《consultation report咨询报告》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《consultation report咨询报告（6页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、University of AberdeenPage 6 of 6Car Parking Consultation ReportAuthorChristopher Osbeck, Travel Plan Co-ordinatorDateApril 2008Version1.0Contents1.Introduction32.Concept of charging for car parking33.Rate of charge34.Method of payment35.Issuing of permits46.Differential charging47.Support for susta
2、inable travel58.Use of revenue generated59.Enforcement measures510.Additional concerns and suggestions511.Summary61. IntroductionThe University, like many organisations, has limited parking available on its sites. Over recent years it has become apparent that the limited resources must be better con
3、trolled to ensure the most appropriate use of the facilities. In addition to this the University is committed to introducing a Sustainable Travel Plan to help reduce the number of vehicles travelling to University sites and the subsequent environmental impact that they have. One of the options avail
4、able to the University is to introduce charging for car parking at University sites. A draft Controlled Parking Policy was produced and distributed to the University community for comments and suggestions. The consultation ran over a six week period during February and March. Numerous e-mails and te
5、lephone calls were received on many aspects of the proposed policy and these, together with the views obtained through face to face consultation sessions, are summarised in this consultation report. The summarised comments and suggestions will be used to shape and adapt the proposed policy so that a
6、 more balanced system can be produced which takes into consideration the operational needs of the University, the needs of the University community and the environmental impact of travel.The comments and suggestions received from the University community are summarised under the following headings:2
7、. Concept of charging for car parkingStaff Comment: “Im glad the University is finally taking a stance on this issue.”There is mixed feeling regarding the need for and benefit of charging for car parking. Many staff expressed their support for introducing charging in principle but disagreed with the
8、 proposal of daily charging. The alternatives that were suggested are covered under Method of payment below. A significant number of staff expressed the opinion that charging is being proposed simply as a revenue generating exercise for the University and will produce little or no environmental bene
9、fit. To correct this misperception there is a need for the University to demonstrate its commitment to sustainable transport by investing in sustainable transport initiatives either before implementing car parking charges or as soon as possible once charges are introduced. The ratio of opinion is ap
10、proximately 1:1:4 of people supporting the principle of charging, rejecting the principle of charging and those who did not express a strong opinion one way or the other on the issue.3. Rate of chargeStaff Comment: “I agree for a charge to car parking, but 2 is excessive and punitive.”Staff Comment:
11、 “I think 2 per day is too low to effectively discourage car travel - 4 would be an acceptable minimum.”A range of opinions were expressed during the consultation period ranging from the rate being too expensive to it being too cheap. Calls for fixed amounts were limited and covered values from 1 to
12、 5 per day. The majority of comments received suggested a differential charging structure based on certain criteria, the most common and notable being an individuals salary. The range of different criteria suggested are covered in more detail under Differential charging below. During the face to fac
13、e consultation sessions charging based on salary was discussed and it was suggested that a fixed percentage of pro rata salary may be the best solution as it gives the most accurate representation of an individuals take home pay by taking into consideration both rate of pay and the number of hours w
14、orked. The level the fixed percentage should be was discussed but no agreement could be made on what level was appropriate.4. Method of paymentSubstantial resistance to daily charging was received during the consultation period which was to be expected since the purpose of charging daily is to have
15、the biggest perception of charging possible to deter car use. There was some support for daily charging from staff concerned that annual permits would not guarantee a space and could therefore involve staff paying for a permit and unable to use it. There were also some suggestions of barrier systems as has been explored in the past. The preferred option suggested by most staff was some form of annually paid permit system. This would be practicable but would require additional considerations to be made. These would include how many permits are issued, on what criteria are
