Journal

of Transporr

SO966-6923(96)00022-l

Geography
Vol. 4. No. 3, pp. 213-217,
19%
Copyright
Q 1996 Elsev~er Science Ltd
Pnnted I Great Rntain.
All nghts reserved
09666923/96
$15.00 + 0.00

Viewpoint

Green campuses: cutting the

environmental cost of commuting
Rodney Tolley
Geography

Division, Staffordshire

University, Leek Road, Stoke on Trent ST4 2DF,

UK

This paper outlines the impacts of transport on the environment and stresses how, for higher
education institutions (referred to as universities here), these are dominated by commuting by
private car. Car commuting
needs to be drastically reduced, yet universities
effectively
subsidize continued car usage through free- or below-cost car park provision. Strategies for
reducing environmental
damage caused by commuting are outlined and the development of
bicycle-friendly
policies is used as a case study. The importance of simultaneous promotion of
green modes and the restraint of red modes is emphasized,
as is the growing political
acceptability of such approaches. The arguments are relevant to other campus environments
such as hospitals, science parks and, in a non-spatial sense, to companies and institutions in
general. Copyright @ 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

The major environmental impacts of transport are air

pollution and energy consumption,
though water
pollution, land take, community severance, wildlife
disturbance,
noise and vibration, resource use and
waste disposal are also serious problems. These issues
directly affect the working environment of universities
in a number of ways such as disturbance to teaching,
loss of natural environment and greenery, despoilation
of the visual environment by parking provision, and
health effects on staff and students. Transport is the
fastest growing source of air pollution in the UK and,
for many critical pollutants, the major source. The
scale of impacts ranges from local to trans-boundary
and even global. Cars are the major problem, emitting
four times as much CO2 per passenger-km as buses, 11
times as much NO, and 12 times the amount of
hydrocarbons.
Transport is also the fastest growing,
and the single largest, energy user in the UK. The car is
by far the most energy-depleting,
and the most rapidly
growing, mode (Whitelegg, 1993).
These impacts are generated in a number of ways,
principally by delivery vehicles, car-borne visitors,
business mileage by university personnel, operation of
own-fleet mileage and commuting. Very few universities
have yet completed transport audits, but in those that
have, commuting overwhelmingly dominates impacts.
In the case of the University of Northumbria,
for
example, 0.8% of total COZ emissions is due to

business travel, 1.5% to own-fleet operation and 97.8%

to commuting, nearly three-quarters of which is student
commuting (University of Northumbria, 1994). At the
University of Central Lancashire, the 13 000 students
and 1300 staff car-commute
33 m km per annum,
emitting 6.6 m kg of CO2 and 33 000 kg of hydrocarbons, representing over 99% of the total emissions
(University
of Central Lancashire,
nd), Almost
certainly commuting is the single largest impact a
university has on the environment, so that transport
should occupy a central position in environmental
policy. However, it is frequently ignored: at Staffordshire University, the Green Policy fails even to
mention commuting, let alone give it high priority.
The trends in motorization on campuses parallel
those in society and in some ways are exacerbated by
changes in higher education itself. The admission of
greater numbers of mature students probably raises the
proportion of car-owning students, whilst the lack of
money for new on-campus residential accommodation
increases typical journey-to-study
length compared
with the archetypal collegiate model, where a high
proportion of students, tutors and other university staff
live in community. Moreover, the ex-urbanization of
whole campuses - as mooted in the case of the
University of Greenwichs Dartford campus - would
contribute
to car-dependent
lifestyles and would
normalize North American-style patterns of work, play

Green campuses: R Tolley

214

and residence in post- or extra-university activity. It is

at least arguable that universities have a moral responsibility to contribute to reducing the emissions of global
warming gases from activities directly associated with
them like commuting.
Moreover,
setting lifestyle
norms and exemplars may contribute to future change,
given that many students will progress to occupying
influential roles in government, companies or other
organizations.
What are the costs to universities
commuting?

of car

Reducing car commuting will produce demonstrable

and tangible benefits to a university. For example,
being green may be a factor in students choice of
university, particularly as environmental issues have
become more prominent in the curriculum of many
schools. Furthermore, going completely car-free could
be an opportunity for a university to attract considerable
academic and media attention and might place it in an
advantageous position to win research contracts to
study pre- and post-implementation
issues. A more
direct cost of car commuting to the university (and to
individuals) is health damage to staff and students. In
congested conditions, car commuters are subject to
high levels of stress and air pollution and do not get the
exercise benefits that, for example, cyclists do. They
are less fit than cyclists, more likely to be ill, have
higher absenteeism rates, are less punctual and are less
productive when at work (Shayler et al, 1993).
The most obvious cost, however, is the provision by
the university of facilities that enable people to commute
by car, particularly parking space. The costs of providing
parking facilities include the salaries and associated
overheads for car park attendants; the administration
costs; the asset value of the land used for car parking;
the taxes paid on the car-parking space; the capital
costs of establishing the car parks and the maintenance
and repair costs for them; and fees and other payments
to clamping companies. It is not known whether any
university has audited its car park costs in such detail,
so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. However, if total
costs exceed revenue from parking charges (which
seems very likely), then the university effectively
subsidizes car users.
Some idea of the size of the subsidy can be gained by
comparing university parking charges with rates at
nearby commercial parks, where presumably costs are
covered and a profit is made. Because daily charges
may be discounted for season ticket holders and
because circumstances will vary widely between different institutions, such comparison is indicative only, but
may be helpful. One example is that of Staffordshire
Universitys central Stoke site where parking is free,
but at nearby Stoke Railway Station it is f2.00 per day,
equivalent to &440 for a 220 day year. In the Central
Lancashire case, a comparison of university fees and

those for commercial parking in nearby Preston town

centre produced an estimated subsidy of the order of
5500 per car per annum. For the University of
Northumbrias city centre site, the figure would be
around &2000 per car per annum (H Manns, personal
communication,
1995). If there were 1000 drivers
involved, this would cost f2 million per annum. These
calculations take no account of the profits that are
undoubtedly built in to the charge structure for private
car parks and there are probably other sources of
inaccuracy but it seems certain that there is some sort of
subsidy to car users when there is none to walkers,
cyclists or bus- or train-riders. The significance of the
subsidy is that it provides a financial inducement when one is hardly needed-for
commuters to travel to
the university by private car (University of Central
Lancashire, nd, p 18). Cost centres in the institution are
entitled to initiate a debate on the value for money
achieved by the university in subsidizing car commuting
in comparison with alternative methods of disbursing
funds.
How can universities

reduce these costs?

There are several approaches to reducing this burden.

First, new buildings must not be provided with any
more than essential access. A good example is in
traffic-restrained
Gothenburg, whereby agreement the
new building housing the Geography Department, 400
staff and 4000 students is being provided with only 40
car parking spaces (8, Forsstrom, personal communication, 1994). Direct environmental
benefit could be
sought by turning existing car parks into gardens or
conservation areas, though this does not help to deal
with the commuting problem. Alternatively, parking
areas could be used as sites for new facilities, off-setting
the need to buy land at a cost, or could be sold on the
open market for a one-off financial benefit. If, on the
other hand, car parks are retained, their costs could be
audited and charges introduced to cover these in full.
The money gained/saved by these last two approaches
should be redirected to supporting more environmentally responsible modes of commutine.
In short, universities should:

formally adopt a policy which makes a commitment

to reducing the environmental
impacts associated
with commuting and assign responsibility for its
implementation to a senior manager;
carry out a comprehensive
transport audit and
develop environmental performance indicators for
use as a basis for setting targets for improvement;
encourage modal switching to environment-friendlier
forms of transport, particularly public transport,
walking and cycling.
A comprehensive approach, with simultaneous stimulation of green mode use and discouragement of car use,
is imperative. Simply upgrading alternatives to car use

Green campuses: R Tolley

is expensive and does not work. The myth that

encouraging commuters to share cars will change
commuting behaviour must be exposed by inspection of
the evidence: it is hard to find a single case where such
strategies have made a noticeable difference to modal
splits. Worse, such policies are pseudo-green, giving
legitimacy to ineffective procedures whilst deflecting
attention away from real change. Instead, providing
incentives to car-share or van-pool, or even offering
low-cost rental of university vehicles (along the lines of
the Stadt-auto model in Berlin and Bremen), are more
likely to be successful, providing that they are seen as
part of a package (Glotz-Richter,
1995).
Obviously management plans must take note of local
circumstances. For example, plentiful on-street parking
near to the campus may undermine university restrictions, so that encouraging
the local authority to
introduce parking management strategies is essential.
In all cases, stimulating public transport use will be a
key policy, though this will vary according to university
location, city size etc. Some experience has accumulated: at Tubingen University, all students are charged
DMlO extra fees per semester and are issued with
travel cards to promote public transport and to reduce
parking demand at the university. At the University of
Washington in Seattle the same approach yields 40% of
the cost of the U-Pass Program which provides
subsidized public transit, free parking for car-poolers
and improved campus bicycle facilities (University of
Washington, 1991). A further 30% comes from university funds, but the most interesting feature is that the
final 30% comes from the revenue from parking
permits (which cost US$36 per month). This scheme is
thus a first step towards incorporation of the fundamental principle that car use must be restrained or
charged at full cost and the funds redistributed, so that
better travel conditions result for the alternative modes
at the expense of the car driver.

An example of one strategy: developing a bicyclefriendly policy

Public transport is in all practical cases less damaging
than the private car and every effort needs to be made
to switch longer journeys accordingly. The lack of
control over public transport in a deregulated environment may complicate strategies, though the emerging
oligopoly in bus operation in much of the UK might
provide opportunities to negotiate arrangements aimed
at establishing
and maintaining
public transport
customer loyalty. However, in many universities,
nearly all of the students and many, if not most, staff
live within reasonable cycling distances, accepted as
8 km or 30 minutes. Persuading the majority of these
commuters to use bicycles would make an enormous
impact on the universitys environmental footprint on
the locality and is arguably the single most effective
measure in combating environmental damage.

215

The bicycle is the ideal alternative to the car over

short distances because it produces no pollution, uses
no energy, is silent, takes little space and is fast and
cheap (McLintock, 1992; Tolley, 1990). Some 40% of
all car trips in Britain are under 1.6 km in length: most
of these could switch to bicycles given suitable encouragement. Bicycles use space so efficiently that 10-12
can be parked in the space taken by one car. Their use
is consonant
with a contemplative
and peaceful
atmosphere and conveys a more modern, attractive
image than does a campus dominated by parked cars.
The British Medical Association has recently called
for the promotion of cycling in order to improve
the nations health (British Medical Association,
1992).
Clearly, not everyone can be converted to the bike
and it would be foolish to argue otherwise. Many
people are deterred by worries over traffic danger,
theft, weather and physical fitness, though some of
these concerns are exaggerated. For example, bicycle
theft rates are actually lower than those for cars in
Britain. Again, mountain bike technology has made
undulating terrain much less daunting and the use of
new fabrics in modern cycle clothing mean that there is
no need at all for the cyclist to arrive at work either
sweaty or wet. However, concerns over the perceived
lack of safety are real, with a recent survey in Leicester
showing that 70% of non-cyclists would consider
buying a bike if a network of safe cycle routes were
provided (Leicester Environment
City, 1993). The
Cyclists Touring Club, using a refinement
of a
Department of Transport model, have calculated that
in an average British city the percentage of all trips
made by bike could be 20% if conditions were safer and
nearly 50% if they were ideal on all counts (Mathew,
1995).
These figures are within reach for many university
towns. Students are more than usually environmentally
aware and are receptive to new ideas, so that they may
also be ready to consider changed environmental
behaviour at major life-event points such as the
transition from school to university. They are also
fitness conscious, have restricted budgets, usually live
close to campus, and are often already bicycle owners.
Staff share some of these characteristics and additionally
many are influential members of the local community
and, as potential bicycle advocates, can help persuade
city officials to implement policy geared towards
cycling.
Adopting a bicycle-friendly
policy would involve
auditing current environmental
impacts, establishing
goals and developing methodologies
for achieving
specific targets. The exact methods would vary according to local circumstances, priorities and resources
available. However, for illustrative purposes only, it
might be helpful to indicate the kind of activities that
might be involved. First of all there would be measures
specifically to reduce car commuting:

216

Green campuses: R Tolley

(1) restraining cars:

l introducing
full-cost car parking charges;
l abandoning
car parking expansion and reclaiming some car park space for other uses.
The money raised must be redirected to encourage
greener modes such as cycling. The measures to do this
would include:
(2) physical measures:
providing plentiful,
secure bicycle parking,
including at halls of residence;
ensuring easy access to showers and changing
rooms for commuters;
constructing bicycle paths or tracks or modifying
existing roadways to ensure that they are conducive to safe and efficient cycling;
(3) administrative measures:
l establishing a bicycle advisory committee to look
after cyclists needs;
l running safety education
programmes and bikerepair/maintenance
classes;
l providing on-campus bike repair facilities;
(4) publicity/promotion
measures:
publicizing cycling initiatives through newsletters, salary slips, notice boards, etc;
opening channels of communication
with the
local authority to ensure linkage of campus
facilities with those off campus (or to encourage
provision where it is lacking);
operating bike-mate schemes to give confidence
to new or returning cyclists (Takemoto-Weerts,
1992; London Cycling Campaign, nd);
(5) economic measures:
offering a payment to those who sign an agreement not to commute by car;
providing an interest-free loan for a bike;
operating a bike leasing scheme. Under this, the
most promising approach, the university would
lease bikes (for perhaps &lO-20 per month) and
place them free of charge at the employees
disposal. The lease company would be responsible for maintenance and repair. After three
years, the user may buy the bicycle for around
f25-50. A lease scheme of this sort in the Hague
increased cycling amongst municipal employees
by 50% in its first year (Louisse, 1993). The cost
to the university would be f600-700 at most over
three years for each member of staff and this
would be found out of the savings made by not
subsidizing car use. Using the figures presented
earlier, this would represent a net saving per
driver of &600-700 over three years in the
case,
&800-900 at
Central
Staffordshire
Lancashire and over f5000 at Northumbria.
This money could be spent on bicycle facilities or
indeed on encouraging other green mode use,

such as subsidizing the use of public transport by

issuing vouchers, buying in bus services and so
forth.

The changing local/national political context

in Britain
The changes necessary to achieve environmentally
responsible commuting to universities will be assisted
by developments now taking place at local and national
levels of government. In Britain the great car economy
of the 1980s is now under attack in the very different
circumstances of the 1990s. Seminal here are the CO;!
reduction targets following the Rio Earth Summit and
the dismay that greeted the National Road Traffic
Forecasts of 1988, which predicted a doubling of traffic
by 2025 if nothing was done. The change in public
attitudes has been dramatic, so that there is now an
unprecedented breadth of understanding that it is not
going to be possible to provide for unlimited car use
(Goodwin et al, 1991). The publication in 1994 of two
major reports - that of the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution and the SACTRA report on
assessment of road schemes - have been interpreted as
in government
thinking
(Royal
a sea change
Commission, 1994; SACTRA, 1994). The advice given
in Planning Policy Guidance notes 6 and 13 ensure that
the new approach is reflected in the practice of local
authorities, who are now finding that the government is
increasingly supportive of package bids for funding
which stress public transport and provision for cyclists
at the expense of road building. Harmonization of onand off-campus cycle facilities should become more
straightforward and university plans for car use reduction will be welcomed by local and county councils,
many of which are now actively promoting travelwise
campaigns and the adoption of green transport plans
(Hertfordshire County Council, 1993; Nottingham City
Council/Nottingham
County Council, 1995). Indeed, if
local authorities are forced by central government to
reduce pollution to specified targets, universities may
find themselves required to deliver specified savings in
air pollution as part of a local air quality management
plan.

Conclusions
The strategies outlined in this paper are likely to
entrenched
opposition.
encounter
considerable,
Courage will be necessary, for it will not be an easy job
to sell what may be perceived as a worsening of
conditions to students, and (especially) staff. Changes
in thinking are required, with a determined effort being
made to reach a consensus on the reasoning behind the
measures before they are fully implemented. Offering
each employee a personal transport plan with advice
related to time and cost may well be a way forward.
Such transport counselling and the development of
various forms of customized assistance or incentive

Green

campuses:

recognizes that there are substantial numbers of people

who do not optimize their travel behaviour, even where
information is reasonably readily available. The seductive nature of car ownership encourages many to
continue car commuting despite objectively changed
circumstances of congestion and parking difficulty.
Moreover, many feel that they are locked into patterns
of transport behaviour by family commitments and the
resultant need to make multi-stage journeys - such as
dropping off children at school on the way to work which are thought to be much more conveniently made
by car. In these circumstances, individual targeting may
actually be more economically efficient than generalized
action.
It is critical that decision makers are made to
understand that reducing car use by active restraint
measures is the central issue. Simply encouraging
people to abandon car commuting has no history of
success and nor has voluntary car sharing. Until it is
understood by everybody, including senior management, that it is ones own behaviour that has to change,
not just that of other people, little will be achieved. For
that to happen car-parking charges must reflect the real
costs to the university of providing space and the
income must be used to make the use of alternatives
easier. Though this will be a difficult task, campaigners
can take heart from changes in government thinking,
local authority procedures and public attitudes, which
are all moving simultaneously in the direction of traffic
restraint and green mode promotion. They can also
quicken the pace of change by auditing their institutions
and exposing the size of the (currently) hidden subsidy
to car commuters. In the light of this information, a
rational debate could then ensue over the issue of
whether the subsidization of environmentally damaging
behaviour is an appropriate use of university resources.

R TolIe,:

217

References
British Medical Association (1992) Cycling: Towards Health and
Safety BMA, London
Glotz-Richter
(1995) Car-free housing and car-sharing - steps
towards a new urban lifestyle in Proceedings Transport in Cities
conference, Edinburgh, November
Goodwin, P, Hallett, S, Kenny, F and Stokes, G (1991) Transport:
the New Realism Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford
Hertfordshire
County Council (1993) Travelwise Hertfordshire
County Council
Leicester Environment City (1993) Access and Mobility Leicester
Environment City
London Cycling Campaign (nd) Get Cycle Friendly - a Guide for
Employers LCC
Louisse, CJ (1993) Stimulating bicycle use by companies in Proc
seventh Velocity
conference,
Nottingham,
Nottinghamshire
County Council, 183-188
Mathew, D (1995) Successful policies in promoting bicycle use in
Proc eighth Velocity conference, Basel, IG Velo Basel, 72-74
McLintock, H (ed) (1992) The Bicycle and City Traffic: Principles
and Practice Belhaven Press, London
Nottingham City CounciI/Nottinghamshire
County Council (1995)
Green Commuter Plans: a Resource Pack for Nottinghams
Employers
Nottingham City Council/Nottinghamshire
County
Council
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1994) Transport and
the Environment HMSO, London
SACTRA (1994) Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic Report
of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Appraisal,
HMSO, London
Shayler, NM, Fergusson, M and Rowell, A (1993) Cosring the
Benefits: the Value of Cycling Cyclists Touring Club, Godalming
Takemoto-Weerts,
D (1992) Bicycling and the university: a fertile
combination for the nurturing of bicycle-friendly communities in
Proc Conference Velo Mondiale, Velo Quebec. Montreal, Canada,
511-512
Tolley, RS (ed) (1990) The Greening of U&an Transport; Planning
for Walking and Cycling in Western Cities Belhaven Press, London
University of Central Lancashire (nd) Final Report, Environmental
Audit Project University of Central Lancashire
University of Northumbria
(1994) Travel audit University of
Northumbria
University of Washington (1991) U-Pass: for You and the U
University of Washington, Seattle
Whitelegg, J (1993) Transport for a Sustainable Future Belhaven
Press, London