Blueprint for a Green Campus (2002 Update) 

Table of Contents | Introduction | Climate-Friendly Campus | Growing Without Increasing Traffic | Safe/Healthy Campus | Consumption and Disposal Habits | Greening Building Design and Construction | 2001 Blueprint Update | Original Blueprint  

Growing Without Increasing Traffic

The Vision

CU caps traffic at 2000 levels by growing in such a way that there is no net increase in single occupant vehicle trips by students, faculty and staff.

While this is the vision statement of the Blueprint, which has been endorsed by both the University of Colorado Student Union and the Boulder Faculty Assembly, it has not been formally adopted by the campus. The Blueprint Committee has discussed a modified goal such as, “CU will increase the percentage of trips taken in modes other than single occupant vehicles.” The development of a Transportation and Parking Micro-master Plan, which is discussed below, may allow this goal to be refined.

In addition to the information contained in this chapter, Parking and Transportation Services has provided a detailed report.

Financial Issues

One key factor affecting the mix of parking and transportation alternatives will be the finances of campus transportation. Because expansion of the parking supply requires building new parking structures, usually upon existing surface lots, the cost per net new space can exceed $30,000. As more of the parking inventory shifts to structures, permit fees will have to increase dramatically. Thus, it may well be more cost effective to invest in alternatives. For example, the annual cost of the faculty/staff bus pass is $1,125 per parking space left open due to the program. For comparison, the annual debt service to provide one additional parking space is $2,723 (Appendix 1).

It is also important to remember that the price increases required to build more parking will reduce demand. It is possible for an institution to get in serious trouble by building more than the cost elastic demand for parking. As an example, the University of California at Santa Barbara has decided to expand its parking supply by building a parking structure on "Lot 3". In 2000- 2001, parking permits cost $35/month. However, the UCSB Parking and Transportation Committee projects that permit fees will have to be raised by approximately $100/month over the next 5 years in order to cover the costs of the new garage. In the words of the Committee in their recommendation for the 2001-2002 rate structure, "There's some possibility that extremely high parking fees will lead to a substantial exodus to alternative transportation, a plus from an environmental standpoint, but a serious problem for supporting loan payments for the expensive new garages; e.g., we could even face a "death spiral," in which high rates reduce permit demand leading to even higher rates, etc. The new rates will produce some information on elasticity of demand; should demand prove more elastic than we expect, we may have to rethink the strategy for the future." (UCSB 2001)

The most cost-effective scenario involves some combination of investment in new parking and some level of investment in transportation alternatives. This may require that parking rates be raised not only to pay the cost of providing any new parking that is constructed, but also to pay for a range of transportation alternatives.

This is not simply a theoretical construct. At Stanford University, this approach has allowed the university to add 5 million square feet of new building space with no net increase in vehicle traffic, and at a cost savings compared to a conventional parking supply approach. The University of California-San Diego planned to build 13 new parking structures over a 10-year period to accommodate expected growth. In response to an economic analysis, this has been modified to 6 structures plus TDM measures, eliminating 4,000 planned parking spaces at a net cost savings. Cornell University made the decision to invest in a transportation demand management program, rather than building the 3100 new parking spaces they were originally contemplating. In the ensuing 6 years, they only built 350 spaces. The Cornell transportation department estimates that the campus saved nearly $12 million in the first six years of the program, compared to what would have been spent on an expanded parking supply (Eagan and Keniry 1998).

Progress During 2001-2002

In the last year, two important efforts have either been implemented or are close to implementation:

• In January of 2001 three new high frequency transit services hit the streets - the JUMP, BOUND, and LEAP. These services were created by a partnership between RTD and the City of Boulder, with seed funding from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program. The JUMP and the BOUND serve areas immediately adjacent to campus, and we have seen significant increases in student bus ridership due to these routes. According to RTD statistics (RTD 2002), student ridership on local routes grew from 822,148 trips in 2000 to 933,624 trips in 2001, a 13.6% increase.
• The planning process for the next two high frequency transit services has moved forward. The STAMPEDE and DASH services are scheduled to begin at the start of fall semester 2002. Both will serve the CU campus, with the DASH serving commuters on South Boulder Road and the STAMPEDE linking the main campus and East campus.

Next Steps

There are several campus planning efforts underway, which will have significant impacts in years to come.

Bicycle Facilities:

An ad hoc bicycle facilities improvement group made up of representatives from Parking and Transit services, Facilities Management, and the Environmental Center has been meeting to prioritize potential upgrades to campus bicycle facilities. However, given the current structure of transportation funding on campus, there is little money dedicated to bicycle improvements. The current discussions may lead to some funding for improved bicycle parking, but a dedicated funding source is probably required in order to fund significant improvements, such as the Pleasant Street bikeway.

Transportation and Parking Micro-master Plan:

Parking and Transit Services is beginning the process to develop a Transportation and Parking Micro-master plan. The city of Boulder is also in the process of updating the citywide Transportation Master Plan, so there may be opportunities for joint planning. The campus study may encompass the following elements:

• Develop a TDM plan for the campus.
• Conduct a survey on approaches to address a potential disparity between parking demand and parking supply. The circumstances around this issue have changed in light of both 1) elevated confirmation and retention rates resulting in more students than either Housing or PTS can accommodate, and, 2) proposals to further increase enrollments while removing additional parking supply.
• Develop a range of parking and transportation scenarios examining the interaction of a variety of parking supply and travel demand management/modal shift options for UCB. Continue development of CU Inter-modal Transportation and Information Center project, with bus station, bike station, Broadway and Euclid underpasses and TEA-21 TIP funding request.
• Examine the incentive structure created by the current parking pricing relationships.
• Develop a clearer sense of what it costs the University to serve one additional pedestrian, cyclist, transit rider, car-pooler or SOV user. If we set our pricing to reflect real costs to the University, to the extent that people respond to price signals, their choices will yield a more rational outcome for them and for the University.
• Develop both policy and funding sources to better support the capital investment and operating budget enhancements needed to implement the priorities established in the Master Plan’s modal hierarchy.
• Create a pedestrian facilities development plan.
• Create a bicycle facilities development plan.
• Create a transit facilities development plan.
• Create carpooling, vanpooling and parking facilities development plans.

Williams Village Transportation Plan:

The university, in cooperation with the city, has begun an important transportation planning effort focused on the new student housing which is being developed at Williams Village. Up to 1900 additional student beds are planned at this site. Nelson/Nygaard Associates, consultants in multi-modal transportation, have been retained to conduct the study. The study is examining the appropriate mix of parking and transportation demand management strategies for this development. The study will examine a range of alternatives, from accommodating the maximum possible parking demand on site, to a strategy that maximizes the land available for housing and minimizes the land devoted to parking, instead concentrating on giving residents mobility without car ownership.

There are some interesting issues surrounding parking for residence halls. If parking is paid through rent, this will tend to increase the demand for parking compared to charging a separate parking permit fee. A survey of 23 colleges and universities performed in 2001 showed a range of parking permit fees charged to students living in residence halls, from a minimum of $23/semester to a maximum of $318/semester, with a mean of $91/semester (Daggett 2001).

The decisions made about parking supply will have broad implications for the entire housing development. One major determinant of the land available for housing at a given site is how much land is allocated towards parking. If "free" surface parking is provided, a significant portion of the land set aside for housing may be used to house cars rather than students. The land required will be reduced if the parking is placed in structures, and will be reduced still more if demand is reduced by separating parking permit fees from the general rent.

There is a wide variation in the amount of parking provided for student housing. The University of California at Berkeley provides essentially no parking spaces - you simply can not bring a car if you live in a residence hall. Cornell University requires 0.15-0.25 spaces per student bed. Existing student housing at the University of Colorado-Boulder provides 0.37 spaces/bed, the university is considering providing 0.75 spaces/bed for new housing. At the high extreme, there are some schools which provide more than 1 space/bed. One study performed by Walker Parking Consultants of multiple universities from 1986-1995 showed an average of 0.48 spaces/resident student.

Since surface parking requires about 300 square feet of land per space (about 124 spaces per acre), we can calculate the land demand of these parking requirements. It can be a very significant percentage of the total land available. As an example, for 2 story buildings, assuming 250 square feet of living space per student, a school could fit 280 students /acre with no parking, 176 students/acre at 0.5 parking spaces /bed, and 128 students/acre at 1 parking space/bed (Litman 1999). Under this scenario, requiring 1 space/bed decreases the potential housing by 27% compared to 0.5 spaces/bed!

An alternative approach, of course, will be to provide structured parking. While this will decrease the impact of parking requirements on the number of units that can be provided, it will increase the impact on the price of the housing. We have seen that a parking structure will typically cost $10,000-$20,000/space. If the cost of new residence hall construction is $50,000/bed, then a requirement of 1 parking space per bed will add 20%-40% to the cost of the housing. If this is folded into the base rents, it will represent a significant increase in housing costs for all students - regardless of whether or not they own a car. If it is not included in the rent, and instead residents must rent a parking space, then the parking requirements should reflect the expected reduction in demand at this price.

An interesting approach which has been examined at a few institutions is based on the fact that very few students who live in student housing use their cars daily, but many students store their cars for occasional use and weekend trips. It may be possible to provide this type of mobility through an on campus car rental program that will rent to students, or by a "car-share" program. Easy access to rentals could be cheaper for many of these students than paying the real cost of a space in a parking structure.

On campus car rentals:

This leads to a fourth important planning effort, the plan by Transportation Services to create an on-campus car rental program, which will give students the ability to rent cars easily even if they are under 21 years old. To that end, starting in the fall of 2002, Transportation Services would like to implement a one-stop transportation service that will allow our “customers” (students) to rent vehicles for personal use in the hopes of reducing the number of personal vehicles on campus. They have developed a Request For Proposals soliciting bids from car rental companies. Some excerpts from the RFP describes the program:

“The University is requesting proposals from rental car companies to provide to members of the University community a full range of rental cars (compact through full-size), passenger and cargo vans, and hybrid electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius. The primary use of the rental vehicles will be for personal use. The University Transportation Services department will also use the chosen vendor to supplement its vehicle fleet when additional vehicles are needed for University business purposes.

“Transportation Services would like to implement a one-stop transportation service for its customers. Advertisements for publicity and promotion of rental vehicles through the Transportation Center and the chosen vendor will be placed in local campus publications and in the CU Directory.

“The chosen vendor should provide pick up, drop off, and delivery of vehicles to and from driver's location and/or the Transportation Center.

“The chosen vendor should provide the following types of vehicles: compact, intermediate, Jeep (or other SUV), Suburban (or similar) 2WD and 4WD, minivan, 15 passenger van, and cargo van. Also, the University is especially interested in having access to hybrid electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius.”

Off-campus planning projects affecting CU:

28th Street/US 36: One is the continued progress on developing a multi-modal approach to the 28th Street/US 36 travel corridor. The US 36 Major Investment Study recommended a commuter rail along the Burlington Northern track from 33rd and Pearl in Boulder to Denver Union Station; bus rapid transit from the Table Mesa Park & Ride to Denver; a bikeway to Westminster; and additional general purpose lanes between Broomfield and Denver. The city of Boulder is extending this, in an effort to turn the 28th Street corridor from Baseline Road to Iris into a multimodal corridor. The section immediately east of campus will be the first constructed. This area will see significant improvements for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit including an off-street bike and pedestrian path along the east edge of campus (from Baseline to Arapahoe), improved underpasses under 28th Street, and regional transit along 28th Street which will provide access to Williams Village and the east side of campus.

Longmont Diagonal: Another development is the plan to create high frequency transit service between Boulder and Longmont. This effort, led by the city of Longmont, would provide improved transit service for many students and employees who commute along the Diagonal Highway.

References

• John Daggett, "University Transportation Survey", City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning, 2001
• David Eagan and Julian Keniry, "Green Investment, Green Return: How Practical Conservation Projects Save Millions on America's Campuses", National Wildlife Federation, 1998
• Todd Litman, "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability", Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999
• RTD, 2001 Key 5 Data, Feb 2002
• UCSB Parking and Transportation Committee 2001-2002 Rate Recommendation

Appendix: Comparison of faculty/staff bus pass and parking costs

Let’s take a look at the economics of the faculty/staff bus pass program at the University of Colorado. This program allows each permanent faculty or staff member who is eligible for benefits to ride local and regional buses and light rail by showing their university ID. The program costs $1,125 per parking space left open due to the program. For comparison, the annual debt service to provide one additional parking space is $2,723.

How do we arrive at the cost per parking space left open? For CU, in the year 2001 the total cost of this program is $393,400. This includes the cost of the contract with the Regional Transportation District, the cost of administering the program, and the marketing costs. The university conducts an annual survey to determine how parking behaviors have changed since the advent of the pass program in 1998. The result is that the average number of days each person parks on campus has declined from 2.81/week to 2.47/week, a decrease of 12%. There are 6,250 employees who are eligible for the program, so on an average weekday there are 425 fewer employees parking on campus.

Now comes a subtle point. This does not mean that there are 425 fewer physical spaces required. There are 2 correction factors that must be applied. First, not everyone parks for the entire day, so there is turnover in the same parking space during the day. For the University of Colorado, on the average 1.43 cars will use any given central campus space during one day. The other correction factor that must be applied is the desired occupancy ratio. If occupancy is close to 100%, then drivers will have a difficult time finding free spaces. For this reason campus parking managers generally target some lower occupancy rate. For C.U., this target is 85%. Then, if there are P fewer cars parking each day, a turnover ratio T and an occupancy target O, the actual number of parking spaces avoided (N) is N=(P/T*O). In the C.U. example, this is 425/(1.43*.85), or 350 spaces. The cost per space avoided is then $393,402/350 = $1125.

The annualized cost/net new space for a two level parking structure built on an existing surface lot, by comparison, is $2,723. David Cook, the Transportation Modes Coordinator for Parking and Transit Services, calculated this costs as follows:

Number of spaces in new structure 295 Number of spaces in existing lot 147 Net number of spaces added 147 Cost per space for construction $12,000 Contingency & bond issue costs $3,000 Cost per space to build $15,000 Projected construction cost $4,422,871 Cost for interest $3,605,205 Total cost to build and finance $8,028,076 Annual debt service payments $401,403 Annual cost per added space $2,723

This is a striking result — it costs two and one half times as much to accommodate an additional person parking on campus than to shift one person from driving to riding the bus! The total annual savings to the campus from the faculty/staff bus pass program, compared to providing 350 net new parking spaces, is approximately $550,000.