Alternative Transportation and Parking Investment Study

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Alternative Transportation and Parking Investment Study Final Report Presented to UCD Transportation and Parking Services Bay Area Economics 803 Second Street, Suite A Davis, CA and 785 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA October 13, 2006

2 Table of Contents PAGE 1 Executive Summary...iv 2 Introduction Background and Rationale Report Objectives and Structure Baseline Parking Demand Parking and Transportation Profile Parking and Transportation Model Alternative Transportation Program Existing TDM Strategies TDM Strategies Review Menu of TDM Options ATP Expansion Package Options Basic Implementation Package Medium Implementation Package High Implementation Package Program Elasticities Parking Demand Effects Basic Implementation Package Medium Implementation Package High Implementation Package Scenario Comparison Cost Analysis Basic Implementation Package Medium Implementation Package High Implementation Package Preferred Implementation Package Cost Summary Cost-Effectiveness Assessment Conclusions UCD Parking Demand Cost-Effectiveness Recommended ATP Expansion Package Factors Affecting Analysis General Conclusions...73 Page i Bay Area Economics &

3 Appendix A: Baseline Parking Projections...75 Appendix B: Rational Choice Model...76 Appendix C: Comparison of TDM Programs at Different Universities...77 Appendix D: Basic Scenario Parking Projections...78 Appendix E: Medium Scenario Parking Projections...79 Appendix F: High Scenario Parking Projections...80 Appendix G: Preferred Scenario Parking Projections...81 Appendix H: Cost Analysis Calculations...82 Appendix I: Parking Inventory Change Assumptions...83 Appendix J: Cost Analysis Background Data...84 Attachment 1: Nelson\Nygaard Memo on Increased Bicycle Usage...85 Page ii Bay Area Economics &

4 List of Tables and Figures Table ES.1: Campus Parking Demand Under ATP Expansion Scenarios...v Table ES.2: Cost/Benefit Summary of the ATP Expansion Scenarios, 2015/16... vi Table ES.3: Cost Per Parking Space Under ATP Expansion Scenarios... vi Figure 2.1: Population and Campus Development Impacts on Parking Need...1 Figure 2.2: Costs to Accommodate Commuter Demand...3 Table 3.1: Travel Mode Split by UCD Affiliation...6 Figure 3.1: Bus Ridership Trends and Unitrans Pass Program...7 Table 3.2: Mode Split for UCD Affiliates by Residential Location...7 Figure 3.2: UCD Parking and Transportation Model...8 Figure 3.3: Baseline Campus Population, 2000 to Figure 3.4: Baseline Commuting Population, 2000 to Figure 3.5: Baseline Vehicle Trips to Campus, 2000 to Figure 3.6: Baseline Parking Demand, 2000 to Table 4.1: Standard Bus Fares for Local Services...19 Table 4.2: Effectiveness of TDM Strategies on Reducing Auto Trips...21 Table 4.3: Menu of Potential TDM Options for Consideration at UCD...22 Table 5.1: Mode Split Before and After Unlimited Access Transit Passes...32 Figure 5.1: Parking Demand and Revenue as a Function of Pricing...36 Figure 5.2: Residential Density versus Vehicle Travel...39 Table 5.2: Daily Trips by Density, San Francisco Bay Area...40 Figure 6.1: Parking Demand Projections Under Basic Scenario, 2001 to Figure 6.2: Parking Demand Projections Under Medium Scenario, 2001 to Figure 6.3: Parking Demand Projections Under High Scenario, 2001 to Table 6.1: Parking Demand for Baseline, Basic, Medium and High Scenarios...44 Figure 6.4: Comparison of Parking Demand Projections...44 Table 7.1: Transit Ridership by University Population Segment - Basic...46 Table 7.2: Unitrans Projections for Capital Cost of Enhanced Bus Service...51 Table 7.3: Unitrans Projections for Operating Cost of Enhanced Bus Service...52 Table 7.4: Transit Ridership by University Population Segment - Medium...53 Table 7.5: Capital and Operating Costs of ITS...56 Table 7.6: Transit Ridership by University Population Segment - High...59 Table 7.7: Mode Split for Preferred Scenario...61 Table 7.8: Transit Ridership by University Population Segment - Preferred...62 Table 7.9: Cost Summary of the ATP Expansion Scenarios...63 Table 7.10: Summary of Proposed ATP Expansion Costs...66 Table 7.11 Cost Per Parking Space Demanded and Per Space at 90% Utilization...67 Table 7.12: Cost Comparison for Constructing Parking Structures vs. ATP Incentives 69 Page iii Bay Area Economics &

5 1 Executive Summary Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to examine the potential for the University of California at Davis (UCD) to invest in expanding its alternative transportation programs (ATP) as a means of reducing the number of people driving cars to campus, thus reducing the need to construct additional parking facilities as UCD grows. The study assumes a baseline or status quo scenario in which UCD would maintain and expand existing alternative transportation programs at the current per capita level. Compared to the baseline, the study calculates whether UCD s Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) can realize a net savings by increasing expenditures on various alternative transportation programs and decreasing expenditures on new parking as a result of reduced parking demand. Study Approach The first step in the analysis was to project parking demand and parking operations costs under a Baseline campus growth scenario defined primarily by UCD s current Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) and existing commute patterns (i.e., use of cars versus alternative modes of transportation). Next, the study outlined a range of options for expanding the existing ATP and selected three different packages of options representing Basic, Medium, and High expansion scenarios for the campus. The study projects the campus parking demand and operations costs under the Baseline, Basic, Medium, and High scenarios. It also projects the increased costs associated with the various ATP expansion activities under each scenario. Based on the results of the parking demand/cost analysis, the study then identifies an optimal set of programs called the Preferred package, which is the recommended package for implementation. Parking demand and costs are also calculated for this scenario. To compare the benefits of the different scenarios, the study then calculates and compares the average revenues required per parking space demanded under each scenario. Scenarios requiring lower revenues per space demanded than the Baseline represent costeffective strategies, because under these scenarios, TAPS could charge parking clients less for their parking permits than under the Baseline, while offering an expanded menu of alternative transportation options for those who prefer not to drive their own cars to campus each day. Baseline Parking Demand Under the Baseline scenario, projected parking demand rises from 11,471 spaces in 2005/06 to 15,642 in 2015/16 without the West Village, or 13,468 spaces if UCD builds the West Village. Total parking operations costs (including growth-induced cost increases for existing alternative transportation programs) would be approximately $1,169 per year, per space demanded by 2015/16, with the West Village. Page iv Bay Area Economics &

6 Alternative Transportation Program Scenarios The Basic, Medium, and High ATP expansion scenarios defined for this study represent a progression from expanding alternative transportation options and increasing incentives to restricting parking access and raising costs. The three different scenarios each includes one or more core TDM (Transportation Demand Management) strategies supported by a number of supporting strategies. The core programs are those that on their own could be expected to have a significant measurable effect on reducing parking demand, while the supporting programs would have more marginal effects, but would serve to reinforce and support the effectiveness of the core programs. Core programs under each of the scenarios are as follows: Basic Core Strategies: Provide unlimited access Unitrans and Yolobus passes to all students; partially equalize daily and monthly parking permit rates on a cost per day basis. Medium Core Strategies: In addition to the Basic package, improve Unitrans and Yolobus routes and frequency of service. High Core Strategies: In addition to the Medium package, eliminate parking permits for all first and second-year students; increase parking rates. Based on the results of the parking demand/cost analysis for these programs, the Preferred package included all the core strategies described above, except for the expanded Unitrans service and eliminating parking permits for first- and second-year students. The advantages of this program are described in more detail on pages vii and viii. Parking Demand Effects Each of the ATP expansion scenarios has the potential to significantly reduce campus parking demand over the long term as compared to the Baseline scenario, which is the parking demand for that year with the West Village and without any new ATP strategies. Table ES.1 summarizes the differences in projected 2015/16 parking demand for the various scenarios. Table ES.1: Campus Parking Demand Under ATP Expansion Scenarios 2005/ /16 Parking Demand Parking Demand 11,467 15,642 Percent Reduction vs. Baseline Expansion Scenario Baseline without West Village Baseline with West 11,467 13,468 0% Village Basic 11,467 12,409-8% Medium 11,467 12,228-9% High 11,467 11,382-15% Preferred 11,467 12,002-11% Sources:, Bay Area Economics. Page v Bay Area Economics &

7 Cost Analysis The cost results vary for the four different scenarios, with the Basic, Medium, High, and Preferred packages all showing reductions in total costs compared to the Baseline, as shown in Table ES.2 Table ES.2: Cost/Benefit Summary of the ATP Expansion Scenarios, 2015/16 Total Annual Cost of Operating Cost of Scenario ATP Parking Spaces Provided Total Scenario Cost Baseline $804,000 $14.9 million $15.7 million Basic $1,053,000 $12.4 million $13.5 million Medium $2,186,000 $12.4 million $14.6 million High $2,378,000 $9.9 million $12.2 million Preferred $1,653,000 $12.4 million $14.1 million Sources: Bay Area Economics,. The costs are not directly comparable, because each scenario involves a different number of users. As TAPS is a self-funding operation, the average cost per user is a relevant measure of the cost of services, and it allows for comparison across scenarios. To control for the fact that each scenario may achieve its optimum cost per space demanded in a different year, the analysis further refines the average cost per user to a calculation of the average cost per space used, assuming 90 percent utilization for each scenario. These average costs are summarized in Table ES.3 Table ES.3: Cost Per Parking Space Under ATP Expansion Scenarios Expansion Scenario Baseline 2015/16 Revenues Required Per 90% Utilization $1,186 per space/year Difference Basic $1,084 per space/year - 8.6% Medium $1,176 per space/year -0.9% High $1,061 per space/year -10.6% Preferred $1,133 per space/year -4.5% Sources: Bay Area Economics,. Conclusions The basic conclusion of the study is that UCD has the potential to significantly reduce future parking demand by implementing expanded TDM strategies, building upon its already admirable record in encouraging and facilitating alternatives to driving to campus. First, development of the West Village as planned has the potential to reduce on-campus parking demand by approximately 2,200 parking spaces. Assuming that the West Village project is self-supporting, this represents a tremendous parking demand reduction, with no associated program cost to TAPS. Expanding UCD s alternative transportation programs will require increased expenditures; however, modeling conducted for this study indicates that for each of the Page vi Bay Area Economics &

8 different ATP expansion packages, the reductions in new parking construction made possible by the increased ATP expenditures would reduce TAPS total cost, allowing it to charge less per parking user than under the Baseline (with West Village) scenario. This means that after factoring in the costs of the associated ATP expansion strategies, the Basic, Medium, High, and Preferred scenarios would allow TAPS to charge those who drive their cars to campus less than if TAPS simply continued with existing ATP expenditures that only increase in cost proportionate to the increase in the campus s daytime population between now and 2015/16. Considering individual strategies in isolation, this analysis has also provided a cost/benefit framework that indicates that individual ATP strategies costing less than $880 per year, per alternative transportation program user have the potential to be costeffective. This calculation is subject to a range of assumptions which should be reviewed and refined before applying it to any specific strategies that may be considered for implementation. At first glance, the Basic and High scenarios appear to offer the best cost/benefit ratio, reducing the need for parking construction while generating the lowest required parking revenues per space. Considering other factors related to the specific year that is selected for the calculations, it is likely that the cost/benefit results for all four of the ATP expansion packages are more similar than suggested in Table ES.3, and that they all out-perform the Baseline scenario. Recommended Implementation Package. Although it does not substantially outperform the other alternatives, we recommend that UCD consider implementing the Preferred scenario, because it offers the best combination of several key features: It takes advantage of strategies that are low in cost to implement and which can be readily adjusted if results are not as anticipated (i.e., partial permit cost equalization and increased parking permit prices). It offers expanded transportation options via improved Unitrans and Yolobus service, placing emphasis on improving transit options for the increasing proportion of university affiliates who live outside of Davis. It does not discriminate against any particular groups of parking users by establishing new prohibitions against purchasing parking permits (i.e., does not ban first- and second-year students from purchasing parking permits). It limits the anticipated increases in Unitrans ridership to help the system remain below service expansion thresholds that would likely cause its service cost structure to increase substantially. Beyond the cost/benefit equations, it should be mentioned that the various strategies to reduce campus parking demand also bring numerous other potential benefits. These include: Reductions in the number of parking spaces that must be accommodated on campus allow UCD to plan for a more compact campus that will facilitate movement between buildings. Page vii Bay Area Economics &

9 Reductions in the amount of parking demand are associated with reductions in auto usage, which entails reduced auto emissions and reduced traffic congestion. In addition to environmental benefits, reduced auto usage also means that demands for auto infrastructure are reduced, resulting in further cost savings not quantified in this study. Page viii Bay Area Economics &

10 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 2 Introduction 2.1 Background and Rationale The University of California (UC) system includes ten campuses across California with a collective enrollment of approximately 200,000 students, and 160,000 faculty and staff. Under California s Master Plan for Higher Education, this family of campuses enrolls students from the top 12.5 percent of California s high school graduating class each year. The university intends to continue this policy through Tidal Wave II a predicted surge in the state s college age population in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The expected result of this surge is an increase in UC enrollments from approximately 147,000 full-time-equivalent students in 1998/99 to approximately 210,000 by A number of innovative solutions have been planned to accommodate this growth, including development of UC Merced, expansion of summer courses, provision of offcampus opportunities, improvement of student graduation time, use of technology, and expansion of enrollment at all campuses. Given the constraints at several campuses in the UC system, enrollment expansions are expected to focus more sharply on less urban campuses such as UC Riverside, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Davis. Figure 2.1: Population and Campus Development Impacts on Parking Need Page 1 Bay Area Economics &

11 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Enrollment expansion poses substantial challenges for parking and transportation, both on campus and in the surrounding community. In the absence of strategies to alter travel demand, enrollment expansion and campus population growth lead to commensurate increases in community traffic and parking demand on campus. At the same time, campus development aimed at accommodating growth logically targets underutilized spaces including replacement of surface parking lots with new academic, administrative and other buildings. The result for campus parking and transportation is a constriction of parking supply alongside a swelling in baseline parking demand, leading to a widening gap between parking supply and demand. See Figure 2.1. Under these conditions, many campuses close the gap in parking need by providing new parking in the form of multi-story, structured parking garages at many times the cost of former surface parking lots. An alternative approach aims to close this gap by introducing new TDM strategies to reduce the growth in parking demand and facilitating mode switch for a proportion of the campus commuting population. As shown in Figure 2.2, different solutions have different costs per user served. For most types of approaches, the cost per user tends to increase as more and more users are served, due to increasing marginal costs. For example, bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be very cost-effective as a means to facilitate users who are pre-disposed to walk or ride a bicycle; however, much greater amounts of money must be spent in order to encourage people who have a strong preference for driving their cars to walk or bicycle instead. The most cost-effective solution for accommodating new commuter demand in an environment of reduced surface parking usually involves a combination of these two approaches through a package of housing, alternative transportation and structured parking measures. Page 2 Bay Area Economics &

12 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Figure 2.2: Costs to Accommodate Commuter Demand Cost per rider Surface Parking with Land Structured Parking Efficiency Point Surface Parking Transit Bike/Pedestrian Improvements Residential Strategies Number of New Riders Source:. At UCD, the 2003 Long Range Development Plan1 was prepared in order to provide a blueprint of campus development through Tidal Wave II. This Plan aims to accommodate an increased enrollment of approximately 5,130 students with commensurate increases in academic and research activities at the campus. The Plan includes development of a multi-use stadium complex, new academic facilities, a new research park and the West Village (or Neighborhood Master Plan or NMP ) to add housing for the campus community. While baseline assumptions are made regarding parking and transportation over the 15- year duration of the LRDP, more detailed assessments of the demand and cost implementations of alternative transportation and parking strategies are outlined in this report. These strategies reflect and assess opportunities for enhancing existing alternative transportation measures that make the campus a nation-wide leader in terms of sustainable campus and transportation practices. The success of UCD s existing alternative transportation strategies is demonstrated by the fact that over 40 percent of students already commute by bicycle. It can also be 1 UC Davis, 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, October Page 3 Bay Area Economics &

13 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS seen in the 200 percent growth in Unitrans bus ridership over the five years following the passage of a fee referendum in 1990 to fund unlimited access for undergraduate students. The success of these existing transportation strategies suggests the potential for further alternative transportation and land use measures to help accommodate student growth while enhancing the function of the campus, minimizing the growth of car commuting, and reducing the need for construction of multi-story structured parking facilities at UCD. 2.2 Report Objectives and Structure This study therefore aims to determine whether it would be cost-effective for UCD to make additional investments in expanding its alternative transportation programs in order to reduce the need for investment in new parking facilities. It also assesses the particular transportation and parking strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce traffic and parking demand at UCD and quantifies the likely costs of these strategies to help identify the most cost-effective package of new parking construction and ATP expansion. Bay Area Economics and Nelson\Nygaard undertook this work in consultation with a project team comprised of representatives from the following agencies or organizations: UCD TAPS; UCD Office of Resource Management and Planning (ORMP); UCD Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC); City of Davis; Unitrans and Yolobus (local bus transit providers); UCD Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UCD Academic Senate; UCD graduate student population; and UCD Architects and Engineers. The study approach involves a number of tasks as outlined below: Project initiation and review of background materials; Compiling baseline parking demand data (Section 3.1) and ATP program data (Section 4.1); Calculating baseline parking demand projections (Section 3.2); Developing ATP expansion assumptions (Section 5); Forecasting the decrease in parking demand from baseline projections for each ATP scenario (Section 6); and Comparing ATP expansion costs to decreased costs for parking facilities (Section 7). Page 4 Bay Area Economics &

14 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS The general findings of these tasks are presented in the following sections and more detailed analytical results are presented in the technical appendices. Page 5 Bay Area Economics &

15 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 3 Baseline Parking Demand This section presents information on existing parking and transportation conditions on the central campus of UCD. The information includes mode split characteristics for inbound commuters to campus, as well as a description of the parking model that was developed for this analysis and baseline parking and transportation projections for the campus. 3.1 Parking and Transportation Profile According to a recent study by the California PATH Program 2, UCD has a very distinct transportation profile, with more than 40 percent of undergraduate and graduate students commuting to campus by bicycle, compared to a citywide average of two percent. See Figure 3.1, below. Table 3.1: Travel Mode Split by UCD Affiliation Mode Undergrad Grad Student Faculty Staff Post-grad Researcher Other Total Drive 18.1% 43.5% 53.8% 73.9% 33.8% 86.2% 39.9% Carpool/Vanpool 1.3% 0.0% 2.4% 3.6% 1.5% 0.0% 1.7% Transit 35.0% 4.3% 4.0% 5.4% 9.2% 0.0% 17.1% Walk 2.5% 4.3% 2.8% 1.0% 6.2% 0.0% 3.1% Bicycle 43.1% 47.8% 36.8% 16.1% 49.2% 13.8% 38.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Figures in columns may not sum to 100 percent due to independent rounding. Source: Shaheen, et al., 2003 This commuting profile reflects the importance of alternative modes in the campus transportation system, as well as the supportive physical conditions and cultural environment for high rates of alternative transportation usage in Davis. In particular, bicycle transportation is a significant mode of transportation for all UCD affiliates, while transit is very highly patronized by undergraduate students. The latter is, in large part, due to implementation of the Unitrans unlimited access bus pass in Figure 3.1 illustrates the change in Unitrans ridership over time. 2 Shaheen, Susan, Caroline Rodier & Rachel Finson, University of California, Davis Long-Range Development Plan: A Davis Smart Mobility Model, California PATH Program, Berkeley, October Page 6 Bay Area Economics &

16 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Figure 3.1: Bus Ridership Trends and Unitrans Pass Program Boardings per Enrolled Undergrad referendum: Unitrans pass + $13 fee 1999 referendum: $25 fee $27.50 fee 0 68/69 70/71 72/73 74/75 76/77 78/79 80/81 82/83 84/85 86/87 88/89 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 Academic Year Source: Unitrans, 2005 As shown in Table 3.2, the transportation profile for students, faculty and staff varies according to residential location. Over 40 percent of students, faculty and staff within Davis commute by bicycle, compared to over 75 percent who drive alone and almost no bicycle commuters from outside Davis. Table 3.2: Mode Split for UCD Affiliates by Residential Location Students Faculty and Staff Mode Living in Davis Living Outside Davis Living in Davis Living Outside Davis Drive 14% 85% 46% 78% Carpool/Vanpool 1% 4% 4% 14% Transit 23% 11% 2% 8% Walk 7% 0% 4% 0% Bicycle 55% 0% 43% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: LRDP, 2003: Page 7 Bay Area Economics &

17 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 3.2 Parking and Transportation Model In order to estimate baseline parking demand and transportation performance at UCD, a multi-stage model was developed as illustrated below in Figure 3.2. This model breaks down transportation and parking projections by the type of UCD affiliate, the residential location of employees, and the implementation or lack of implementation of the West Village development. Figure 3.2: UCD Parking and Transportation Model Alternative scenario analysis Housing plans - without NMP - with NMP Residential popn - under/grad students - faculty / staff Construction gains or losses Campus popn - under/grad students - faculty / staff Commuting popn Mode split - under/grad students - % drive alone - faculty / staff - % car/vanpool - % transit - % bike / walk - % other Vehicles to campus - % residents w cars Parking demand Parking need - max over profile - by type Permit/space ratio - oversell rate Parking profile - average empty - total lots - total permits - vacancy rate - available parking Strategy testing Demand elasticity - supply change - induced pkg by space - permit pricing - induced pkg by price - implementation cost Cost analysis - revenue - expenses, payment - cost effectiveness Source:. The analytical process illustrated in the flow chart above was translated into a spreadsheet model with six steps used to estimate baseline parking demand. Page 8 Bay Area Economics &

18 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Adjustments to the model were later used to assess the impact of three alternative transportation scenarios: Basic, Medium and High. The results of these analyses are discussed in subsequent sections. The six steps under the UCD transportation and parking model are: 1. Estimate Population by Faculty, Staff, Graduate and Undergraduate Students 2. Estimate Residential Population (those living on-campus) by Faculty, Staff, Graduate and Undergraduate Students 3. Estimate Commuting Population (those living off-campus) by Faculty, Staff, Graduate and Undergraduate Students 4. Estimate Number of Daily Vehicle Trips to Campus by Faculty, Staff, Graduate and Undergraduate Students 5. Estimate Parking Demand by Faculty, Staff, Graduate and Undergraduate Students 6. Compare and Summarize Scenario Results Detailed results of the Baseline projection analysis are provided in Appendix A Input Variables The UCD transportation and parking model incorporates a range of different inputs and variables. These include: Central campus population by affiliate type and year, 2001/02, 2002/03, 2004/05, 2015/16 (LRDP FEIR); Proportion of undergraduate/graduate students and faculty/staff (website); On-campus residential population, 2001/02, 2002/03, 2015/16 (LRDP) Breakdown of faculty and staff by residential location for 2004/05 (LRDP); Current mode split for commuting population by affiliate type (Shaheen); Mode split for faculty and staff by residential location (LRDP); Parking permit sales by permit type and duration e.g. daily/annual (TAPS); Number of parking spaces on campus (TAPS); Parking utilization rates (TAPS); People presence factors or absentee rates (Dulcich); Future plans for campus plans and other transportation strategies; Derived inputs within the model include the estimated commuting population, and the estimated number of vehicle trips to campus. The study focused on the central campus of UCD, and therefore omitted commute data on other activities outside this area. These activities include the Community Education Page 9 Bay Area Economics &

19 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS College planned for the area west of State Highway 113, and research parks to the west of Highway 113 and south of I-80. Permit data included the total income by permit type, total number of annualized permits sold by permit type (A, C, CH, etc.), and raw data on the start and end date of all permits by type. Initially, the annualized number of permits was calculated by dividing the total income by the cost of an annual pass for each permit type. No data were available, however, on the number of permits sold by duration (Annual/Semester/Quarterly/Monthly/Daily). In order to improve the quality of model outputs, these estimates were therefore reassessed using raw permit data. Raw data provided information on the number of permits for detailed time periods from 1 through 366 days. Given the range of permit options for each type (A, C, CH, etc.), a permit choice model was developed to define the most cost-effective or rational package of permits. Optimum packages and end dates calculated under this model are displayed in Appendix B. For example, if a person holds an A permit for between one and 12 days, their most rational permit package will be to purchase n daily passes. If they hold an A permit for between 13 and 30 days, it is more rational to buy one monthly pass. If they hold the A permit for between 30 and 42 days, they choose one monthly pass plus a series of (n-30) daily passes, and so on. Finally, if they hold the A permit for between 347 and 365 days, the annual pass becomes the most economical option. This approach was selected to reflect the personalized approach reported by TAPS staff in selling permits to UCD affiliates. It also provided a much better approximation of actual permit distribution by type than that derived from annualized data. Raw data on the number and duration of passes was therefore assigned to different permit packages according to the above rational permit choice model. Using these assignments, the total number of permits by type and duration was calculated along with the resulting revenue. The data was also used to estimate changes in total parking demand resulting from different fee scenarios. The rational choice method produced significantly different estimates of total demand change relative to those derived from annualized data. On the other hand, other methods of distributing raw permit data (through rounding up instead of rational choice) produced almost no difference in total parking demand change. This suggests a high sensitivity to the use of raw over annualized data, but low sensitivity to alternative methods for distributing this data Model Assumptions In any model, a number of assumptions must be made regarding the context under consideration. Estimates derived using the UCD Parking and Transportation Model were based on the following assumptions and facts: Parking rates up until 2004/05 are based on actual numbers and therefore reflect a variety of past transportation strategies including parking restrictions. Page 10 Bay Area Economics &

20 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS The central campus has the same proportion of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, and staff as the whole of UCD. This assumption is likely to underestimate the proportion of undergraduates and overestimate the proportion of staff, therefore providing a slightly conservative estimate of parking demand to the central core. Growth rates from 2005/06 through 2015/16 will be consistent (linear) for baseline calculations. New student housing as part of the West Village includes the same proportion of undergraduate and graduate students as the campus as a whole excluding freshmen (i.e., 77 percent undergraduates, 23 percent graduates initially, and 73 percent undergraduates, 27 percent graduates at buildout). The ratio of faculty and staff occupying employee campus housing is 50 percent faculty, 50 percent staff. The current distribution of faculty and staff by residential location is 51 percent inside and 49 percent outside of Davis, while the distribution for students is 80 percent inside and 20 percent outside Davis (LRDP ). The future proportion of students, faculty and staff living inside Davis is limited by the stock of housing within the city, which is predicted to grow at an average rate of 0.5 percent per year. A carpool consists of two persons: one driver and one passenger. The people presence factor is the same for faculty, staff and students (90 percent, reflecting a ten percent rate of absenteeism). The distribution of permits sold by type and duration are based on the most rational (cost-effective) package of permit duration categories for each type of permit Model Calculations Using the above inputs and assumptions, the following calculations were employed in order to derive the baseline level of parking and the distribution of transportation trips to the central campus of UCD: Step 1: Number of affiliates (e.g. undergrads, grad students, faculty, staff) = (Total students) x (Proportion of affiliates) Page 11 Bay Area Economics &

21 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Linear interpolation of residential housing rates by person Commuting population = (Campus population) - (Residential population) Percent bringing cars to campus = Percent drive alone x (Percent carpool) Number of vehicles to campus = Commute population x Percent bringing cars to campus x People presence factor Ratio of permits to spaces = (Number permits) / (Number of spaces) Estimated parking demand = (Ratio of permits to spaces) x (Number of vehicle trips) Step 5 is necessary because of the turnover rate and for people who are parking off campus Baseline Results Baseline calculations and results for this process are described in the following sections and provided in more detail in Appendix A. According to the 2003 LRDP, the campus population is expected to grow from 24,867 students and 10,339 faculty and staff in 2001/02, to 30,000 students and 15,230 faculty and staff by 2015/16. This represents a two percent annual increase in total campus population over a fifteen-year period, as can be seen in Figure 3.3. Page 12 Bay Area Economics &

22 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Figure 3.3: Baseline Campus Population, 2000 to ,000 Number of UC Davis affiliates 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Employees Students Year Sources:, Bay Area Economics. Using the UCD Transportation and Parking Model, this growth in the campus population is expected to result in a corresponding increase in the population of people commuting to the campus from inside and outside Davis. In 2005/06, there were an estimated 21,432 students and 11,491 faculty and staff commuting to the central campus of UCD. By 2015/16, this figure is expected to rise to 22,894 students and 15,193 faculty and staff, or 19,843 students and 14,693 faculty and staff if the new West Village residential development is built. This growth in the campus commuting population is illustrated in Figure 3.4 below. Page 13 Bay Area Economics &

23 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Figure 3.4: Baseline Commuting Population, 2000 to ,000 Commuting Population 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Total Commuters - no NMP Total Commuters - w NMP Students - no NMP Students - w NMP Employees - no NMP 10,000 Employees - w NMP 5, Year Sources:, Bay Area Economics. Given the current mode split at UCD, the level of inbound commuting translates to an estimated 13,707 vehicle trips to campus on a peak day in 2005/06. This includes 6,079 vehicle trips by students and 7,628 vehicle trips by faculty and staff. By 2015/16, this inbound commuting is expected to grow to 18,691 vehicle trips (7,991 by students and 10,701 by faculty and staff) without the new West Village, or 16,093 vehicle trips (5,793 by students and 10,301 by faculty and staff) with the new West Village. Page 14 Bay Area Economics &

24 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Figure 3.5: Baseline Vehicle Trips to Campus, 2000 to 2015 Vehicles to Campus 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Sources:, Bay Area Economics. Year Total Cars - no NMP Total Cars - w NMP Students - no NMP Students - w NMP Employees - no NMP Employees - w NMP The parking demand that results from these trips is 11,471 spaces including 5,087 for students and 6,383 for faculty and staff in 2005/06. Under the Baseline scenario, parking demand at the campus in 2015/16 is anticipated to rise to 15,642 spaces (including 6,687 for students and 8,955 for faculty and staff) without the West Village, or 13,468 spaces (including 4,848 for students and 8,620 for faculty and staff) with the West Village. These Baseline results indicate that approximately 2,174 new parking spaces can be eliminated on campus if the West Village plan is implemented. This reduction in parking spaces is equivalent to a capital cost savings ranging from $7.6 million to $43.5 million, depending on whether the avoided spaces are assumed to be in surface lots or in parking structures, respectively. More detailed information on cost savings per parking space demanded is provided in Section 7 of this report. Even with the implementation of the West Village plan, the Baseline scenario could be expected to require the development of up to two additional 1,500-space parking structures by the end of the 2015/16 analysis period. These new parking facilities would be necessary not only due to growth in parking demand, but also to replace surface parking spaces displaced by construction of new buildings on campus. Assuming an average cost of $20,000 per space, the construction cost for these new parking structures would represent a $60 million investment by TAPS. Page 15 Bay Area Economics &

25 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Figure 3.6: Baseline Parking Demand, 2000 to ,000 Parking Demand 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Sources:, Bay Area Economics. Year Total Spaces - no NMP Total Spaces - w NMP Students - no NMP Students - w NMP Employees - no NMP Employees - w NMP One specific area of concern for this study was the adequacy of the future supply of parking in the Health Sciences area of campus. This is in the southwest corner of the main campus, bounded by I-80, State Highway 113, Hutchison Drive, La Rue Road, and Garrod Drive. Because of its location, the Health Sciences area tends to function somewhat as a self-contained area in terms of parking supply and demand (i.e., people using the buildings in the Health Sciences area do not tend to find parking located outside of the Health Sciences area practical or desirable and people using buildings outside of the Health Sciences area do not tend to use parking located within the Health Sciences area). Nelson\Nygaard attempted to break out parking demand from students, faculty, and staff in the Health Sciences area separate from the rest of the main campus; however there were a number of data limitations that made this impractical. First, reliable estimates of the daytime population in the Health Sciences area are not available. This is because many of the students, faculty, and staff who spend time in this area also spend part of their time elsewhere in the main campus and/or at the UCD Medical Center in Sacramento. Second, because of the location that is somewhat isolated from the rest of the main campus and also because many people who spend time in the Health Sciences area must also move between Health Sciences and other parts of the main campus or even to Sacramento in a given day, it is likely that this population has a much different transportation mode profile than the campus as a whole. Unfortunately, travel survey data are not available for the trip modes of the Health Sciences area population. As a result, Nelson\Nygaard was not able to develop a reliable set of parking demand projections for the Health Sciences area alone as part of their modeling effort. Page 16 Bay Area Economics &

26 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Still, it is important for this study to acknowledge that even if this study projects an adequate amount of parking for the campus as a whole relative to projected demand, it is also necessary to ensure that there will be adequate parking in the Health Sciences area. To address this issue, BAE consulted with staff from the Office of Resource Management and Planning (ORMP) and learned that the department has prepared projections of future parking demand in the Health Sciences area based on a calculation of parking demand per occupied building floor area and a schedule of new building construction in the area through 2015/16. ORMP has calculated that the Health Sciences area would face a deficit of parking by 2015/16; however, the demand would not be enough to warrant construction of a new 1,500 space parking structure. Instead, the likely strategy to accommodate parking demand would be a combination of stack parking and construction of temporary surface lots. This situation can be considered applicable to the Baseline parking demand scenario analyzed in this study, because ORMP s calculations are implicitly based on existing Health Sciences area transportation mode splits. All of the other parking demand scenarios modeled in this analysis involve reductions in parking demand from the baseline, so it can be assumed that none of the scenarios will require construction of a new parking structure in the Health Sciences area until sometime after 2015/16, and that the need for interim parking measures such as stack parking and temporary lots will be reduced from the Baseline Conclusions Regarding Baseline Results Baseline parking projections for UCD were calculated using the parking and transportation model developed by Nelson\Nygaard specifically for the campus. This model draws upon existing mode split data for commuters accessing the campus, as well as a wide range of input data on the campus population, residential population, and parking profile. Under baseline conditions without the West Village, the growth of UCD can also be expected to result in demand for an additional 4,171 parking spaces on a peak day by the year 2015/16, relative to 2005/06 levels. If the West Village is implemented, a smaller demand increase of 1,997 parking spaces can be expected by 2015/16. Given the above reductions in vehicle trips and parking demand on campus, it is clear that the implementation of the West Village will have a positive impact on baseline parking costs, traffic impacts and related environmental impacts at UCD. If the West Village is built, ongoing reductions in parking demand and associated infrastructure costs will be more easily achieved. Page 17 Bay Area Economics &

27 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 4 Alternative Transportation Program Having analyzed the baseline parking demand at UCD, this section provides a qualitative assessment of the TDM strategies already in place in UCD s alternative transportation program or that have the potential to contribute to a cost-effective package of expanded parking and transportation solutions (see Fig. 2.2). The following section outlines the existing TDM strategies at UCD, and offers a menu of options for their expansion. 4.1 Existing TDM Strategies UCD implements an extensive range of TDM strategies that are managed by the TAPS office as well as a number of other departments on campus, as part of an overall alternative transportation program for UCD. These programs are outlined below: Pedestrian Program UCD does not identify a specific pedestrian program; however, its campus planning policies encourage and facilitate pedestrian access by providing pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and lighting. In addition, campus planning emphasizes keeping core campus buildings and facilities close together so that students, faculty, and staff may easily walk between buildings. Parking lots and structures are placed in such a manner as to avoid creating large parking fields that increase walking distances between buildings. This includes peripheral placement and exclusion of parking lots from the central area of campus Bicycle Program The Davis community, including the UCD campus and the City of Davis, is known for its bike-friendly design and amenities. Bicycling is encouraged as a primary mode of transportation to campus for students, faculty and staff. UCD provides numerous bike racks and bike lockers on campus. Additionally, the ASUCD Bike Barn offers bicycle maintenance classes and provides do-it-yourself bike maintenance facilities, tools, and advice. Bicyclists are encouraged to buy bike licenses on campus. Bicyclists can sign up for passes to access campus shower, towel, and locker facilities when they arrive for school or work each day. BikeRight, the UCD Bicycle Safety and Injury Prevention Program offers a variety of education programs, information, and special events to promote bicycle safety at UCD. ASUCD and TAPS both offer summer bicycle storage. UCD holds auctions of unclaimed bicycles semi-annually, providing buyers with the opportunity to purchase used bicycles at economical prices. Finally, TAPS offers a traffic school for cyclists cited on campus for moving violations, making participants eligible for a reduced fine. Page 18 Bay Area Economics &

28 Alternative Transportation & Parking Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Unitrans Pass Program Standard fares for Unitrans, Yolobus and Fairfield/Suisun Transit (FST) are shown in Table 4.1. All UCD undergraduates pay a fee each quarter along with their registration fees that provides unlimited access to Unitrans and Yolobus services when they show their registration card. City employees and UCD employees with valid parking permits can also board Unitrans for free. Currently, graduate students, faculty and other staff do not participate in the Unitrans program; however, they can participate in the Transitpool program described below in order to obtain discounted passes for Unitrans and other nearby transit systems. Table 4.1: Standard Bus Fares for Local Services Service Single Ride Ten-Ride Monthly Quarter Annual Pass Pass Pass Unitrans $1 $5 $21 $52 $150 Yolobus $ $2 $60 FST Vacaville UCD $2.25 $18 $56 FST Fairfield UCD $2.75 $22 $69 FST Dixon UCD $1.75 $16 $50 FST Sac - UCD $1.75 $16 $50 Sources: Unitrans, Yolobus, Fairfield/Suisun Transit Yolobus Pass Program UCD undergraduates can board regular Yolobus services for no charge by showing their current registration cards Transitpool Program Students, faculty, and staff can participate in the Transitpool program in order to purchase discounted passes on Unitrans, Yolobus, Sacramento Regional Transit and Fairfield/Suisun Transit. Benefits of the program include: Up to a 40 percent discount (Maximum $18.00) on the purchase of monthly, quarter, and half-quarter passes. Participation in the Emergency Ride Home program. Complimentary Daily Pool Parking Permit. Two campus locations to purchase RT and Fairfield/Suisun Transit passes. Participation in the Pretax/Payroll Deduction Program for eligible employees Trainpool Program The Trainpool is open to students, faculty, and staff. Participants receive a subsidy of $18 per month to purchase Amtrak Capitol Corridor passes, access to the Emergency Rides Home program, and courtesy parking permits for up to two days per month for occasions when riding the train is not possible. Eligible employees can participate in Page 19 Bay Area Economics &