co-ordinators (where available) and through various other contacts. Questions
were designed to link in with our own survey results especially in terms of
various factors associated with cycle parking above and beyond the racks themselves.
Staff opinions and suggestions were summarized and incorporated into the
analysis of the results.
4.1 Methodological
Problems
Several problems arose with the nature of
our surveying. Firstly, there was very little specific staff parking which made
the assessment of staff facilities comparatively difficult. The demand for
staff cycle parking was hence estimated by means of a ratio of students and
staff at a site to number of spaces. It is important to note that staff numbers
vary in time and that student figures are only approximate, as undergraduates
usually attend courses in different buildings and graduates may not always work
at their departments.
Secondly, a variety of factors where found
to affect the demand for cycling spaces. For example, a qualitative factor
affecting sites is their central location and hence the availability of car
parking. Departments adjoined to bodies outside Cambridge University pose
further difficulties (e.g. Cambridge University Press, which is not included in
the staff numbers for the Mill Lane site).
Lastly, only large sites in the city were
surveyed, but small and outside departments or sites make up a considerable
proportion of the University’s staff (particularly administrative staff) and
often are lacking any kind of cycle parking. The reader should take all the
above points into account when interpreting the results.
Photograph
1: Sheffield Stand (as taken at
University Library)
These
are secure as cycle frames can be locked to the stand in addition to wheels if
necessary.
Photograph
2: Vertical stand (as taken at the Law Faculty)
These are
also secure as the stand both acts as a support for the cycle frame and as a
means of looping a lock through the frame and into the support.
Photograph
3: The so-called butterfly rack (taken
at the Geography Department)
These are
insecure racks as only a wheel can be locked to the fixed rack.
Photograph
4: Concrete Stand (also taken at
Geography Department)
These are
in no way secure as there is nothing fixed to which the cycle can be locked.
The only solution is lock the rear wheel and frame together but the cycle can
still be moved.
COMMENTS (NB: for list of departments and bodies
within each site see Appendix 3)
Very few sites have
secure staff parking. The only ones to do so are the Veterinary Department, and
Stuart House (Careers Service). Indeed only a small number of departments and
sites have any from of specific staff parking at all. Engineering has 36 per
cent of all insecure tracks set aside for staff whilst the Downing, New
Museums, and Sidgwick sites have much lower percentages. Note that DAMTP (Mill Lane) provides ‘butterfly’ racks but these
are in a secure underground space with a swipe-card system.
In
contrast, the existence of covered parking is much higher. The Cavendish Labs
and Stuart House have nearly all of their secure racks covered. Some of the
worst areas are the Scott Polar Institute, Old Addenbrookes Site, and the
Sidgwick Site.
As for unofficial
parking, the three main sites (Downing, New Museums, and Sidgwick) are the main
offenders with over 700 cycles not locked to any from of rack on the days of
the survey. The Veterinary department also has a large problem with many more
bikes than racks.
The last two columns
of the summary table are used to give a very rough indication of how good a
department or site is in terms of, firstly, the proportions of cycling staff in
the site and,
secondly, the ratio of total number of racks to staff and students visiting the
site. These figures must be interpreted with
care for the reasons set out in the methodological problems. We can consider
the Scott Polar Institute to be relatively well equipped (1.52), whilst the
Downing site (0.24), with a large amount of students, has a poor supply of
parking spaces. In general, sites are far from complying with the City Council
Standards in providing one secure parking space per two members of staff. The
considerable percentages of cycling staff to sites with lack of sufficient
parking (e.g. 53.8 per cent in New Museums) may be interpreted as a positive
attitude towards cycling, which could be very much encouraged by addressing the
problems of number and quality of the racks. Alternatively this could be due to
very scarce car parking in the site.
5.2 Maps of cycle
parking provision for representative sites.
DOWNING
SITE
Comments
about parking on the Downing Site:
There is a lot of
unofficial parking around the Anatomy department – bikes locked to themselves
and left to lean against walls. A new compound has also recently been built
alongside the Biochemistry department for staff that is both covered and
secure. Generally there are few specific staff parking areas although the
number of bikes not locked to some form of rack is low. However, many of the
racks are of the more insecure ‘butterfly’ style.
NEW MUSEUMS SITE
Comments about parking on the New Museums site:
This overview fails to illustrate the poor quality of the
parking provision in the site. The shortage of parking space for staff is
worsened by the problems of access to departments from the parking spaces.
Covered parking above the Zoology museum (1) is widely used by staff but
requires carrying cycles up a steep slope. The new Sheffield Stands in the
archway underneath the Computer Services (2) building have provided some 48 new
spaces that are secure and covered but are still insufficient for the needs of
the surrounding departments and are probably too distant from other departments
like Social Anthropology or S.P.S. More Sheffield stands are available by the
SPL Library (3), but they were found to be too high (~1m) for certain types of
bikes to have their frames and wheels locked.
Good
and secure parking provision in this site is particularly important due to the
even larger problem of car parking: better cycle parking could motivate car
users to change their mode of transport.
SIDGWICK SITE
Comments about parking on the Sidgwick site:
There are a multitude of different
styles of rack employed – some of which seem to be favoured and some that are
not. The ‘elevated-hook’ style racks put in by the History department (1) in
the summer of 2000 are a good example of covered space-efficient parking but
may be unsuitable for shorter cyclists. Whilst the new vertical stands by the
Law Faculty (2) seem to be of a good design they do not support bicycles
sufficiently as some had fallen over when the survey of racks was undertaken.
The insecure ‘butterfly’ racks around the Classics Building (3) are practically
unused, instead many bikes are parked in preference alongside the railings of
the History department and Economics building (4), leaving the raised Faculty
Building (5) in high demand of parking spaces.
5.3
Results of the staff questionnaire:
(for details of the questionnaire see
Appendix 2)
Question 3:
“How do you rate the cycle parking facilities provided
for STAFF in your department at present?”
|
|
Very Poor
|
Poor
|
Ok
|
Good
|
Very Good
|
No issue
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
Accessibility
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
12
|
0
|
0
|
|
22
|
|
Security
|
3
|
11
|
6
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
22
|
|
Cover
|
5
|
12
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
|
22
|
|
Number
|
7
|
12
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
22
|
|
Separation
|
4
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
12
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
22
|
42
|
14
|
18
|
1
|
13
|
|
110
|
Question 5:
“Please rate the five factors (from q.3 above) in terms of importance”.
|
   
|
Most
|
|
Importance
|
|
Least
|
|
|
|
|
1st
|
2nd
|
3rd
|
4th
|
5th
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
Accessibility
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
22
|
|
Security
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
2
|
0
|
|
22
|
|
Cover
|
5
|
6
|
4
|
7
|
0
|
|
22
|
|
Number
|
8
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
2
|
|
22
|
|
Separation
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
14
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
22
|
22
|
22
|
22
|
22
|
|
110
|
COMMENTS
Separation:
The overwhelming attitude of the
responses was that separation of staff facilities from student ones was not
necessary – 55% of responses said that it was of no concern and 63% of
responses said that it was the least important factor in encouraging staff to
cycle to work.
Number:
The vast majority (87%) of responses indicated that the number of
racks available was either poor or very poor. As such, it was also named as the
most important factor (36%) in encouraging more staff cycle use.
Accessibility:
In general, accessibility is regarded as OK or good (77% of responses)
and as least or second least important factor for encouraging more staff to
cycle to work in 50% of cases. This is probably due to the fact that a cycle
ride into work is the main effort rather than walking from the racks to the
department. Observations showed however
that the clogging up of parking areas and hence the difficulties in getting
bicycles in and out can be a deterrent for using some existing racks.
Cover:
This
factor has nearly a bad a rating as the number of racks available (77% of
responses either very poor or poor).
Although the responses were mixed, half of the responses still named it
as the first or second factor in order of importance.
Security:
The
attitude of responses to the issue of security of racks was mixed although in
general terms it was said to be poor (50%). As for its importance in
encouraging more staff to cycle it seems to be of quite large importance (91%
of responses placing it between first and third in importance).
Graph illustrating the responses to Question 3 by
factor.
|
|
6. CONCLUSIONS
From the results we
have identified the sites that most need improvements in the cycle parking
facilities. Large complexes like Downing, New Museums and, in particular, the
Sidgwick site should require more parking, seen from observations of
uncontrolled unofficial parking and official parking supply, as well as from
the demands of staff. Other sites with large numbers of undergraduates like
Chemistry and Engineering would benefit greatly from space-efficient parking.
It should be emphasized that planning for centrally located sites like the New
Museums and Downing sites, together with the Mill Lane area has a potential
both for improving the conditions for cycling in Cambridge and lightening the
car-traffic problems in these areas.
With regards to the
main issues concerning cycle parking, the responses we received indicated that
improvements in ‘staff only’ parking are not as important as parking in
general. Other factors should be improved over and above this which would
benefit all (including students). This of course means a much more
comprehensive scheme of cycle parking renewal. Nevertheless, both the TFW
report and the comments we received indicated that facilities like drying
rooms, showers or changing rooms, lockers (if no gates present) and repair kits
restricted to staff are very important factors in encouraging staff to cycle.
We believe that if planning bodies take these into account there could be an
increase in the staff that cycle for the total length of their journey to work,
as it was found that some cycle only for a part of it due to the lack of these
facilities.
With regards to cover,
it may be that adding cover to existing racks will be of considerable expense
as construction work of buildings must take place. Because of this we find it
is sensible to combine any moves to improve provision of cover to racks with
the addition (or replacement) of new or more secure racks. For example, the
replacement of the practically unused 250 butterfly racks near the Classics
building in the Sidgwick site with Sheffield stands could be accompanied by the
provision of cover for most or all of the spaces.
In terms of security,
there generally is a much greater proportion of covered insecure racks than
covered secure which would make the upgrading of facilities to secure and
covered much cheaper as only new racks, not new building work, would be
required. Cycle theft is an important deterrent for cycling to the workplace,
and improvements in security are inherently linked to new racks being added.
The total absence of secure parking in several of the sites surveyed (e.g.
Engineering, Chemistry) is a sign of need for modernization of facilities.
A
good example of a solution to staff parking security is found in DAMTP (Mill
Lane) where there is an underground room which needs a swipe card for entry. As
well as underground rooms, it is now possible to make bicycle parking with
underground structures that automatically store and return the bicycle by means
of an elevator with a door at street level.
This system can store up to 92 bicycles and works with a safe smart card and
code. It is fast (30 seconds to park) and allows the storage of accessories.
Where these ideas are not practical due to budgetary constraints, the solution
we foresee combines a gradual upgrading of all facilities over time – initially
allowing only staff to use these new facilities but extending usage to all
eventually.
The simple solution
to the problem of number of spaces is to erect more racks for cycles.
However, it is felt that existing facilities may be used more efficiently and this,
in addition to new racks, will be much more beneficial to all cycle users. Any
new racks should be secure and suitable for all cyclists (some types do not
allow the parking of e.g. women’s cycles or cycles with baskets). As to where
the racks should be put, the issue of accessibility –distance to door, distance
between racks- should be considered.
Recommendations can
be made for localized areas within some sites where parking provision is
particularly bad or the solutions are simple to implement For example, there is
a large bank of insecure racks at the back of the Hardy Building (Downing Site)
which are hardly used by cyclists. This could be removed and extra car parking
spaces provided (approximately 4 or 5). This would allow 4 or 5 car parking spaces
elsewhere to be converted into covered and secure cycle bays in much more
convenient locations. Furthermore, if one car driver can be persuaded to
regularly cycle to work then his/her parking space could be converted into one
for cycles thus benefiting a number of other cyclists. We assert that this sort
of multiplier effect would be successful.
This sort of practice
would succeed most in the Downing and New Museums Sites as car parking space is
at a premium and heavy traffic is usual: original and alternative use of space
for cycling parking (e.g. underground parking) would be an incentive for
cycling and could alleviate car parking and traffic problems.
Lastly, the area within the West
Cambridge site currently under construction (CMS and other buildings, projected
parking space to staff+student ratio: 0.38) deserves special attention: staff
would benefit greatly from sufficient secure cycle parking spaces and
facilities (e.g. changing rooms) in this site which is at some distance from
the center of town (responses indicated that staff throughout the University
find it is useful to cycle to work because the bicycle can be used during the
day for moving between meetings and during free time). Present planning can
still include simple but important improvements for which we hope the
recommendations in this report will be useful.
It is important to note that this site is also just a short ride from a
park-and-cycle site. More covered racks and lighting at night for racks are
further demands of the staff that could be addressed before the construction
work is finished.
SOURCES
- Biceberg (www.biceberg.com)
- Cambridge
Local Plan Parking Standards (Cambridge City Council Planning, January
1996).
- Cambridge
University Environmental Management (www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/environment)
– see Transport and the Environment and Green Transport Plan
- Cambridgeshire
Police – Cycle Theft Reduction Project
(www.cambs-police.co.uk/camops/crime_reduction/index.htm)
- Travel
for Work (www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/camcycle/tfw/index.html). Update 08/10/04 - www.tfw.org.uk
7.
APPENDICES
Graph illustrating the responses to Question 3 by
factor.
|
|
Appendix 1: Form used for Departmental
Cycle Parking Provision Survey
Not included in web
version of report
Appendix 2:
Staff Questionnaire
**STAFF
QUESTIONNAIRE**
1.)Name:
2.)Department:
3.)How do you rate the cycle
parking facilities provided for STAFF in your
department at present?
a.)
in
terms of accessibility to office/workplace
b.)
in
terms of security (i.e. is the bike frame locked or only wheels?)
c.)
in
terms of cover from the elements moderate
d.)
in
terms of the number of bicycles able to be stored
e.)
in
terms of separation from STUDENT facilities
4.) What improvements/changes do
you think could/should be made to cycle
parking facilities in your department?
5.) Please rate the five factors
(from q.3 above) in terms of importance
for encouraging more STAFF to cycle to their place of work.
6.) Generally, are there any other
points/issues that you would like to
make re: STAFF cycle parking? Any thoughts/comments are welcomed!
Appendix 3: Breakdown
of university faculties, departments and bodies by site.
NB: Any
department or body not listed was not included in staff and student figures.
Chemistry/Lensfield
Road
Faculty of Physics and Chemistry:
Chemistry
Faculty of Earth Sciences and Geology:
Scott Polar Research
Institute (surveyed separately)
Downing Site
Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology:
Archaeology & Anthropology
Archaeology
Faculty of
Biology:
Anatomy
Biochemistry
Exp. Psychology
Genetics
Pathology
Physiology
Plant Sciences
Faculty of
Earth Sciences and Geography:
Earth Sciences
Geography
Engineering
Faculty of Technology:
Engineering
Mill Lane-Silver Street
Faculty of
Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics:
D.A.M.T.P.
Faculty of
Technology:
Manufacturing Engineering
Land Economy
South Asian
Studies
Administration:
Careers Service (Stuart house, surveyed
separately)
Estate Management & Building
Service – EMBS (surveyed separately)
School of Biological Sciences
Accommodation Syndicate
New Museums Site
Facutly of Archaeology and Anthropology:
Biological Anthropology
Social Anthropology
Department of
History and Philosophy of Science
Centre for
African Studies
Faculty of
Biology:
Zoology
Faculty of
Physics and Chemistry:
Material Science and Metallurgy
