New car parking charges in September
Posted on behalf of: University of Sussex
Last updated: Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Charges for car parking on campus will go up from 1 September 2012.
This is the first increase in parking charges since February 2011, when a new charging system and structure was introduced.
John Duffy, Registrar & Secretary, explains: “Car parking on campus needs to cover its costs – and income from parking charges currently brings in less than the cost of creating and maintaining the 1,800 parking spaces on campus.
“This is the second stage of the phased increases in parking charges, effective from February 2011, which reduce but do not yet eliminate the subsidy of car parking by the University.”
For full-time staff, the new rate from 1 September for a permit for parking on campus will be £360 per year, paid by salary deduction at £30 a month. Staff will continue to pay pro rata according to their contracted hours (e.g. if 0.5FTE, the charge would be £15 a month).
The charge for an annual student permit will be £198 per year (equal to £66 per term).
Daily parking charges from 1 September will be £2.50 for staff and £1.30 for students. Payment for daily parking will continue to be by scratch cards (accompanied by a University of Sussex pass to park, issued on request and free of charge to all valid staff and students).
The charge for casual (external) users – who pay via machines – will increase to £7.50 for six hours (up from £6), but will be available in more flexible chunks of two hours (costing £2.50).
Details of other charges (which will increase proportionately)
Parking charges will continue to apply Monday to Friday only and from 9am to 5pm.
Exemptions for disabled drivers and motorcyclists will remain in place.
The University expects to make another increase in parking charges in September 2013, in order to reduce the subsidy further.
Answers to frequently asked questions can be found on the Transport web pages.
If you have any other questions that are not covered, you can email transport@sussex.ac.uk
It would be good to see a breakdown of how this extra money will be used. I understand that the carparks have to be cleared of snow and leaves etc but that doesn't happen very often and I understand that the number of people checking permits has also reduced.
I thought the money from the football parking was being used to subsidise parking on campus; your response to the freedom of information request and the article published in the argus stated this! What is going on here?
“Car parking on campus needs to cover its costs – and income from parking charges currently brings in less than the cost of creating and maintaining the 1,800 parking spaces on campus' - does this include payments from the football events?
Car parking on campus continues to be subsidised by the University, i.e. the income from parking charges does not match the outgoings. Much of the revenue from parking supports the transport operation, e.g. staff salaries; routine maintenance and repairs of parking machines, barriers, car parks, roads, footpaths, cycle paths, bicycle shelters and bus shelters; parking enforcement; etc. We have also bought 120 new cycle racks (for parking of 240 extra bicycles) to be secured; made the Northfield site one way to allow for the extension of the N25 bus route and (in the future) the 23 route; installed traffic control barriers at the Knights Gate entrance to campus; and carried out various small projects such as repainting road markings.
I was quite shocked to see that parking was being increased and then again in 2013. It seems unfair considering that when the football season is in action the university is receiving payment for spaces in car parks 3, 4 and 5 as well. The total income from the car parks in general must be in the total of £400,000 a year. Also as a member of staff there is no guarantee of a parking space.
At least the day parking is changing and that people can just pay for a couple of hours instead of for the whole day (£7.50) this is a good move.
It's 'good' to know that the extra fees are going to pay for better facilities for cyclists and buses!! Surely the bus company would be a more logical target as they monopolise their industry rather than the Unis own students/employees.
When I pay for parking I'm quite happy to pay for roads, car parks, maintenance of ticket machines and staff, but why am I paying for cycle racks and bus stops? I am not using them, because a bus trip is at least 3 times longer then driving for me, and cycling is not safe along the A27
So the parking charges actually subsidise cycle lanes, cycle racks and bus shelters? Anyone else find that odd?
Although I am a full time member of academic staff, due to the nature of my role working on professional courses where the students spend 2/3 of their time away from University on practice, I do not come onto site in a regular pattern. I would benefit from the opportunity to be able to call on to site for short periods of time. But is not possible under the current regime without paying for a full day.
Perhaps you could consider offering part day scratch cards too.
If the cash raised through the Parking Charge just went on the maintenance of the parking spaces, then I am sure that the expenditure would go down and we would have fabulous parking spaces!
The real probelm is that people salaries, road maintenance, cycle racks, etc etc have just been added to the bill to justify the annual rise in charges.
I my opinion, these things should NOT come out of our parking charges and the University should NOT be allowed to continually foist charges on the Transport budget that really should be paid for elsewhere.
Mick Henry
Last time I asked the costs to be covered included the entire transport strategy not just the direct costs associated with car parking. Happy to be proven wrong....
I would have thought that the huge injection of cash from American Express, for stadium parking, would have 'helped' towards maintenance and operating costs.
Car parking charges (student, staff and stadium users) DO cover car parking costs but do not cover the total transport budget because the revenue is used to subsidise NON car parking services and utilities. The University's five year transport strategy is explicit in its aim to reduce the number of cars parking and to increase use of green or public transport modes. The plan also states that the total number of car parking spaces will be reduced. In reducing the number of cars parking the revenue will go down and therefore the costs need to go up to cover the entire transport budget even though the cost of running a reduced car park service will reduce. If the University delivers a profitable car parking service separately from the transport strategy and cross subsidisation, it presents an attractive package to sell to a private outsourcing company. Watch the uncapped increase in car park charges that will come into effect in September 2013.
Following Christopher Wadey's response, it would be good to get a breakdown - the actual figures - for the costs Wadey indicated. I am not sure why "revenue from parking supports the transport operation" even when these do not concern car users. Why not also charging cyclists for the use of cycle racks?
This is ridiculous. Yet another deduction for the lower paid. £360 to park at work. Next year £400?
I completely understand that staff salaries for parking enforcement, and maintenance and repairs to parking machines and the car parks themselves are costs that are accrued in relation to the car parking facility and need to be paid for through that revenue stream.
What I fail to see is why the barriers (put in for security and management of the AMEX parking), all road maintenance and layout, footpaths, cycle paths, bicycle shelters and bus shelters, and cycle racks are the responsibility of those using the car parks.
The revenue from parking should not be responsible for supporting the whole transport operation, only parking.
Please could you explain why car users are expected to pay for improvements to cycle paths and racks along with bus shelters, footpaths and barriers (implemented due to the stadium traffick) yet do not get any improvement to the facility for which they are paying i.e no guaranteed parking space or increase in number? Perhaps users of the facilities that are being improved should also be contributing to their improvement i.e cyclists, pedestrians and bus users. Some people do not have practicle alternatives to using their cars!
I'm confused by what's being referred to as subsidy :
Does the 'income from parking charges currently bring in less than the cost of creating and maintaining the 1,800 parking spaces on campus' or is it less than the cost of 'staff salaries; routine maintenance and repairs of parking machines, barriers, car parks, roads, footpaths, cycle paths, bicycle shelters and bus shelters; parking enforcement; etc'?
A breakdown of income/costs would be useful to put this in context.
footpaths, cycle paths, bicycle shelters and bus shelters; parking enforcement; etc. We have also bought 120 new cycle racks (for parking of 240 extra bicycles) to be secured; made the Northfield site one way to allow for the extension of the N25 bus route and (in the future) the 23 route;
Why do we have to pay for these?
Q: How do the payments from BHAFC contribute to the cost of maintaining car parks?
Even if payments from the club for their use of car parking are taken into account, there is currently a shortfall against the cost of managing and maintaining the car parking infrastructure for the campus.
(There are of course also additional costs associated with managing and maintaining the relationship with the club and the parking arrangements associated with that.)
For the future, the University will continue to need to make best use of space available on campus for academic purposes – and this will include making judgements about the large amount of space currently taken up by the type of car parks we have at the moment.
Replacement car-parking, most probably multi-level to reduce the footprint of campus space taken up, would need to be built. That long- term vision has been part of the campus masterplan development since it was created in 2004. The income from the club will help support these kind of investments.
Q: Why is income from car parking being used to support other forms of transport (eg for building and maintaining footpaths, cycle paths, bike racks, bus shelters)?
The use of income from car parking to fund the transport strategy for the campus has been part of our approach since car parking charges were first introduced in 2003. That has been openly stated and published on our transport web pages. The University has no separate income source to fund its transport costs - eg council tax, HEFCE funding etc.
The purpose of using these funds in this way is to encourage sustainable transport to campus and to reduce the demand for car parking. We have a strictly limited number of spaces allowed on the campus by the planning authorities – so we do what we can to help shift demand from car use to other forms of transport. This makes it better for all campus users - so people who still need to drive benefit from others switching to other forms of transport.
However, only a small proportion (some 10-20%) of income from car parking goes on supporting these other forms of travel. By far the largest part of the cost is the construction, maintenance and management of car parking and road network (these are private roads which we build and maintain; they are not funded by the council).
Surely a fairer system would be to have a sliding scale based on salary grade as to who pays the most parking? As a grade three will end up paying a much higher proportion of their salary than a grade 8. Having worked at several Universities across the UK, this is not a new idea and works well.
No matter what green policy the University has, I will continue to live in Chichester and should I cycle to work it would take about 6 hours each way. Therefore I will always have to drive. Thank you to Sussex for penalising me for this and providing better bike racks for all the students out of my salary. I hope you thank me personally for contributing my wages to your green status.
Think Jane Langley's comment hits the nail on the head...Aren't most NHS carparks out-sourced too?
It seems to me that car owners are being penalised to provide facilities for cyclists, such as cycle paths, new cycle racks, etc. Can you tell me why there is no charge to cyclists to contribute towards their own facilities! And secondly, can you explain why motorcyclists and disabled drivers are also exempt from parking charges? Your argument may be that you are trying to create a greener campus, but the majority of car owners use their cars because of the distance they live from the university and the amount of time it would take them to get here by public transport! As well as charging staff and students to park on campus, the university presumably also receives revenue from the parking of Albion season ticket holders from the Amex stadium and any other event they arrange, such as the Fat Boy Slim Concert! I cannot understand how you can justify increasing the car parking by £5 a month after a period of only 17 months and then to add insult to injury, inform us that this is to be another increase in September 2013, which will presumably be another £5 a month!
Like others, I would like to see a breakdown of the monthly costs and revenue associated with car parking, please.
According to my simple calculations – even if 1000 of the 1800 spaces were occupied each month by full time employees, the income generated is £25,000...
You state "Car parking on campus continues to be subsidised by the University, i.e. the income from parking charges does not match the outgoings. Much of the revenue from parking supports the transport operation..."
You have clearly stated that the car parking charges are used to cover much more than the needs of the motorist, so it cannot be claimed that car parking is being subsidised by the University. If the university subsidises anything it would appear to be the entire transport operation but are stinging the motorist as they are an easy target.
Let us not forget the parking fines issued and the revenue the University receive from these!
Can I also ask if the bus company pay to park in Refectory Road, 6 buses last night, all in a row and all empty! So much for a green campus.
I expect we will find this is all part of the wider plan to make the package more appealing to companies for outsourcing..after which anything can happen!
Dear car users, thanks for the cycle paths and cycle racks. Next year can I ask that all cycle racks are fully covered as I deplore a wet saddle. Many thanks.
In response to Jane Langley’s comment, these increases are not linked in any way with the plans to use an external specialist provider for facilities management (which includes transport and car parking). These increases are the latest in the planned, phased increases that were announced in 2010.
This, and other queries raised by staff, is answered on our frequently-asked questions web page – see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/efm/services/transport/campus-parking/frequently-asked-questions
In contrast to Sussex, its neighbours offer free parking on site, in addition both Brighton and AmEx run Park and Ride schemes for those that have to use their cars.
Free parking at Brighton Uni Falmer campus for staff and students:
http://staffcentral.brighton.ac.uk/parking/staff.shtm
Free parking at AmEx Falmer stadium for employees and visitors (eg. conference attendees):
http://www.seagulls.co.uk/page/Latest/0,,10433~2397272,00.html
Free parking at Stanmer House and park:
http://www.visitbrighton.com/eating-and-drinking/stanmer-house-restaurant-p802831
The Sussex transport policy has the results from a consultants review of the availibility of public transport for staff within the catchment area. This shows those that have to use their car in the absence of alternative transport modes.
The travel plan states that Human Resources (HR) should communicate flexi time and working from home in order to greatly increase the number of staff utilising this work mode specifically to reduce car journeys to campus. The University is beholden to decrease its carbon emission by 34% by 2020 and HR do not currently promote such a scheme.
There is no charge scale to proportionately relate car parking charges to salary scales, lower pay scale employees will, therefore, be disproportionately penalised.
A 10-20% proportion of car parking revenue being used for other forms of transport is a huge amount if it equates at the upper limit to one fifth, especially when this income is not being used in assisting the car drivers to use alternative transport eg. park and ride.
Whilst we question the apparent disconnects between accounting lines in the transport budget, we may also question the disconnect between strategic assertions.
"Any external partner that is contracted by the University for facilities management will manage car parking as required by the University and at the charges that have been set by the University."
So, given that 'external specialist providers' will tender for this contract based on how much money they can make from drivers (among other things), surely there IS a link between that (increased) revenue stream and the contract?
Can you tell us please how the annual cost of £570,000 for car parking breaks down?
You state that," There are of course also additional costs associated with managing and maintaining the relationship with the club and the parking arrangements associated with that."
What are these costs in terms of parking? I was my understanding that BHA provide ALL the marshalls and security support for the matches? Why are there more management costs if the negotiations are simply an annual event? Is the cost of football parking going to rise as well?
When I can no longer afford to drive to work I shall cycle and take the 30 mile round trip journey time out of my working hours. See how much that costs you!
This proposal comes across as somewhat unreasonable. Alternative free options for car drivers using Sussex include Stanmer Park during daylight hours, or else parking in one of the nearby residential areas plus a half a mile walk each way during the winter months, which could be inconvenient for many.
I some times wonder wonder why I work. Higher parking charges are extremely depressing. Train or cycle are not an option for me, I live too far to cycle (Bexhill) and the train times are not convenient for me as a single parent to continue to drop to before and after school clubs (another penalty for the working single mum). It seems that those that can least afford rises in costs are most penalised. I believe, those that work part time on a higher grade only have to pay part of the car parking charge! Those that slog away full time are penalised.
When the charges were raised a year ago this amounted to a 100% increase (from £1 per day to £2 per day) and this is far above inflation rates or any other reasonable measure. I agree that some staff are being penalised disproportionately and resent any further rise which is in effect an additional tax on coming to work.
I live in a rural location 26 miles away, (before that 75miles away) It is too far to cycle, impossible to catch the bus, and although only a 30min walk to the nearest station- being a rural station trains actually don't stop there particulary often. Travelling by car is the only sensible economical in terms of time and finances for me to come and work for my employer.
I agree that for those who have the option of different transport alternatives the univeristy should encourage more sustainable modes of transport. If I lived closer I would cycle without any doubt but due to distance that is impossible.
How is the university transport plan encouraging me or others in my situation to reduce my car dependant journey to work?
Weren't we told that original process of charging for parking initially came from of a precieved impending threat of taxation by local goverment? Almost ten years on are we still waiting for that?
The transport plan unfairly penalises those who have NO option but to travel by car.
Cheers Sussex!
Car park charges pay for campus private road maintenance that NON car park users utilise and by their nature generally inflict the greatest wear and tear, namely the buses, delivery and construction lorries. Arts Road bridge over the footpath was strengthened to cope with the construction lorries, Mantell car park repairs to knocked over lamp posts from delivery lorries reversing up the chicane after their wrong turns and the new bus stops on Refectory road - all paid for by car park users I presume. One comfort is that the University is inadvertently contributing as the trades that do park and pay charges make sure these are factored back into contract prices charged to the University!
How about rather than penalising everyone instead use the car tax system. Higher fuel comsumption cars should be charged more and smaller eco friendly cars should be charged less. This would support people on lower salaries and also support the green policy
A low-emission car occupies the same parking space as any other car. A fair system of increased charges for high-emission cars would be complicated to administer, but this is under continued review as a future possibility.
The university soften the blow by making the monthly parking charge salary sacrifice rather than salary deduction. That way the cost to employees would be reduced and the uni get the NI saving.
Whilst they are at it they could set up a slalry scrifice Cycle to Work scheme like many other emlployers have in place.
So supposing we ALL decline to pay to park?
What I would like to know is what subdidy is there to reduce. A breakdown of this would be interseting to see! Its an outrage that the parking charges are going up, especially when you are not guarenteed a space, yet the university still take the money!
From Jane Fairhall on 19 June 2012
report this comment