National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transit Systems in College and University Communities (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning

« Previous: Chapter Three - Campus Operations
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 28

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 FINANCING—TRADITIONAL AND CREATIVE TOOLS One of the important inquiries of this synthesis study was to discover the means through which transit systems support themselves financially. The survey asked specifically what sources of funding are used by the transit system for operat- ing and capital costs, and the results indicated that a variety of traditional and innovative tools are used to fund both school and non-school systems. This information may be useful to systems comparing their source of funding to that of others. The tables indicate only those cases in which a respondent entered that they do use at least a small amount of each source of funding (indicated by entering the dollar amount, the percentage that the amount used represents in their total budget, or an “X” to indicate that they use this type of fund- ing but do not know a specific amount) or do not use the source of funding. The totals on each row will not add up to the total number (the “n”) for the question because those who left some rows of the question blank were not counted as hav- ing answered that they do not use the source. Tables 15 and 16 summarize sources of funding for oper- ational costs by school and non-school operators. (Capital funding sources are described later in Tables 17 and 18.) Respondents indicated that a broad variety of sources are used to fund operating costs. For schools, student fees, school gen- eral funds, parking fees, and advertising revenues are some of the more frequently used non-government sources. Four school respondents indicated that 100% of their funding for operations came from a single source; most respondents used more than one source. Schools using a singular-source type funding were Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, from student fees; Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland, from the school general fund; the University of Arizona in Tucson, from parking fees; and the University of Delaware in Newark, from an “other” source. All four of these schools reported that 100% of their capital dollars also come from these respective sources (although a wider array of schools also indicated singular-source types of capital funds). For non-schools, government sources are very frequently used, as are fares and advertising sources. Fares are explic- itly reported as a source of funding much more frequently for schools than for non-schools, as is advertising. Private sub- sidies are very infrequently used by both schools and non- schools for operating funds. Student fees are also reported as a source of funding for non-school operators, indicating that, in these cases, there is a connection between the school and public operators, local governments, or the partnership arrange- ment that allows a special fee for students to be passed on to the operator. Capital funding mechanisms differ for schools and non- schools. Although the array of sources is broad for both groups, the schools reporting a specific amount on this question tended to get all of their capital from one source—most typically a non-government source. Non-schools, on the other hand, more frequently reported explicitly that their capital funding comes from multiple sources, and, consistent with the fact that this sample group includes partnership arrangements between schools and other entities, a handful of these indicated that school funding sources are used. Just one non-school operator indicated that 100% of its capital funding comes from park- ing fees; this was the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota (which listed itself as a public transit operator). Tables 17 and 18 indicate how schools and non-schools indi- cated that they fund capital expenses. An item of interest from the survey was the degree to which transit providers are working toward partnerships allowing expanded access to existing and new funding sources. Nearly 60% of respondents (36 of 61) have made, or will make, efforts to partner with other local agencies to boost transit services or to gain access to funds through the Small Transit Intensive Cities Program or other similar programs. The Small Transit Intensive Cities Program is a grant program under federal SAFETEA-LU legislation that offers performance- based awards to cities with populations between 50,000 and 200,000 persons that perform well on six transit performance criteria. A number of small cities with a strong higher educa- tion institution presence are eligible for additional funding under this program. It is likely that partnership alliances put operators in a strong position for such grants and awards, and it is clear from the strong response on this question that there are perceived benefits (in terms of awards or otherwise) to be derived from working collaboratively. Schools and govern- ments and/or transit agencies are equally likely to develop innovative funding partnerships. Profile: City, University Form Funding Partnership in Ames, Iowa Ames Transit Agency in Ames, Iowa, is a partnership between the city of Ames, Iowa State University, and the university’s student government. CyRide, as it is known, is supported by funds from CHAPTER FOUR CAMPUS POLICIES AND PLANNING

all three entities under an agreement that is negotiated annually. Officially, the transit system is a unit of the city of Ames. The partnership was coordinated by the local League of Women Vot- ers in the late 1970s. The joint system began operations in 1981 as a door-to-door service with 80,000 riders annually. CyRide is now a fixed route system with 4.5 million riders per year. All university affiliates receive free or half-cost fares. In the 2007 to 2008 school year, in exchange for free fares, full-time stu- dents paid $54.50 per semester. Free fares, which were instituted in 2003, created a 57% increase in ridership. However, the fees collected by CyRide from the student government have since dropped by 20% due to a decision to pro-rate the fee for part-time students and to a drop in enrollment. Faculty and staff can buy a semester pass for $65, which is half of the full-fare cost. The funding negotiations are performed by a Transit Board of Trustees, comprised of two student government representatives, 20 an Ames City Councilmember, the Ames City Manager, an Iowa State University representative, and a mayoral appointee. According to Sheri Kyras, Director of Transit, the negotiations are “fluid and flexible.” When enrollment dropped, the student government couldn’t contribute its share and the others picked up the cost. When the city experienced a property tax freeze, the city put in less and the other partners put in more. CyRide also receives federal and state funds, along with fares and miscella- neous funding (S. Kyras, Director of Transit, CyRide, Ames, Iowa, personal communication, Mar. 21, 2008). FARES The survey asked what the “base” per-ride transit fare is, exclusive of passes or discounts, on local bus service and on- campus circulator service. Seventy-two respondents provided Schools Reporting Use of This Source Schools Reporting No Use of This Source Federal 5 18 State 5 18 Public Transit Operator 0 23 Local Government 3 20 School General Fund 12 13 Student Fees 15 10 Parking Fees 8 16 Fares 4 19 Advertising 9 14 Private Subsidy 2 21 Other 12 12 n = 60. TABLE 15 WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF TRANSIT SYSTEM OPERATING FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS? Non-schools Reporting Use of This Source Non-schools Reporting No Use of This Source Federal 29 4 State 26 7 Public Transit Operator 6 27 Local Government 24 9 School General Fund 8 25 Student Fees 18 15 Parking Fees 11 22 Fares 22 11 Advertising 20 13 Private Subsidy 2 30 Other 17 15 n = 60. TABLE 16 WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF TRANSIT SYSTEM OPERATING FUNDS FOR NON-SCHOOLS? Schools Reporting Use of This Source Schools Reporting No Use of This Source Federal 2 10 State 2 10 Public Transit Operator 2 10 Local Governm ent 2 9 School General Fund 7 7 Student Fees 3 8 Parking Fees 1 10 Fares 1 10 Advertising 1 10 Private subsidy 5 6 Other 11 2 n = 53. TABLE 17 WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF TRANSIT SYSTEM CAPITAL FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS? Non- schools Reporting Use of This Source Non-schools Reporting No Use of This Source Federal 23 8 State 6 19 Public Transit Operator 21 8 Local Governm ent 6 20 School General Fund 8 17 Student Fees 6 19 Parking Fees 2 22 Fares 3 21 Advertising 2 21 Private subsidy 4 20 Other 19 1 n = 60. TABLE 18 WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF TRANSIT SYSTEM CAPITAL FUNDS FOR NON-SCHOOLS?

21 information about general public fares on local buses (see Table 19). Seven systems offer free local bus service, and a majority (39 respondents) offer on-campus circulator service free of charge to the general public. Among those services that are not free a majority (42 respondents) charge between $1.00 to $1.50. Of the nine services that charge the general public to use campus-circulator service, two-thirds charge between $1.00 to $1.50 and the others less than $1.00. Seventy-one respondents provided information regarding base fare per ride for students on local buses and on-campus shuttles. Nearly 40% of respondents (29 systems) indicated that students are allowed to ride local buses free of charge (see Table 20). Among those systems that charge students, fares ranged from $0.25 at the University of Texas at Austin (by Capital Metro) to $2.75 at the University of Minnesota. On a majority of local bus services, however, student fares are similar to the general public fares, between $1.00 and $1.50. Most campuses provide on-campus transit service free of charge to students. Only five campuses charge a student fare for on-campus shuttles, ranging from $0.25 at the University of Austin to $1.50 at Cabrillo College in Santa Cruz, California. UNLIMITED ACCESS PASSES U-Passes are a form of transit access agreement between a university and a transit provider. Typically, a school will pay for members of the school community (students and/or faculty and staff) to have free or discounted access to transit services provided by a local transit provider. (Note that this differs from free transit offered directly by a school; generally, U-Pass is a collaborative arrangement wherein transit service offered by another provider is subsidized.) Thirty-five respon- dents (51%) indicated a formalized U-Pass program is avail- able to faculty, staff, and students. Whether formalized or not, a diversity of transit subsidy programs exist on campuses. Some universities provide monthly, semester, or annual transit subsidies to faculty, staff, and students. In other cases, campus riders pay a fee directly to the local transit provider for free service, and several universities simply offer free transit to all riders. The survey asked a question about whether any transit subsidies are provided by the school, and if so, requested the details of these programs (average percentage of subsidy, max- imum allowable subsidy and over what period, and percent- age of each group receiving the subsidy for faculty, staff, and students). Respondents reported in very different ways, with many adding clarifying comments, suggesting that information about U-Pass programs is recorded differently by different providers (or that there are additional details that respondents felt it was necessary to supply to understand the U-Pass pro- gram as a whole). Subsidies differ across schools; some examples of programs are included in the following discussion. The maximum allow- able subsidy for faculty, staff, and graduate students at the University of California at Davis is $18 per month, a subsidy received by about 2% of faculty and 25% of staff; all under- graduate students have unlimited access after paying a student fee. On average, the transit subsidies provided by the Uni- versity of Washington, Seattle, cover 41% of transit costs for members of the school community, and 68% of faculty, 70% of staff, and 85% of students at University of Washington have U-Passes. The fee to students for this U-Pass product is $44 per quarter. At Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, the local transit service provider, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, receives $1/passenger as a volume discounted fare for serving the campus, and the university contributes a portion of a partner share. Faculty and staff at the University of Texas at Austin may choose to pay a nominal fee to Capi- tal Metro for unlimited transit rides, while a mandatory stu- dent fee enables all students to ride free. At the University of Base Per-Ride Fare for General Public Free <$1.00 $1.00–$1.50 $1.50–$2.00 >$2.00 Local Bus Service 7 9 42 5 2 On-Cam pus Circulator Service 39 3 6 0 0 n = 71. Base Per-Ride Fare for Students Free <$1.00 $1.00–$1.50 $1.50–$2.00 >$2.00 Local Bus Service 29 5 26 5 1 On-Campus Circulator Service 52 2 3 0 0 n = 70. TABLE 19 WHAT IS THE BASE PER-RIDE TRANSIT FARE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC (exclusive of passes or discounts)? TABLE 20 WHAT IS THE BASE PER-RIDE TRANSIT FARE FOR STUDENTS (exclusive of passes or discounts)?

Wisconsin, Madison, all faculty, staff, and students receive subsidies covering 100% of their transit costs. A second question on the survey asked how the subsidy provided by the school is paid for. As respondents indicated, transit subsidies tend to be funded through parking or student user fees, and not general funds (see Table 21). One-quarter of respondents rely on parking charges, and one-fifth on student fees. Because governments and transit agencies are eligible for federal transportation funding and universities typically are not, it is not surprising that schools are more likely to rely on parking and student fees to fund their transit subsidies. Three university respondents also indicated relying on other funding sources, including grants, parking citation revenue, and other institutional resources. The following profile of University of Massachusetts Tran- sit in Amherst, Massachusetts, offers an example of how an unlimited access transit pass program operates. Profile: Unlimited Access Transit at UMass Transit, Amherst, Massachusetts The main campus of University of Massachusetts (UMass) in Amherst has been fare-free since it began as a student-run orga- nization in 1969. By 1976, it partnered with the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to receive federal operating subsidies and access improved equipment. UMass insisted on keeping its system fare-free (PVTA charges $1 per ride in the rest of its sys- tem). Over the years, UMass transit’s operations expanded in partnership with other local colleges. It now serves Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, Hampshire College, and Smith College, providing service in eight communities on 14 routes with 40 buses of 40- and 60-passenger capacities. Although members of the general public are required to pay a fare, farebox revenues in the system are very low. Today, about 25% of the $4 million annual budget is covered by student fees, 12% comes from parking permit revenues, and most of the remainder is paid by the state (the federal government no longer provides operat- ing subsidies). UMass’ system has been highly successful, even though the system has had limited capital resources and has installed very few bus shelters, transit maps, or benches anywhere in its system. Operating on frequencies as high as 60 min, the system has nonetheless seen a 40% student and 60% university staff com- mute mode share. Limited parking availability in campus lots is cited as a large reason for transit utilization. With approximately 35,000 members of the UMass community, there are only 11,000 22 parking spaces. As a rural campus, vehicular access is an impor- tant component for students and especially for faculty; however, UMass has successfully increased remote parking rates from $10 per year to $120 over the past few years, largely to cover increased transit fuel costs. UMass Transit continues to see 5% annual ridership increases and expects to seek federal funds from alternate sources to con- tinue providing its current service levels. Non-union student employment is the biggest reason the system is able to operate without substantially greater subsidies. However, the system continues to try to improve its system’s cost effectiveness and plans to implement an automated vehicle locator service in the coming years to improve customer service and ridership (A. Byam, General Manager of UMass Transit, personal communication, April 14, 2008). PARKING POLICY RELATIONSHIPS TO TRANSIT Access and mobility to and around the school campus is affected by the complete set of transportation options avail- able to commuters. Amply available parking on a campus may act as an incentive to drive; on the other hand, if there are negative aspects such as having to park in a remote park-and- ride lot or a costly fee to park, driving may be discouraged. Commuters will therefore make choices about getting around campus after considering the “costs” involved with various modes, including the costs in time, money, and convenience or inconvenience. For schools, choices about how to provide parking are influenced by a number of motives (including, but not limited to, the cost to construct and maintain park- ing, pressures to offer parking as a benefit to compete for faculty, TDM goals, environmental motives, and so on). Park- and-ride lots are one parking provision option that campuses frequently use. Sixty percent of campuses reported having remote park- and-ride lots; nearly half of the campuses have limited parking in the center of campus, but have availability on the periphery or in park-and-ride lots. Eighty-seven percent of campuses with park-and-ride lots charge a fee to park on campus. Only 5% of these systems indicated the on-campus parking fee was designed to encourage park-and-ride lots. Charging for park- ing on campus and providing park-and-ride lots, although not necessarily intentional, can have the effect of encouraging commuters to park in the peripheral lots and transfer to a dif- ferent mode to access campus. Eighteen percent of respondents believe the parking supply is insufficient to meet demand, and this opinion is more preva- lent among government and transit agencies than schools (25% to 13%). Parking is available but not convenient on 34% of campuses. Nearly one-third of respondents indicated the campus provides access to parking for faculty or staff, but limits student parking. As shown in Table 22, just over half of campuses limit parking permits in some way. Twenty-two percent utilize waiting lists or lotteries to limit parking permits to the capacity of campus, while 19% offer parking permits only to certain % of Total Respondents Fee to Students 20 Parking Charges 25 General Fund 12 Subsidy from Partner Agency 2 Other 5 n = 85. TABLE 21 IF A TRANSIT SUBSIDY IS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL, HOW IS IT PAID FOR?

23 drivers or student class levels. Ninety-five percent of campuses charge a fee for parking; however, the majority of universi- ties and government/transit agencies agree that their parking fees do not deter people from driving. The following profile of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, highlights this school’s innovative transit- supportive programs and shuttle system that contribute to a transportation “system approach” on the campus. Profile: Investing in Transit, Not Parking, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California In the late 1980s, Stanford University set out to expand the campus by 25%—or over 2 million sq ft of new development. Stanford’s host community, Palo Alto, was very concerned about the potential traffic impacts and was prepared to delay build-out through a detailed Environmental Impact Report process for each new building. So in 1989, Stanford agreed to abide by a General Use Permit for the campus that allowed 2.4 million additional sq ft on the condition that no new automobile commute trips would be produced. Stanford began a detailed annual monitoring program. To meet this goal, Stanford undertook a unique and simple calculation. To displace surface parking for new buildings and build replacement parking structures, the university realized that each new garage space added costs of over $150 per month, every single month for the 40-year useful lifetime of each parking structure. With land valued at $1 million per acre, building new surface lots wasn’t much cheaper and had greater environmental impacts. Instead, Stanford followed four main strategies to avoid replacing the parking supply: adding transit, adding housing, adding bicycles, and most importantly, just paying people not to drive—a “parking cash-out.” Stanford expanded its Marguerite shuttle from a small com- mute-hour shuttle to a free, all-day transit system, running every 12 to 15 min with over 100 timed transfers to commuter rail trains every day. Its budget increased 70% to almost $1 million per year. However, Stanford realized that the subsidy of $2 per commuter per day on the shuttle was far less than the average cost of $7 per commuter per day to build and operate parking garages. Marguerite shuttle ridership quintupled in 10 years from 700 per day to 3,500 per day. Stanford’s savings on parking construction enabled the university to build other transit amenities including a new transit mall, which runs for 1-1/2 mi through the heart of the campus. Over 5 mi of campus streets were closed to cars (J. Tumlin, Stanford University Office of Transportation Pro- grams, personal communication, Jan. 11, 2008). PARKING PRICING Parking pricing is a critical issue for campuses and campus communities alike. A balance between price and supply will result in a more efficient use of available facilities, since commuters with good alternatives available will switch if the price to park becomes sufficiently high. The cost to park, therefore, has a strong influence on the overall transportation network. Moreover, pricing parking to reflect the real cost to build and maintain parking means that drivers more closely pay for what they use. Table 23 is a general summary of the parking pricing on campus reported by various respondents. These figures are provided as a general review of prices, but are offered with a caveat: because respondents reported figures in very different ways, some averaging was necessary. For example, a number of respondents gave several figures associated with various parking lots. In this case, prices were averaged, which affects the accuracy of the tabulations. “Unknown” represents those responses for which a respondent entered an “X” to indicate that that type of parking pricing schedule was available, but no specific price was actually given. In general these prices appear to be fairly low in compar- ison to the relative cost to build and maintain parking lots and parking structures (see the Literature Review for a discussion). For example, in some areas these prices will be comparable to the price to use transit, depending on the travel behaviors of the commuter. The rising price of gasoline, however, may result in an external price disincentive to drive. Two inter- esting pricing schemes were also presented that are not included in Table 23. One school, Florida State University in Tallahassee, prices parking based on the total number of hours % of School Respondents % of Government or Transit Agency Respondents No, we do not limit permits or we do not have a permit system at all 33 31 Yes, we utilize waiting lists/lotteries to limit parking to the capacity of campus 28 16 Yes, we do not offer permits to some groups or classes (e.g., freshmen) 22 16 Yes, other 15 9 n = 85. TABLE 22 IF YOU USE A PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM, IS THE NUMBER OF PARKING PERMITS LIMITED?

a student is enrolled—the cost is $6.50 per credit hour per semester. Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, bases the annual cost to park on a percentage of an employee’s salary. It also prices student passes slightly differently based on each student’s commuter status, charging $160 to resi- dents and $171.20 to commuters. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS A range of formalized TDM programs or services is available to faculty, staff, and students on campuses. The most popular 24 programs are carpooling-related programs; these programs all aim to add incentives to increase the number of riders per car (although specific requirements differ by school or locality). Guaranteed Ride Home, for example, acts as insurance for riders and drivers in a carpool group who face unexpected circumstances such as unscheduled overtime requests or unexpected personal or family sickness, thereby alleviating the worry that such events will leave a worker without a ride home with the carpool. More than half of schools offer ride matching, guaranteed ride home programs, free transit passes through a U-Pass program, and preferential carpool and vanpool parking (see Table 24). Twenty-four percent allow Average Main Campus Hourly Parking Fee <$1 $1 $1–$2 $2–$3 >$3 Unknown Students—Hourly 5 8 15 2 4 1 Faculty/Staff—Hourly 5 9 14 2 4 1 Average Main Campus Daily Parking Fee <$4 $4–$6 $6–$8 $8–$10 >$10 Unknown Students—Daily 4 8 8 4 4 0 Faculty/Staff—Daily 4 8 7 5 5 1 Average Main Campus Monthly Parking Fee <$21 $20–$40 $41–$60 $61–80 >$80 Unknown Students—Monthly 4 3 2 5 2 0 Faculty/Staff—Monthly 5 3 3 3 4 1 Average Main Campus Quarterly Parking Fee <$100 $101– $150 $151–$200 $201– $250 >$250 Unknown Students—Quarterly 3 1 2 2 1 0 Faculty/Staff—Quarterly 2 2 2 2 1 1 Average Main Campus Semester Parking Fee <$25 $25–$50 $51–$150 $151–250 >$250 Unknown Students—Per Semester 3 6 3 2 2 0 Faculty/Staff—Per Semester 1 0 2 2 0 1 Average Main Campus Annual Parking Fee <$100 $101– $250 $251–$500 $501– $750 >$750 Unknown Students—Annually 10 21 10 6 4 0 Faculty/Staff—Annually 9 17 11 7 5 2 n = 61. TABLE 23 WHAT IS THE AVERAGE FEE FOR PARKING ON THE MAIN CAMPUS (i.e., not park-and-ride) FOR STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND STAFF?

25 faculty to telecommute and only one respondent offers a parking cash-out program, whereby students and/or faculty and staff receive payment to forego their right or permit to park on campus. Forty-four respondents provided information about their (or their corresponding school’s) budget for TDM programs including ridematching, transit subsidies, parking cash-out, pedestrian, and bicycle programs. The total reported budgets ranged from $0 to $14 million; however, it is possible that some respondents may have reported a figure for overall transportation services including TDM. Fifty-seven percent of respondents had a TDM budget of less than $100,000; 23% had a budget between $100,000 and $1 million; and only 21% had a budget greater than $1 million. However, since these figures are very high, these respondents may have been reporting on a combined transportation improvements budget. The existence of (and participation in) a local TMA can indicate a strong commitment locally to reducing the share of SOV trips. Schools often play a strong role in these organiza- tions, especially because they are often a large anchor institu- tion within the community and frequently the largest employer. Only one-third of respondents are members of a TMA or other rider outreach and advocacy organization, with only a slightly higher percentage of schools than government/transit agencies indicating they are TMA members. Pressure is high and mounting on schools and on school communities to handle the high volume of movement that campus activities generate. While schools frequently aim to improve mobility for members of the school community in and around the campus area, the amount of traffic generated by faculty, staff, students, and campus visitors to and from the campus is a key concern because it necessarily affects both the campus and the surrounding community. The split among commute modes of transit, car/vanpool, SOVs, bicycling, and walking varied widely across different universities. To illustrate the differences that are possible among cam- puses, the travel mode share for faculty, staff, and students (combined) reported by four example schools is presented in Table 25. It is extremely difficult to draw comparisons of mode share across schools because of the drastically different characteristics of each location. These cases are presented to show that a very wide range of mode splits is possible on college and university campuses. Some of the factors that may influence mode share at a school include the availability of on- and near-campus residences; the incentives used to encourage walking, bicycling, transit use; or disincentives used to discourage driving; and the urban or rural character of the school’s location, among others. Although it is possible to speculate on the effects of these factors on mode split, the influ- ence of these factors is not entirely clear. Some rural campuses may have an advantage when it comes to walking and bicy- cling mode shift opportunities owing to the availability of on- and near-campus residences. The University of Washington, Seattle, has one of the high- est transit mode shares, and also indicates a nearly even split between SOV and walking. As noted in a case study in the following section, it also invests heavily in programs that aim to reduce the mode share of SOVs. University of California– Davis and University of Texas at Austin, two suburban/small urban campuses, have similar transit mode share, but Davis has 16% bicycling mode share, one of the highest reported, while the majority of Austin’s commuters drive SOVs. Sixty percent of commuters to the semi-rural campus of Montana % of Total Respondents Program/Service Ridem atching 60 Preferential Carpool/Vanpool Parking 49 Subsidized Vanpools 31 Guaranteed Ride Hom e Program 56 Flex Hours Program for Em ployees 34 Bike Lockers/Staffed Bike Desk 19 Teleco mmu te Program for Faculty 24 Universal (Free) Transit Passes (U-Pass) 51 Parking Cash-Out 1 n = 68. TABLE 24 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS/SERVICES ARE FORMALIZED AND AVAILABLE TO FACULTY, STAFF, AND/OR STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL? Community Character School % Transit % Car/ Vanpool % Single Occupant Vehicle % Bicycle % Walking % Other University of Washington, Seattle Urban 39 3 25 7 21 5 UC Davis Suburban/ Sm all Urban 15 8 36 16 5 20 University of Texas, Austin Suburban/ Sm all Urban 15 0 75 0 2 8 Montana State University Semi-Rural 1 1 60 5 30 3 TABLE 25 COMMUTING MODE SHARE AT EXAMPLE SCHOOLS

State University drive alone, but 30% walk and another 5% bicycle. BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS Bicycle infrastructure planning, and policies that encourage cycling mode share are an important element of a campus TDM program. Bicycle racks at transit stops and on the front of buses facilitate transfers between bicycle and transit, pos- sibly encouraging a mode shift from automobiles to other modes. Likewise, bike lockers for faculty, staff, and students provide commuters with a secure place to leave their bicycle during the day, simplifying a bicycle commute. The amount of investment in bicycle infrastructure on campus can indicate the level of support for alternative mode travel around the school. Sixty percent of all respondents have bike racks on at least half of their transit vehicles, but only 20% have bike racks positioned at more than half of their transit stops. In general, government/transit agencies provide bike racks at more of their transit stops than do uni- versities. Perhaps this reflects that campuses often provide bicycle racks in front of dorms and other buildings and so do not see the need to offer bicycle parking adjacent to transit stops. Bicycle lockers are formally available at 19% of cam- puses. Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians is also a concern in mixed traffic; the majority of systems (84% of respondents) provide transit drivers with special bicycle or pedestrian safety training. The following case study is based on a tele- phone interview with a representative of the University of Washington, who described the university’s forthcoming elec- tric bicycle program. This case study illustrates an innovative practice in bicycle services on campus. Profile: University of Washington Brings e-Bikes to Campus, Seattle The University of Washington’s (UW) U-PASS program encom- passes a broad suite of TDM programs, of which the unlimited transit pass is just one component. Although the school has made significant strides in reducing SOV commute mode share to campus, for some drivers, having a car on campus means having the mobility at midday to complete errands, attend meetings, or go out for lunch. To address this critical barrier to achieving fur- ther reduced vehicle trips, UW has recently announced that a self-service electric bicycle rental program for its Seattle campus will be launched in autumn of 2008. The program, funded primarily by a performance-based grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), will bring 40 electric bikes to campus at 10 station locations. These “pedal-assist” cycles supplement the rider’s own pedaling with electric assistance, a particularly useful fea- ture on Seattle’s hilly terrain. Bicycles are unlocked from the station using a personal key fob called a GoKey™ (in combina- tion with a typed personal security code) and can be returned to the same station from which they were rented or to another station location. Each station has five extra slots to accommodate an excess of bikes in one place. The per-hour fee is yet to be determined, but is likely to be in the range of about $5/h, with a $1/h discount for U-PASS holders; partial-hour fees will also be available. 26 The system is operated in partnership with Intrago Mobility Corporation, the vendor who will provide the bicycles and station facilities. UW and Intrago Mobility partnered to write the grant application and were awarded up to $225,000 to establish the system, a figure that will be supplemented with in-kind opera- tions and administration contributions from the university. Fifty percent of the funding ($112,500) is available immediately for infrastructure investments, while the remaining 50% is paid based on the number of commute trips reduced. WSDOT defines a commute trip reduction as one round-trip commute no longer made by an SOV, 5 days per week, for a period of 1 year, and values a commute trip reduction at $375. The total goal for the project is the reduction of 534 SOV commute trips (as defined by WSDOT). With the first 50% of the funding used for infra- structure costs, WSDOT will begin paying from the remainder of the award when the number of commute trips reduced exceeds 267. WSDOT bases the goals for this grant program, called the Trip Reduction Performance Program, on a 1-year timeline; UW, however, must complete it by the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2009. The actual commute trip reduction targets are therefore adjusted to account for the shorter performance period. The program is available for all university faculty, staff, and students, who must register directly with Intrago Mobility; eligi- bility verification is provided by UW, but the relationship is between the client and the vendor. To start service, riders watch a training video and pick up a member packet that includes the key fob. When it launches, the pilot program will be the first self-rental electric bicycle system in the world. Some operational aspects are still in the planning phases: • Since the system permits one-way rentals, periodic rebal- ancing of the bikes to keep even numbers at each station is necessary; initially, this will take place daily at the end of the day. Additional rebalancing will be done as needed. Intrago subcontracts to a local scooter rental company, Scoot About, for routine vehicle maintenance as well as the rebalancing. • Riders must supply their own helmets in accordance with Seattle safety law. UW had initially considered providing helmets as a part of the rental, but found that concerns over sanitation and the possibility of imperceptible damage to the helmets that could compromise safety were significant barriers. • Users will not be able to make a reservation to rent the bikes; this first-come first-serve policy may be modified at a later date. To address safety concerns, the bikes, which can travel at up to 20 mph, will be permitted for use only on multi-use paths but not on sidewalks. (In Seattle, regular bicycles are permitted on sidewalks.) (Celeste Gilman, Transportation Systems Manager, University of Washington, personal communication, April 1, 2008.) RELATIONSHIP OF CAMPUS LAND USE POLICIES TO TRANSIT There generally seems to be a lack of integrated, multidisci- plinary planning that takes into account how transit relates to the physical and economic development of the broader community. For example, only half of campuses have poli- cies requiring that transit be considered when planning for new campus buildings, with this more common among gov- ernment/transit respondents than universities. When asked whether transit is considered by policy in the planning for

27 changes to the campus, 68% of government/transit agencies responded affirmatively, although only 46% of schools responded affirmatively. Many of the respondents that consider transit when plan- ning new buildings indicated that transportation representa- tives participate in campus planning meetings or site reviews. For some, city policies, campus master plans, or, in the case of the University of California at Santa Cruz, the state’s envi- ronmental laws (California Environmental Quality Act) require that campus planning address the transportation impact of new developments. According to the Centre Area Trans- portation Authority of State College, Pennsylvania, Penn State “routinely considers transit service in the planning for new buildings on campus. The university also has a Master Plan Transportation Committee that includes transportation staff from various elements of both town and gown.” The technical details of synergistic planning for campus expansion and transit are considered by a number of respon- dents. Two respondents explicitly mentioned that they take into consideration the increased parking demand of the new campus buildings, and evaluate whether additional parking garages must be constructed or whether increasing transit access will yield a better result. Several respondents consider how to serve new buildings with transit, by either expanded transit routes or adding bus stops. At Florida Gulf Coast Uni- versity “additional University Shuttle services are planned as new student housing opens,” and at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, planning for new buildings includes an assessment for the capital costs needed to install passenger amenities at adjacent bus stop locations. COMMUNITY INTEGRATION As noted previously, the campus planning process does not consistently take transportation issues into consideration. On the other hand, campuses do attempt to include a variety of stakeholder parties in the process of planning for the transit systems themselves. The transit provider and school are the primary participants, although riders and local government representatives are included less than half of the time. Not surprisingly, significantly more government/transit agencies reported including local government representatives in the planning process (see Table 26). COMMUNITY RELATIONS Transit is an element of campus and community operations that may offer opportunities to bridge town and gown boundaries. For example, some of the creative community partnerships that have arisen out of the need to provide mobility around the campus area could be viewed as ways to enhance relations between the school and the community in a joint process. In order to gauge the level of satisfaction with community assets, the survey asked a question about the perceived levels of satisfaction among various parties. There are several notable differences in university and government/transit agency per- ceptions of the community’s satisfaction with the transit service, as indicated in Table 27. Fewer universities than government/transit agencies think the community is satisfied with the available transit service. Potentially, this could reveal that the two groups are attuned to different community issues. Or, this could be related to the nature of the systems themselves. Those offered by governments and public transit operators tend to be more focused on service to the wider community, while campus transit systems are strongly oriented toward providing service primarily to campus affiliates. The government/transit agencies overestimate the schools’ satisfaction with their financial contribution to the transit system. Only 18% of schools responding indicated they are satisfied with the public transit operator’s financial contri- bution, and 45% of government/transit agencies believe the schools are satisfied. Similarly, more government/transit agency respondents believe the surrounding community is satisfied with the school’s financial contributions to the transit service than do school respondents. The following example profiles MASCO (Medical Aca- demic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc.), a private transit provider serving multiple campuses including an insti- tutional medical area in Boston, as well as Harvard University. Profile: Meeting Community Needs Through Private Transit, MASCO, Boston, Massachusetts The Longwood Medical Area (LMA) of Boston has long been a dense community of private medical and academic institutions, but it is situated about 3 mi from downtown Boston and the hub of most regional transit services. Access has long been an issue. In 1972, five major LMA hospitals and the Harvard University Medical School jointly asked MASCO to provide joint support and planning services—chief among them was bus service to remote park-and-ride lots for employees and faculty. Harvard also sought to connect its Medical School to the main Harvard campus across the Charles River in Cambridge, and MASCO began running the first “LMA Shuttle.” This route, the M2, was an instant success as it provided a critical cross-town express connection that was not available through the regional transit provider, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (the “T”). Over the years, the M2 has evolved into a commuter shuttle for university staff, faculty, and students that is also open to the % of Total Respondents Participant Transit Provider 84 School (If Not Also the Transit Provider) 75 Riders 45 Local Governm ent 33 Other(s): 13 n = 79. TABLE 26 WHO PARTICIPATES IN THE CAMPUS TRANSIT PLANNING PROCESS?

public for a fare (currently $2.35), operating frequent peak and daily service with up to six 40- and 60-passenger buses. MASCO’s commuter mission has grown over the years with the addition of similar successful commuter shuttles to the Ruggles Orange Line “T” stop and most recently to the JFK Station “T” stop. MASCO’s primary transit service continues to be providing park-and-ride shuttle service into the LMA. It operates over 2,700 remote spaces serving 22 member institutions in the LMA, comprising over 37,000 employees and 13,000 students. MASCO operates 29 buses on 8 routes with a $5.3M annual budget that is financed by $325 per-space-per-month member fees to park in its lots and institutional contributions for the commuter shuttles 28 based on their percentage of ridership. Members fully recognize the value of the shuttle services and continue to approve annual parking rate increases of approximately $25 per year. MASCO now also offers a full suite of TDM services, includ- ing “T” pass subsidy programs and ridesharing. Over the years, other academic institutions have become a part of MASCO and benefit from its transit station commuter shuttles and TDM pro- grams, including Emmanuel College, Massachusetts College of Art, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Simmons College, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Wheelock College, and the Windsor School (D. Eppstein, Vice President for Operations, MASCO, personal interview, April 15, 2008). Unsatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied % Schools % Govít. or Transit Agencies % Schools % Gov’t. or Transit Agencies % Schools % Gov’t. or Transit Agencies % Schools % Gov’t. or Transit Agencies How does the school community & its affiliates rate the quality of the transit service available? 4 4 16 13 48 57 26 26 How does the surrounding community rate the quality of the transit service available? 10 4 16 20 32 56 14 20 How does the school rate the community or local public transit operator’s financial contribution to the transit system? 8 5 14 25 18 45 16 25 How does the surrounding community or local public transit operator rate the school’s financial contribution to the transit system? 6 17 10 17 24 43 24 22 n = 76. TABLE 27 PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS REGARDING VARIOUS PARTIES’ SATISFACTION WITH AVAILABLE TRANSIT

Next: Chapter Five - Technology and "Green" Innovations »
Transit Systems in College and University Communities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 78: Transit Systems in College and University Communities has released a report that explores practices and trends in the areas of campus transit operations, policies, and planning, with a special focus area in technology and environmental innovations. The report also examines innovative partnership strategies used to enhance services for students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!