Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences Centre for the ... · French, S., Giles-Corti, B., I’Anson, K. 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Student Survey Results. Centre for the

Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences

Centre for the Built Environment and Health

Centre for the Built Environment & Health School of Population Health The University of Western Australia M707, 35 Stirling Highway CRAWLEY WA 6009

2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Student Survey Results

Prepared by

Sarah French

Winthrop Professor Billie Giles-Corti

Katharine I’Anson

July 2010

OUR MISSION To undertake policy-relevant research that builds capacity and influences planning and urban design policy and practice to create healthy and sustainable communities

C_BEH Funded by:

Foundation Corporate Partner:

2010 UWA Commuting Survey Reports in this series Volume I: Executive Summary Volume II: Staff Survey Results Volume III: Student Survey Results Authors Sarah French Research Associate, Centre for the Built Environment and Health Winthrop Professor Billie Giles-Corti Director, Centre for the Built Environment and Health Katharine I’Anson Research Officer, Centre for the Built Environment and Health Acknowledgements Matt Buckels UWA Transport Planner Kelly Kennington Editing Suzie Turner Report Formatting The 2010 survey was commissioned by UWA Facilities Management This report is available at www.sph.uwa.edu.au/research/cbeh/projects Suggested Citation French, S., Giles-Corti, B., I’Anson, K. 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Student Survey Results. Centre for the Built Environment and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, 2010 ISBN: 978-1-74052-210-6 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Vol III Student Survey 17/08/2010 3:33 PM

CONTENTS Glossary ................................................................................................................................................i Key Findings ..........................................................................................................................................i 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Sample ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Survey Instrument ................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Survey Procedures ................................................................................................................. 2 2.4 Response Rate ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.5 Treatment of data ................................................................................................................. 3 2.6 Data analysis .......................................................................................................................... 3

3 Demographic Profile...................................................................................................................... 4 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Mode of transport ................................................................................................................. 6 4.1.1 Modes used for trips to UWA ........................................................................................ 6 4.1.2 Trips generated .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.3 Changes in mode by day of week .................................................................................. 9

4.2 Main mode .......................................................................................................................... 10 4.2.1 Main mode of transport by gender ............................................................................. 11 4.2.2 Main mode of transport by age group ........................................................................ 12 4.2.3 Main mode of transport by distance lived from UWA ................................................ 14 4.2.4 Combination of transport modes ................................................................................ 16 4.2.5 Main mode of transport by parking permit ................................................................. 16 4.2.6 Demographic factors associated with being an active commuter .............................. 17

4.3 Main reason for using transport mode ............................................................................... 18 4.4 Alternative modes considered ............................................................................................ 20

4.4.1 Alternative mode considered by distance lived from UWA ........................................ 22 4.4.2 Demographic factors associated with drivers considering an active mode ................ 23

4.5 Individual and social factors with potential to influence transport modes ........................ 23 4.5.1 Self-efficacy toward active commuting modes ........................................................... 24 4.5.2 Perceived importance of factors likely to influence commuting choice ..................... 29 4.5.3 Perceived importance of factors likely to influence commuting choice by demographic

characteristics .............................................................................................................. 30 4.5.4 Norms .......................................................................................................................... 30

4.6 Barriers to Active Commuting ............................................................................................. 34 4.6.1 Barriers to using public transport ................................................................................ 34 4.6.2 Barriers to cycling ........................................................................................................ 36

4.6.3 Barriers to active commuting modes ........................................................................... 37 4.7 Motivators to active commuting ......................................................................................... 39

4.7.1 Motivators to use public transport .............................................................................. 39 4.7.2 Motivators to cycle ...................................................................................................... 41 4.7.3 Motivators to use active commuting modes ............................................................... 42

4.8 Initiatives to encourage active commuting ......................................................................... 44 4.8.1 Initiatives to encourage active commuting by demographic characteristics .............. 45 4.8.2 Initiatives to encourage active commuting by main mode ......................................... 45 4.8.3 Initiatives associated with drivers considering an active mode .................................. 47

4.9 Support for initiatives funded through increasing UWA parking fees ................................ 52 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 55 6 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 57

6.1 Appendix Tables .................................................................................................................. 57 6.2 Appendix 1: General comments .......................................................................................... 73

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Number of days students travelled to UWA in previous week (2010) ................................. 5 Figure 4.1: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2010) .............................. 6 Figure 4.2: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2003 and 2010) .............. 7 Figure 4.3: Proportion of students using each as main mode to travel to UWA by year ..................... 10 Figure 4.4: Map of suburb zones ........................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4.5: Importance of individual factors likely to influence choice of transport mode (2010) ...... 29 Figure 4.6: Barriers to using public transport (2010) ............................................................................ 34 Figure 4.7: Barriers to cycling (2010)..................................................................................................... 36 Figure 4.8: Barriers to active commuting (2010) .................................................................................. 37 Figure 4.9: Motivators to use public transport (2010) .......................................................................... 40 Figure 4.10: Motivators to cycle (2010) ................................................................................................ 41 Figure 4.11: Motivators to use active commuting modes (2010) ......................................................... 42 Figure 4.12: Mean active commuting initiative rating (2010) ............................................................... 44 Figure 4.13: Support for initiatives funded by UWA parking fees (2010) ............................................. 52

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Response rate for students .................................................................................................... 3 Table 3.1: Respondent Characteristics .................................................................................................... 4 Table 4.1: Mode of transport to and from UWA on weekdays (2003 and 2010) ................................... 8 Table 4.2: Number of trips to and from UWA generated per week (2010) ............................................ 9 Table 4.3: Mode used to travel to UWA each day of week (2010) ......................................................... 9 Table 4.4: Main mode of transport by gender (2003 and 2010) ........................................................... 11 Table 4.5: Main mode of transport by age (2003 and 2010) ................................................................ 13 Table 4.6: Main mode of transport by distance from UWA (2003 and 2010) ...................................... 15 Table 4.7: Proportion of students using other modes of travel to UWA by main mode (2010) ........... 16 Table 4.8: Factors associated with being an active commuter (2010) .................................................. 17 Table 4.9: Main reason for using main mode of travel to or from UWA (2010) ................................... 19 Table 4.10: Alternative mode considered by year ................................................................................ 20 Table 4.11: Alternative mode considered by current mode of transport (2010) ................................. 21 Table 4.12: Alternative mode considered by distance from UWA (2010) ............................................ 22 Table 4.13: Factors associated with drivers considering an active mode (2010) ................................. 23 Table 4.14: Confidence to use an active mode by distance to UWA (2010) ......................................... 25 Table 4.15: Confidence to use an active mode by current main mode of travel (2010) ...................... 26 Table 4.16: Confidence to use an active mode by alternative mode considered (2010) ..................... 27 Table 4.17: Factors associated with being an active commuter (2010) ................................................ 28 Table 4.18: Self efficacy factors associated with drivers considering an active mode (2010) .............. 29 Table 4.19: Personal social responsibility to reduce car use (2010) ..................................................... 32 Table 4.20: Attitudes and norms associated with drivers considering an active mode (2010) ............ 33 Table 4.21: Mean initiative rating by main mode of transport (2010) ................................................. 46 Table 4.22: Initiatives likely to encourage AC among drivers considering an active mode (2010)....... 47 Table 4.23: Suggestions on how to encourage alternatives to driving to UWA ................................... 49 Table 4.24: Support for initiatives funded by UWA parking fees by parking permit (2010) ................. 53 Table 4.25: Agreement for initiatives associated with drivers considering change to active commuting

(2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 54

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table 6.1: Confidence to use an active mode by gender (2010) .......................................... 57 Appendix Table 6.2: Confidence to use an active mode by age (2010) ................................................ 58 Appendix Table 6.3: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by

gender (2010) ................................................................................................................................ 59 Appendix Table 6.4: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by age

group (2010) .................................................................................................................................. 59 Appendix Table 6.5: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by

distance from UWA (2010) ............................................................................................................ 60 Appendix Table 6.6: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by

main mode of transport (2010) ..................................................................................................... 60 Appendix Table 6.7: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of

active commuting by gender (2010) ............................................................................................. 61 Appendix Table 6.8: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of

active commuting by age group (2010)......................................................................................... 61 Appendix Table 6.9: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of

active commuting by distance from UWA (2010) ......................................................................... 62 Appendix Table 6.10: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement

of active commuting by main mode of transport (2010) .............................................................. 62 Appendix Table 6.11: Mean rating of barriers to using public transport by gender (2010) ................. 63 Appendix Table 6.12: Mean rating of barriers to using public transport by age group (2010) ............ 63 Appendix Table 6.13: Mean rating of barriers to using public transport by distance lived from UWA

(2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix Table 6.14: Mean rating of barriers to cycling by gender (2010).......................................... 64 Appendix Table 6.15: Mean rating of barriers to cycling by distance lived from UWA (2010) ............. 65 Appendix Table 6.16: Mean rating of barriers to active commuting modes for students not

considering an active mode by gender (2010) .............................................................................. 65 Appendix Table 6.17: Mean rating of barriers to active commuting modes for students not

considering an active mode by age group (2010) ......................................................................... 66 Appendix Table 6.18: Mean rating of barriers for students not considering an active mode by distance

lived from UWA (2010) .................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix Table 6.19: Mean rating of motivators to using public transport by gender (2010) ............ 67 Appendix Table 6.20: Mean rating of motivators to using public transport by age group (2010) ....... 67 Appendix Table 6.21: Mean rating of motivators to using public transport by distance lived from UWA

(2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix Table 6.22: Mean rating of motivators to cycle by age group (2010) ................................... 68 Appendix Table 6.23: Mean rating of motivators to cycling by distance lived from UWA (2010) ........ 68 Appendix Table 6.24: Mean rating of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle by gender

(2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 68 Appendix Table 6.25: Mean rating of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle by age group

(2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 69 Appendix Table 6.26: Mean rating of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle by distance

lived from UWA (2010) .................................................................................................................. 69 Appendix Table 6.27: Mean initiative rating scores by age group (2010)............................................. 70 Appendix Table 6.28: Mean initiative rating scores by distance from UWA (2010) ............................. 70 Appendix Table 6.29: Mean rating UWA parking fee funded initiatives by age group (2010) ............. 71 Appendix Table 6.30: Mean rating UWA parking fee funded initiatives by distance from UWA (2010)

....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Appendix Table 6.31: Mean rating UWA parking fee funded initiatives by main mode of transport

(2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 72

Glossary

Active commuting (AC) Physical activity undertaken as a means of transport includes walking, cycling and other non-motorised vehicles as well as public transport use as this usually involved walking or cycling at the beginning or end of the journey.

Car pool Car pool driver or passenger.

Dropped off Dropped off by friend/family member who did not park at UWA.

Public transport (PT) Public transport (includes bus, train, or ferry).

Single occupant vehicle (SOV)

Single occupant vehicle, drive car on own or uses motorcycle or scooter.

Suburb Zones This classification provides an indication of appropriate active commuting distances, but are ‘as the crow flies’ and do not take into account location within the surburb or environmental factors such as quality of paths, roads, or geography of area.

Walkable distance (Zone 1) Zone 1 included suburbs where the majority of the suburb was located within a 1km radius of the UWA Nedlands/Crawley campus. This distance represents a ‘walkable’ distance.

Cyclable distance (Zone 2) Zone 2 included suburbs outside of Zone 1 where the majority of the suburb fell within an 8 km ‘as the crow flies’ radius of UWA, representing a ‘cyclable’ distance.

Other (Zone 3) Zone 3 suburbs fall outside of the 8km radius, and are classified a being a distance to far from UWA to expect commuting by walking or cycling.

i 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Results of UWA Student Survey

Key Findings • The 2010 University of Western Australia (UWA) Commuting survey is a follow up to a

2003 survey that investigated transportation patterns of UWA staff and students and explored the potential of various strategies designed to increase the use of active modes of transportation to and from UWA.

• In 2010 1,105 UWA students completed the survey compared with 1,040 student participants in 2003.

Modes of transport • In 2010, the most frequently used modes of transport among students during the survey

period were single occupant vehicle (SOV) and public transport accounting for 37.7% and 34.4% of trips respectively.

• The proportion of trips to UWA made by SOV decreased from 41.1% of trips in 2003 to 37.7% of trips in 2010. Public transport trips to UWA increased, from 26.0% to 34.4% of trips during the same period.

• Main mode (i.e., ≥ 6 trips/week) used to travel to UWA was also assessed. Public transport as the main mode of transport to UWA increased significantly from 25.3% in 2003 to 33.3% in 2010. During the same period, walking as the main mode of transport to UWA decreased significantly from 13.5% to 8.7%.

• The frequency of using public transport as the main mode of commuting to UWA declined with age, with the most significant decline occurring from 16 to 20 years to 21 to 25 years (from 52.3% to 24.6%). First year students at UWA are not provided with a parking permit and this is reflected in the use of public transport as the most common main mode among students in the 16 to 20 years age category (52.3%).

• Use of active modes of transport to UWA among 16 to 20 year olds was higher in 2010 compared with 2003. However, there was a decline in active commuting among 26-30 year olds and 31 years and older between 2003 and 2010.

• Transport patterns were examined by proximity to UWA. Three zones were considered (Zone 1: suburbs approximately 1km from UWA; Zone 2: suburbs between 1 and 8kms of UWA and Zone 3: suburbs further than 8kms of UWA).

• In 2010, 69.6% of respondents living in Zone 1 walked to and from campus as their main mode and 18.3% cycled as their main mode. While the proportion of student walking increased between 2003 and 2010 (from 64.7%), cycling decreased from 24.6% in 2003. Notably, in 2010, although small, twice as many students living in Zone 1 drove to UWA as single occupant drivers (i.e., SOV) (7.0%) compared with 2003 (3.2%).

• Frequent use of public transport increased with the great the distance study participants lived from campus. It is likely that as distance from UWA increases, those without access to a motor vehicle find walking or cycling less attractive options.

• Use of public transport as the main mode of travel to UWA increased between 2003 and 2010 in Zone 2 (23.4% and 34.7%) and Zone 3 (32.6% and 37.7%).

• Although main modes were explored, many students used a combination of modes to travel to UWA during the week: 10.8% of students who used a SOV as their main mode of travel to UWA also used public transport and 9.5% of SOV drivers also used a car pool for at least one trip during the week. Those who used public transport and those who used cycling as their main mode also travelled in a SOV for at least one journey (15.8% public transport users and 18.8% cyclists).

ii 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Results of UWA Student Survey

• In 2010, 16.7% of student participants owned a parking permit. Of these, 80.0% used a SOV as their main mode of travel, compared with 24.0% of those who did not own a permit (whether it be by choice or ineligibility).

• Students without a parking permit were around 26 times more likely to use public transport, cycle or walk as their main mode compared with student who owned a parking permit.

• Based on the number of students enrolled at the main campus at the time of the survey, it is estimated than 46,760 trips are generated weekly by SOV, 42,677 trips by public transport, 8,333 by cycling and 10,772 trips by walking.

Profile of an active commuter • The odds of being an active commuter (i.e., walking, cycling or public transport use)

were significantly lower amongst respondents aged 21 years and older compared with those aged 16 to 20 years of age. Students living in Zone 1 were 8.4 times more likely to be an active commuter compared with those living in Zone 3. There were no statistically significant differences by gender after adjusting for age, suburb zone and possession of a parking permit.

Reasons for using a main commuting mode • Among those who used a SOV as their main mode of commuting to UWA, the most

common main reasons for doing so were ‘length of travel time’ and ‘convenience’. • The majority of respondents who used public transport did so because they did not have

a license or access to a car (36.2%) or because they preferred public transport for ‘cost savings’ reasons (25.3%).

• The vast majority of respondents who walked to UWA did so because they lived close to campus (88.6%).

• Students who commuted to UWA by cycling did so for somewhat different reasons including enjoyment (19.3%), exercise (18.8%) and cost savings (16.6%). Compared with walkers, they were less likely to say choose their mode because they lived close to UWA (26.8% compared with 88.6%)

Considering alternative mode • Around one quarter of students indicated that they were considering using an

alternative mode to commute to UWA than the mode they used most in the previous week. This was consistent with results from the 2003 survey.

• Overall, very few (0.3%) UWA students in 2010 were considering walking, 6.4% were considering cycling and 9.3% were considering taking public transport as an alternative to their current main mode. However, almost 7% of students were considering changing to a SOV, motorcycle or scooter.

• Students without a parking permit were at least twice as likely to be considering changing from using a SOV to an active mode compared with students with a parking permit (after adjusting for gender, age and suburb zone).

iii 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Results of UWA Student Survey

Individual and social factors influencing active commuting • Students who felt confident in their ability to actively commute to or from UWA were

more likely to respond to efforts that encourage active commuting. Confidence in changing behaviour (or self efficacy) is important because those with greater confidence are more likely to attempt to change their behaviour, and continue to try if thwarted in their efforts.

• In general, respondents who drove to UWA were more confident that they could switch to public transport rather than walking or cycling. These patterns were similar to patterns seen in the 2003 survey.

• Of those considering walking or cycling to or from UWA on at least some days of the week, more than three quarters were confident that they could cycle on a regular basis and almost seven out of ten (68.9%) students considering using public transport were confident they could do so for at least some days of the week.

• There were no statistically significant differences between males and females in their confidence to walk or use public transport on a regular basis to travel to UWA. However, more males than females were confident they could regularly cycle to UWA (30.8% vs 20.1%).

• Confidence to regularly use public transport to travel to UWA decreased with age. However, students aged between 26 and 30 years were more likely to be confident they could walk or cycle to UWA compared with all other age groups.

• Of students living within a ‘walkable’ distance from UWA (i.e., Zone 1; within 1 kilometre), 87.1% were confident they could walk, despite only 69.6% reporting they were currently regular walkers. In addition, 63.8% of students living in Zone 1 were confident that they could cycle, even though only 18.3% did report to cycle as their main mode.

• The proportion of respondents living in Zone 2 and Zone 3 who were confident they could use public transport increased significantly between 2003 and 2010. From 55.4% to 66.8% among Zone 2 (‘cycable’ distance between approximately 2 and 8 kms) and from 60.1% to 66.4% within Zone 3, further than 8 kms.

• In Zone 2, 66.8% were confident that they could regularly take public transport part or all of the way to or from UWA, although only 34.7% currently used public transport on a regular basis. In Zone 2, 45.7% were confident they could cycle but only 14.9% cycled as their main mode. In Zone 3, 66.4% of students were confident they could use public transport compared with only 37.7% who currently did so.

• After adjusting for gender, age and distance from UWA, drivers who were confident they could regularly cycle to UWA or could regularly use public transport were more likely to be considering an active mode than those who were not confident they could do so.

• Students rated having a quick and having a cheap commute to work/study of greater personal importance than environmental concerns such as, protecting the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to reduce air and water pollution.

• Nevertheless, after adjusting for demographic factors, students considering changing from SOV to an active mode were generally more likely to consider protecting the environment as very or somewhat important. They were also more likely to consider it important to use active modes to commute to UWA when possible and to feel a responsibility to reduce their car use.

iv 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Results of UWA Student Survey

Barriers to active commuting • Barriers to active commuting varied by mode of transport considered, gender, age and

distance lived from UWA. • On average, ‘time involved’ was the barrier rated as most important by students not

considering using active commuting modes and those who were considering using public transport. ‘Too much to carry’, ‘need to start early and finish late’ as well as ‘distance to UWA’ were also important barriers to using active modes. ‘Time involved’ was not considered the most important barrier to those considering cycling to UWA. For these students, ‘weather’ and ‘too much to carry’ were the most important barriers.

• On average, females rated most barriers to active commuting higher than males. Motivators to active commuting • (Lack of) ‘availability of parking at UWA’ and ‘avoiding the need to find parking’ were

important motivators for students considering using public transport as an alternative to driving a vehicle to UWA.

• On average, financial motives (‘potential to save money’ and ‘cost of parking at UWA’) were considered more important to the younger students compared with others.

• Of the 6.4% of students considering cycling to UWA as an alternative to driving a vehicle, the most important motivator was ‘improvements to health and fitness’. Other important motivators to cycling reported were ‘enjoyment’, and the ‘potential to save money’.

• ‘Potential to save money’, ‘avoiding the need to find parking’ and ‘availability of parking at UWA’ were rated as important factors in encouraging students to use modes of travel other than a private vehicle to get to and from UWA.

• Students living the greatest distance from UWA generally rated motivators to use an alternative to SOV to travel to UWA as less important compared with those who live closer. In particular, motivations such as ‘improvements to health and fitness’, ‘personal contributions to reducing air pollution’, ‘enjoyment’ and access to end use facilities were rated of less importance to students living in Zone 3 compared with others.

Initiatives to encourage active commuting • There are many changes that could be made to the University’s physical and policy

environment to encourage students to actively commute. A list of these possibilities was compiled for the survey. Students rated a University subsidised public transport pass the highest of all initiatives presented. Perhaps not surprisingly, on average, increased parking fees for SOVs was considered the least likely initiative to encourage active commuting.

• Compared with others, students in the oldest age group (31 years and older) generally placed lower importance on all initiatives for encouraging active commuting.

• The subsidised public transport pass rated highest among students who were already taking public transport (mean 4.8 (SD 0.7)). Thus, the introduction of a subsidised public transport pass could be an effective behaviour reinforcement strategy which is important given 6.7% of students were considering switching to SOV/motorcycle or scooter and the number of drivers increases between 16 to 20 and 21 to 25 year age group, when students are permitted to obtain a parking permit.

• The introduction of a subsidised public transport pass was more likely than any other interventions to encourage current SOV users to switch to an active mode (mean 3.8 (SD

v 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Results of UWA Student Survey

1.4)). It was also the highest scoring item among cyclists and those using ‘other’ modes of transport such as carpool and drop off to UWA (mean 4.0 (SD 1.4)).

• Overall, 288 students made suggestions about how UWA could encourage staff and students to use alternatives to driving to access the Crawley and Nedlands campus. The most frequently mentioned suggestions included improving public transport (reliability, frequency and efficiency), subsidising the cost of public transport, providing UWA shuttle bus services from key locations and centres (i.e. train stations) and improving end use facilities for walking and cycling.

• Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with UWA increasing parking fees in order to fund a series of initiatives that encouraged active commuting to UWA. On average, a subsidised public transport pass for all bus and train services to and from UWA was the most supported initiative by students (mean 4.2). The mean ratings for all other initiatives ranged from 2.8 to 3.1 (SD 1.4) indicating a tendency for students to neither agree nor disagree on average, with the increase in parking fees to fund these other initiatives.

• Nevertheless, students considering using an active mode were almost twice as likely to agree with using funds from increasing parking fees to improve end use cycling facilities at UWA and provide better cycle paths around UWA.

• At the completion of the survey students provided a variety of comments including suggestions for improving parking through means other than increasing parking fees, calls for improvements to public transport to UWA, as well as outlining personal challenges to travelling to UWA by mode other than own car.

1 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Results of UWA Student Survey

1 Introduction The 2010 UWA Active Commuting Survey is a follow-up to the Healthway-funded 2003 survey which demonstrated the potential for the University of Western Australia (UWA) to use environmental and policy initiatives to increase active commuting by staff and students. The UWA’s expansion plans over the next ten years, will increase its population to more than 26,000 students (SKM 2009). This will place increased pressure on parking and traffic within and near the University. The 2003 study results indicated with appropriate interventions in place, between 20 and 30% of staff and students could be encouraged to change their travel behaviour to an ‘active mode’ (i.e., walking, cycling or public transport use) at least in the short term. Thus, the objectives for the 2010 research were to: • Provide UWA Transport Planning Program data on how staff and students commute to

and from UWA; • Compare the 2003 and 2010 results to enable trend analysis; • Provide data that could assist strategic planning to deliver programs that could be

implemented to encourage use of non-car transport modes to UWA. • Elicit staff and student reactions to possible strategies aimed at increasing active

transportation to and from the University.

The 2010 results are presented in three volumes: Volume I: Executive Summary Volume II: Results of the Staff Survey Volume III: Results of the Student Survey

This volume, Volume III, presents the results of the UWA student survey.


2 Methods A detailed description of the methods used in this project, including the questionnaire, is presented in Volume I: Executive Summary. Consistent with the 2003 project, ethics approval was gained through UWA Human Research Ethics Office. 2.1 Sample The study population for this cross-sectional survey were students of UWA. The eligibility criteria for students were as follows: • Enrolled in at least one first semester unit in 2010 (undergraduate or postgraduate); • Term location, address and postcode located in WA Metropolitan Region; and • Studying on main Nedlands and Crawley campus (i.e. not enrolled in Dental Science or

Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery, or regional campuses). 2.2 Survey Instrument The on-line questionnaire developed for the 2003 survey was revised for the 2010 survey. The survey was tested and updated to align with the current objectives of the study. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix 1 of Volume I: Executive Summary. The questions elicited information about the participants’ current travel behaviour and included a one-week travel diary. The questionnaire was tailored to the respondents’ main mode of travel (i.e. walking, cycling, public transport, driving alone etc). Data were also collected on intention to change travel mode, barriers and motivators to travel modes, and attitudes to incentives which promote the use of active commuting to and from UWA main campus. 2.3 Survey Procedures Data were collected over a five week period between 26th April 2010 and 28th May 2010 reflecting an autumnal pattern of behaviour. Students were sent a letter on 23rd April 2010 inviting them to participate in a web-based survey. They were provided with an opt-out option at this stage of the survey. Those who did not opt out and who did not complete the survey by the deadline, were re-contacted by email on 7th May 2010. If a response was still not received then a final reminder email or letter was sent 14th May 2010. Further details on the survey procedures are presented in Volume I: Executive Summary. 2.4 Response Rate In 2010, 2,500 students were randomly selected from 16,200 students who met the selection criteria and invited to participate in the study and of these 2,481 were eligible to participate. The total number of students who participated in the survey was 1,105 representing a response rate of 44.5% (Table 2.1). This was slightly lower than the response rate in 2003 (48.2%).


Table 2.1: Response rate for students 2003

Students n

2010 Students

n

Sample 2,300 2,500

Ineligible/Not contactable 143 19

Revised total 2,157 2,481

Completed 1,040 1,105

Response rate 48.2% 44.5%

Data not adjusted

2.5 Treatment of data Data collected in the two survey years were merged. Where possible, variables were matched to enable comparison of the 2003 and 2010 data. To facilitate comparison, the survey data for both 2010 and 2003 were also weighted by age and gender to represent the 2010 UWA student population. Results in this report present weighted data unless otherwise specified. Notably, the multivariate analyses did not use weighted data. 2.6 Data analysis In most instances descriptive statistics and results from cross-tabulations are presented in this report. However, binary logistic regression analyses were undertaken to examine the adjusted associations between factors that are likely to influence commuting behaviour and intention to change to active mode of transport. It also examined factors associated with currently using active transport to travel to UWA. A combination of forced entry and backward deletion regression multivariate models were used throughout this report.


3 Demographic Profile A total of 1,105 UWA students completed the survey. An adjusted demographic profile of students is presented in Table 3.1. Females were over-represented among the 2010 respondents compared with the 2010 UWA student population. Respondents aged 26 to 30 and 31 and older were representative of the UWA student population. However, respondents aged 16 to 20 year old were over-represented and 21 to 25 year olds were underrepresented. The distance of student homes from UWA were comparable between 2010 respondents and the 2010 UWA student population. Data were weighted by age and gender to represent the proportions of the 2010 student population. Table 3.1: Respondent Characteristics

Characteristic

2003 (N=1,040)

2010 (N=1,105)

2010 UWA Student

Population (N=16,200)

% % %

Gender

Male 46.6 43.7 50.4

Female 53.4 56.3 49.6

Age Group

16 to 20 years 51.3 48.0 39.5

21 to 25 years 32.2 30.7 38.0

26 to 30 years 7.1 9.0 9.7

31 years and older 9.4 12.4 12.8

Location

Zone 1 - walkable distance (1 km radius) 16.6 10.0 10.0

Zone 2 - cyclable distance (>1 km, <= 8 km radius)

18.7 20.5 22.3

Zone 3 – outside cyclable distance (>8 km radius) 64.7 69.4 67.7 Data not weighted

As illustrated in Figure 3.1, 42.2% of students surveyed in 2010 travelled to UWA five days of the week surveyed. One quarter of students travelled to UWA four days per week, 17.6% on three days and 15.2% less than three days. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of students travelling to UWA on each day surveyed (Monday to Friday) between 2003 and 2010 surveys (62.1% and 42.2% respectively).

2010 UWA Commuting Survey

Data not weighted

Figure 3.1: Number of days students travelled to U

2.6 2.83.4 4.320

40

60

80

100

none 1 day

% o

f stu

dent

s

2003 (n=1040)


: Number of days students travelled to UWA in previous week (2010)

4.38.9

19.2

62.1

7.517.6

25.0

42.2

2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days

2003 (n=1040) 2010 (n=1105)

Survey


4 Results The results of this survey are presented in examined by key demographicWhere appropriate, results are also presented by other factors such as ownership of a parking permit or intention to change travel mode. Modes used to travel to and from UWA are presented first, followed by students’ main mode of travel to UWA. Reasons for choosing main mode and alternative modes considered are then presented. Individual and social factors with potential to influence commuting behaviour are examined as well as barriers ancommuting. Finally initiatives to encourage active commuting and reactions to increasing parking fees are presented.

4.1 Mode of transport Respondents were asked to specify the mode of transport used for each trip to and from the UWA campus in the week prior to

4.1.1 Modes used for trips to UWAIn 2010, the 1,068 student respondents who travelled to the main campus generated a total 8,460 trips per week (average of 7.7 trips per student). The most frequently used modes were single occupant vehicle (SOV) and public transport accounting for 37.7% and 34.4% of trips respectively (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2010) The proportion of trips made using public 2010 (Figure 4.2), while SOV trips decreased from 41.4% to 37.7%. Walking trips also decreased from 13.5% of all tripmodes remained constant at around 7%.

Transport

Motorcycle /

Total trips 2010 N= 8,460


The results of this survey are presented in the following section. In most cases results aredemographic characteristics such as gender, age and distance lived from UWA.

Where appropriate, results are also presented by other factors such as ownership of a parking permit or intention to change travel mode. Modes used to travel to and from UWA are presented first, followed by students’ main mode of travel to UWA. Reasons for choosing main mode and alternative modes considered are then presented. Individual and social factors with potential to influence commuting behaviour are examined as well as barriers and motivators to active commuting. Finally initiatives to encourage active commuting and reactions to increasing

Respondents were asked to specify the mode of transport used for each trip to and from the

week prior to the survey.

Modes used for trips to UWA In 2010, the 1,068 student respondents who travelled to the main campus generated a total 8,460 trips per week (average of 7.7 trips per student). The most frequently used modes were single occupant vehicle (SOV) and public transport accounting for 37.7% and 34.4% of trips

: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2010)

The proportion of trips made using public transport increased from 26% in 2003 to 34.4% in ), while SOV trips decreased from 41.4% to 37.7%. Walking trips also

decreased from 13.5% of all trips in 2003 to 8.7% in 2010, while trips made by cycling and other modes remained constant at around 7%.

SOV37.7%

Dropped Off4.1%Car Pool

5.8%

Public Transport

34.4%

Walking8.7%

Cycling6.7%

Motorcycle / Scooter

1.4%

Other1.1%

N= 8,460

Survey

section. In most cases results are characteristics such as gender, age and distance lived from UWA.

Where appropriate, results are also presented by other factors such as ownership of a parking permit or intention to change travel mode. Modes used to travel to and from UWA are presented first, followed by students’ main mode of travel to UWA. Reasons for choosing main mode and alternative modes considered are then presented. Individual and social factors with potential to

d motivators to active commuting. Finally initiatives to encourage active commuting and reactions to increasing

Respondents were asked to specify the mode of transport used for each trip to and from the

In 2010, the 1,068 student respondents who travelled to the main campus generated a total of 8,460 trips per week (average of 7.7 trips per student). The most frequently used modes were single occupant vehicle (SOV) and public transport accounting for 37.7% and 34.4% of trips

: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2010)

transport increased from 26% in 2003 to 34.4% in ), while SOV trips decreased from 41.4% to 37.7%. Walking trips also

s in 2003 to 8.7% in 2010, while trips made by cycling and other


Figure 4.2: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2003 and 2010) In 2010, 3.3% of respondents compared with 2.6% in 2003. by students in 2003 and 2010.

• Consistent with 2003, in 2010, the most frequently were SOV and public transport. However, the proportion of students travelling to UWA by SOV every day during the week decreased from 19.7% in 2003 to 11.6% in 2010(Table 4.1). There was also a slight increase in the proportiSOV for any trips to campus between the two surveys (47.0% in 2003 and 50.5% in 2010). In 2010 44.5% of students used public transport for at least one trip during the week compared with only 35.9% in 2003

• The proportion of studconsistent (public transport 9.5% in 2003 and 9.1% in 2010; cycling: 2.6% in 2003 and 2.1% in 2010).

• The proportion walking to UWA for all trips decreased from 8.5% in 2003 to 4.2% in 2010.

41.1

4.8

37.7

4.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

% o

f trip

s

2003 (n=7,782)


: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2003 and 2010)

respondents did not travel to campus on any day during the previous week, compared with 2.6% in 2003. Table 4.1 reports the frequency each mode of transport was used by students in 2003 and 2010.

Consistent with 2003, in 2010, the most frequently used modes to commute to UWA were SOV and public transport. However, the proportion of students travelling to UWA by SOV every day during the week decreased from 19.7% in 2003 to 11.6% in 2010

. There was also a slight increase in the proportion of students not using to campus between the two surveys (47.0% in 2003 and 50.5% in

2010). In 2010 44.5% of students used public transport for at least one trip during the week compared with only 35.9% in 2003. The proportion of students using public transport and cycling for all trips remained consistent (public transport 9.5% in 2003 and 9.1% in 2010; cycling: 2.6% in 2003 and

The proportion walking to UWA for all trips decreased from 8.5% in 2003 to 4.2% in

5.2

26.0

13.57.5

0.95.8

34.4

8.7 6.71.4

2003 (n=7,782) 2010 (n=8,460)

Survey

: Proportion of all student trips to and from UWA by each mode (2003 and 2010)

did not travel to campus on any day during the previous week, reports the frequency each mode of transport was used

used modes to commute to UWA were SOV and public transport. However, the proportion of students travelling to UWA by SOV every day during the week decreased from 19.7% in 2003 to 11.6% in 2010

on of students not using to campus between the two surveys (47.0% in 2003 and 50.5% in

2010). In 2010 44.5% of students used public transport for at least one trip during the

ents using public transport and cycling for all trips remained consistent (public transport 9.5% in 2003 and 9.1% in 2010; cycling: 2.6% in 2003 and

The proportion walking to UWA for all trips decreased from 8.5% in 2003 to 4.2% in

0.91.4 1.1


Table 4.1: Mode of transport to and from UWA on weekdays (2003 and 2010)

Frequency use mode

Mode of transport N

Never (0 per week)

Sometimes (<6 per week)

Regularly (6-9 per week)

Everyday (10 per week)

2003 2010 2003 2010 2003 2010 2003 2010 2003 2010

SOV*^ 1012 1068 % 47.0 50.5 18.2 20.5 15.1 17.4 19.7 11.6

Public

transport^* 1012 1068 % 64.0 55.5 13.9 18.2 12.5 17.2 9.5 9.1

Cycle^ 1012 1068 % 89.7 91.1 3.3 3.6 4.3 3.3 2.6 2.1

Walk^* 1012 1068 % 84.5 90.9 3.8 1.8 3.3 3.1 8.5 4.2

Dropped off^ 1012 1068 % 85.6 86.6 12.6 12.4 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.2

Car pool^ 1012 1068 % 86.8 85.8 10.6 11.9 1.9 1.9 0.7 0.5

Motorcycle /

Scooter^ 1012 1068 % 99.0 97.9 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7

Other^ 1012 1068 % 97.7 97.7 1.8 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2

Didn’t travel to UWA

1040 1105 % 62.1 42.0 28.2 42.8 7.1 11.9 2.6 3.3

^ Exclude main mode ‘didn’t travel to UWA’ (2003 n=27, 2010 n=37) * statistically significant difference between gender in 2003 and 2010 (p<0.05)

4.1.2 Trips generated On average, each UWA student generated 7.7 trips to and from UWA per week (including both trips to and from UWA). At the time the survey was conducted in May 2010 there were 16,200 students enrolled at the main campus (i.e., Crawley and Nedlands). This equated to a total of 124,034 student trips generated per week. Of these 37.7% were by SOV which totalled 46,760 trips per week. This suggests that 23,380 cars belonging to students are parked at or near UWA each week (assuming that two trips equals one car), or 4,676 cars per day (not accounting for variation between weekdays – see Table 4.3). Walking, cycling and public transport are all considered ‘active modes’ of transport as each involve an element of physical activity. For active modes, 8.7% of student trips were generated by walking, 6.7% by cycling and 34.4% by public transport (Table 4.2). Therefore, based on the number of students at the main campus at the time of the survey, 42,677 trips were made each week by public transport, 10,772 trips were made by walking and 8,333 by cycling.


Table 4.2: Number of trips to and from UWA generated per week (2010)

% of trips No trips in sample

No trips by student per week

(estimated^)

No trips per academic

year (estimated #)

SOV 37.7 3,189 46,760 1,636,600

Public transport 34.4 2,911 42,677 1,493,695

Walk 8.7 735 10,772 377,020

Cycle 6.7 568 8,333 291,655

Dropped off 4.1 349 5,115 253,190

Car pool 5.8 493 7,234 253,190

Motorcycle / Scooter

1.4 117 1,720 60,200

Other 1.1 97 1,424 49,840

TOTAL 100.0 8,460 124,034 4,341,190 ^ based on student population of 16,200 and average of 7.7 trips per student per week # based on 35 week academic year

4.1.3 Changes in mode by day of week Over 90% of trips made to and from UWA every day were by the same mode each way. Therefore to examine how travel mode changes over the course of a working week the mode used to travel to UWA was examined with the assumption that most return trips used the same mode. Table 4.3 presents the mode students used to travel to UWA each day of the week. Travel by each mode appeared consistent between Monday and Thursday. On Friday a larger proportion of students did not travel to UWA (36.7%). Thus, most travel modes decreased, particularly SOV and public transport. Table 4.3: Mode used to travel to UWA each day of week (2010)

Monday %

(N=1105)

Tuesday %

(N=1105)

Wednesday %

(N=1105)

Thursday %

(N=1105)

Friday %

(N=1105)

SOV 29.6 30.0 30.0 29.2 25.3

Dropped off 4.5 3.9 4.0 3.4 3.0

Car pool 4.6 3.7 5.5 5.1 3.1

Public transport 27.0 28.2 26.8 27.4 20.0

Walk 6.8 6.1 7.4 6.4 6.2

Cycle 5.2 5.7 5.6 5.3 3.9

Motorcycle / Scooter 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1

Didn’t travel to UWA 20.2 20.6 18.9 20.9 36.7

Other Method 1.1 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.9


4.2 Main mode A ‘main mode’ of travel was allocated to each respondent and was defined as the respondents’ dominant travel mode. In the case of respondents who used more than two transport in a week, ‘main mode’ was the most frequently used mode and may have comprised of less than six trips per week. Figure 4.3 presents the proportion of respondents in 2003 and 2010 using each mode as their main mode of travel to UWA. In both 2003 and 2010, SOV and public transport were the most frequent main modes of travel. • Public transport as a main mode of transport to UWA increased si

in 2003 to 33.3% in 2010. • Walking as a ‘main mode’ decreased significantly from 12.0% of students walking in

2003 to 7.4% in 2010. • SOV use as a ‘main mode’ remained constant (34.5% in 2003 and 33.4% in 2010). • The proportion of students cycling declined from 7.9% in 2003 to 6.2% in 2010.

* statistically significant difference between

Figure 4.3: Proportion of students using each as m

34.5

2.4 3.6

33.4

1.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

%


A ‘main mode’ of travel was allocated to each respondent and was defined as the respondents’ dominant travel mode. In the case of respondents who used more than two transport in a week, ‘main mode’ was the most frequently used mode and may have comprised

proportion of respondents in 2003 and 2010 using each mode as their

main mode of travel to UWA. In both 2003 and 2010, SOV and public transport were the most frequent main modes of travel.

Public transport as a main mode of transport to UWA increased significantly from 25.3% in 2003 to 33.3% in 2010. Walking as a ‘main mode’ decreased significantly from 12.0% of students walking in 2003 to 7.4% in 2010. SOV use as a ‘main mode’ remained constant (34.5% in 2003 and 33.4% in 2010).

students cycling declined from 7.9% in 2003 to 6.2% in 2010.

significant difference between 2003 and 2010 (p<0.05)

Proportion of students using each as main mode to travel to UWA by year

25.3

12.07.9

0.9

12.8

4.1

33.3

7.4 6.21.0

2003 (n=1040) 2010 (n=1105)

Survey

A ‘main mode’ of travel was allocated to each respondent and was defined as the respondents’ dominant travel mode. In the case of respondents who used more than two different modes of transport in a week, ‘main mode’ was the most frequently used mode and may have comprised

proportion of respondents in 2003 and 2010 using each mode as their main mode of travel to UWA. In both 2003 and 2010, SOV and public transport were the most

gnificantly from 25.3%

Walking as a ‘main mode’ decreased significantly from 12.0% of students walking in

SOV use as a ‘main mode’ remained constant (34.5% in 2003 and 33.4% in 2010). students cycling declined from 7.9% in 2003 to 6.2% in 2010.

UWA by year

12.8

0.7

11.7

1.3


4.2.1 Main mode of transport by gender Table 4.4 shows the difference in the choice of ‘main mode’ by gender. There were few differences in 2010 between males and females in their use of SOVs, car pooling, being dropped at UWA, and motorcycle or scooter use. Differences were observed for the remaining ‘main modes’. • Males were more likely to cycle as their main mode of travel (9.9%) compared with

females (2.6%). Females were more likely to walk (8.6%) compared with males (6.3%). Males were more likely to use an active commuting mode compared with females (56.8% and 51.5% respectively).

• The proportion of males using public transport as their main mode of travel increased from 22.8% in 2003 to 33.5% in 2010. Among females, the proportion using public transport increased from 27.9% in 2003 to 33.2% in 2010 while the proportion of females cycling halved.

Table 4.4: Main mode of transport by gender (2003 and 2010)

Female Male Total

Main mode of transport

2003 (n=517)

%

2010 (n=548)

%

2003 (n=523)

%

2010 (n=556)

%

2003 (n=1040)

%

2010 (n=1105)

%

SOV 32.5 33.0 36.3 33.8 34.4 33.4

Dropped off 2.7 1.8 2.1 1.4 2.4 1.6

Car pool 3.5 4.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0

Public transport^ 27.9 33.2 22.8 33.5 25.3 33.3

Walk^ 12.8 8.6 11.5 6.3 12.1 7.4

Cycle* 4.6 2.6 10.9 9.9 7.8 6.3

Motorcycle / Scooter 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0

Didn’t travel to UWA* 14.9 13.9 10.9 9.5 12.9 11.7

Other 0.8 1.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.3

All active modes (walking/cycling/public transport)

45.3 44.3 45.0 49.6 45.1 47.0

Excludes main mode ‘other’ (2003 n=7, 2010 n=14) ^ statistically significant difference between total in 2003 and 2010 (p<0.05) * statistically significant difference between gender in 2003 and 2010 (p<0.05)


4.2.2 Main mode of transport by age group Table 4.5 shows the relationship between the most frequently used transport mode and age. The results indicate that SOV usage was lowest among youngest respondents (23.5% in 2010). • The frequency of public transport use as a ‘main mode’ declined with age, with the most

significant decline occurring between the 16 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years age groups (from 52.3% to 24.6%). First year students at UWA are not provided with a parking permit which reflects the finding that the use of public transport was the most common mode among students in the 16 to 20 years age category (52.3%).

• Walking and cycling were more popular in the 26 to 30 year age groups (13.2% and 12.3% respectively) compared with the younger age groups.

• Among 16 to 20 year olds SOV use decreased from 31.0% in 2003 to 23.5% in 2010. Among older students SOV use increased from 29.0% to 34.9% in 26 to 30 year olds and 31.1% to 40.7% within respondents aged 31 years and older.

• Public transport use increased in 2010 compared with 2003 among all student age groups except the 31 years and older group.

• Walking decreased between 2003 and 2010 across all age groups. • Patterns for being dropped off and carpooling were similar between 2003 and 2010.

These modes were used by small proportions of younger students and decreased with age.

• Motorcycle and scooter travel was used by small proportions of students and little change was observed among age groups between 2003 and 2010.

• In 2003 and 2010 the proportion of students who did not travel to UWA increased with age.

• Use of active modes to travel to UWA in 2010 was greatest among students aged 16 to 20 years (62.7%) and lowest among those aged 31 years or older (20.6%). Use of active modes increased from 53.3% in 2003 to 62.7% in 2010 among 16 to 20 year olds. Active travel use decreased among 26 to 30 year olds (from 47.5% in 2003 to 43.0% in 2010) and 31 years and older (from 31.6% in 2003 and 20.6% in 2010).


Table 4.5: Main mode of transport by age (2003 and 2010) Age Group

16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years & over

Main Mode of Transport

2003 (n=410)

%

2010 (n=438)

%

2003 (n=396)

%

2010 (n=419)

%

2003 (n=100)

%

2010 (n=106)

%

2003 (n=132)

%

2010 (n=140)

%

SOV* 31.0 23.5 40.7 41.1 29.0 34.9 31.1 40.7

Dropped off 3.7 2.3 1.5 1.2 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.7

Car pool* 5.6 6.6 3.5 3.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

Public transport* 39.0 52.3 17.4 24.6 14.0 17.0 15.2 12.1

Walk* 9.3 5.7 15.4 8.8 17.0 13.2 7.6 3.6

Cycle* 5.1 4.6 8.1 7.2 17.0 12.3 9.1 4.3

Motorcycle / Scooter 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.9 3.0 0.9 0.8 0.7

Didn’t travel to UWA* 4.9 3.2 12.4 11.0 18.0 16.0 34.8 37.1

Other 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.8 0.8 0.7

All active modes (walking/ cycling/ public transport)*

53.3 62.7 40.8 40.7 47.5 43.0 31.6 20.3

Excludes main mode ‘other’ (2003 n=7, 2010 n=14) * statistically significant difference between age groups in 2003 and 2010 (p<0.05)


4.2.3 Main mode of transport by distance lived from UWA Survey respondents were asked to select the suburb from which they usually travel to and from UWA. Each suburb was recoded into one of three zones, based on its distance to UWA. Zone 1 included suburbs where the majority of the suburb was located within a 1km radius of the UWA Nedlands/Crawley campus. This distance represents a ‘walkable’ distance. Zone 2 included suburbs outside of Zone 1 where the majority of the suburb fell within an 8 km radius of UWA, representing a ‘cyclable’ distance. Zone 3 covered the remaining suburbs throughout the metropolitan region. Figure 4.4 provides an overview of the areas included in the 1km and 8 km radius. The distances used in this report provide an indication of appropriate active commuting distances, however they are measured ‘as the crow flies’ and do not take into account location within the suburb or environmental factors such as quality of paths, roads, or geography of area. As indicated in Figure 4.4 the suburbs included in Zone 1 were Crawley, Nedlands and Karrakatta. Zone 2 included Dalkeith, Claremont, Swanbourne, Peppermint Grove, Cottesloe, Mt Claremont, Shenton Park, Daglish, City Beach, Floreat, Jolimont, Wembley, Leederville, West Leederville, Subiaco, West Perth, Northbridge, East Perth, Perth CBD, North Perth and Highgate. In some cases the suburb boundaries did not conform to the boundaries created by the 1 and 8 km radius.

■ ‘Zone 1’ suburbs within approx 1km ■ ‘Zone 2’ suburbs within approx 2-8km □ ‘Zone 3’ suburbs further than 8km

Figure 4.4: Map of suburb zones


The distance between residence and campus was likely to influence students’ choice of transport mode. Table 4.6 demonstrates this effect by showing the percentages of students within each zone who travelled to UWA by each mode. In 2010, 69.6% of respondents living in Zone 1 walked to and from campus as their ‘main mode’, while 18.3% cycled as their ‘main mode’. The proportion of respondents cycling to UWA decreased to 14.9% in Zone 2 and 1.5% in Zone 3. • Frequent use of public transport increased with distance from campus in 2010 (1.7% in

Zone 1, 34.7% in Zone 2, and 37.7% in Zone 3). It is possible that as distance increases from UWA, those without access to a car find walking and cycling a less attractive option.

• The proportion of students living within a walkable distance of UWA who travelled in a SOV as their main mode increased from 3.2% in 2003 to 7.0% in 2010, and decreased within Zone 2 and Zone 3.

• Public transport increased within Zone 2 from 23.4% in 2003 to 34.7% in 2010. It also increased in Zone 3 from and 32.6% in 2003 to 37.7% in 2010.

• The proportion of students who lived in Zone 1 and cycled decreased from 24.6% in 2003 to 18.3% in 2010. Cycling increased among those living in Zone 2 from 10.7% in 2003 to 14.9% in 2010.

Table 4.6: Main mode of transport by distance from UWA (2003 and 2010) Distance

Zone 1

Walkable distance Zone 2

Cyclable distance Zone 3

Main mode of Transport

2003 (n=187)

%

2010 (n=115)

%

2003 (n=196)

%

2010 (n=248)

%

2003 (n=657)

%

2010 (n=741)

%

SOV* 3.2 7.0 39.1 31.9 42.0 38.1

Dropped off *2003 0.5 2.6 6.6 2.4 1.8 1.3

Car pooling 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 5.2 5.5

Public transport* 1.6 1.7 23.4 34.7 32.6 37.7

Walk* 64.7 69.6 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.0

Cycle* 24.6 18.3 10.7 14.9 2.1 1.5

Motorcycle/Scooter 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9

Didn’t travel to UWA 4.8 0.9 15.7 11.3 14.3 13.5

Other 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.5

All active modes (walking/ cycling/ public transport)*

91.4 89.7 35.5 50.4 35.0 39.1

Excludes main mode ‘other’ (2003 n=7, 2010 n=14) * statistically significant difference between suburb zone in 2003 and 2010 (p<0.05)


4.2.4 Combination of transport modes Students used a combination of modes to travel to UWA during the week. As illustrated in Table 4.7, 10.8% of students who travel in a SOV as their ‘main mode’ also used public transport (10.6%) and 9.5% used car pooling for at least one trip during the week. Those who used public transport and those who used cycling as their main mode also travelled by SOV for at least one journey (15.8% public transport and 18.8% cyclists). Table 4.7: Proportion of students using other modes of travel to UWA by main mode (2010)

Main mode

Sometimes use mode

SOV (n=369)

%

Public transport

(n=368) %

Walk (n=82)

%

Cycle (n=69)

%

SOV - 15.8 2.4 18.8

Dropped off 6.2 20.9 7.3 7.2

Car pool 9.5 12.0 3.7 11.6

Public transport 10.8 - 11.0 13.0

Walk 0.0 1.6 - 8.7

Cycle 0.8 2.7 8.4 -

Motorcycle / Scooter 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.0

Didn’t travel to UWA 51.6 51.4 25.3 41.2

Other 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 Respondents may use multiple modes to travel to UWA therefore proportions will not sum to 100% Excludes respondents using motorcycle, other, drop off, car pool or not travelling to UWA as main mode

4.2.5 Main mode of transport by parking permit In 2010, 16.7% of students who responded to the survey owned a UWA student parking permit, 35.6% did not own a parking permit as they were not eligible and 47.7% chose not to own a parking permit (data not shown). • Of those who owned a parking permit 80.0% drove to UWA in a SOV as their ‘main

mode’, compared with 24.0% of those who did not own a permit (whether it be by choice or ineligibility).

• Students who did not own a parking permit were significantly more likely to walk (8.9% vs. 0.0%), cycle (7.2% vs. 1.6%) and use public transport (39.2% vs. 3.8%) compared with students who own a parking permit.

• There were no statistically significant differences in the main mode of travel between students who chose not to buy a UWA parking permit and those who were not eligible for a parking permit.


4.2.6 Demographic factors associated with being an active commuter After adjusting for age, suburb zone and possession of a parking permit there were no statistically significant gender differences in the odds of being an active commuter (Table 4.8). • The odds of being an active commuter were significantly lower amongst respondents age

21 years and older compared with those aged 16 to 20 years of age, and 8.4 times higher in students living in Zone 1 compared with those living in Zone 3.

• Students in Zone 2 (between approximately 2 and 8 kms) were slightly more likely than students living in Zone 3 (greater than 8kms) to use an active mode.

• Students with no parking permit (whether by choice or lack of eligibility) were between 25.5 (95% CI 12.0-54.5) and 28.7 (95% CI 13.6 – 60.7) times more likely to use an active mode to travel to UWA as their ‘main mode’ compared with those who owned a student parking permit.

Table 4.8: Factors associated with being an active commuter (2010)

Characteristic N=976 Odds ratio 95%

Confidence Interval

Gender

Female 1.0

Male 1.2 0.9 - 1.7

Age Group

16 to 20 1.0

21 to 25 0.4 0.3 - 0.6

26 to 30 0.4 0.2 - 0.7

31 and above 0.2 0.1 - 0.4

Suburb Zone

Zone 3 (>8km radius) 1.0

Zone 2 Cyclable (>1, <8 km radius) 1.2 0.9 – 1.8

Zone 1 Walkable (<1km radius) 8.4 4.3 – 16.7

Parking permit

Yellow parking permit 1.0

No parking permit (choice) 25.5 12.0 – 54.5

No parking permit (ineligible) 28.7 13.6 – 60.7 Active commuter N=535 Not active commuter N=447. Excludes ‘did not travel to UWA’ N=123 Bold signifies statistical significance (<0.05) Data not weighted


4.3 Main reason for using transport mode Respondents were asked to choose one reason that best described why they chose their main mode of travel to and from UWA. The main reasons for respondents who used a SOV, public transport, walking or cycling as their ‘main mode’ are presented in Table 4.9 (2010 data only). In 2010, the main reasons for using each of the key ‘main modes’ reflected those reported in 2003. • Among SOV users, ‘length of travel time’ and ‘convenience’ were the main reasons

chosen by respondents (27.3% and 25.2% respectively) (Table 4.9). ‘Poor public transport’ and ‘need to run errands before, during or after work/study’ were also selected as main reasons for using SOV to travel to UWA (10.2% and 9.2% respectively).

• The majority of respondents who used public transport did so because they did not have access to a car (36.2%) or because they preferred public transport for ‘cost savings’ (25.3%). The cost of parking and availability of parking were cited by 7.8% and 8.3% of respondents respectively as the main reason for using public transport.

• In regard to walking, the vast majority of respondents who walked to UWA did so because they lived close to campus (88.6%), compared to 26.8% of respondents who cycled because they lived close to campus. Only a small proportion of walkers did so primarily for exercise (9.4%). Cycling was associated with enjoyment (19.3%), exercise (18.8%) and cost savings (16.6%).

• Other reasons for using a main mode of travel was collected and is presented in Table 4.9 as ‘other’. Reasons mentioned by public transport users were mostly to do with cost of parking and fuel and traffic congestion. For SOV users, reasons included having to travel to and from campus at night, only needing to be at UWA for short periods of time and needing to travel off main campus for study. For cycling, other reasons were a combination of avoiding traffic, exercise and saving time (quicker to cycle than anything else).

In general, there were a number of predominant reasons behind UWA students transport mode choices. These reasons differed according to the mode chosen. However, for most modes it was the practical convenience issues that attracted commuters, particularly those associated with distance and time. Cycling was the exception to this rule because it was associated with exercise and enjoyment and was, therefore, seen as more than just a method of transportation.


Table 4.9: Main reason for using main mode of travel to or from UWA (2010) Main mode

Main reason for using main mode of travel:

SOV (n=369)

%

Public Transport

(n=368)

%

Walk (n=82)

%

Cycle (n=69)

%

Live close to UWA/on UWA campus - - 88.6 26.8

No car available/don’t have license - 36.2 0.0 3.9

Length of travel time 27.3 - - -

Convenience 25.2 12.6 - -

Cost saving - 25.3 0.0 16.6

Exercise - - 9.4 18.8

Enjoyment - - 1.0 19.3

Poor public transport 10.2 - - -

Run errands before, during or after work

9.2 - - -

Availability of parking at UWA - 8.3 1.0 1.9

Car needed for work purposes 7.3 - - -

Cost of parking at UWA - 7.8 0.0 5.9

Pick up or drop off people on the way 5.0 0.0 - -

Unable to get parking permit - 4.2 0.0 2.0

Too much to carry 4.7 - - -

Comfort 3.5 0.6 - -

Less forward planning 3.2 - - -

Environmental concerns - 2.0 0.0 0.0

Access to cheap/free parking 0.4 - - -

Other 4.1 3.1 0.0 4.8

Excludes main mode dropped off, carpool, other, did not travel to UWA, motorcycle/scooter (n=217)


4.4 Alternative modes considered Respondents were asked if they were considering an alternative mode to travel to UWA. As shown in (Table 4.10), one quarter of student respondents in 2010 were considering altering their mode of travel to UWA (25.9%). This proportion was consistent with 2003 results (25.5%). Overall, only very few (0.3%) UWA students in 2010 were considering walking, 6.4% were considering cycling and 9.3% were considering taking public transport. Notably, almost 7% of 2010 respondents were considering changing to a SOV/motorcycle/scooter. Table 4.10: Alternative mode considered by year

Alternative Modes Considered 2003

(N=1,040)

%

2010 (N=1,105)

%

Not considering alternative 74.5 74.1

SOV/motorcycle/scooter 6.9 6.7

Car pool 1.3 1.7

Dropped off 1.2 1.0

Public transport 9.5 9.3

Cycle 5.0 6.4

Walk 1.3 0.3

Work from home/Telework 0.0 0.2

Other 0.3 0.3

No statistically significant difference between 2003 and 2010 (p>0.05)

As shown in Table 4.11, students currently using SOV or motorcycle/scooter as their main mode for travel were the most likely to be considering changing to an alternative mode (34.4%). Public transport and cycling were the most frequently considered alternative for SOV motorcycle/scooter users, with 21.1% considering public transport and 8.1% considering walking or cycling. • Of those who currently used public transport, 14.9% were considering switching to

using an SOV, along with 10.5% of those who were usually dropped off at UWA and 7.2% of regular cyclists.

• Overall, 9.2% of students were considering taking up public transport and 6.4% were considering walking or cycling, while 6.8% were considering SOV/motorcycle/scooter.


Table 4.11: Alternative mode considered by current mode of transport (2010) Alternative Considered

Current main mode

N SOV/mc

ycle/ scooter

Car pool

Public Transport

Walk or Cycle^

Drop off

Work from home

Other Not

considering

SOV/mcycle/ scooter

369 % 2.2 1.9 21.1 8.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 65.6

Drop off 19 % 10.5 5.3 5.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.4

Car pool 45 % 4.4 2.2 8.9 4.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 77.8

Public transport

368 % 14.9 1.1 0.3 5.7 2.2 0.0 0.3 75.5

Walk 83 % 0.0 1.2 2.4 13.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 80.7

Cycle 69 % 7.2 1.4 10.1 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 78.3

Didn’t travel to UWA

129 % 2.3 3.1 7.0 5.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 81.4

Overall 1107 % 6.8 1.7 9.2 6.4 1.1 0.2 0.4 74.0

^ Walk and Cycle combined as N considering walking =3 Excludes ‘other’ n=6


4.4.1 Alternative mode considered by distance lived from UWA Compared with those living outside of an 8 km radius, a higher percentage of those living within a cyclable distance of campus (i.e., >1km, <=8km) were considering adopting active modes (Table 4.12). The percentage of students who were considering taking public transport was higher in Zone 2 (13.0%) than in Zone 3 (9.2%). A small proportion of students residing in Zone 1 were considering changing to SOV/motorcycle/scooter (2.6%). As would be expected, more students in Zone 1 and 2 were considering walking or cycling compared with those living in Zone 3. Table 4.12: Alternative mode considered by distance from UWA (2010)

Distance*

Alternative mode considered

Zone 1 Walkable

(n=116)

%

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=246)

%

Zone 3 (n=742)

%

Not considering an alternative 79.3 69.5 74.9

SOV/motorcycle/scooter 2.6 4.9 7.8

Public transport 2.6 13.0 9.2

Walk or Cycle^ 11.2 10.6 4.6

Car pool 1.7 0.4 2.2

Dropped off 1.7 1.2 0.8

Other 0.9 0.4 0.5 ^ Walk and Cycle combined as N considering walking =3 * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05)


4.4.2 Demographic factors associated with drivers considering an active mode After adjusting for gender, age and suburb zone, students with no parking permit were at least twice as likely to be considering changing from SOV to an active mode compared with students with a student parking permit (no parking permit by choice OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.1 – 3.5); no parking permit (not eligible) OR 2.4 (95% CI 1.2-4.5)) (Table 4.13). Table 4.13: Factors associated with drivers considering an active mode (2010)

Characteristic N=355 Odds ratio 95% Confidence Interval

Gender

Female 1.0

Male 0.8 0.5 - 1.3

Age Group

16 to 20 1.0

21 to 25 1.1 0.7 – 2.0

26 to 30 1.7 0.8 – 4.0

31 and above 0.7 0.3 – 1.5

Suburb Zone

Zone 3 (>8km radius) 1.0

Zone 2 Cyclable (>1, <8 km radius) 0.7 0.1 – 3.6

Zone 1 Walkable (<1km radius) 1.6 0.9 – 2.9

Parking permit

Yellow parking permit 1.0

No parking permit (choice) 2.0 1.1 – 3.5

No parking permit (ineligible) 2.4 1.2 – 4.5 SOV considering AC mode N=106, SOV not considering AC mode N=249. Bold signifies statistical significance (p<0.05) Data not weighted

4.5 Individual and social factors with potential to influence transport modes Behaviours are influenced by a wide range of factors, many of which include individual and social factors as well as environmental influences. Individual influences include self efficacy, attitudes and norms, while environment might include facilities, distance and infrastructure. To capture some of the individual and social factors which are likely to influence commuting behaviour, students were asked about their confidence to use active commuting modes, attitudes towards commuting, environment and individual and social norms. Results are presented in the following section.


4.5.1 Self-efficacy toward active commuting modes Self-efficacy is concerned with people's beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their own functioning and over events that affect their lives (Bandura 1994). Students who feel more confident in their ability to actively commute to or from UWA are more likely to respond to efforts to encourage active commuting. A self efficacy question was included in the questionnaire to measure respondents’ confidence to walk, cycle or take public transport all or part of the way to UWA on a regular basis. Confidence levels for walking, cycling and public transport were then compared with their current main mode and suburb zone, as well as with any alternative modes that they had recently considered. Respondents were asked to describe their confidence in their ability to actively commute “to or from UWA on at least some days of the week and continue doing so” using a scale between 1 (not at all confident) and 5 (very confident). For this analysis the scale was collapsed into three broader categories: ‘not confident’, ‘neither confident or not confident’ and ‘confident’. 4.5.1.1 Self efficacy to active commute by demographic characteristics There were no statistically significant differences between males and females and confidence to walk or use public transport on a regular basis to travel to UWA. • The majority of students were confident they could use public transport to travel to UWA

on at least some days of the week (63.4%). Three quarters of students (76.5%) were not confident they could walk to UWA (Appendix Table 6.1).

• More males were confident they could regularly cycle to UWA (30.8%) than females (20.1%) (Appendix Table 6.1).

• Confidence to regularly use public transport to travel to UWA decreased with age. Eight out of ten (79.2%) of students aged 16 to 20 years were confident they could use public transport compared with only 39.4% of students aged 31 years and over (Appendix Table 6.2).

• Nevertheless, students aged between 26 and 30 years were more likely to be confident to walk or cycle to UWA compared with all other age groups (27.3% confident walk, 39.4% confident cycle) (Appendix Table 6.2).

Table 4.14 presents confidence levels for active commuting by suburb zone (i.e., distance from UWA). • Of students living within a walkable distance from UWA (i.e., <=1km), 87.1% were

confident they could walk, despite only 69.6% reporting they were current regular walkers. However, the majority of non-walkers in Zone 1 were cyclists. In contrast, 14.5% of students living within a cyclable distance from UWA (i.e., >1km and <=8km) were confident that they could walk, whilst only 0.8% regularly walked to or from UWA.

• With regard to cycling, 63.8% of students living in Zone 1 were confident that they could cycle, compared to 18.3% who actually did cycle as their main mode. In Zone 2, 45.7% were confident they could cycle but only 14.9% cycled as their main mode.

• In Zone 2, 66.8% were confident that they could regularly take public transport part or all of the way to or from UWA, although only 34.7% currently use public transport on a regular basis. In Zone 3, 66.4% of students were confident they could use public transport compared with only 37.7% who currently did so.

• The proportion of respondents living in Zone 2 and Zone 3 who were confident they could use public transport increased significantly between 2003 and 2010 (Zone 2: 55.4% in 2003 to 66.8% in 2010; Zone 3: 60.1% in 2003 to 66.4% in 2010 (p<0.05)).


Table 4.14: Confidence to use an active mode by distance to UWA (2010)

SELF EFFICACY – WALKING* N

Not confident

Neither confident nor not

confident

Confident

Suburb Zone

Zone 1 – walkable distance 116 % 6.9 6.0 87.1

Zone 2 – cyclable distance 248 % 73.8 11.7 14.5

Zone 3 – other 741 % 88.3 5.3 6.5

SELF EFFICACY – CYCLING* N

Not confident


confident

Confident

Suburb Zone



Zone 3 – other 741 % 73.2 13.9 12.8

SELF EFFICACY – PUBLIC TRANSPORT* N

Not confident


confident

Confident

Suburb Zone



Zone 3 – other 741 % 18.5 15.1 66.4

* statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05)


Table 4.15 presents students’ confidence in relation to regular walking, cycling or public transport use by current main mode of travel to or from UWA. • Students who were already regularly walking, cycling or taking public transport to UWA

were mostly ‘confident’ in their ability to continue to do so, as might be expected (97.6%, 100.0% and 97.8% respectively). SOV users were the least confident that they could adopt walking, cycling or public transport for all or part of their journey to UWA.

• 43.1% of SOV users were confident they could use public transport, 12.4% were confident they could cycle and 4.6% confident they could walk all or part of the journey to UWA. In general, respondents who were not currently using active modes were more confident that they could use public transport rather than walk or cycle. These patterns were similar to patterns seen in the 2003 survey.

Table 4.15: Confidence to use an active mode by current main mode of travel (2010)

SELF EFFICACY - WALKING

Not confident

Neither confident nor not confident

Confident

Main mode of transport N

SOV 369 % 89.7 5.7 4.6

Public transport 368 % 77.7 9.2 13.0

Walk 82 % 0.0 2.4 97.6

Cycle 69 % 55.9 10.3 33.8

Other modes^ 89 % 86.0 6.2 7.8

SELF EFFICACY - CYCLING

Not confident


Confident


SOV 369 % 70.8 16.8 12.4


Walk 82 % 19.5 18.3 62.2

Cycle 69 % 0.0 0.0 100.0

Other modes^ 89 % 68.2 17.0 14.8

SELF EFFICACY - PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Not confident


Confident


SOV 369 % 31.7 25.2 43.1


Walk 82 % 37.8 29.3 32.9

Cycle 69 % 20.3 27.5 52.2

Other modes^ 89 % 20.7 13.8 65.5

Excludes ‘didn’t travel to UWA’ N=129 ^ Other modes includes other, dropped off, carpool, motorcycle/scooter


4.5.1.2 Self efficacy to active commute by alternative mode considered Table 4.16 examines confidence to change mode according to the alternative mode respondents reported considering adopting for at least some of their trips to or from UWA. Only three respondents were considering walking as an alternative mode to travel to UWA therefore considering walking and cycling were combined. Students were more confident they could cycle than walk. • Of those considering walking or cycling to or from UWA on at least some days of the

week, 78.4% were confident that they could cycle on a regular basis. • Almost seven out of ten (68.9%) students considering using public transport were

confident they could do so for at least some days of the week. • Most (91.9%) students considering changing to a SOV/motorcycle /scooter to travel to

UWA were confident they could use public transport. This is because most of these students were already public transport users.

Table 4.16: Confidence to use an active mode by alternative mode considered (2010)

SELF EFFICACY - WALKING N Not

confident


Confident


SOV/motorcycle/scooter 74 % 85.1 4.1 10.8


Walk or Cycle^ 73 % 69.9 6.8 23.3

Not considering alternative 819 % 75.2 6.8 17.9

SELF EFFICACY - CYCLING N Not

confident


Confident




Walk or Cycle^ 73 % 5.4 16.2 78.4

Not considering alternative 819 % 62.8 14.4 22.8

SELF EFFICACY - PUBLIC TRANSPORT N

Not confident


Confident




Walk or Cycle^ 73 % 28.8 17.8 53.4

Not considering alternative 819 % 22.1 16.2 61.7 Excludes other modes (drop off n=11; car pool n=19; didn’t travel to UWA; telework n=2 and other n=4) as N’s too small ^ Walk and Cycle combined as N considering walking =3


4.5.1.3 Self efficacy factors associated with being an active commuter After adjustment for gender, age group and suburb, active commuters were 2.7 times more likely to be confident they could regularly walk to UWA (95% CI 1.5-5.0); 3.5 times more likely to be confident they could regularly cycle to UWA (95% CI 2.2-5.6) and 18.7 times more confident they could regularly use public transport (95% CI 9.9-35.2) compared with those who were not confident they could actively commute in the future (Table 4.17). Table 4.17: Factors associated with being an active commuter (2010)

Characteristic N=982 Odds ratio 95%

Confidence Interval

Self-Efficacy

Walk all or part way to UWA

Not confident 1.0


1.6 0.9 – 2.9

Confident 2.7 1.5 – 5.0

Cycle all or part way to UWA

Not confident 1.0

Neither confident nor not confident 0.8 0.5 – 1.2

Confident 3.5 2.2 – 5.6

Use public transport to get all or part way to UWA

Not confident 1.0


2.6 1.3 – 5.4

Confident 18.7 9.9 – 35.2 Model included adjustment for gender, age group and suburb zone Active commuter N=535 Not active commuter N=447. Excludes ‘did not travel to UWA’ N=123 Bold signifies statistical significance Data not weighted

4.5.1.4 Self efficacy factors associated with drivers considering an active mode Less than one third of SOV drivers were considering an active mode (29.9%). Nevertheless, the demographic and self-efficacy factors associated with drivers considering an active mode were examined and only SOV drivers were included in the analysis (n=355). After adjusting for gender, age and distance from UWA, drivers who were confident they could regularly cycle to UWA (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.6-6.7) or could regularly use public transport to travel to UWA (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.4-4.9) were more likely to be considering an active mode than those who were not confident they could do so (Table 4.18).


Table 4.18: Self efficacy factors associated with drivers considering an active mode (2010)

Self Efficacy N=355 Odds ratio

95% Confidence

Interval

Confident to walk all or part way to UWA

Not confident 1.0

Neither confident nor not confident 0.9 0.3 – 2.6

Confident 0.5 0.1 – 1.8

Confident to cycle all or part way to UWA

Not confident 1.0


1.8 0.9 – 3.5

Confident 3.3 1.6 – 6.7

Confident to use public transport to get all or part way to UWA

Not confident 1.0


1.4 0.7 – 2.9

Confident 2.6 1.4 – 4.9 SOV considering active mode N=106 SOV driver not considering alternative) N=249 Model included adjustment for gender, age group and suburb zone Bold signifies statistical significance Data not weighted

4.5.2 Perceived importance of factors likely to influence commuting choice In 2010 survey respondents were asked to rate the personal importance (one ‘not at all important’ to five ‘very important’) of a series of statements reflecting attitudes towards protecting the environment, and commuting (Handy, Sallis et al. 2008). Respondents rated the importance of seven statements (three relating to protection of the environment, two for commuting to work/study and two using active commuting modes to travel to UWA). • As shown in Figure 4.5 students rated having a quick and a cheap commute to

work/study as more important (mean 4.5 and 4.2 respectively) than environmental concerns, such as protecting the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to reduce air and water pollution which were rated as less personally important (mean range 3.3 – 3.4).

Figure 4.5: Importance of individual factors likely to influence choice of transport mode (2010)

2.6

3.0

3.3

3.4

3.4

4.2

4.5

1 2 3 4 5

Walk or cycle to UWA when possible

Use PT to travel to UWA when possible

Help reduce air and water pollution

Help reduce green house gas emissions

Help protect the environment

Have a cheap commute to work/study

Have a quick commute to work/study

Mean importance (n=1105)

Not at all important

Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant


4.5.3 Perceived importance of factors likely to influence commuting choice by demographic characteristics

The following differences in attitudes between gender, age and distance from UWA were noted. • Females were significantly more likely to rate helping protect the environment, reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air and water pollution and using public transport to travel to UWA as more personally important to them compared with males (p<0.05)(Appendix Table 6.3).

• On average, having a cheap commute to UWA was rated as less important to older students aged (31 years or older: mean 3.9 (SD1.3)) compared with other younger students (16-20 years: mean 4.3 (SD 0.9)) (Appendix Table 6.4).

• Rating protecting the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing air and water pollution as personally important was higher in students aged 26 to 30 years (mean 3.8 (SD 1.1), 3.8 (SD1.1), 3.8 (SD 1.0) respectively) than younger students aged 16 to 20 years (mean 3.2 (SD 1.2), 3.2 (SD1.2), 3.1 (SD 1.2) respectively)(Appendix Table 6.4).

• There were no differences in ratings of having a quick and cheap commute to study by distance lived from UWA. On average, students who lived within a walkable distance from UWA rated walking or cycling to UWA, rated protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions as of higher personal importance compared with those residing further from UWA (Appendix Table 6.5).

• Students who walked or cycled to UWA most trips of the week rated their personal responsibilities to the environment and encouraging active commuting as more important, on average, compared with those travelling to UWA in a SOV (Appendix Table 6.6).

Students were asked to rate how important it is to them that UWA sought to help protect the environment, reduce air and water pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage students and staff to use public transport, walking or cycling to travel to UWA. Mean rating of importance of each of these by gender, age and distance from UWA are presented in Appendix Tables. • Females rated all statements referring to UWA responsibility as more important than

males. (p<0.05)(Appendix Table 6.7). • 16-20 year olds rated all statements as less importance than older age groups.

(p<0.05)(Appendix Table 6.8). • Students living within walkable distance of UWA rated all statements, as more important

than those living in Zone 3 more than 8 kms from UWA (Appendix Table 6.9). • Students who walked or cycled to UWA most trips of the week rated UWA

responsibilities to the environment and encouraging active commuting as more important, on average, than those travelling to UWA by SOV (Appendix Table 6.10).

4.5.4 Norms Social norms may influence intention to adopt certain behaviours. Perception that other people are engaging in a behaviour may influence the intention of an individual to adopt similar behaviour. Similarly, individuals sense of moral obligation is also likely to influence their intention to adopt behaviours (White, Smith et al. 2009). Therefore, students were asked about their sense of responsibility to reduce car use, and perception of car use among friend and family.


4.5.4.1 Social responsibility to reduce car use Respondents were asked to select the extent to which they agreed with the statement ‘I feel a social responsibility to reduce my car use’. The response scale ranged from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’ and included a ‘not applicable’ response. A total of 68 (6.1%) of students responded not applicable and were excluded from the following analysis. The mean agreement with reducing car use by demographic characteristics is presented below in Table 4.19. • The mean agreement was significantly higher for females (3.6 (SD 1.2)) compared with

males (3.3 (SD 1.3)). • Students aged 26 years or older were more likely to consider reducing car use a social

responsibility compared with younger respondents. • Mean agreement to reducing car use decreased as distance lived from UWA increased. • Students who usually actively commuted to UWA (walk, cycle, use public transport)

were more likely to agree that reducing car used was a personal social responsibility compared with those who use SOV to travel to UWA.

Students considering changing to walking or cycling to travel to UWA were more likely to agree that reducing car use was a personal social responsibility (mean 3.9 (SD1.4)) compared with others.


Table 4.19: Personal social responsibility to reduce car use (2010)

Mean agreement for ‘feel a

social responsibility to reduce my car use’

(N=1105)

Characteristic Mean SD

Gender*

Female 3.6 1.2

Male 3.3 1.3

Total 3.4 1.3

Age Group*

16 to 20 3.3 1.4

21 to 25 3.4 1.2

26 to 30 3.7 1.2

31 and above 3.7 1.2

Suburb Zone*

Zone 3 3.3 1.3

Zone 2 Cyclable 3.6 1.3

Zone 1 Walkable 3.8 1.3

Main mode*

SOV 3.1 1.2

Public Transport 3.7 1.4

Walk 3.9 1.2

Cycle 3.6 1.1

Didn’t travel to UWA 3.5 1.2

Other modes 3.2 1.3

Alternative modes considered*

Not considering alternative 3.4 1.3

SOV / motorcycle /scooter 3.2 1.2

Walk or Cycle 3.9 1.4

Public Transport 3.5 1.1

Other modes 3.7 1.2

* statistically significant difference between group within demographics (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

4.5.4.2 Norms among friends and family Almost two thirds of student respondents reported knowing people who were currently trying to reduce their car use (55.0% reported knowing ‘some’ people and 7.5% reported knowing ‘many’ people). One quarter did not know anyone trying to reduce their car use (26.1%) and 11.4% did not know. There were no statistically significant differences in response by gender, age groups, suburb zone, main mode of travel to UWA or consideration of alternative mode.


4.5.4.3 Individual, social and environmental factors associated with drivers considering an active mode

The individual, social and environmental attitudes and norms presented above as well as demographic characteristics examined association with SOV drivers intention to change to an active mode. As presented in Table 4.20, after adjusting for demographic factors, the odds of a student considering changing from SOV to an active mode were twice as high in those who perceived it important to protecting the environment or who felt a personal responsibility to reduce their car use and to use active modes wherever possible. Table 4.20: Attitudes and norms associated with drivers considering an active mode (2010)

Characteristic N=355 Odds ratio

95% Confidence

Interval

Help reduce air and water pollution

Not important 1.0

Somewhat important 1.5 0.9 – 2.5

Very important 2.0 1.2 – 3.4

Help protect the environment

Not important 1.0



Help reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Not important 1.0



Use public transport to travel to UWA when possible

Not important 1.0



Walk or cycle to UWA when possible

Not important 1.0



Feel social responsibility to reduce my car use

Disagree 1.0

Neither 1.1 0.7 – 1.9

Agree 2.0 1.2 – 3.1

Have a quick commute to work/study

Not important 1.0



Have a cheap commute to work/study

Not important 1.0


Very important 1.0 0.5 – 2.0 SOV considering active mode N=106 SOV driver not considering alternative N=249 Model included adjustment for gender, age group, suburb zone, parking permit Bold signifies statistical significance (<0.05) Data not weighted


4.6 Barriers to Active Commuting Respondents were asked to rate a number of barriers to walking, cycling and using public transport on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being ‘not at all important’ and 5 ‘very important’. Barriers to active commuting were specific to the mode respondents were considering changing to travel to UWA. Only three respondents in 2010 were considering walking as an alternative mode of travel to UWA, therefore the mean results for barriers to walking are not reported. For those respondents, the need to start work early and finish later was the most important barrier to walking to or from UWA. 4.6.1 Barriers to using public transport Figure 4.6 presents the mean level of importance of each suggested barrier to using public transport among students considering using public transport to travel to UWA (n=104). ‘Time involved’ was the barrier rated most important by respondents who were considering using public transport (mean 4.4). Other items rated as ‘somewhat important’ or above were: ‘need to run errands during day’ (mean 3.4); ‘too much to carry’ (mean 3.2); ‘weather’ (mean 3.2); ‘need to start early and finish late (mean 3.1); ‘infrequent public transport’ (mean 3.0); ‘additional forward planning’ (mean 3.0) and ‘need to travel to and from UWA at night’ (mean 3.0).

Figure 4.6: Barriers to using public transport (2010)

1.3

1.7

2.2

2.8

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.4

4.4

1 2 3 4 5

Children to/from school

Lack of knowledge of PT routes

Access to cheap/free parking at UWA

Need vehicle for work/study purposes

Distance to UWA is too far

PT route has too many connections

Need to travel to/from UWA at night

Additional forward planning

PT between home and UWA infrequent

Need to start work early or finish late

Weather (rain, wind or heat)

Too much to carry

Need to run errands during day

Time involved

Mean Importance - Barriers to PT for those considering PT (N=104)


Very important

Somewhatimportant


4.6.1.1 Barriers to using public transport by demographic characteristics • On average, females rated having distance, ‘too much to carry’, the ‘weather’, ‘need to

start early and finish late’, ‘need to travel to and from UWA at night’, and ‘public transport having too many connections’ as greater importance as barriers to using public transport compared with males (Appendix Table 6.11).

• ‘Necessity of taking children to and from school’ was rated as a barrier of higher importance among students aged 31 years and above compared with younger students (Appendix Table 6.12).

• Students aged 25 to 30 years were more likely to consider the ‘need to start work early and finish late’ as a barrier to using public transport compared with other age groups (Appendix Table 6.12).

• For students considering using public transport as an alternative mode to travel to UWA the importance of the practical barriers increased with distance to travel to UWA (between Zone 2 and Zone 3). On average, ‘time involved’, ‘need to start early and finish late’, ‘weather’, ‘need to travel to and from UWA at night’, infrequent public transport, and distance to UWA were rated as more important among students living at least 8km from UWA (Zone 3) compared with those living closer to UWA (Zone 2)(Appendix Table 6.13).


4.6.2 Barriers to cycling Figure 4.7 presents the mean level of importance of each suggested barrier to cycling among students considering cycling to UWA (n=71). The weather and ‘having too much to carry’ were rated as the most important barriers for those considering cycling (mean 3.4 and mean 3.2 respectively). However, on average these were only somewhat important as barriers. The mean rating for all other barriers items was less than 3 indicating a low level of importance.

Figure 4.7: Barriers to cycling (2010) 4.6.2.1 Barriers to cycling by demographic characteristics • Among students considering cycling (n=77) ‘distance to UWA’ was the only barrier to

cycling rated as more important among females than males (Appendix Table 6.14). There were no other statistically significant differences between males and females with regard to barriers to cycling.

• There were no statistically significant differences in barriers to cycling by age group. • On average, the importance of barriers to cycling increased with distance lived from

UWA. The necessity to bring a change of clothes, the need to start early and finish late

1.1

1.6

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.2

2.2

2.4

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.9

3.2

3.4

1 2 3 4 5

Children to/from school

Lack of knowledge of cycling routes

Access to cheap/free parking at UWA


Physical effort involved

Need vehicle for work/study purposes

Lack of secure bicycle parking facilities

Additional planning would be required

Time involved

Lack of secure lockers


Lack/poor changing/shower facilities

Need to start work early or finish late

Lack of continuous cycle paths to UWA

Danger from vehicular traffic

Need to travel to/from UWA at night

Necessity of bringing change of clothes

Too much to carry


Mean Importance - Barriers to cycle for those considering cycling (N=71)


Very important

Somewhatimportant


and a lack of secure lockers were the most important barriers for students living in between 1 and 8km from UWA (Zone 2) and further than 8 kms from UWA (Zone 3) (Appendix Table 6.15).

4.6.3 Barriers to active commuting modes Figure 4.8 presents barriers for those not currently actively commuting nor considering changing to an active commuting mode to travel to UWA (n=377). For respondents who do not use and are not considering using an active transport mode to travel to UWA, ‘time involved’ and ‘distance to UWA too far’ were the most highly rated barriers to not actively commuting to UWA (mean 4.3 and 3.7 respectively). A range of other barriers were also important including the ‘need to start work early or finish late’, having ‘too much to carry’, ‘need to run errands’, ‘infrequent public transport between home and UWA’, ‘need to travel to and from UWA at night’, ‘weather’, ‘public transport having too many connections’, ‘need vehicle for work’ and the’ additional planning involved’ (mean >= 3.0).

Figure 4.8: Barriers to active commuting (2010)

1.5

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.4

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.7

4.3

1 2 3 4 5

Children to/from school/childcare

Lack of knowledge of PT route

Lack of cycle paths to UWA

Lack/poor change/shower facilities

Lack of lockers/parking for cycling

Danger from vehicular traffic

Necessity of change of clothes

Physical effort involved

Access to cheap/free parking

Additional planning

Need vehicle for work/study

PT route has too many connections


Travel to/from UWA at night

PT between home and UWA infrequent


Too much to carry

Need to start work early/finish late


Time involved

Mean Importance - Barriers to AC for those not considering AC (N=377)


Very important

Somewhatimportant


4.6.3.1 Barriers to active commuting modes by demographic characteristics • For students not considering changing to an active mode of transport for journey to

UWA, females on average, rated ‘time involved’, ‘too much to carry’, ‘need to run errands’, the ‘weather’, and the need for ‘additional forward planning’ as greater barriers to using active modes of travel compared with males (Appendix Table 6.16).

• Students aged 31 years and older were more likely to identify ‘having to take children to school’ and ‘needing a vehicle for work purposes’ (Appendix Table 6.17)

• Among students not considering changing to active commuting to UWA, those living further from UWA (in Zone 3) rated time, ‘distance to UWA’, ‘infrequent public transport’, ‘public transport with too many connections’, ‘need to run errands’, and ‘need vehicle for work/study ‘as more important compared with students living within a cyclable distance (>1km and <8km) from UWA (Appendix Table 6.18).

Differences were evident between those considering cycling, those considering public transport and those not considering changing to an active commuting mode. Respondents not considering an active mode tended to rate all barriers to walking, cycling and public transport. For example, the item ‘time involved’ was a less significant barrier to those considering cycling (mean 2.4) than to those considering taking public transport (mean 4.4) or not considering an alternative (mean 4.3). Similarly, ‘distance to UWA’ was rated as more important by those not considering active commuting (mean 3.7) and those considering public transport (mean 2.9) than by those considering cycling (mean 1.8).


4.7 Motivators to active commuting Motivators to active commuting are those factors that may encourage commuters to adopt active modes. If the perceived benefits of active modes outweigh the perceived benefits of driving, it is more likely that UWA students will actively commute. Respondents were asked to rate items on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being ‘not at all important’ and 5 ‘very important’). Students who indicated that they were considering using public transport were asked to rate items specific to the mode they were considering. The results provide information that may be useful in promoting the benefits of active modes to UWA students. The following Figures present the mean scores for the motivator items by the alternative mode considered. Respondents who were considering a non-active alternative mode other than SOV use, such as car pooling or being dropped off by a friend or family member were excluded from these analyses (n=33). The mean results for motivators to walking are not reported as only three respondents in 2010 were considering walking as an alternative mode of travel to UWA. For those respondents, improvement to health and fitness was an important motivator to walking to or from UWA. 4.7.1 Motivators to use public transport • The most important motivators to use public transport related to lack of available of

parking at UWA and the potential to save money. Environmental concerns were only secondary concerns.

• ‘Availability of parking at UWA’ and ‘avoiding the need to find parking’ were important motivators for students considering use of public transport as an alternative to driving a vehicle to UWA (mean 3.9 (SD 1.3) and mean 3.9 (SD 1.3) respectively). Other important motivators were ‘potential to save money’ (mean 3.6 (SD 1.3)), ‘cost of parking at UWA’ (mean 3.5 (SD 1.5), and reducing air pollution (mean 3.3 (SD 1.3)) (Figure 4.9).


Figure 4.9: Motivators to use public transport (2010) 4.7.1.1 Motivators to use public transport by demographic characteristics • Females rated ‘personal contributions to reducing air pollution’ as more important than

males (mean 3.7 (SD 1.1); mean 2.8 (SD 1.3) respectively) (Appendix Table 6.19). • On average, financial motivators (‘potential to save money’ and ‘cost of parking at UWA’)

were considered more important to the younger students compared with others (16 to 20 years old mean 4.1 (SD1.3) and mean 4.1 (SD 1.3) respectively) (Appendix Table 6.20).

• Notably, the only statistically significant difference in motivators to use public transport by distance from UWA was ‘unable to obtain a parking permit’. Students living in closer to UWA (Zone 2) rated inability to obtain a parking permit as more important compared with those living further away. This is likely because students living in Zone 3 are more likely to meet the criteria for obtaining a student parking permit (Appendix Table 6.21).

1.6

1.7

1.8

2.2

2.3

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.9

3.9

1 2 3 4 5

Friends/colleagues use this mode

I do not like driving

Enjoyment

Unable to obtain parking permit

Improvement of health/fitness

Reducing air pollution

Cost of parking at UWA

Potential to save money

Avoid the need to find parking

Availability of parking at UWA

Mean Importance - Motivators to use PT (n=104)


Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant


4.7.2 Motivators to cycle Of the 71 students considering cycling to UWA as an alternative to driving a vehicle the most important motivator was ‘improvements to health and fitness’ (mean 4.2 (SD 1.1)). Other important motivators to cycling were ‘enjoyment’ (mean 3.8 (SD 1.1)), ‘potential to save money’ (mean 3.6 (SD 1.4)), ‘avoiding need to find parking’ (mean 3.3 (SD 1.6)) and ‘personal contribution to reducing air pollution’ (mean 3.2 (SD 1.4))(Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.10: Motivators to cycle (2010) 4.7.2.1 Motivators to cycle by demographic characteristics There were few statistically significant differences in rating of motivators to cycle by demographic characteristics. • The importance of the various motivators did not differ significantly by gender. • Students aged 16 to 20 years considered ‘enjoyment’ to be of lower importance than

older age groups (Appendix Table 6.22). • The mean rating of importance of ‘potential to save money’ was higher among students

residing further from UWA (Zone 2: mean 4.0 (SD 0.9), Zone 3: mean 3.5 (SD 1.5)) compared with those closer to UWA (Zone 1: mean 2.6 (SD 1.7)( Appendix Table 6.23).

1.4

1.8

1.9

2.8

2.9

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.8

4.2

1 2 3 4 5

My friends/colleagues use this mode



Cost of parking at UWA





Enjoyment


Mean Importance - Motivators to cycle (n=71)


Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant


4.7.3 Motivators to use active commuting modes As presented in Figure 4.11, the ‘potential to save money’ (mean 3.8 (SD 1.3)), ‘avoiding the need to find parking’ (mean 3.6 (SD 1.3)) and ‘availability of parking at UWA’ (mean 3.5 (SD 1.4)) were rated as important factors in encouraging students to use modes of travel other than a private vehicle to get to and from UWA.

Figure 4.11: Motivators to use active commuting modes (2010)

1.6

1.7

2.0

2.4

2.4

2.6

2.9

3.5

3.6

3.8

1 2 3 4 5

My friends/colleagues use this mode


Quality shower/storage facilities


Enjoyment






Mean Importance - Motivators to use AC modes (n=875)


Veryimportant

Somewhatimportant


4.7.3.1 Motivators to use active commuting modes by demographic characteristics • The importance of motivators to using a mode other than private vehicle to travel to

UWA did not differ by gender, with the exception of ‘improvement to health and fitness’ and ‘personal contributions to reducing air pollution’ that were rated as more important among females than males (Appendix Table 24).

• The oldest students (31 years and older) placed significantly less importance on the ‘potential to save money’ as a motivator to using an active mode other than private vehicle to travel to UWA compared with younger students (Appendix Table 6.25).

• Students aged 26 to 30 years generally rated ‘improvement to health/fitness’ and access to good quality end use facilities as having greater importance for motivating use of an alternative to SOV compared with other age groups (Appendix Table 6.25).

• Students living furthest from UWA generally rated motivators to use an alternative to SOV to travel to UWA as less important compared with those who live closer. In particular the mean rating of ‘improvements to health and fitness’, ‘personal contributions to reducing air pollution’, ‘enjoyment’ and access to end use facilities was lower for students living in Zone 3 compared with others (Appendix Table 6.26).


4.8 Initiatives to encourage active commuting There are many changes that could be made to the University’s physical and policy environment to encourage students to actively commute. A list of these possibilities was compiled for the survey. Survey respondents were asked to rate the likelihood that each type of intervention would encourage them to commence or continue actively commuting to or from UWA. The five point likelihood scale was similar to the importance scale discussed previously, where 1 represented ‘not likely’, 3 ‘undecided’ and 5 ‘very likely’. The mean rating of each of the listed initiatives are presented in Figure 4.12. • A University subsidised public transport pass was the highest rated initiative (mean 4.2

SD 1.3). Students appear undecided about other suggested initiatives where the mean scores were close to the scale mid point three (undecided) (mean range 3.2 – 2.5 (SD 1.3 – 1.6)). On average, increased parking fees for SOVs was perceived by students to be unlikely to encourage active commuting (mean 2.5 (SD 1.5)).

Figure 4.12: Mean active commuting initiative rating (2010)

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.8

3.0

3.2

4.2

1 2 3 4 5

Increased parking fees for SOV

Improved bicycle parking on campus

Improved shower/change room or locker facilities

A improved pedestrian path system

Improved cycle path system

Night time bus service from campus to local suburbs (5km radius)

Reduced parking fees for carpool drivers

A university subsidised PT pass

Mean likelihood to encourage active commuting (n=1105)

Not at all likely

Very likely

Undecided


4.8.1 Initiatives to encourage active commuting by demographic characteristics • Males and females rated the initiatives similarly. • Compared with other students, the older students (31 years and older) placed lower

importance on the following initiatives for encouraging active commuting: ‘a subsidised public transport pass’, ‘reduced parking fees for car pool drivers’ and ‘increased parking fees for SOV’ (Appendix Table 6.27).

• Students aged 26 to 30 years rated ‘improved cycle paths’, ‘improved bicycle parking’ and ‘better end use facilities’ to be more important compared with other age groups (Appendix Table 6.27).

• Similar to 2003, the 16 to 20 years age group was more positive than other groups about the University subsidised public transport pass for trips to and from UWA and reduced parking fees for carpool drivers (Appendix Table 6.27).

• The potential of most initiatives to encourage active commuting differs according to where students live. Most motivators were more important among students living less than a kilometre from campus (Zone 1) compared with those living further away (Zone 2 and Zone 3)(Appendix Table 6.28).

4.8.2 Initiatives to encourage active commuting by main mode The effectiveness of interventions will be highly affected by the mode students currently use to get to and from UWA. Table 4.21 shows that the differences in mean likelihood scores between transport modes were significant for all of the intervention items. • The subsidised public transport pass rated highest among students who were already

using public transport (mean 4.8 (SD 0.7)). It therefore appears that the introduction of a subsidised public transport pass could be an effective behaviour reinforcement strategy.

• However, the subsidised public transport pass appeared more likely than any other intervention to encourage SOV users to switch to an active mode (mean 3.8 (SD 1.4)). It was also the highest scoring item among walkers (mean 4.4 (SD 1.1)) and those using ‘other’ modes of transport (mean 4.0 (SD 1.4)) such as carpool and drop off to UWA.

• Initiatives relating to end-of-trip facilities and improvements to pedestrian and cycle path systems scored highest among current walkers and cyclists. Such initiatives could therefore be effective reinforcement strategies.


Table 4.21: Mean initiative rating by main mode of transport (2010) Main mode

Mean rating of initiatives

SOV (n=369)

Public transport (n=368)

Walk (n=82)

Cycle (n=69)

Didn’t go to UWA (n=129)

Other modes (n=88)

mean SD mean SD mean SD mean SD mean SD mean SD

University subsidised PT pass*

3.8 1.4 4.8 0.7 4.4 1.1 3.9 1.2 3.6 1.5 4.0 1.4

Reduced parking fees for carpool*

3.0 1.6 3.5 1.5 3.5 1.4 3.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 3.9 1.4

Night time bus service (5km radius)*

2.7 1.6 3.4 1.5 4.1 1.2 3.1 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.6

Improved cycle path system*

2.4 1.4 2.9 1.5 4.0 1.3 4.3 0.9 2.3 1.5 2.5 1.5

Improved pedestrian paths*

2.3 1.4 2.9 1.5 4.0 1.4 3.5 1.3 2.3 1.4 2.5 1.5

Improved shower/change room or locker facilities*

2.5 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.9 1.5 3.8 1.3 2.2 1.4 2.5 1.4

Improved bicycle parking on campus*

2.2 1.4 2.7 1.4 3.8 1.2 4.2 0.9 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.5

Increased parking fees SOV*

2.2 1.4 2.9 1.5 2.8 1.5 3.0 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.5 1.5

Other includes other, dropped off, carpool, motorcycle / scooter * statistically significant difference between main modes (p<0.05) Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all likely 5 very likely SD = standard deviation


4.8.3 Initiatives associated with drivers considering an active mode Table 4.22 considers SOV users who are considering an active mode and the likelihood that an initiative would encourage this group to actively commute. After adjusting for gender, age, distance lived from UWA and whether students held a student parking permit, cycling related initiatives were the only initiatives significantly more likely to encourage active commuting (AC) rather than not likely to encourage AC. Table 4.22: Initiatives likely to encourage AC among drivers considering an active mode (2010)

Characteristic N=355

Odds ratio

95% Confidence

Interval

Improved shower/change room or locker facilities on campus

Not likely to encourage AC 1.0

Undecided 1.5 0.9 - 2.4

Likely to encourage AC 2.6 1.8 – 3.8

Improved bicycle parking on campus


Undecided 1.6 1.0 – 2.6


A more user friendly cycle path system leading to and from UWA


Undecided 1.1 0.6 – 1.8


Increased parking fees for SOV


Undecided 0.8 0.5 - 1.3


Reduce parking fees for carpool drivers


Undecided 1.0 0.6 – 1.7


A University subsidised public transport pass providing unlimited access to all services to and from UWA


Undecided 1.0 0.5 - -2.3


Night time minibus service from campus to various key locations in surrounding suburbs (5km radius)


Undecided 1.0 0.6 – 1.7


A more user-friendly pedestrian path system leading to and from UWA


Undecided 1.1 0.7 – 1.7

Likely to encourage AC 1.2 0.8 – 1.8 SOV considering active mode N=106 SOV driver not considering alternative) N=249 Models included adjustment for gender, age group , suburb zone, and parking permit Bold signifies statistical significance (<0.05)


4.8.3.1 Suggestions to encourage active commuting among UWA staff and students To better understand the types of initiatives likely to influence a switch to active commuting the survey included an optional open-ended question in which students were invited to respond to a scenario. The students were provided with the following scenario regarding parking at UWA.

Currently, around 13,000 staff, students and visitors travel to the UWA Crawley and Nedlands campus daily. This number will grow in coming years increasing parking demands and traffic congestion. The State Government will not permit UWA to increase the number of car parking spaces it provides. In addition, UWA is committed to showing leadership to reduce its carbon footprint. Given these constraints, what suggestions do you have about how UWA could encourage staff and students to use alternatives to driving (e.g. public transport, walking and cycling) to access the Crawley and Nedlands campus?”

A total of 288 (26%) students provided comments. Comments were summarised and classified into themes. A summary is presented in Table 4.23. The most frequently mentioned suggestions included improving public transport (reliability, frequency and efficiency), subsidising the cost of public transport, providing UWA shuttle bus services from key locations and centres (i.e. train stations) and improving end use facilities for walking and cycling.


Table 4.23: Suggestions on how to encourage alternatives to driving to UWA

Category Comment (N students =288)

Public Transport %

Cost Subsidised PT pass/ ticket cost reduced 62.8

Financial incentives to use PT 5.2

Transperth

Improve public transport- reliability/frequency/more services/more efficient

86.1

Light rail/train station/tram for UWA 10.8

Ferry service 4.5

More bus stops around campus/southern end/business school/Hackett drive

12.1

More peak hour services 4.1

After-hours/night service 9.4

Information More information about PT routes 4.5

Walking and cycling

Cycling Infrastructure

Change room/shower/lockers/end of trip 26.7

Bike storage/parking/security/racks 20.5

Discount/subsidising cost of bikes and equipment 5.5

Free use of UWA bikes/hire bikes for students 4.2

Pathways/better/more convenient/separate/safer 21.5

Events/ competition

Advertising

Events – breakfasts, 6.9

Financial incentives/rewards 11.5

Competitions – commuter challenge with rewards 3.1

Information – cycle maps/ transit officers/ routes available

2.1

Advertising and promotion of alternatives and benefits (cost saving and health and wellness)

15.9

Safety Improvement on safety cycle/walk paths/lighting 1.0

Data not adjusted Table continues over page


Table 4.23 continued: Suggestions on how to encourage alternatives to driving to UWA

Category Comment (N students =288)

Car pooling %

Lower fees and permits 12.8

More information/website/social network/contact 4.9

Shuttle/mini bus

Around campus/To other end 8.0

Direct service from major centres/city/to UWA 27.4

Around the nearby suburbs 3.5

After hours service 0.7

Parking related

Parking fees/permits

Increase parking fees/ financial penalties 18.7

Limit permits- days per week/small vehicles/increase restrictions by suburb/distance

8.3

Restrict parking to staff 1.0

Decrease access to parking/less bays 5.2

Amount Increase amount of parking 5.9

Shuttle Park and ride facilities/shuttle from car parks 6.6

Accommodation on campus

Low cost/more accommodation on campus/close to campus

8.7

Scooter/motorcycle

Encourage more use/more parking spaces 1.0

Fleet cars/staff cars

Access to UWA cars for travel in work hours 0.7

Data not adjusted

In addition to commenting on the previously outlined scenario, students were provided the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions at the completion of the online survey. One in ten (9.6% n=166) respondents made a comment. Comments were varied and covered issues such as parking suggestions, improvements to public transport to UWA, more information on barriers and motivators to public transport use, cycling and driving as well as comments on initiatives to encourage active commuting to UWA and the issues students face. These comments provide valuable insight into the student perspective and are presented in Appendix 1 of this report.


• Some students made alternative suggestions for parking at UWA, including: multi-storey carparks; free/more short-term parking; and more motorcycle parking.

• Suggestions for improving public transport to promote use included: specific bus routes or route extensions to service the southern part of UWA; light rail system; ferry from South Perth; increased frequency of services; a UWA bus station and services later in the evening.

• While some students commented in favour of a public transport subsidy, others reiterated the importance of combining a public transport subsidy with improvements to public transport services.

• Comments included outlining barriers which prevent students from using public transport. Barriers included: safety; time taken compared to driving; little or no protection from the weather at bus stops; commitments before or after uni; need to leave UWA late; some suburbs are poorly serviced by public transport. In contrast, some students indicated they were generally satisfied with public transport as means for getting to UWA.

• Many students indicated reasons why they need to drive or prefer to drive to UWA. These included: need to pick up or drop off children or relatives before or after classes; students in particular courses (such as Architecture Landscapes and Visual Arts) need to carry large materials/models; some classes are at night; the need to get to work before and after classes; distance lived from UWA and time taken by alternative modes of transport.

• Some students indicated support for improving cycling infrastructure and facilities at UWA including: lockers; showers; covered bicycle parking; bicycle lanes in roads leading to UWA (e.g. Stirling Highway). However, other students indicated that they were generally satisfied with the existing cycling and pedestrian infrastructure/facilities.

• While no students commented in favour of increasing parking fees. Some students expressed concern that they had no viable alternative transport to UWA aside from driving, therefore increasing parking fees would disadvantage them.


4.9 Support for initiatives funded through increasing UWA parking fees Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with UWA increasing parking fees in order to fund a series of initiatives to encourage the use of active transport to UWA. A five point scale was used ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ through 5 ‘strongly agree’. The mean score for each initiative is presented in Figure 4.13. A subsidised public transport pass for all bus and train services to and from UWA was, on average, supported by students (mean 3.8 (SD 1.3)). The mean for all other initiatives ranged from 2.8 to 3.1 (SD 1.4) indicating a tendency for students to neither agree nor disagree with the increase in parking fees to fund initiatives (Figure 4.13).

Figure 4.13: Support for initiatives funded by UWA parking fees (2010) On average, students who owned a parking permit (n=184) disagreed with an increase in parking fees to fund initiatives to encourage active commuting (Table 4.24) Students who did not own a parking permit, regardless of reason, agreed with an increase in parking fees to fund a subsidised public transport pass (mean 4.0 (SD 1.2)).

2.8

2.9

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.8

1 2 3 4 5

Improved pedestrian path system

A bicycle loan scheme for travel around UWA

Improved cycle path system

Improved cycling facilities on campus

A shuttle bus linking UWA campuses

Night time bus from UWA to local suburbs

Subsidised PT pass

Mean agreement to initiatives (n=1105)

Stronglydisagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Strongly agree


Table 4.24: Support for initiatives funded by UWA parking fees by parking permit (2010) Ownership of parking permit


Permit (n=184)

No permit (not eligible)

(n=394)

No permit (by choice)

(n=527) mean SD mean SD mean SD

A subsidised PT pass* 3.0 1.6 4.0 1.2 4.0 1.2

An after-hours minibus service to local suburbs* 2.5 1.4 3.3 1.4 3.2 1.4

A shuttle bus linking UWA Crawley campus with other UWA sites*

2.6 1.4 3.1 1.4 3.2 1.3

Improved cycling facilities on campus* 2.5 1.4 3.1 1.4 3.2 1.3

Improved cycle path system* 2.2 1.2 3.1 1.4 3.1 1.3

A bicycle loan scheme for travel around UWA* 2.3 1.4 3.0 1.4 3.0 1.4

Improved pedestrian path system* 2.2 1.2 2.9 1.4 2.9 1.3

Mean based on 5 point scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree * statistically significant difference between parking permit ownership (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

4.9.1.1 Agreement with increasing parking fees to fund initiatives by demographic

characteristics Differences in agreement with increasing parking fees to fund initiatives that encourage active commuting by age, distance lived from UWA and main mode of transport are presented Appendix Tables 6.29, 6.30 and 6.31. The key differences are highlighted below. • The older student group (31 years and older) were less supportive of increasing parking

fees to fund a subsidised public transport pass compared with other students (Appendix Table 6.29).

• Students living closer to UWA (within Zone 1 1km radius) had higher levels of support for all initiatives compared with those residing further from UWA (Zone 3) (Appendix Table 6.30).

• Of the students living in Zone 2, the highest level of support was shown for a subsidised public transport pass (mean 3.9 (SD1.3)), improved cycle path facilities (mean 3.4 (SD 1.3)) and a UWA bus services to local suburbs (mean 3.4 (SD 1.4) (Appendix Table 6.30).

• The rating of initiatives that could be funded by increased parking fees differed by main mode used to travel to UWA. Initiatives to improve cycling infrastructure were more likely to be supported by those who cycled as their main mode of travel to UWA compared to those who commuted by other modes (Appendix Table 6.31).

• SOV users were generally less supportive of all initiatives compared with those using active modes (public transport, walking or cycling).

4.9.1.2 Agreement with initiatives funded through parking fees associated with drivers considering an active mode

Agreement to each suggested initiative was examined by students using a SOV who were considering changing to an active commuting mode. In each instance responses were adjusted for gender, age, distance lived from UWA and ownership of parking permit. • Table 4.25 presents the odds of agreeing to the use of revenue generated through

increased parking fees for respondents considering taking up active commuting. The


table highlights (bold) initiatives where there was a significant difference in level of agreement after adjusting for age, gender, location and parking permit.

• Students considering using an active mode were almost twice as likely to agree with using funds from increasing parking fees to improve end use cycling facilities at UWA (OR 1.9 95% (CI 1.2 – 2.8)) and provide better cycle paths around UWA (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.2 - 2.7))(Table 4.25).

• The odds of supporting the subsidised public transport pass reflect the general agreement towards using parking fee increases to provide a subsidised public transport pass. However students considering change to active commuting were more likely to be undecided on UWA increasing parking fees to fund the public transport pass (OR 2.4 (95% CI 1.2 – 4.6) than to agree with this (OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.0 – 2.9)(Table 4.25).

Table 4.25: Agreement for initiatives associated with drivers considering change to active commuting (2010)

Characteristic N=355 Odds ratio

95% Confidence

Interval

Initiatives funded through increase in parking fees

A subsidised public transport pass for all services to and from UWA

Disagree 1.0

Neither 2.4 1.2 – 4.6

Agree 1.7 1.0 – 2.9

Improved cycling facilities on campus, such as showers, lockers and secure bicycle storage

Disagree 1.0

Neither 1.1 0.7 – 1.8

Agree 1.9 1.2 – 2.8

A more user-friendly cycle path system leading to and from UWA

Disagree 1.0

Neither 1.1 0.7 – 1.8

Agree 1.8 1.2 – 2.7

A more user-friendly pedestrian path system leading to and from UWA

Disagree 1.0

Neither 0.8 0.5 – 1.3

Agree 1.1 0.8 – 1.7

A UWA shuttle bus linking UWA Crawley campus with other UWA sites (e.g. UWA Sports Park, the Medical Faculty)

Disagree 1.0

Neither 0.9 0.6 – 1.4

Agree 0.8 0.6 – 1.2


Disagree 1.0

Neither 1.1 0.7 – 1.7

Agree 1.2 0.8 – 1.8

An after hours minibus service from campus to various key locations in surrounding suburbs (5km radius)

Disagree 1.0

Neither 0.8 0.5 – 1.3

Agree 1.1 0.7 – 1.5 Models include gender, age group ,suburb zone, perking permit SOV considering active mode N=106 SOV driver not considering alternative) N=249 Bold signifies statistical significance (<0.05) Data not weighted


5 Discussion This report provides a profile of UWA students transport to and from the UWA Nedlands and Crawly campus. Differences and similarities in student commuting habits between 2003 and 2010 are also noted. In addition, the report provides insight into what motivates commuting choices, perceived barriers to active commuting and summarises UWA student reaction to proposed initiatives aimed at increasing adoption of active commuting behaviour. While the profile of UWA students and key differences in commuting habits between 2003 and 2010 are discussed here, more detailed discussion and strategies for increasing active commuting among UWA student are presented in Volume I, the Executive Summary of this report series. General profile and commuting habits of UWA students The majority of UWA students live more than eight kilometres from UWA campus (67.7%). Distance is likely to have a significant impact on student travel options. One third of students used SOV and almost half (47.0%) used an active mode (public transport, walking or cycling) as their main transport to UWA. Use of an active mode, in particular public transport, was greatest among the youngest students (aged 16 to 20 years). More than half (52.3%) of these students use public transport as their main mode of travel to UWA and frequently their main reason for doing so is because they either do not have access to a car or a drivers license (42.9%). Respondents who drive cited reasons of practicality as their main reason for usually driving from UWA in an SOV. Time was the most frequently mentioned reason for driving, followed by convenience. Respondents main reasons for walking or cycling were because they lived close to UWA, other commonly mentioned reasons for cycling included exercise and enjoyment. While it is encouraging that 21.1% of students currently using SOV as their main mode of transport to UWA were considering changing to public transport, it is also important to note the 14.9% of students using public transport were considering changing to SOV to travel to UWA. This must be considered when planning strategies to increase active commuting. Not only do students who currently drive to UWA need to be encouraged to adopt the active commuting behaviours they are considering, but also, those who are currently engaging in active commuting need to be supported and encouraged to continue. To encourage the shift from SOV to active commuting modes for students to travel to UWA planning needs to consider barriers and motivators to using active modes. Time was considered an important barrier to students using public transport and other active modes to travel to UWA. Regardless of the mode, students rated having ‘too much to carry’ as important barriers to changing to an active mode. In addition, weather was considered as one of the most important barriers to using public transport. With regard to motivating students to use active modes to travel to UWA the ‘availability of parking’, ‘avoiding the need to find parking’ and ‘potential to save money’ were all considered important motivators to use public transport to travel to UWA. While this is promising and indicates potential of parking reform to encourage more students to commence using public transport it must be considered with acknowledgement that some students need to use SOV to travel to UWA and should not be unfairly penalised. Instead those who are able to change to public transport should be supported in doing so. Along with health and fitness benefits and enjoyment, students are motivated to cycle by the potential to save money and avoiding the need to find parking. Changes in commuting mode between 2003 and 2010 Results of the 2010 survey can be compared with results from 2003. As the gender and age composition of the UWA student population in 2003 varied slightly to the current population, 2003 and 2010 data were adjusted to represent the 2010 UWA student population. Differences


and similarities in the way people travel to UWA between 2003 and 2010 are highlighted in this section. Between the two survey periods there was a shift in the number of days students surveyed visited UWA. The proportion of students travelling to UWA everyday of the working week decreased significantly from 62.1% in 2003 to 42.2% in 2010. While these results were taken from students travel patterns in just one week, the time of semester was similar between the two survey years. The proportion of students travelling by public transport as their main mode of travel to UWA has increased significantly between 2003 and 2010. While overall, the proportion walking as main mode decreased, this decrease reflects the reduction in students living within a ‘walkable’ (approximately 1km radius) from UWA since 2003. The proportion of those who live within walking distance of UWA who walk as their main mode increased between 2003 and 2010. Similarly of those students who live within a ‘cyclable’ distance (within approximately 2 to 8 km) of UWA a greater proportion cycle in 2010 compared with 2003. Although small, the proportion of students living within a walkable distance (approximately 1km radius) from UWA and drove alone to UWA as their main mode of transport doubled from 3.2% in 2003 to 7.0% in 2010. Encouragingly, the proportion of students residing within approximately 8km of UWA who usually drove to UWA (SOV) has decreased from 39.1% in 2003 to 31.9% in 2010. Mechanisms for facilitating and maintaining change to active modes of transport The results of this survey present data for consideration when planning programs and initiatives to promote changes in commuting behavior among UWA students. Possibilities for change are discussed, in conjunction with results from the staff survey, in the Executive Summary of this report series (Volume I). References

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of mental health. H. Friedman. San Diego, Academic Press. 1998. Handy, S., J. F. Sallis, et al. (2008). "Is Support for Traditionally Designed Communities Growing? Evidence From Two National Surveys." Journal of the American Planning Association 74(2): 209 - 221. SKM (2009). The University of Western Australia Strategic Transport Plan. Perth, Sinclair Knight Merz. White, K. M., J. R. Smith, et al. (2009). "Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms." British Journal of Social Psychology 48: 135-158.


6 Appendices 6.1 Appendix Tables Appendix Table 6.1: Confidence to use an active mode by gender (2010)

SELF EFFICACY - WALKING N Not

confident


Confident

Female 622 % 74.0 8.0 18.0

Male 483 % 78.7 6.0 15.3

Total 1105 % 76.4 6.8 16.8

SELF EFFICACY – CYCLING* N Not

confident


Confident

Female 622 % 67.4 12.3 20.1

Male 483 % 52.8 16.4 30.8

Total 1105 % 60.0 14.5 25.5.

SELF EFFICACY – PUBLIC TRANSPORT N

Not confident


Confident

Female 622 % 19.5 16.1 64.4

Male 483 % 21.0 16.5 62.5

Total 1105 % 20.3 16.3 63.4

* statistically significant difference between gender (p<0.05)


Appendix Table 6.2: Confidence to use an active mode by age (2010)

SELF EFFICACY – WALKING* N

Not confident


confident

Confident

16 to 20 years 530 % 75.1 8.5 16.4

21 to 25 years 339 % 76.1 6.5 17.4

26 to 30 years 99 % 69.7 3.0 27.3

31 years and over 137 % 83.9 6.6 9.5

SELF EFFICACY – CYCLING* N

Not confident


confident

Confident

16 to 20 years 530 % 61.3 15.1 23.6

21 to 25 years 339 % 63.4 13.6 23.0

26 to 30 years 99 % 45.5 15.2 39.4

31 years and over 137 % 65.0 11.7 23.4

SELF EFFICACY – PUBLIC TRANSPORT* N

Not confident


confident

Confident

16 to 20 years 530 % 9.6 11.1 79.2

21 to 25 years 339 % 22.7 18.9 58.4

26 to 30 years 99 % 28.3 19.2 52.5

31 years and over 137 % 38.0 22.6 39.4

* statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05)


Appendix Table 6.3: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by gender (2010)

Gender

Mean rating of initiatives Female

(n=548) Male

(n=557) Total

(n=1105)

mean SD mean SD mean SD

Have a quick commute to work/study 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.8

Have a cheap commute to work/study 4.2 1.0 4.2 1.0 4.2 1.0

Help protect the environment* 3.6 1.1 3.2 1.3 3.4 1.2

Help reduce green house gas emissions* 3.6 1.1 3.2 1.3 3.4 1.2

Help reduce air and water pollution* 3.5 1.1 3.2 1.2 3.3 1.2

Use public transport to travel to UWA when possible* 3.1 1.3 2.9 1.4 3.0 1.3

Walk or cycle to UWA when possible 2.5 1.4 2.6 1.5 2.6 1.5

* statistically significant difference between gender (p<0.05) Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.4: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by age group (2010)

Age group


16 to 20

(n=437) 21 to 25

(n=420) 26 to 30

(n=107) 31 above

(n=141)

mean SD mean SD mean SD mean SD

Have a quick commute to work/study 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.8 4.4 0.9 4.5 0.9

Have a cheap commute to work/study* 4.3 0.9 4.2 1.0 4.2 1.0 3.9 1.3

Help protect the environment* 3.2 1.2 3.5 1.2 3.8 1.1 3.7 1.3

Help reduce green house gas emissions* 3.2 1.2 3.4 1.2 3.8 1.1 3.6 1.3

Help reduce air and water pollution* 3.1 1.2 3.3 1.2 3.8 1.0 3.6 1.2

Use public transport to travel to UWA when possible 3.1 1.3 2.9 1.3 3.1 1.3 2.9 1.5

Walk or cycle to UWA when possible*

2.4 1.4 2.6 1.5 3.0 1.5 2.7 1.5

* statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.5: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by distance from UWA (2010)

Distance


Zone 1 Walkable

(n=116)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=247)

Zone 3

(n=741)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Have a quick commute to work/study 4.6 0.7 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.9

Have a cheap commute to work/study 4.4 0.9 4.2 1.1 4.2 1.0

Help protect the environment* 3.7 1.2 3.5 1.2 3.4 1.2

Help reduce green house gas emissions* 3.7 1.2 3.5 1.2 3.3 1.2

Help reduce air and water pollution 3.6 1.1 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.2

Use public transport to travel to UWA when possible 2.9 1.3 3.1 1.3 3.0 1.3

Walk or cycle to UWA when possible* 4.2 1.1 2.9 1.5 2.2 1.3

* statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.6: Mean importance of environment, commute and active transport modes by main mode of transport (2010)

Main mode


SOV (n=369)

Public transport

(n=368)

Walk (n=82)

Cycle (n=69)


Other^

(n=88)


Have a quick commute to work/study* 4.6 0.7 4.4 0.9 4.6 0.7 4.4 0.7 4.3 1.0 4.6 0.7

Have a cheap commute to work/study* 4.0 1.1 4.4 0.8 4.4 0.9 4.4 0.9 3.8 1.2 4.2 1.1

Help protect the environment* 3.3 1.2 3.4 1.2 3.8 1.2 3.7 1.2 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.2

Help reduce green house gas emissions* 3.3 1.3 3.4 1.2 3.7 1.1 3.7 1.1 3.3 1.2 3.3 1.2

Help reduce air and water pollution* 3.3 1.2 3.3 1.2 3.6 1.1 3.7 1.0 3.3 1.2 3.3 1.2

Use public transport to travel to UWA when possible*

2.5 1.2 3.7 1.1 3.1 1.4 2.5 1.2 2.6 1.3 2.9 1.4

Walk or cycle to UWA when possible* 2.1 1.2 2.4 1.3 4.4 0.9 4.5 0.7 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.3

* statistically significant difference between main mode (p<0.05) ^Other includes other, dropped off, carpool, mcycle/scooter Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.7: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of active commuting by gender (2010)

Gender

Mean rating of statement

Female

(n=548) Male

(n=557) Total

(n=1105)


UWA help reduce air and water pollution*

3.8 1.1 3.4 1.2 3.6 1.2

UWA help protect the environment* 3.9 1.1 3.5 1.3 3.5 1.2

UWA help reduce green house gas emissions* 3.8 1.1 3.4 1.3 3.4 1.2

Encourage staff and students to use public transport to travel to UWA*

3.6 1.2 3.3 1.4 3.3 1.3

Encourage staff and students to walk and cycle to UWA*

3.4 1.3 3.2 1.4 3.2 1.3

Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between gender (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.8: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of active commuting by age group (2010)

Age group (years)

Mean rating of statements

16 to 20

(n=437) 21 to 25

(n=420) 26 to 30

(n=107) 31 above

(n=141)



3.4 1.2 3.7 1.1 3.9 1.0 3.8 1.2

UWA help protect the environment*

3.5 1.3 3.7 1.2 4.0 1.0 3.9 1.2

UWA help reduce green house gas emissions*

3.4 1.2 3.7 1.2 3.9 1.0 3.8 1.2


3.2 1.3 3.5 1.3 3.6 1.2 3.6 1.4

Encourage staff and students to walk and cycle to UWA* 3.1 1.3 3.4 1.3 3.7 1.1 3.5 1.4

Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.9: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of active commuting by distance from UWA (2010)

Distance


Zone 1 Walkable

(n=116)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=247)

Zone 3

(n=741)


UWA help reduce air and water pollution* 3.9 1.1 3.7 1.1 3.5 1.2

UWA help protect the environment* 3.9 1.1 3.8 1.2 3.6 1.2

UWA help reduce green house gas emissions* 3.8 1.1 3.8 1.1 3.5 1.2


3.9 1.2 3.6 1.2 3.3 1.3


3.9 1.1 3.5 1.3 3.1 1.3

Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.10: Mean importance of UWA responsibility for environment and encouragement of active commuting by main mode of transport (2010)

Main mode


SOV (n=369)

Public transport

(n=368

Walking (n=82)

Cycling (n=69)


Other (n=88)



3.5 1.2 3.6 1.2 3.9 1.1 3.9 1.0 3.6 1.2 3.4 1.2

UWA help protect the environment*

3.6 1.3 3.7 1.2 3.9 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.7 1.2 3.5 1.2

UWA help reduce green house gas emissions*

3.5 1.2 3.6 1.2 3.9 1.1 4.0 1.0 3.7 1.2 3.5 1.2


3.1 1.4 3.5 1.3 3.9 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.3


3.1 1.3 3.3 1.3 4.0 1.1 4.3 1.0 3.3 1.3 3.2 1.3

* statistically significant difference between main mode (p<0.05) Other includes other, dropped off, carpool, motorcycle / scooter Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.11: Mean rating of barriers to using public transport by gender (2010) Gender

Mean importance of barriers to using public transport

Female (n=62)

Male (n=42)

Mean SD Mean SD

Too much to carry* 3.6 1.2 2.6 1.5

Weather (rain, wind or heat)* 3.5 1.2 2.7 1.2

Need to start work early or finish late* 3.2 1.5 3.1 1.6

Need to travel to/from UWA at night* 3.5 1.4 2.3 1.5

Public transport route too many connections* 3.2 1.4 2.6 1.3

Note table includes only motivators where difference between gender was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between gender (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.12: Mean rating of barriers to using public transport by age group (2010)

Age group


16 to 20 years (n=30)

21 to 25 years (n=51)

26 to 30 years (n=11)

31 years and older (n=11)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Necessity of taking children to/from school* 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.7 1.3 1.1 2.3 1.8

Need to start work/study early or finish late* 2.6 1.6 3.4 1.4 4.1 1.5 2.2 1.3

Note table includes only motivators where difference between age group was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.13: Mean rating of barriers to using public transport by distance lived from UWA (2010)

Distance^


Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=32)

Zone 3 (n=69)

mean SD mean SD

Time involved* 4.2 0.9 4.5 0.8

Need to start work early or finish late* 2.6 1.6 3.4 1.5


Need to travel to/from UWA at night* 2.6 1.6 3.3 1.5

Public transport between my home and UWA infrequent*

2.6 1.4 3.2 1.3

Distance to UWA is too far* 1.8 1.1 3.4 1.3

Note table includes only barriers where difference between Zone 2 and Zone 3 was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important ^ Zone 1 excluded as n=3 too small * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.14: Mean rating of barriers to cycling by gender (2010)

Gender

Mean importance of barriers to cycling

Female (n=23)

Male (n=48)

Mean SD Mean SD




Appendix Table 6.15: Mean rating of barriers to cycling by distance lived from UWA (2010) Distance

Mean importance of barriers to cycling

Zone 1 Walkable

(n=11)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=25)

Zone 3 (n=33)


Necessity of bringing a change of clothes* 1.9 1.2 3.0 1.3 3.2 1.2

Need to start work early or finish late*

1.8 1.5 2.4 1.3 3.0 1.6

Lack of secure lockers* 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.3 3.0 1.6

Need vehicle for work/study purposes* 1.1 0.3 1.5 1.0 2.4 1.6

Distance to UWA is too far* 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 2.4 1.3

Lack of knowledge of quickest and easiest route* 1.1 0.3 1.4 0.8 2.0 1.1

Note table includes only barriers where difference between Zone 2 and Zone 3 was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.16: Mean rating of barriers to active commuting modes for students not considering an active mode by gender (2010)

Gender

Mean importance of barriers to walking, cycling or public transport

Female (n=191)

Male (n=187)

Mean SD Mean SD


Too much to carry* 3.7 1.4 3.2 1.4

Need to run errands* 3.7 1.3 3.2 1.4


Additional forward planning required* 3.2 1.4 2.8 1.4



Appendix Table 6.17: Mean rating of barriers to active commuting modes for students not considering an active mode by age group (2010)

Age group


16 to 20 years (n=107)

21 to 25 years (n=157)

26 to 30 years (n=37)



Physical effort involved* 2.6 1.4 2.6 1.3 2.2 1.3 1.9 1.3

Need vehicle for work/study purposes*

2.9 1.5 3.2 1.5 3.3 1.7 3.6 1.6

Necessity of taking children to/from school*

1.2 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.3 0.8 2.4 1.8

Public transport between my home and UWA infrequent* 3.0 1.4 3.6 1.4 3.0 1.6 3.1 1.5

Public transport route has too many connections*

2.8 1.4 3.5 1.4 3.4 1.7 3.2 1.6

Note table includes only motivators where difference between age group was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.18: Mean rating of barriers for students not considering an active mode by distance lived from UWA (2010)

Distance^


Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=72)

Zone 3 (n=299)

mean SD mean SD



Need to run errands before, during or after study* 3.1 1.5 3.5 1.3

Public transport between my home and UWA infrequent*

3.0 1.5 3.4 1.5

Public transport route has too many connections* 2.9 1.6 3.3 1.4

Need vehicle for work/study purposes* 2.9 1.6 3.3 1.6

Lack of or poor changing /showering facilities* 2.2 1.4 1.8 1.2

Note table includes only barriers where difference between Zone 2 and Zone 3 was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important ^ Zone 1 excluded as n=7 therefore too small. * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05)’ SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.19: Mean rating of motivators to using public transport by gender (2010) Gender

Mean importance of motivators to using public transport

Female (n=62)

Male (n=42)

Mean SD Mean SD

Personal contributions to reducing air pollution* 3.7 1.1 2.8 1.3

Unable to obtain parking permit* 2.5 1.7 1.8 1.2


Appendix Table 6.20: Mean rating of motivators to using public transport by age group (2010)

Age group

Mean importance of motivators to use public transport

16 to 20 years (n=30)

21 to 25 years (n=51)

26 to 30 years (n=11)



Potential to save money*

4.1 1.3 3.7 1.1 2.7 1.7 3.3 1.4

Cost of parking at UWA* 4.1 1.3 3.4 1.6 2.4 1.7 3.8 1.4

Note table includes only motivators where difference between age groups was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between age group(p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.21: Mean rating of motivators to using public transport by distance lived from UWA (2010)

Distance^

Mean importance of motivators to using public transport

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=32)

Zone 3 (n=69)

Mean SD Mean SD

Unable to obtain parking permit* 2.9 1.8 1.9 1.3

Note table includes only motivators where difference between Zone 2 and Zone 3 was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important ^ Zone 1 excluded as n=3 too small * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.22: Mean rating of motivators to cycle by age group (2010) Age group

Mean importance of motivators cycle

16 to 20 years (n=17)

21 to 25 years (n=31)

26 to 30 years (n=12)



Enjoyment* 3.1 1.3 4.0 1.0 4.1 0.9 4.2 1.1

Note table includes only motivators where difference between age groups was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.23: Mean rating of motivators to cycling by distance lived from UWA (2010)

Distance

Mean importance of motivators to cycling

Zone 1 Walkable

(n=12)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=25)

Zone 3 (n=33)


Potential to save money* 2.6 1.7 4.0 0.9 3.5 1.5

Note table includes only motivators where difference between zones was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.24: Mean rating of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle by gender (2010)

Gender

Mean importance of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle

Female (n=430)

Male (n=446)

Mean SD Mean SD

Improvement of health/fitness* 3.0 1.3 2.8 1.3

Personal contributions to reducing air pollution* 2.8 1.3 2.5 1.2



Appendix Table 6.25: Mean rating of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle by age group (2010)

Age group


16 to 20 years (n=365)

21 to 25 years (n=323)

26 to 30 years (n=77)



Potential to save money*

4.0 1.2 3.8 1.3 3.9 1.2 3.1 1.5

Availability of parking at UWA* 3.6 1.4 3.6 1.3 3.2 1.5 3.2 1.4

Improvement of health/fitness*

2.8 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.5 1.2 3.0 1.4

Personal contributions to reducing air pollution*

2.5 1.2 2.6 1.2 3.0 1.1 2.8 1.4

Unable to obtain parking permit*

2.6 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.5 2.0 1.3

Access to good quality shower and storage facilities*

1.7 1.2 2.2 1.4 2.5 1.5 2.2 1.4

I do not like driving* 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.1

My friends/colleagues use this mode* 1.8 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.3 0.7

Note table includes only motivators where difference between age groups was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.26: Mean rating of motivators to use mode other than private vehicle by distance lived from UWA (2010)

Distance


Zone 1 Walkable

(n=95)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=180)

Zone 3 (n=600)


Improvement of health/fitness* 3.4 1.2 3.2 1.3 2.8 1.3

Personal contributions to reducing air pollution* 2.9 1.3 2.8 1.3 2.5 1.2

Enjoyment* 2.9 1.2 2.6 1.3 2.3 1.3

Unable to obtain parking permit* 2.7 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.2 1.4

Access to good quality shower and storage facilities* 2.2 1.3 2.3 1.4 1.9 1.3

Note table includes only motivators where difference between Zone 2 and Zone 3 was statistically significant Mean from 5 point scale: 1 not at all important 5 very important ^ Zone 1 excluded as n=7 too small. * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.27: Mean initiative rating scores by age group (2010) Age group (years)


16 to 20

(n=437) 21 to 25

(n=420) 26 to 30

(n=107) 31 and above

(n=141)


A University subsidised PT pass*

4.4 1.1 4.1 1.3 4.0 1.3 3.4 1.6

Reduced parking fees for carpool drivers*

3.4 1.5 3.2 1.5 2.7 1.6 2.5 1.5

Improved cycle path system*

2.7 1.5 2.7 1.6 3.1 1.6 2.9 1.5

Improved shower / change room or locker facilities*

2.5 1.5 2.7 1.5 3.1 1.6 2.6 1.5


2.5 1.5 2.6 1.5 3.1 1.6 2.6 1.5

Increased parking fees SOV*

2.5 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.2 1.4

Note table includes only initiatives where difference between age group was statistically significant Mean based on 5 point scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.28: Mean initiative rating scores by distance from UWA (2010)

Distance


Zone 1 Walkable

(n=116)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=247

Zone 3

(n=741)

Total

(n=1105)


Night time bus service from campus to local suburbs (5km radius)*

3.8 1.4 3.4 1.5 2.8 1.6 3.0 1.6

Improved cycle path system* 3.8 1.3 3.2 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.8 1.5

Improved pedestrian path system*

3.9 1.4 2.9 1.4 2.5 1.5 2.7 1.5

Improved shower/change room or locker facilities*

3.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.7 1.5


3.7 1.3 2.9 1.5 2.3 1.4 2.6 1.5

Increased parking fees SOV* 2.8 1.5 2.8 1.5 2.4 1.4 2.6 1.5

Note table includes only initiatives where difference between suburb zone was statistically significant Mean based on 5 point scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree * statistically significant difference between suburb zone (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.29: Mean rating UWA parking fee funded initiatives by age group (2010) Age group

Mean agreement rating for initiatives

16 to 20 years (n=437)

21 to 25 years (n=420)

26 to 30 years (n=107)



A subsidised PT pass* 4.0 1.3 3.8 1.3 3.7 1.3 3.4 1.5

An after-hours minibus service to local suburbs*

3.0 1.4 3.1 1.4 3.4 1.4 3.2 1.4

A shuttle bus linking UWA Crawley campus with other UWA sites

3.0 1.4 3.0 1.4 3.2 1.4 3.2 1.4

Improved cycling facilities on campus*

2.8 1.4 3.1 1.4 3.5 1.4 3.2 1.4

Improved cycle path system* 2.8 1.4 2.9 1.4 3.3 1.4 3.0 1.4


2.8 1.4 2.9 1.5 3.0 1.4 2.9 1.4


2.7 1.3 2.8 1.4 3.1 1.4 2.9 1.4

Mean based on 5 point scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree * statistically significant difference between age group (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation

Appendix Table 6.30: Mean rating UWA parking fee funded initiatives by distance from UWA (2010)

Distance

Mean agreement rating for initiatives

Zone 1 Walkable

(n=116)

Zone 2 Cyclable

(n=247)

Zone 3 (n=741)


A subsidised PT pass* 4.1 1.1 3.9 1.3 3.8 1.4

An after-hours minibus service to local suburbs* 3.7 1.2 3.4 1.4 2.9 1.4


3.7 1.3 3.1 1.4 2.9 1.4

Improved cycling facilities on campus* 3.7 1.2 3.4 1.3 2.9 1.3

Improved cycle path system* 3.7 1.3 3.2 1.3 2.7 1.3

A bicycle loan scheme for travel around UWA*

3.4 1.4 3.0 1.4 2.8 1.4

Improved pedestrian path system* 3.7 1.3 3.0 1.3 2.6 1.3

Mean based on 5 point scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree * statistically significant difference between suburb zone 2010 (p<0.05) SD = standard deviation


Appendix Table 6.31: Mean rating UWA parking fee funded initiatives by main mode of transport (2010)

Main mode


SOV (n=369)

Public transport

(n=368)

Walk (n=82)

Cycle (n=69)


Other

(n=88)


A subsidised PT pass* 3.2 1.5 4.5 1.0 4.3 .9 3.9 1.3 3.7 1.3 3.7 1.4

An after-hours minibus service to local suburbs*

2.7 1.4 3.4 1.3 3.9 1.1 3.4 1.3 3.0 1.3 2.6 1.5


2.7 1.4 3.4 1.3 3.9 1.1 3.5 1.2 2.8 1.3 2.6 1.4

Improved cycling facilities on campus* 2.6 1.4 3.2 1.3 3.8 1.0 4.2 1.1 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.4

Improved cycle path system* 2.4 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.8 1.1 3.8 1.2 2.8 1.3 2.9 1.4

A bicycle loan scheme for travel around UWA*

2.5 1.4 3.2 1.4 3.5 1.3 3.5 1.3 2.8 1.3 2.7 1.5


2.3 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.9 1.2 3.2 1.2 2.7 1.2 2.6 1.3

Mean based on 5 point scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree Other includes other, dropped off, carpool, mcycle/scooter * statistically significant difference between main mode (p<0.05)

SD = standard deviation


6.2 Appendix 1: General comments Parking

Some students made alternative suggestions were mad e for parking at UWA, including:

• Multi-storey carparks • Free/more short-term parking • More motorcycle parking

I have previously studied at both Murdoch and Curtin universities and UWA is by far the worst for parking! There are less parking bays, it takes longer to find a parking bay and it is more expensive. For me to travel by public transport takes nearly twice as long and therefore is not practical for me to use. Also when I have classes that finish late I do not feel safe catching public transport or walking to a bus stop etc and I don't think it’s fair that we should have to jeopardise our safety just to catch public transport because we are not allowed to drive to UWA. I believe that students are polluting the earth by having to drive around looking for a parking bay and therefore if the paid parking was turned in to UWA student parking this could reduce the pollution from cars! Also in the survey it says that UWA can't increase the parking bays but what about underground parking? This isn't increasing the area used for parking but rather reutilising the area available and in turn increasing the number of car parking bays. I think the best long term solution for the parking problem is to convert one of the current parking lots into a multi story car park.

I understand that parking permits are only given to students in outer surburbs. A couple times a week I only have to come into uni for one class, so I would prefer to drive as it is more convenient and time efficient. But it is so hard to find a parking that I have to leave my house an hour before to catch the bus for a 1 hour class. UWA should get more short-term parking (2h). There are not enough spaces for temporary parking.

I would say increased parking fee needs to take into account of the student's address. Say from Dianella, the bus travelling time is one hour, most people will opt for driving. I am sure you would to and I do think it's reasonable but for those from regions closer to UWA should pay more if they choose to drive as the bus travelling time is only a few minutes.

More motor bike bays by chemistry and computer science buildings.

Personally I have no problems with using my car as I offset all of my carbon emissions by planting trees through Carbon Neutral each year. Perhaps you could arrange for some sort of subsidized parking for people who can prove they have done this. Alternatively, UWA could also look at investing some of the parking revenue in a similar programme; see www.carbonneutral.com.au for example. Thanks

This survey seems to be exceptionally against persons who choose or are required to drive to UWA. If the currently available parking space was used more efficiently additional bays could be added, thus lessening the issue of "too many cars, not enough bas"...

We have similar parking problems at SCGH. If you find the answer I'm sure they would appreciate if you shared it with them. I still don't know why multistorey car parking facilities are not designed for major hospitals and educational institutions? I’m sure this is taken into account in other Asian countries where land is restrictive.

Whatever you do don't start charging for motorcycle parking! Riding a motorcycle is better for the environment and congestion than cars and if you work irregular hours like I do cycling and public transport aren't particularly great options.

I believe that UWA parking should be free for no more than three hrs for a student per day. If they need to be in for longer they should take another form of transport (i.e. cycling, parking somewhere else then walking). This should be strictly enforced, and each car should be registered with UWA. If


the inspector then inputs the registration of the car, he can see it on his screen and input the time it was and where it was. If the car is found to be there for more than three hrs then a whole units worth of credit points must be wiped from their account per infringement. Visitors will be able to park free, that only fair, for as long as they require.

Accommodation near UWA

This is a difficult issue, particularly given the expense of accommodation near UWA. It must be a major reason for students choosing to live further away from campus & therefore finding it hard to regularly use alternative forms of transport.

Improved Public Transport to UWA

Some students had alternative suggestions for impro ving PT to promote use:

• Specific bus routes or route extensions to service the southern part of UWA. • Light rail system. • Ferry from South Perth. • Increased frequency of services. • UWA bus station. • Services later in the evening.

-bus stops circulating whole uni including Business School. bus 97 should go into the city not back to subiaco Co-ordinate bus times with the end of periods. So as to pick up those wishing to leave the University straight away.

I highly suggest the use of a shuttle bus system for people travelling from stirling highway to the business school. This could also drop people at science library, the maths/engineering buildings and near the oak lawn etc. Also, this could travel to ocwa med and dent library etc.

I personally think it might be a good idea if route 24 can stop next to (not near) the uni, either at the front and/or Fairway.

Increase the number of busses from Esplanade to UWA and make this survey way shorter.

Anyway the survey was great, it's good to see that action will happen to deal with the parking problems and getting cars away from UWA Although not mentioned in your survey, I hope my suggestion of a bus station like Curtin's is taken up as it really is the way to bring UWA public transport into the 21st century.

A light rail system maybe linking UWA, Subiaco and/or the major local hospitals would also be great.

More frequent 79 buses to and from uni would be fantastic :)

More frequent buses and trains to avoid gross overcrowding.

Public transport is hard for me because I have my classes in Human Movement at the other end of the uni. I have to get to uni 30 minutes early for the walk down there. If there was a shuttle bus that took students from the top of the uni to the bottom and visa versa, people could make it to class on time and would probably take public transport more often.

Put more pressure on the government to improve the public transport from and to UWA!!!!!!!

The 97 bus doesn't run very late (last bus leave UWA at 6.36). Like many scientists, I often work late into the evening. The lack of late busses means that I have to walk home if I work late. I think UWA should negotiate with Transperth to provide 10 more97s each evening (say: 7, 7:30, 8, 8:30, 9, 9:30, 10, 10:30, 11, 11:30). Also, there is neither a bench nor a shelter for the 97 stop on Hackett Drive (outside the Guild tavern). There is still a disused shelter at the old 97 stop (near Motorola building). Why can't this shelter be moved?

You could suggest to transperth to have ferry from UWA campus to south Perth and city or other locations.


Other comments

Bicycle paths, pedestrian paths are already good around the UWA area, foreshore etc. Public transport is already reasonably cheap and I think subsidising it would only cost money and not serve as a great incentive. I think there should be a needs-based approach to parking. Certain people due to where they live can only get to UWA in a reasonable amount of time by driving. A significant number of people choose to drive despite the fact they live close to uni because they have sufficient funds to afford paring/petrol etc. Give discount or reduce the price of bicycle for students.

I have very little difficulty finding parking as my hours of contact can be done outside semester time. However, a drop off zone outside the main library and education would be good.

The area surrounding UWA is perfect for cycling. The drawback for many people, I suspect, could be the weather during winter. Perhaps a bike loan system similar to those in France or Holland could be considered where cyclists pick up a bike from a port in UWA and cycle to the city train/bus, depositing the bike in another port there. I am sure many students will be happy to utilise this and even cycle as a group.

MOTIVATORS/BARRIERS Public Transport network – time, distance, safety, convenience, frequency Many students commented on barriers which prevent t hem from using public transport:

• Safety. • Time taken compared to driving. • Little or no protection from the weather at bus sto ps. • Commitments before or after uni. • Need to leave late. • Some suburbs are poorly serviced.

Some students indicated they were generally satisfi ed with public transport as means or getting to UWA.

At my previous residence, reaching UWA by 9am on public holidays UWA was open was impossible because the buses didn't start early enough or connect well with a bus to UWA. I believe public transport in Perth should run more frequently (similar to tram rates in Melbourne) with smaller vehicles. At a former residence, waiting 30-60 minutes for a bus connection after hours (longer on weekends) is a strong disincentive to using public transport, particularly if it is windy with rain blowing into the shelter (if there is one). There should be a shelter affording good rain and wind protection and a bin at every bus stop. At the times I need to come to uni (usually by 9am) the traffic along the main public transport routes are so busy I need to leave and hour or more earlier. However if I drive and can make it to uni in 10 minutes if I drive. I also need to be very flexible with my movements before and after uni as I have lots of family and work commitments. I would love to ride but helmets and riding on the highway and books and time is a problem. I am conscious of the impact of my car emissions and the lack of parking

Because of the 8 and 9 o clock lectures, it takes almost one hour to get to uni compared to after peak hour when its only 20 mins. I would be more inclined to take public transport if the lectures were on later!!!

For my first 3 years of uni I have taken public transport most days into University. This has been due in the past to not having a license, public transport being relatively cheap etc.


This semester has been different because it is extremely inconvenient to have to check an experiment for a unit generally every day. Due to commitments at uni, as well as commitments as a club president, it is difficult to be able to get back to uni in time for these commitments via public transport. It is probable hat next year I will go back to using public transport more frequently providing that I will not be doing uni work situated away from the University campus.

good survey, more buses are supposed to be introduced earlier because most of my classes are at the business school and start very early, that’s when I will use public transport more often

I am located in an inconvenient area even though I'm close to Manning Road. I must walk almost 1km to the nearest bus stop. This bus (32) takes a significant detour before it travels to the Esplanade train station whereby I must wait for and catch another bus to UWA. It takes roughly 45min non-peak hour; meanwhile my car (on lpg) takes 15-20min and I always manage to find a park somewhere, though it can be a struggle. Regardless, public transport is simply too inconvenient and riding/walking feels a little too far considering the ridiculous head winds Perth can kick up sometimes and my current lack of a bike!

I catch the bus to uni everyday as it is close and convenient. That's all, really...

I don't think charging more for parking is the answer. Some students do need to drive to uni given how poor the Perth public transport system is, and I don't think it is fair to penalise them. What needs to be done, on the contrary, is improve public transport to UWA.

I personally think that transport to UWA is not bad at all, except after 5pm and on weekends busses cut back to every half hour or hour in some cases which sucks if you miss your buss by 2 minutes. The only reason I drive to uni is if I have to be somewhere straight after my classes and I won’t get there on time on a bus.

I prefer to come by bus but I can’t find a car park often in the train station cause itb it become crowded so early.

I really hate using public transport - it takes me about 1hour 30min to get to uni every day, whereas if I drive it takes about 20min in non-peak traffic. During the time I'm waiting for transport, the intervals are usually in 10-15min intervals and therefore too short to concentrate or do anything (read a book or whatever).

Let me make a comment that I am happy with the public transport and in the circumstances it is ideal choice. There are many people travelling and buses are full. Using an environmentally friendly car and having parking space would be good.

I think something that connects with the train system and direct to/from UWA would work better to assist in reducing car park load.

None of the measures I have been asked about would make any difference to me driving to UWA. The real problem is deeper - Perth generally has a tragic public transport system, and the isolation of City Beach is a real problem in this. I did have a permit one year however at the times I have uni it just wasn't worth it - most of the time I ended up having to pay for parking anyway which defeats the purpose. The other problem is the UWA gym parking - I was a member of the gym however due to never being able to find parking when I wanted to go I have gone elsewhere.

Public transport is too slow!

Sometimes it's not that public transport are far away from homes, but rather the safety when travelling to one. For example, it takes me only 15mins to get to the city, but 30mins+ for the bus to travel from Wellington station to UWA itself. By driving, I only take 30mins to UWA. The state should understand that UWA is in demand & needs more parking spaces in response to the growing community. It's really bad for students who stay far, but still have to wake up 2-3 hours earlier just to take the public transport.

The amount of buses that leave from the Esplanade bus port are efficient and frequent which makes


it easy to reach uni in a short amount of time, and I am currently happy and content with my method of reaching UWA

The main deterrent to public transport is how long it takes, and feeling unsafe on it at night time. Otherwise, I prefer it to driving.

The main deterrent to using public transport is that I am unable to bring the books which I require on the bus due to their weight/size, and my home is unsuitable for study which makes driving often a necessity.

The main problem is it takes me 15 minutes to drive and 45 minutes on the bus to travel between home and uni. I often take public transport when a car is not available, but spending nearly 2 hrs travelling a day vs. half hour is very time consuming. Also buses stop at 9:20 pm on my route home. I often spend late nights at uni. There is also frustration waiting and missing buses. I also often have a too much to carry with me. Busses are full (on many occasions they have been too full to stop and pick us up)

UWA is located in a wealthy area of Perth. Few people attending the University live walking distance, and getting to UWA via public transport can take up to 5 times longer than driving. Leaving the University late (personally I often work past 10pm) leave little option but driving as it is not safe to cycle or walk 25kms and the choice of public transport is severely limited, not to mention the potential safety issues surrounding the multiple bus ports and train stations where you may have to wait for an hour for public transport, assuming it is still running at that hour.

UWA is not a very convenience place, bus is not frequent, no "Nedland" train station, if there are more improvements shown on public transport and student housing, and I think the problem of environment issues made by vehicle’s transmission of Carbon will be improved a lot.

Cycling – paths, facilities, time, distance, safety

I am not sure if this is relevant to the study, but I am a resident at Trinity Residential College which is across the road from UWA. Therefore I am quite lucky that I can walk/cycle to uni. I occasionally cycle in when I can and the facilities are adequate. I think that the cycle path along mounts bay rd is adequate for people coming from the east or south

Have to drive to UWA

Many students indicated reasons why they need to dr ive or prefer to drive to UWA:

• Need to pick up/drop off children or relatives befo re/after classes. • ALVA students need to carry materials/models. • Classes are at night. • Need to get to work before/after classes. • Time taken by alternatives. • Distance lived from UWA.

A lot of your questions didn't really apply to me. As stated, I have four children to drop off and pick up safely each day. The question of public transport depends on the time it would take me to drop all my children off, then get to the train station which is about 8km away from my home, a train into the city, then a bus to the uni then the same in the evening. It’s a bit much with four children. Cycle lane and improved pedestrian paths would not help me at all. Putting parking fees up would penalise me when I have good reason to travel by car and thus I would discriminated against for being a mature student with children.

As someone with arthritis (although managed) I am constrained in my capacity to undertake the physical activity required to bike/walk or to even make my way to the closest public transport option. If a stricter regime is applied to parking around UWA then consideration may need to be afforded to those students with conditions that do not qualify for handicapped parking permits but nonetheless are unable to avail themselves of alternative transport options.

As you are probably aware, or perhaps not yet aware, the students on the ALVA/Education campus are upset at your lack of consideration when it comes to convenience for UWA's students. Certainly childcare centers for mature age students are important, but his is a mere minority compared to the number of other students you have studying at the University, who are now disadvantaged by your new childcare centre. I read that UWA funds two bus services, the 97 and 78, however neither of these accommodate any of the students in the western area of Perth, including Fremantle and Melville, which I where I live. There is a reason why many of us students hold yellow permits,


especially as we are only allowed them if we do not live close enough to public transportation. However, even if there were bus services easily assessable to me, and many other students at ALVA, they are useless. It is almost impossible to travel by bus in the peak hours of the morning with precious models, heavy drawing equipment and projects, especially when our University degree and marks depend on these items. I have, no more than three times had precious models destroyed by uncareful commuters on Perth’s public transport. I believe a re-thinking of the parking cap at UWA is very important, as well as the consideration of what students study as well as what they need to be taking to and from university. Many students from the main campus are aware of the amount of yellow parking bays over at the ALVA campus and have taken to parking in these areas, which is of much frustration now that construction has begun, as only half of the architecture students can find bays. Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, a re-thinking of the way you structure your parking bays might be a good idea. Maybe having special Nedlands Campus parking stickers for the Education and ALVA students who need these parking bays more than students who merely have to take books and laptops to university.

For a post grad students like me that spend more hours to monitor experiments and usually need to come to campus at afternoon/night, we have no options but to drive our car.

I am fit and enjoy cycling. But I know a lot of people who don't. And because of the distance it is for people who live far away from the uni, it is too inconvenient to catch 2 buses and a train to get to uni. And on days I have labs or exams and need to take large textbooks and lab-coats, which do not fit in a backpack, I cannot ride. The only convenient transport is driving. And I and my peers would rather risk a parking ticket and get free parking because $9 for a long day at uni is too expensive, and first year students cannot get parking permits. And this is very frustrating because sometimes there is no convenient alternate to driving, but there is no parking available.

I am just sooo exhausted of finding parking in UWA, because UWA child care is open a quarter to 8, by the time I drop my kids in Monash Ave, and I reach to campus, I can hardly find park bay at all, and there is no way that I can come by public transport from Aplecross to UWA, with two little kids. Every day I pay for parking, although I have got student permit.

I am not a typical student - mother of 3 part time and lives over 15 km away therefore I do not think my personal reasons for using my car really reflect my opinions on the environment or other modes of transport!

I have to use a car because of getting to my children, better parking up at the hospital would be much appreciated

I would make more of an effort to reduce my carbon print as it would save me a significant amount of fuel and parking money, however given the distance I have to travel and parenting commitments I have no other choice. Maybe UWA could look into providing better assistance to parents!

It is really good that people are thinking about these issues. However, please be wary of just making it expensive or difficult to park - some of us (people who live a long way away, need a car for work, or have kids to chauffeur around) don't necessarily have a lot of choices in transport options and don't really need any more obstacles in an already challenging student life.

Most convenient way to get from UWA and back is by car if you're an art/architecture student due to the amount of study items they carry

Sometimes there's no way around driving to University (it takes me an hour and a half to catch public transport in, and 35 minutes to drive in).

the main reasons that I want to change from taking public transport to driving car are: 1. I have to walk from the bus stop in front of the uni gate to the biz school 20 minutes every day, 2. My courses are at night, so there are fewer buses after class, and I have to wait 30 minutes at the Esplanade bus port sometimes, especially on public holidays when there are still classes in UWA.

The reason I use my car is that I have calls to conduct food safety related work on an unscheduled basis. If I get a call I need to be able to get to site which may be anywhere in the Perth + region promptly

Time taken to commute: 1hr 10 mins to uni & up to 1hr 10 - 20 mins home = 2hr 20 - 30 mins (I commuted during 4 years of undergrad studies) Time taken to drive: 30 mins to uni 30 mins home = 1 hr Saving an hour to an hour and a half a DAY is very important. Threes just not much the uni can do to fix that I'm afraid. :-(


Good luck with the survey, Cheers.

Whilst I understand and agree with the need to encourage alternative transport to UWA, unfortunately I have no other option other than to drive as I have 2 primary school age children who I need to drop off/pick up on each journey and public transport is just not practical at this stage.

Personal Experiences

Driving in peak hour traffic is a nightmare, but when the alternative option is a 3 hour public transport mission both ways then you drive. If there was affordable housing around UWA then I'd live there and walk, but Crawley is expensive. Putting up the parking fees will disadvantage students like me who already have financial difficulties managing vehicles and petrol, but if it actually gets results out of other students then go for it. Due to the distance from home to uni, walking and cycling is not an option for me, but if I lived closer I'd walk Get whoever is in charge of not letting us have extra parking spaces and get them to try and find a yellow permit spot in peak hour. I'm sure it'll make them change their mind If people aren't going to be switching to public transport, walking or cycling then UWA needs to badly do something about parking on campus. Not only is it near on impossible to find a park, the fees are absolutely through the roof! How are students supposed to afford this for 3++ years they are studying at UWA??? For those who live far away from the campus and also have other daily priorities before/after university, public transport is not exactly an option for us. Something needs to be done!! Sometimes there is nothing you can do, people just won’t change their routine because of a price increase, not everyone is driven enough to make a change to what they are used to doing just to make a small difference (I’m not one of those by the way). The parking situation is ridiculous. There are not enough bays in the suburb to service the number of people in the area. Allow overflow parking on grassed areas that are currently unutilised. E.g. near psychology building, in EDFAA carpark. Either don't issue so many yellow permits, or allow them to park in uni paid parking free. It is extremely unfair to charge $120 for a permit when there aren't enough bays by 3-4times, and then charge for pay parking and issue infringements on top. How much do you think student earns - I either pay for food or a frigging fine? The reason I do not currently have a parking permit is because last semester I found that despite paying for the permit I was still paying for parking most days because there were no yellow bays available. The parking situation is dire and really unfair for people who have no choice but to drive to work. I suggest a system whereby the closer you live to campus and more access to public transport facilities you have the more you must pay for parking. This will give people who are too lazy to use alternative transport an incentive without penalising people who have no options. I also think that the safety issue of walking or taking public transport through some areas has not been acknowledged in this survey and is not widely acknowledged by the university and should be addressed. Personally I will not walk through my suburb alone after dark, it is not safe.

PREFERRED/UNDESIRABLE INITIATIVES

Public Transport Subsidy/Encouraging the use of PT

• Some students commented in favour of a public trans port subsidy. • Some students suggested that given the quality of e xisting public transport services,

a subsidy would have no effect on their decision to use it. Free transperth transport is the best idea. Please act on your proposals. Better, cheaper public transport would be great for staff, students, visitors (international also) and the environment. Aus is so far behind leading countries in this regard. I am a part time student. I have classes/lectures on 5 days per week so I need to travel to Campus just as often as a full time student. However the current forms of assistant for students such as student fares on public transport and parking permits on campus are only available to full time students. These types of transport assistance need to be extended to part time students. In addition, part time students are often juggling study with other commitments and therefore their need for efficient and affordable transport options is significant and currently, I feel, overlooked.

I like the idea of reduce public transport costs. Having the same charges as a school student (50c


anywhere) would be great

I really think that further subsidised transport, such as the rate given to secondary students, would increase the amount of people willing to use public transport.

If I didn't have to drop off and pick up my kids from school I would be using public transport for part or all of my commute to UWA and many of the ideas suggested would interest me.

Keep encouraging people to use public transport and/or eco friendly alternatives such as cycling but don't forget to lobby the public sector in order to improve the public transport system.

Public transport is just not suitable for some suburbs where buses run infrequently. Increasing the cost of parking is not fair for people who have to drive in

To achieve what you are trying to achieve, public transport to UWA needs to have its reliability and punctuality drastically improved, or its fees for using it heavily subsidized.

Improved cycling/pedestrian infrastructure and Enco uraging cycling/walking

Students did not comment in support of improving pe destrian infrastructure. Some students indicated support for improving cycli ng infrastructure and facilities at UWA, including:

• Lockers • Showers • Covered bicycle parking • Bicycle lanes in roads leading to UWA (e.g. Stirlin g Hwy)

Some students indicated that they were generally sa tisfied with the existing cycling and pedestrian infrastructure/facilities.

-additional bike paths to and from UWA I really do not like the idea of increasing parking permit costs to fund improved cycling facilities etc. This sort of thing should be funded on a user pays basis - make people pay a small fee for the use cycling facilities and showers, rather than funding it from the car drivers. I think Australia is far behind Europe with pedestrian/cycle paths. I have lived in Sweden and spent time in Germany; the safety for walking/biking is great. At the universities over there are 1000 of bikes parked looking like a sea of bikes, in cities also and where trains are caught. It a normal and accepted way of transport. Despite the snow and rain!! We have the best climate for biking; it's just not safe....

I think the walk/bicycle paths are quite good to/from UWA. They seem to be in quite good condition, the underpasses allow for a safe journey etc. I would rather see money go into some of the other options suggested in the survey.

I'm not affected in any way by the parking fees or parking spaces so perhaps I can't provide such a good viewpoint. Perhaps a few more bike parking spaces that are covered from rain? When the weather gets wet it is sometimes hard to find a decent spot Not a major concern though.

Increasing parking fees will be highly unpopular. It would be imperative to advertise the link between green alternatives and the price increase. The best way of course is conspicuous projects (such as paths being built etc.). Transparency in terms of income from parking and expenses from green projects would lend credence to the increase. Also, in order to appear consistent with the motive of green alternatives, you could offer discounts, such as to carbon neutral cars, in order to dissuade claims that UW is simply trying to raise revenue. Hope that helps :)

More bike lanes leading to UWA, especially along Stirling Highway would be fantastic.

More lockers in rec centre!!!

More lockers! More showers! Seriously, do it! Please

Secure Lockers in more locations would probably inspire me to use my bike more often due to weight


of bag and conveniences...

Showers in the ALVA building please.

The UWA campus is not THAT big - a hire bike service would be totally useless apart from for a few people, who if they were so bothered about having a bike, could bring an old one from the tip shop/op shop/road side collection to uni and lock it up for us when they needed it. I don't think it would be fair to up the parking permit fees for yellow permits - these people are already a fair distance from uni in terms of public transport/walking/cycling. If anything, up the fees on the meters, $1 an hour is pretty cheap. However, this won't catch out those who can afford it.

Shuttle bus

I think the idea about a shuttle bus to other UWA facilities e.g. UWA Sports Park or QEII is a fantastic idea.

shuttle bus from stirling hwy to the business school

The idea of having shuttles between uni sections such as the medical school, and especially business school is very good. I have to often run between business and arts, and that was a key reason why I drove to uni last year, so I could park next to business and not have to walk (lazy I know). Maybe another incentive could be to have that shuttle service free to those who catch public transport...it would be up to you guys to figure out how to monitor people who drive and catch public transport, that would be the hard part...maybe have a special pass for those using buses and trains. Or maybe students having to keep the receipt of the smart rider being uploaded with money, to prove that its being used on public transport (after putting money on the smart rider a receipt is printed showing the date, old and new balance, and also the $ amount that has been put on the car) a lot of cross-referencing would need to be done though. I hope that makes sense.

Car Pooling

The distance from my house to Uni makes the trip long and physically uncomfortable for me to take public transport. I enjoy the comfort of my car. However, I realise that I use a lot of petrol for just myself and would join a car pool system if the people I it were willing to help out with petrol and were willing to get themselves home again as I like to stay late at uni.

Increasing parking fees

• No students commented in favour of increasing parki ng fees. • Some students expressed concern that they had no vi able alternative transport to

UWA, therefore increasing parking fees would disadv antage them.

Do not raise the parking fees at university please, I need to drive to uni and I can never find parking. Don't increase parking permit fees. Increase the number of multi-storey parking facilities. I honestly don't believe that increasing the parking fees will reduce the number of people driving to the uni by car. It might fund things that are useful, but most people don't live near the uni, so walk and cycle path facilities won't be much use in addressing the reduction in cars and pollution. They would reduce accidents, not the number of cars. Improving public transport is the only way to decrease the number of people driving. It will also cost more than what you can raise from increasing parking. Te state and local governments have never attempted to improve the transport infrastructure in the area because the land is too expensive and settled by people who would complain too much. I wouldn't be surprised if more people walked, cycled or used publi transport at the other Universities simply because they are in affordable areas and have better transport links. I strongly disagree with any proposal to increase parking fees as they are large enough already, the bus is time consuming and having to choose between time which could be spent studying and money is difficult for university students. I support the ideas in place to help struggling students who rent near the university, but I don't believe increased car parking fees are the answer when they punish struggling students who cannot afford to live out of home near the university and who come from suburbs far from the golden triangle.


The only option for these students is to save up and buy a car to drive to uni. If they could drive to a bus which went directly to the uni, that would solve both problems. These students usually don't live ear a train line or bus line, and to drive to a train station to get to the city to then get a bus to uni would take approx. 2 hours. I think it would be unfair to increase parking fees to subsidise/improve facilities for students who live in the western suburbs and can therefore walk/cycle, when those who live further away and therefore need to drive/take public transport (which often takes hours) would generally have less disposable income.

I work in the lab sometimes until 2am in the morning and have to travel so far to get home. I have researched public transport and it would take 2-3 hours to get home (normally 15 min by car) and particularly dangerous at night. I hate having to drive my car, I have to get to campus by 9am to get a parking spot, and so penalising people for parking at UWA without considering their situation would be particularly unfair.

INCREASING PARKING FEES WILL BE STRONGLY DISAGREED

Increasing parking fees would be disastrous to most people I know. Two days a week I have to go to work in the morning, walk home and get my laptop and then go to uni all in the space of an hour. There is no way I could take all of my things to work and ten to uni considering that I walk to work as well; I barely make it to uni in time for my classes and often don't get a chance for lunch until about 4pm. If public transport was more frequent and cheaper this would be a great incentive to use it. However any people myself included often don't get a choice considering time constraints due to working and studying, increasing the parking fees would only make students worse off. I am not eligible for a parking permit as I live close to uni, I don't have anyone who can drop me off or pick me up, so I am forced to use my car in a lot of situations. On Mondays I have classes that don't finish until 7 and considering the shortened days it is not a good idea for me to use public transport. I would urge that parking fees were not increased as it will only disadvantage the large majority of students who are forced to work to support themselves and have no option but to drive to uni.

Increasing the parking ticket fee is a really bad idea, some people just live too far to consider public transport as it would take them too long to get home and would also mean that they couldn't do late night studying at uni because of possible safety issues. Also, uni is expensive enough: the food, fuel, student fees etc. The last thing students need is an increase in the parking fees, as the possible improvement in bike riding paths and minibuses only help those who live within the 5km radius, which is not fair on those who don't.

It concerns me that you are considering increasing parking fees. I believe this would discriminate against those who live very far away such as Darlington or Kalamunda, Canningvale. These areas are very hard to get public transport all the way to Uni, and would be impossible to walk or ride from. (Having lived there in the past I recall 2 hour travel times on public transport to get home after hours.) Hence you would be forcing them to pay more, when they are already spending large amounts on fuel just trying to get to Uni on time.

Money for alternative transport initiatives should not come from increasing parking fees. There are students who live a long way from campus and driving may be the only practical option for them. It is not fair that they should have to pay more so students who live nearer than them can have an even easier time getting to class.

Try not increasing parking fees because some people like me bring their car when they need it, for example I had to go to a doctor’s appointment during uni hours and the most convenient way was by car but I had to pay $9 all up to park my car at UWA and als at the doctors. This is very annoying when sometimes it's hard to find change.

UWA should provide the facilities to staff and students. Increasing parking fees would not discourage drivers from driving to UWA. Providing better facilities, better mode of transport to UWA would encourage more people to use them and decrease their driving frequency.

Documents

Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences Centre for the ... · French, S., Giles-Corti, B., I’Anson, K. 2010 UWA Commuting Survey Volume III: Student Survey Results. Centre for the