*New* UCD CAR PARKING POLICY

dajaffa

FRom an email that was sent to my staff accout:

UCD wrote:

UCD CAR PARKING POLICY

• The UCD campus car parks are strictly for use by:
UCD staff, UCD students, Non-UCD staff working on campus
and those visiting or conducting business on campus.

The Pay and Display car parks are accessible to anyone visiting the campus but are limited to 5 hours maximum stay for those paying with cash.

• Car parks will be randomly monitored to ensure that they are only being used by those described above.

• Staff monitoring car parks may ask drivers to produce appropriate ID or stipulate a reason for parking. Appropriate ID is deemed to be one of the following:
UCD Staff (Staff Card, UCD Student (UCD Student Card or welcome letter for 1st year students), Non-UCD Staff working on campus (Company ID), Visitors (verifiable reason for being on campus/contact name).

Drivers who do not satisfy the above criteria will be directed to the Pay and Display car parks or asked to leave the campus. Car registrations will be recorded, those subsequently found on campus will be clamped if they have not paid and displayed in a designated car park.
Drivers are encouraged to have the appropriate ID readily accessible to ensure efficient access to car parks.

• Persons checking ID must be treated with dignity and respect at all times.

• Parking is limited on campus and car parks are filled daily on a first come first served basis.

• Car park users must adhere to all signage and park in designated spaces only. Infringements will result in vehicle being clamped.


For queries relating to this policy please email: commuting@ucd.ie

breadmonkey

Excellent!

Red Alert

Finally something useful!

They should go the whole hog and do ANPR - you'd just have to register your car's reg no and you'd be in.

aaronquigley

http://www.ucd.ie/incomingstudents/parkingpolicyincoming.pdf

New Students to UCD should pay particular attention as this says:

"Students parking on campus may be asked to produce a UCD student card. As you will not have your UCD student card during Orientation Week please bring your UCD welcome letter as proof that you are an incoming student."

UCD parking policy is that the limited parking spaces available on campus are allocated on a first come first served basis. Those studying, working or visiting the campus may park if space is available.

Riamfada

Look at dajaffa using this as an excuse to let us all know she has a staff account .....


No sign of the pay parking no?

Red Alert

I noticed that alright - it's suspicious by its absense.

Scraggs

• Persons checking ID must be treated with dignity and respect at all times.

It says a lot about UCD staff and students the fact they have to add that in!!

Ado86

They have finally listened to us and introduced this new measure !! The amount of people I saw in the mornings walking away from their cars towards the no 46 bustop used to drive me insane ! I wish they would just introduce parking permits or something for people who drive to UCD everyday, everyone else could get a daily pass. It would cut down on the amount of people who drive in, I wouldnt mind paying for it if it guaranteed me a spot in the car park when I arrived.

Sarn

The problem with UCD providing permits as far as I'm aware is that it would be treated as benefit in kind and thus taxable. As far as I know this is why the old permit system disappeared.

Although I'm sure they could introduce a permit system at a very small annual fee to staff and students only.

Red Alert

How exactly is the current setup then avoiding being a benefit in kind?

Sarn

I decided to do some research. From the quote below it seems there is no issue. Roll on permits!

From www.revenue.ie
"The cost of car parking facilities provided by an employer are not treated as giving rise to a taxable benefit."

A few years ago there was a question of whether or not parking would be considered BIK that was when UCD scrapped the system (parking was not an issue then).

Edit: Just to clarify, BIK is not an issue according to revenue so they can give us free permits whatever.

dajaffa

Sarn wrote:

Although I'm sure they could introduce a permit system at a very small annual fee to staff and students only.

As far as I know they think that park + riders aren't that big a problem (BS imo) + that there still wouldn't be enough capacity with them eliminated. Henceforth they thought if it was say €50 for a permit, everyone would get them + it wouldn't really put people off bringing their cars. What they want to do is bring in some sort of hourly charge, but both staff + student unions don't want that. I reckon this measure is being done as a trial + if eliminating the park + riders results in there being adequate spaces, then they'll implement a proper permit system (might be electronic devices you could buy for €30 to be able to enter a car park, that idea has been touted anyway) in due course.

besty

Why did they have to start rectifying the parking the year after I finish? Always the way it is I suppose...

pretty*monster

Sarn wrote:

The problem with UCD providing permits as far as I'm aware is that it would be treated as benefit in kind and thus taxable. As far as I know this is why the old permit system disappeared.

I checked with my dad who works in DIT, they aren't taxed for their parking permits. so that's no the issue.

Ernie Ball

Ado86 wrote:

They have finally listened to us and introduced this new measure !! The amount of people I saw in the mornings walking away from their cars towards the no 46 bustop used to drive me insane ! I wish they would just introduce parking permits or something for people who drive to UCD everyday, everyone else could get a daily pass. It would cut down on the amount of people who drive in, I wouldnt mind paying for it if it guaranteed me a spot in the car park when I arrived.

They have not 'listened to us'. This is a half measure after their initial idea (charging everyone--staff and students alike--50 cents per hour) was met with a brick wall by the staff unions.

But you should be under no illusions: Brady and his ilk see parking as an opportunity for revenue enhancement. Fees by any other name. The only mistake so far has been assuming that the staff would be willing to pay fees.

cast_iron

This is excellent news - IF it is policed adequately.

Are they planning to spend more money on staff in order to police this policy yet not try to raise extra money to pay for it?

There well be some more Pay & Display areas popping up soon.

Tayto2000

The whole campus is going pay and display next year anyway, this is step one. I'll be sticking to the bike I reckon, but I'll enjoy the fireworks .

Ernie Ball

Tayto2000 wrote:

The whole campus is going pay and display next year anyway,

That is not correct.

Brady and co.'s preferred solution is much more elaborate: in-car electronic meters that open electronic gates and keep track of every hour spent on campus. A monthly bill is then sent.

This makes no sense for about 1,000 reasons not least that it would give staff a disincentive for remaining on campus.

No consideration has been given to any of the more obvious solutions: free window stickers for all students and staff; annual parking permits; parking permits distributed based on distance from campus, etc.

BKtje

"The cost of car parking facilities provided by an employer are not treated as giving rise to a taxable benefit."

Students aren't employed by UCD, infact students are UCD's customers so maybe that doesn't apply for the students (RE BIK). I could of course be talking out my arse in whiich case please correct me

Sarn

B-K-DzR wrote:

Students aren't employed by UCD, infact students are UCD's customers so maybe that doesn't apply for the students (RE BIK). I could of course be talking out my arse in whiich case please correct me

Absolutely, you can't deduct it from the salary UCD don't pay you. Fortunately as BIK doesn't apply to parking it's not a problem.

If the new system is properly enforced it'll be interesting to see the effect it'll have on park and riders. I would imagine O'Reilly and Engineering car parks would have the biggest culprits.

Ernie Ball

Sarn wrote:

Absolutely, you can't deduct it from the salary UCD don't pay you. Fortunately as BIK doesn't apply to parking it's not a problem.

Sure, but they can still make you pay. If Hugh and his cronies have their way, that's exactly what you'll be doing to the tune of 50 cents/hour.

By the way: your student union reps were on the committee and apparently signed off on the plan. Only staff unions scuppered it (for the time being).

Riamfada

Ernie Ball wrote:

By the way: your student union reps were on the committee and apparently signed off on the plan. Only staff unions scuppered it (for the time being).

Student Union sabats or Class Reps? Im ****e at this pseudo-politics stuff. I want names !

dajaffa

Grimes wrote:

Student Union sabats or Class Reps? Im ****e at this pseudo-politics stuff. I want names !

Well I'm pretty sure Dan Hayden was on it last year, so I assume Barry Colfer is this year, I'm not sure though

Red Alert

I'd love if either of them came on here and explained exactly how it was in my interest to have to pay money to college for it - they do represent me yeah?

Riamfada

Well Dan is gone now, but yeah they represent you alright. As far as I know, Dan worked hard for the car parking campaign. But at the end of the day if the Presidents Office makes a decision thats better for the college, the enviroment ect no one will listen to the individual student.

Ernie Ball

Grimes wrote:

Well Dan is gone now, but yeah they represent you alright. As far as I know, Dan worked hard for the car parking campaign. But at the end of the day if the Presidents Office makes a decision thats better for the college, the enviroment ect no one will listen to the individual student.

First of all, UCD is not a monarchy. The President's office cannot decide such things unilaterally. Secondly, the environment is hardly their concern. They are concerned with milking students and staff for all their worth. Thirdly, this milking might be acceptable were it for the greater good of the college. Unfortunately, given their track record on such things (renovations to Hugh's house; exorbitant sums spent on consultants; pointless spending on frippery for the campus, etc.), nothing could be less certain.

The students and their union reps have been altogether too docile with this administration as it has made UCD a worse place in which to learn. Ask any lecturer who isn't among the select cronies in key positions and you'll get an earful. It'd be nice to see them do more than rely on the staff unions to resist whatever inane plan Hugh and his merry band of county councillors have devised this month.

Tayto2000

Ernie Ball wrote:

That is not correct.

Brady and co.'s preferred solution is much more elaborate: in-car electronic meters that open electronic gates and keep track of every hour spent on campus. A monthly bill is then sent.

Hmmm interesting. What's your source on this? Multi-storeys are due down the road (ie years away) but I'd be very surprised to see any kind of serious solution like that in the meantime. Pay and display has been confirmed by the buildings superintendant and I find it plausible as all colleges are casting about for alternative revenue streams to replace fees.

The parking monitoring is a step in the right direction, but will it be occasional spot checking or a person at the entrance to the carparks? I've seen checks being done early in the morning already, but it must be pretty haphazard.

Also, people seem convinced that park and riders are a huge problem. As has been said before, it's just the huge rise in car ownership. Even ten years ago, aside from a lucky few, students simply did not drive to college. Look at the stats from the cso here:

http://home.connect.ie/dcc/docs/commute.jpg

Started in '96. Not much chance of reversing anytime soon.



...It's not really relevant I suppose, but I still can't help feeling amused by the constant assumption that free parking is a fundamental right and that everything on campus should be geared towards the convenience of car drivers. As mentioned, doesn't really affect me because I choose not to drive but even so...

Ernie Ball

Tayto2000 wrote:

Hmmm interesting. What's your source on this? Multi-storeys are due down the road (ie years away) but I'd be very surprised to see any kind of serious solution like that in the meantime.

I can't tell you how I know this. However, I can assure you that the admin were ready to run with the technical solution as early as this September until they got derailed by all three trade unions.

Pay and display has been confirmed by the buildings superintendant and I find it plausible as all colleges are casting about for alternative revenue streams to replace fees.

This is what you get when you treat a university like any other business.

...It's not really relevant I suppose, but I still can't help feeling amused by the constant assumption that free parking is a fundamental right and that everything on campus should be geared towards the convenience of car drivers. As mentioned, doesn't really affect me because I choose not to drive but even so...

There is a distinction to be made here: for staff, charging for parking is a change in the conditions of employment and remuneration as stated in their contracts. Basically, the university would be effectively paying them .50/hour less than what their contracts stipulate.

Students, on the other hand, have no rights whatsoever in this regard.

pretty*monster

Ernie Ball wrote:

By the way: your student union reps were on the committee and apparently signed off on the plan. Only staff unions scuppered it (for the time being).

That's a very unfair summary of what happened.
The staff union had the power to stop the charges. The student union didn't.

Ernie Ball

pretty*monster wrote:

That's a very unfair summary of what happened.
The staff union had the power to stop the charges. The student union didn't.

There were lots of things the students' union reps could have done, not least to publicise what was on the cards. If student had known about the plans, they might have made their feelings felt.

As it is, because only the staff unions have objected, what is likely to happen now is different treatment of staff and students, where staff can park for free and students have to pay. Brady wants money out of this (solving the parking problem is a lesser concern). If he can't get it from the staff, he'll get it from the students. In fact, given the way these things work--selling the contract out to the highest bidder--it probably doesn't take much off the value if staff are all given free passes.

This goes to show: students cannot and should not rely on staff unions to take stands on their behalf.

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

There were lots of things the students' union reps could have done, not least to publicise what was on the cards. If student had known about the plans, they might have made their feelings felt.

I personally plastered the consourse with bright red posters earlier in the uear inviting students to an open meeting about the "parking crisis". Hardly anyone came but we couldn't have done much more to advertise it.

And the SU didn't support the paid parking, they supprted the in-car meters which when originally touted there wouldn't be a monthly bill, peopl would just pay €30 for the device, though admittedly there were fears that they were designed for a pay parking system. In any case the staff unions have a lot more influence over this matter than the students.

Vorsprung

Anyone know if this will stop me dropping the car at Belfield and then walking down to Vincent's? I do that about once a week when I've got evening lectures up there or if I'm planning on studying there.

Cheers!

dajaffa

bigjimthefirst wrote:

Anyone know if this will stop me dropping the car at Belfield and then walking down to Vincent's? I do that about once a week when I've got evening lectures up there or if I'm planning on studying there.

Cheers!

If you have a valid student card you'll be fine, otherwise it'd depend on the car park attendant.

Red Alert

You realise he'll make people pay for the in-car meters too?

dajaffa

Red Alert wrote:

You realise he'll make people pay for the in-car meters too?

Yep, 30 yoyos a pop

machiavellianme

Why are people so against this? Nobody has a god given right to free parking.
If you go to shopping centres/town etc you have to pay. Whats the difference here? Students dont own UCD. Nor do staff. The same way Tesco dont own Dundrum Shopping Centre but they have the right to charge us for the priviledge of parking on the ground which they lease. UCD can also charge if they see fit. When I started (ten years ago) no such problem existed because very few people had cars. Now nearly everyone seems to have a car and feels they have a right to park on private property. If you dont like the charges, dont park there. Its that simple. I can understand the staff getting upset. They have a valid point that it amounts to 50 cent less per hour in pay, but only if they drive. Granted, many of them need to drive as there may not be public transport available at all times (as needed to check on experiments running in science/engineering etc during the night or for other services).

Red Alert

Superquinn in ballinteer have free parking, Dundrum down the road don't, however I have the choice any day to switch between one and the other. Tesco in Dundrum do not have any say in the running of the car parks, they have an agreement allowing them to give free parking but the centre's management controls the car parks.

UCD is different, the decision to go there is a three/four year time scale, not a daily one. The same way I think it's wrong for hospitals to fleece people who want to be at the side of their loved ones when they're sick or dying.

Ernie Ball

machiavellianme wrote:

Why are people so against this? Nobody has a god given right to free parking.
If you go to shopping centres/town etc you have to pay. Whats the difference here? Students dont own UCD. Nor do staff.

Who does? The administration?

UCD can also charge if they see fit.

Who is 'UCD'?

Can the administration unilaterally decide to reduce the wages of all staff? I don't think so.

Students have less of a case. Especially since it's an absolute certainty that a large proportion of them are driving in from Foxrock, Donnybrook, Dundrum and the like...

Ernie Ball

Red Alert wrote:

UCD is different, the decision to go there is a three/four year time scale, not a daily one. The same way I think it's wrong for hospitals to fleece people who want to be at the side of their loved ones when they're sick or dying.

You know, there'd be less incentive for the administration to misplace its priorities in this way if students were paying fees, as they should.

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

You know, there'd be less incentive for the administration to misplace its priorities in this way if students were paying fees, as they should.

The whole reason behind the potential introduction of parking fees to UCD is to disincentivise people from parking there and to use other forms of transport to get to college. It's not a money making exercise, or at least it's not intended to be (I think that if it becomes profitable the unions want the money ring fenced for improving transport facilities in the college). Basically if the car parks were half empty and there was no problem getting parking, this wouldn't be on the table.

Red Alert

But I don't see any extensive lobbying from UCD to the council to be allowed increase car parking, nor do I see any real attempt (such as Student/Staff card operated barriers or license plate readers) at securing the car parks.

If we're really pushed for parking space i'd have no hassle with a restricted days permit system either, as long as it's free. (People who do have very complicated journeys could apply for an all-week pass or similar).

Ernie Ball

dajaffa wrote:

The whole reason behind the potential introduction of parking fees to UCD is to disincentivise people from parking there and to use other forms of transport to get to college. It's not a money making exercise, or at least it's not intended to be

I think that that's a very naive view. If that were the case, there are plenty of ways to disincentivise people from parking (annual permits, for example) that don't also give them disincentives for spending time on campus full stop. The hourly meter scheme has only one advantage over the others: it pulls in much more money.

(I think that if it becomes profitable the unions want the money ring fenced for improving transport facilities in the college). Basically if the car parks were half empty and there was no problem getting parking, this wouldn't be on the table.

Again, I think you're far too charitable to the motives of the current administration. These people are first and foremost about the money, which is why they show more interest in property development than they do in developing the intellectual infrastructure of the college (been to the library lately?).

Ernie Ball

An obvious solution to this false problem, by the way is this:

1) All UCD staff as well as students living outside a certain distance (or travel time, since Dublin Bus is useless) to the college are given free annual permits.

2) Everyone else either goes to the pay and display car parks or gets clamped.

3) If this doesn't solve the problem, expand the radius outside of which free permits are granted.

The investment in manpower/capital is minimal and so is the revenue. Why do you think it's never been proposed?

tywy

Ernie Ball wrote:

An obvious solution to this false problem, by the way is this:

1) All UCD staff as well as students living outside a certain distance (or travel time, since Dublin Bus is useless) to the college are given free annual permits.

2) Everyone else either goes to the pay and display car parks or gets clamped.

3) If this doesn't solve the problem, expand the radius outside of which free permits are granted.

The investment in manpower/capital is minimal and so is the revenue. Why do you think it's never been proposed?

I don't think that's really fair. I live in Terenure, it's not that far from Belfield but takes AGES to get there in the morning so generally I cycle unless I'm sick or injured from sports or something. Now to get the bus would involve getting up super early and sitting on it for 1 hr 20mins instead of driving for 45 minutes maybe in traffic.

So someone who has decent public transport like the DART for example can drive a car over me who has crap public transport and it takes ages.

They can't start charging for parking until there is decent public transport to Belfield that makes driving less attractive.

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

I think that that's a very naive view. If that were the case, there are plenty of ways to disincentivise people from parking (annual permits, for example) that don't also give them disincentives for spending time on campus full stop. The hourly meter scheme has only one advantage over the others: it pulls in much more money.

It really isn't. They've tried permits before and it wasn't effective, and the reason why they don't want to go down that road is that if it were say €50 everyone would just buy one + it would remain quite likely that the car parks would all be full come 10am in term time. Do you really think the staff unions would accept paid parking if there wasn't a problem there that couldn't be fixed by another method? Imo the reason for the system coming in this year is to eliminate the park-n-riders and see the extent of the shortage when the spaces are occupied only by staff + students (bar the hourly charge car parks)

Ernie Ball

dajaffa wrote:

It really isn't. They've tried permits before and it wasn't effective

It wasn't enforced. That's different from not being effective.

and the reason why they don't want to go down that road is that if it were say €50 everyone would just buy one + it would remain quite likely that the car parks would all be full come 10am in term time.

Not if those living near campus (or on campus) were forbidden to have one. Also, it is false that 'everyone would buy one': simply make the price high enough to hurt.

Of course such a plan discriminates against the less well-off where a plan based on distance does not.

Do you really think the staff unions would accept paid parking if there wasn't a problem there that couldn't be fixed by another method?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The staff unions have not accepted and will not accept paid parking for staff. Students, however, will have to look out for themselves.

Imo the reason for the system coming in this year is to eliminate the park-n-riders and see the extent of the shortage when the spaces are occupied only by staff + students (bar the hourly charge car parks)

If that were the case, a free permit system is cheaper than paying actual humans to check IDs on a daily basis.

The reason for this 'system' (it really is far too charitable a word) is that their preferred 'system'--like so much of what they do--was unilaterally decided with no input whatever from the 3 trade unions at UCD. Those unions resisted but the admin still needed to be seen to be doing something, so they pulled this out of . . . the air.

In fact, the admin has been adamant all along that 'park and riders' are not the problem. In this, they may be right. The problem is students, particularly students who live close to campus, driving in on a daily basis (not to mention students who live on campus leaving their cars parked there permanently, for example in the car park next to Belgrove residences).

Ernie Ball

tywy wrote:

I don't think that's really fair. I live in Terenure, it's not that far from Belfield but takes AGES to get there in the morning so generally I cycle unless I'm sick or injured from sports or something. Now to get the bus would involve getting up super early and sitting on it for 1 hr 20mins instead of driving for 45 minutes maybe in traffic.

Did you read what I wrote?:

Ernie Ball wrote:

All UCD staff as well as students living outside a certain distance (or travel time, since Dublin Bus is useless)

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

Not if those living near campus (or on campus) were forbidden to have one. Also, it is false that 'everyone would buy one': simply make the price high enough to hurt.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The staff unions have not accepted and will not accept paid parking for staff. Students, however, will have to look out for themselves.

In fact, the admin has been adamant all along that 'park and riders' are not the problem. In this, they may be right. The problem is students, particularly students who live close to campus, driving in on a daily basis (not to mention students who live on campus leaving their cars parked there permanently, for example in the car park next to Belgrove residences).

People living on-campus should be entitled to park there, that's what the res car park are for. I don't think there's a big problem with them clogging up the other car parks.

An no union has accepted the paid parking, it is not on the cards right now, though it could be in the future. Regarding staff unions, IF the college implemented paid parking in a few years, when there was a proven alternative and it was clearly a money-making exercise they'd kick up a big fuss and possibly halt it. If it was designed to make money UCD would go like UL + charge a set fee for using the car park no matter how long you park there for each day (I think this might be for staff + students only, not too sure)

Sarn

dajaffa wrote:

it would remain quite likely that the car parks would all be full come 10am in term time.

Ultimately this is why I start work at 7.30. Not a problem at all finding a space that early Unfortunately I daren't leave during the day as I'll never find a space later.

The problem with a system that would charge by the hour (as has been mentioned before) is that it would disincentivise students who drive to campus from staying on campus (although an added bonus would be the freeing up of spaces in the library ). Secondly, courses requiring high contact hours on campus (e.g. students with labs) would incur a greater parking charge compared to others.

We'll just have to see how effective the new system will be.

Ernie Ball

dajaffa wrote:

People living on-campus should be entitled to park there, that's what the res car park are for. I don't think there's a big problem with them clogging up the other car parks.

What res car parks? There are car parks near Belgrove and Merville, but those are not 'res car parks', they are simply car parks. Cars parked there belonging to those who live in the residences are taking up space that should be available to commuters.

It should be a condition of residence on campus that one is not allowed to keep a car. There is absolutely no reason why UCD should be providing free permanent car parking space to students who live on campus and therefore have no need for a space in order to get to UCD. The whole point of on-campus housing is that you do not need to commute, therefore you do not need a space. Many US universities have such policies.

An no union has accepted the paid parking, it is not on the cards right now, though it could be in the future. Regarding staff unions, IF the college implemented paid parking in a few years, when there was a proven alternative and it was clearly a money-making exercise they'd kick up a big fuss and possibly halt it. If it was designed to make money UCD would go like UL + charge a set fee for using the car park no matter how long you park there for each day

Do you have any basis at all for these claims? UCD has just attempted to put in place a system that had nothing to do with 'set fees no matter how long you park'. They have shown no sign of even having considered such a system.

Ado86

The fact that there are so many residential spaces in Merville and the other campus accomodations is so stupid, why do people in campus- who dont have any need for a car to get to college get the space without any hassle- yet the people who have to travel for ages to get to college are getting told that they shouldnt drive to college that they should get public transport ??
Last year I commuted for an hour and a half each way- taking up 3 hours of my day- more like wasting 3 hrs a day ! If I was to do it on public transport it would have taken even longer- so there is no incentive for me to go on public transport ? I dont think so.
I wouldnt mind paying for a permit for UCD even if it was a couple of hundred euro, if I was assured that I would have a space in the car park. My course is over a 30 hour week. Is it fair that I would have to pay more as my days are longer ?!?