Scottish Government

CHAPTER SEVEN: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CONTEXTS FOR INTERVENTION

7.1 Introduction

This chapter includes a review of different contexts for intervention, combining evidence from previous studies and primary research. The evaluation identifies the key issues and opportunities for intervention of enforcing disabled people's parking bays in different contexts. It is based on the perceptions and experience of the case study site providers and other site providers that were consulted during the desk-top review, towards the effectiveness of measures currently in use at sites, practical considerations and constraints. The views of the users of these sites (obtained from the depth interviews with bay abusers) on the effectiveness of measures are also reported here.

7.2 Retail: supermarkets, retail parks, shopping centres

7.2.1 Main issues in relation to reserved parking facilities and considerations for intervention

The abuse of parking facilities intended for use by disabled people, especially abuse that occurs for no justifiable reason, is perceived to be greater at supermarkets than in any other context. Reasons given for the occurrence of abuse in this context included:

• Availability of spaces - research participants who had abused reserved bays did not think that their actions had any impact on disabled people, mainly because of the number of bays that were available when they had used one.
• Short stay parking - many abusers of reserved parking facilities believed that their actions have minimal or no impact on disabled people because they are parked for a short time (10-20 minutes).

A key issue highlighted for supermarket/retail providers in relation to enforcement is the need to balance the rights of customers with disabilities with the attractiveness of the supermarket/retail/shopping centre. Therefore service providers state a preference for non-confrontational approaches, such as those that have been applied in this context, described below.

7.2.2 Examples of intervention measures used in this context

These have included:

• Car park management and advisory stickers - procedures involving a "customer friendly" approach - the visible presence of a parking attendant appears to act as a deterrent to abuse. At a Morrisons store, customers have responded well to polite notices and requests (via announcement in-store) to move their vehicles if parked inappropriately.
• Segregated Blue Badge parking areas - greatly facilitates management and requires less enforcement. The use of an electronic barrier offers a direct and effective measure (if properly maintained) as it physically prevents abuse (with electronic barrier), any uncertainty over the role of the reserved bays is removed. Automated Number Plate Recognition ( ANPR) also shown to work well if implemented in conjunction with this approach and is regarded as effective and practical among supermarket users.
• Automated electronic announcement for bays - a model of this system has been installed in retail parks (Merry Hill Centre, Dudley), three hospitals (in the Vale of Leven, the Inverclyde Royal Hospital in Greenock and the Royal Alexandra in Paisley) and extensively by Asda. The Merry Hill Centre removed the system because it was discovered that drivers were ignoring it. Asda has used this system at stores with varied success.
• Fines - managers at the Beaumont Leys Shopping Centre shopping centre in Leicester say a scheme to fine drivers £60 has been successful. The charge is reduced to £40 for those who pay within seven days. So far, the fines have raised about £6,000, 10% of which will go to local charities for disabled people. Tesco have operated the trial to fine offending vehicles in 20 stores, charging £50 for each offence, reduced to £25 if paid within 14 days.
• Number plate recognition, notices and fines - at a David Lloyd Leisure Centre, in Moortown, Leeds, signage has been added to reserved bays to inform car owners that they are entering into a contractual agreement by using the bay. Cars not displaying a Blue Badge are having their licence number logged and a warning notice is placed on their car informing the owner that he or she has parked in a space reserved for disabled people. When a licence plate is noted for the second time a fine is issued, which is legally binding by virtue of the contract displayed by the spaces.
• Wheel clamping - at a retail centre in Manchester, wheel clamping has been shown to be a more effective means of enforcing disabled people's parking bays than notices and automated electronic announcements that were previously used. Prolific offenders face their car being clamped, and a possible ban from the centre, if they illegally park more than three times. This measure would require car park attendants to regularly patrol and monitor the car park. Wheel clamping in off-street car parks is illegal in Scotland.

Box 7.1: Case Study Example: ASDA Supermarket
Asda has implemented a range of intervention measures aimed to tackle the abuse of parking bays reserved for disabled people at a number of stores across the UK:
1) Automatic Electronic Announcement (Spacehog) is now installed as part of the standard specifications for new Asda stores. Asda's perception is that this measure has limited effect against serial abusers of reserved parking bays, but does help to reduce accidental abuse of such facilities.
2) Car park management procedures are now in place at approximately one third of Asda's 110 UK stores, and this often involves the application of a waiting limit (normally 2 hours), visible Asda staff in the car parks to help direct cars to spaces and subcontracted parking attendants to enforce waiting limits and reserved spaces for disabled customers with a £40 fine (Penalty Charge Notices), which is reduced to £20 if paid within 10 days. The perception is that the fines issued for the abuse of parking bays reserved for disabled people are effective, and are likely to deter the individual from parking in a disabled person's bay in future. The visible presence of an attendant appears to act as a deterrent.
3) Segregated Blue Badge parking areas and ANPR have been implemented at five Asda stores in conjunction with automatic number plate recognition camera technology. In addition to the segregated area, there are standard disabled person's parking bays, which provide parking facilities for passing, or unregistered, visitors. The five stores have so far each attracted approximately 6,000 registrations from disabled customers. There is potential for the related database to be shared across stores (or even other supermarket chains) as the number of locations with the ANPR controlled barriers increases. This approach has been well received by disabled customers. The long-term aspiration is to extend the barrier system to as many stores as possible, but Asda has indicated that older stores, or those with unconventional car park layouts, may prove difficult to retro-fit with the system. The barrier system is considered by Asda as the most direct and effective measure of intervention. Asda concedes, however, that the system is not likely to be appropriate for all sites (i.e. where car park space is restricted), and the costs associated may prove prohibitive in some locations.

7.3 City Centre Municipal Car Parks

7.3.1 Main issues in relation to reserved parking facilities and considerations for intervention

The following key issues emerged from the consultation with service providers with relation to municipal car parks (using Edinburgh and Inverness as case study examples):

• The extent to which the abuse of parking facilities intended for disabled people is dependent on the total demand there is for parking; e.g. in Edinburgh, there is reportedly little problem with abuse at National Car Parks Ltd ( NCP) Castle Terrace car park, which is used by regular users (workers), but abuse is slightly more of an issue at the company's much busier car park that serves the St James Centre shopping precinct and is used by irregular users (shoppers, visitors).
• There was an anecdotal view that in areas, serving a largely rural catchment area (e.g. Inverness), visitors might have a greater propensity to park inappropriately, as a result of having travelled a long distance to access facilities.
• Personal security and convenience were reported as the two most important factors by the research participants when using municipal car parks. In Inverness, the position of reserved bays for disabled people next to entrances or lifts, motivated abuse. The wider width of the bays was an additional attractive feature (for those wishing to protect their vehicle).

In Inverness, the site manager reported:

• The abuse of parking facilities for disabled people to be much worse in private, off-street car parks, than in the city centre municipal car parks. This was attributed to free parking - visitors to the city and people working in the city want to avoid paying for parking facilities.

• Abuse was also reported to be a greater problem on-street in Inverness, because the facilities are closer than the off-street car parks are to the shops. The research participants (service users) indicated a higher propensity to abuse bays on-street than off-street to minimise walking distance.

In Edinburgh abuse was also reported to be low (particularly at sites used by regular users), but as a result of the following:

• Availability - it is nearly always possible to find available parking space, and patrolling staff assist motorists in finding a suitable space.
• A number of different intervention measures and car park design (see Box 7.2 below). Participants who usually misuse disabled people's parking facilities did not admit to using such facilities at the municipal car parks in Edinburgh; this may be due to the enforcement measures in place.

The service providers that were interviewed suggested that 'large' stickers, backed up with fines issued by patrolling attendants, would be the most effective and fairest way of enforcing reserved bays in municipal car parks.

7.3.2 Examples of intervention measures used

In Edinburgh where parking has been decriminalised - the physical presence of parking attendants, fines and a charging policy (see Box 7.2) have proved to be effective deterrents (minimal abuse reported). NCP believes that the approach they adopt is effective and see it as part of their policy to offer a good service to all customers. There was an acknowledgement that the most effective deterrent to the abuse of spaces reserved for disabled people was the constant presence of a member of staff at the facility, together with signs alongside reserved parking spaces warning of the imposition of a fine.

In cities where parking has been decriminalised to recover outstanding fines through civil channels (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen), there have been recent estimates that suggest low compliance in the payment of fines (The Scotsman, 2006). In Edinburgh there are 72,140 parking fines still outstanding (worth an estimated £5.7 million), whilst in Glasgow 71,315 of the 1.4 million fines imposed on motorists since 1999 (worth some £5.6 million) remain unpaid ². Similarly, in Dundee, 10,303 fines, worth some £500,000, are still outstanding, and the corresponding figures for Aberdeen are approximately 57,000 fines, worth £2.1 million. It is interesting to note that, in Inverness, where parking has not been decriminalised (see Box 7.3), only 294 on-street parking tickets, representing a value of some £5,880, remain outstanding.

In Stirling, fines are issued to offending motorists in the city's municipal car parks by the use of a Traffic Regulation Order ( TRO). A representative of the council reported this to be effective to date and that the Local Authority does not identify a need for consideration of other measures to tackle the abuse of reserved parking bays, based on a reduction in the number of complaints received by disabled people.

Box 7.2: Case Study Example: Decriminalised Parking in Edinburgh
In Edinburgh, a large proportion of off-street car parks in the capital are managed by either National Car Parks Ltd ( NCP) or Central Parking System Ltd ( CPS). At Castle Terrace, a 750-space facility which is mostly used by tourists and office workers, abuse of reserved spaces is deterred by the following measures:

• An on-site kiosk which is manned 24-hour hours a day, seven days a week
• Staff members makes periodic checks around the car park
• The car park is monitored by CCTV cameras
• If the driver is present, they are politely requested to move, if not, a £50 fine is issued.
• Disabled people are obliged to pay the same rates as non-disabled people
• Electronic barrier to ensure all drivers purchase a parking ticket

When there are instances of abuse of disabled person's parking spaces, NCP's policy is to issue a Penalty Charge Notice. However compliance with the payment of fines is reported to be low.
The site manager preferred to ask motorists to move their car rather than to issue fines. This more low key approach, using direct face to face contact, was thought to be, in the majority of cases, very effective When motorists are approached by car park attendants, they are often embarrassed, and move their car. Furthermore, the fact that many of the bays reserved for disabled people are located near to the attendant's kiosk means that they can be readily overseen.

Box 7.3: Case Study Example: Non-decriminalised Parking in Inverness
The policy in Inverness, where car parking has not been decriminalised, is for 5% of spaces in the Council's car parks to be dedicated to Blue Badge holders, who are entitled to free parking; this provision is in addition to the 21 on-street parking spaces that are available in Inverness. The spaces available in the city centre are soon occupied by the vehicles of office workers, who, once they have parked, tend to occupy the space for the whole day. Any abuse of these spaces that does take place in Inverness, on-street or off-street, is dealt with by the city's traffic wardens.
At the multi-storey car park in the city centre, there is one supervisor and eight car park attendants, on two shifts (operating between 7.30am till 10.30 pm). Attendants patrol every hour. Non-disabled drivers exceeding the time limit are issued with an excess charge notice of £20.
All the municipal car parks are covered by Traffic Regulation Orders ( TROs). The site manager stated that the main advantage of TROs is that they provide a legal basis for intervention. Compliance with payment of fines has been found to be a lot of higher than in cities where parking has been decriminalised to recover fines through civil channels.

7.4 NHS Hospital Sites

7.4.1 Main issues in relation to reserved parking facilities and considerations for intervention

The following issues relevant to hospitals (drawing on the experience of an urban hospital, Ninewells, Dundee and a rural hospital, Monklands, Lanarkshire) have been identified:

• Most parking difficulties were related to capacity and the extent to which hospital policy influenced capacity (see the Monklands hospital case study example, Box 7.5).
• A lot of inappropriate parking in hospital car parks is often due to small and badly designed car parks.
• The problems are exacerbated by pressure on parking due to a high number of staff travelling by car, limited public transport links and a high volume of day patients attending. Hospitals that are not well integrated, especially older facilities (e.g., Monklands), with a number of different entrances and car parks makes it difficult to monitor and enforce bays.
• Newer hospitals (e.g. Wishaw, Lanarkshire), on the other hand, where parking is provided by outsourced car parking management services, are more integrated with a main general entrance so parking is easier and more cost effective to manage by parking attendants and security staff.
• Another aspect that increases pressure on hospital car parks is the fact that some of them are non-charging, and therefore tend to be used by people with no connection to the hospital. This huge demand for parking and lack of parking spaces inevitably leads to the abuse of spaces reserved for disabled people. However, for older, less integrated sites, a charging policy would be prohibitive because of size and layout of site (e.g. Monklands).
• There was a view that those who misused reserved parking bays included hospital staff who were displaying a Blue Badge that did not belong to them. The research participants' knew other people that had abused bays reserved for disabled people in hospital car parks, and some knew of people who misused the Blue Badge when using such facilities.
• The research participants, who had used hospital facilities, justified their use of reserved parking facilities on the basis of:

Overall, tackling abuse in hospital car parks was considered to be the highest priority amongst the majority of service providers and about half of the service users present at the workshops. However, it was perceived that those that abused reserved spaces at a hospital did so due to the belief that they had a genuine need to use one (i.e. because they had a temporary mobility problem, did not feel well, or due to the lack of parking and the need to keep a hospital appointment). This understanding was reflected in the enforcement measures suggested by the stakeholders to tackle abuse at hospitals: service providers and users considered it to be unreasonable to clamp/remove inappropriately parked vehicles at a hospital visitors' car park.

One suggestion was for there to be a commitment to a 'dropping off bay', where patients can be dropped off (in a safe, sheltered area), so that the driver can then drive off and park in a non-reserved bay, instead of taking up a reserved space for a longer period of time. This would reduce the need for reserved bays being taken up for long periods of time, but still provide patients who are not eligible for a Blue Badge with access to the hospital according to their needs.

7.4.2 Examples of intervention measures used in this context

Among these include:

• Charging policy for all: Ninewell's hospital has introduced a charging for all policy to address the problem of abuse. Charging was selected over a Traffic Regulation Order in order to generate income for funding special permits for those who genuinely need them. Since its introduction in August 2006, abuse is reported to have decreased dramatically (see Box 7.4). In contrast, Monklands hospital operates a no charge policy and abuse is high.
• Car park design and segregated Blue Badge parking areas: Wishaw hospital in Lanarkshire which is a relatively new build site, with integrated medical facilities, has one main open public car park with a segregated area for Blue Badge holders. This area is regularly patrolled by a parking attendant and polite notices are placed on vehicles that do not display a Blue Badge. The integrated design of the car park together with the constant presence of a parking attendant has proved to work well in deterring abuse of the facilities.
• Stickering, fines and vehicle removal - applied at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, hospital staff carry out stickering. The Local Authority also provides a regular patrol three times a day, and can (and does) levy fines or have cars towed away if they are parked inappropriately or illegally. The use of stickers has not been effective at tackling the problem.

Box 7.4: NHS Hospital Case Study Example: Ninewells Hospital (Charging)
Ninewells NHS Hospital in Dundee provides 2500 spaces in 10 locations and shares the site with a University Medical School. The car park is provided for staff, visitors, patients and students to use. Of these spaces, 94 are reserved for Blue Badge holders, 70 of which are located at the main entrance. The remaining spaces are located outside various other entrances. The hospital has a charging policy for all users, including Blue Badge holders. A flat rate of £1.60 is charged per day in all car parks, where it is £1.60 for up to four hours, £5.00 for over four to seven hours and £7 for over seven hours. This is to deter all day parking in the car parks at the main entrance. Any patient that stays over the four hour period due to their clinical appointment and receives a penalty ticket can have it cancelled. If a disabled person requires parking for clinical needs (i.e. an appointment) they are not expected to pay more than £1.60/day.

The site manager reported no problems with misuse or abuse of reserved bays for disabled people since the charging for all policy was introduced. Prior to charging, there was a high degree of abuse of reserved bays; of 70 reserved spaces, often some 30 were used inappropriately.
The site manager reported that many disabled people initially opposed the charge for reserved parking, and complaints rose significantly as a result. However, because the system (as reported by the site manager) is working so well, the number of complaints has reduced and people seem to be accepting the charges as they can find a parking space now.
Some of the wider consequences of the introduction of charges have been as follows:

• All the additional money raised from charging disabled people goes toward funding special permits for free parking for certain patients (those on renal dialysis, nuclear medicine treatment, cancer patients and neo-natal compassionate permits). It is anticipated that there will be 100 free parkers per day who would not qualify for a Blue Badge, but whose needs are such that they need regular access to hospital facilities. A "shopmobility" scooter service will also be set up for the use of disabled people.
• Feedback from the outpatient clinic has been that there are far fewer missed appointments ('no shows'), resulting in financial savings, as these appointments do not have to be rescheduled.
• The reduction in 'no shows' will ultimately improve the hospital's performance tables and reduce inconvenience to patients attending for clinical appointments.
• The introduction of variable rate charging in car parks near the entrance has taken away the incentive of non-disabled drivers attending for out patient appointments and parking in bays reserved for disabled people.

Box 7.5: NHS Hospital Case Study: Monklands Hospital (non-charging)
Monklands Hospital in Lanarkshire is an example of a hospital built in the 1970s within a large rural/greenbelt setting and where car parking management has not been outsourced. It is a large district general hospital with a 24 hour Accident and Emergency department and specialised outpatient departments. The hospital provides 1,100 parking spaces; 1014 spaces are allocated for the acute hospital (107 of these are allocated for key staff, and access is controlled by a barrier), 50 spaces are allocated to Airdrie Primary Care Centre, and, in total, 36 spaces are reserved for disabled people. These reserved spaces are spread over six separate car parks, with six separate entrances. In the main entrance car park there are 8 of the 36 designated reserved bays for disabled people which is patrolled by an attendant (Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm). Monklands hospital operates a no charge policy.
Most parking difficulties were related to capacity and the extent to which hospital policy influenced capacity, as described below.

• The presence of such a large outpatient service means that there is a high demand for parking spaces on site throughout the day (the hospital is reported to have 1,800 visiting patients per day over a 10 hour period). The NHS Boards in Scotland are currently reviewing all outpatient facilities, hoping to take 'return visits' to community services. This will reduce the number of outpatients attending the hospital.
• It is reported that there are often more visitors per patient in the first few weeks of a hospital stay than at any other time. When the hospital was first built the average length of an inpatient stay was six weeks. Now, with improvements in community services, the average hospital stay is down to two weeks. This means that the high volume experienced as a result of visitors in those first two weeks is replicated every two weeks, rather than diminished.
• The hospital is reported to have 2,100 members of staff, and because of the highly specialised nature of the hospital many of these staff travel long distances, some from rural areas. The use of public transport is not a viable option for many of these staff, as there are no direct services, with a poor cross-country connection.
• The layout of the hospital grounds and lack of integrated parking- the main entrance does not face the car park. There are 5 entrances to hospital (common for older NHS hospitals and non- PFI sites) each with reserved spaces for disabled people which makes it difficult and costly to manage. The hospital had considered barrier controls but implementation was not proved to be feasible due to lack of space to accommodate them.

Currently, the hospital does not have a policy to charge for parking. The site manager highlighted the potential high cost of implementing on site penalty charges and the follow up enforcement and collection of these without some compensatory off setting of costs through onsite charging for parking. There is also the negative impact surrounding on site parking fines or charges for working in or visiting hospitals for treatment, particularly within an area of high social exclusion. This may only be resolved if some central government policy around the use of parking within sites which have limited capacity to develop parking facilities is implemented.

7.5 Public Transport Interchanges

7.5.1 Main issues in relation to reserved parking facilities

The following key issues emerged from the consultation with ScotRail:

• The level of abuse in the 190 car parks at railway stations across Scotland varies greatly from car park to car park. It has not been straightforward to explain the abuse, as in busy car parks there is sometimes no abuse, whereas in car parks that are not busy the rate of abuse is sometimes high. A number of factors were highlighted:

• car parks in stations are subject to external inspections ( SQUIRE), and if the auditor finds a car parked in a disabled bay without a Blue Badge then the operator of the station is fined.
• car parks at stations are subject to external/internal inspections, so they have a good idea as to the levels of abuse, but are not in the position to explain the reasons for abuse, and have problems enforcing the parking bays reserved for disabled people.
• abuse seems to be greatest at unmanned stations e.g. at Falkirk High Train Station only one staff member is able to check the car park only once a day. At the Newcraighall station, which is unstaffed, abuse takes place in spite of this being a very large car park, with plenty of spaces available.
• little consequence to misusing reserved parking facilities means that many people abuse the system.
• ensuring the health and safety of station staff in carrying out enforcement is a major issue of concern, in which case the use of ANPR technology to record the details of offending vehicles might be appropriate which would avoid the need to confront offenders.

The research participants who had used the car park at Falkirk High train station reported that the park has restricted capacity and limited management, stating that it was often very difficult to find a parking space particularly in high demand periods and that parking bays were narrow which often exacerbated the likelihood of drivers seeking and using wider bays such as those reserved for disabled people.

The site manager for Falkirk High station was aware that vehicle removal was in operation in some city centres in Scotland, and he believed that this could be an effective intervention measure. He thought that even just a sign informing people that if they park in a bay reserved for a disabled person without a Blue Badge they would have their vehicle removed would be effective. He thought that this could be effective, but that it could also lead to confrontation with staff. A fixed penalty fine, that is used to enforce other traffic offences, was also suggested as a potentially effective intervention measure, and one that may be more acceptable to station users than vehicle removal.

7.5.2 Examples of intervention measures in use

First ScotRail carries out daily checks on the car parks in order to meet the standards set in the SQUIRE service quality regime. Stickering and polite notices are commonly used at stations across Scotland to tackle the problem (see case study example in Box 7.5). In extreme cases, where abuse by one individual is persistent, the British Transport Police becomes involved, but this is rare.

Box 7.5: Case Study Example: Falkirk High Train Station
Falkirk High railway station has approximately 200 parking spaces available - approximately 5% are reserved for Blue Badge holders. These bays are located near the booking office and entrance to the station. The car park is mainly used by people who park their car and then commute to work in Edinburgh or Glasgow, so, as a consequence, the car park is usually near full capacity from 8:30am. The car park operates charges; parking costs £2.50 for the whole day, but there are also weekly, annual and monthly rates available.
The site manager reported that Customer Services receive many complaints from disabled people who are unable to find a parking space free at various First ScotRail car parks (not specifically Falkirk High). The intervention measure at Falkirk High involves one member of staff who issues stickers. This one person, who works at the station, has a range of duties and responsibilities, but checks the car park once a day for cars parked without a ticket and other infringements, such as abusing a disabled person's bay, parking on the pavement etc. This employee has to fill in a check-list about the car park and cars, including information on time, day and details of cars parked in a reserved bay without a Blue Badge. A note is made of the registration number of offending vehicles. If a car is found to be parked without a ticket or in a parking bay reserved for disabled people, without a Blue Badge, a sticker is placed on the vehicle which informs the driver that they have parked inappropriately and that their car vehicle registration details have been noted down and recorded. Each week, the checklist is sent (from all First ScotRail car parks) to the central office, where the information is recorded on a central database. If a vehicle is repeatedly caught offending, then the car registration details are passed onto the British Transport Police, who will then take action.
The site manager did not regard stickering as an effective intervention measure, as service users are aware that it carries no real consequences and the number of complaints made by disabled users remains high.