University of Colorado at Boulder
Transplan 2005 Transportation Master Plan Final Draft
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
CHILDREN'S CENTER
191
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
NAROPA INSTITUTE FAMILY HOUSING
FAMILY HOUSING
EXPANSION
EXPANSION
MARINE STREET
TB68
CENTER
141
ATHENS NORTH COURT
131
COURT
170
145
TB34 19TH STREET
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN
143
125
17TH STREET
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
134
132 133
NEWTON
20TH STREET
MARINE STREET
TB35 AIR MONITORING STATION
FAMILY HOUSING EXPANSION
150 MARINE COURT
ATHENS STREET
136
136 ATHENS COURT
144
295 2 TB82
277
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
281
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
283
INSTITUTE OF
289
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
138 TB57
279
BOULDER CREEK
140 TB49
276
4
288 7
290
269
8
256 280
3
ROCK RETAINING
264
286
265
15TH STREET
13TH STREET
257
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
267
ARMORY
254
1
WALL
TAF T AVE
5 HANDRAIL ON
WALL
R O C K
W A L L
R O C K
W A L L
OLD ROCK WALL
261
IN DISREPAIR
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
T.B.
L L W A
2'
392
DIRT PATH
W A L L
TB12
382
382A
SEWALL
CLARE SMALL
#1
STUDENT
ARTS & SCIENCES
HALL
GROUNDS BUILDING
ATHLETIC
BR
251
389
391
OA
AUDITORIUM
GARAGE
249A
TB09
IVE N DR KLI FRAN
DN
MACKY
MACKY DRIVE
AY DW
244
KOENIG CENTER
393
GREENHOUSE #1
243 ALUMNI
STADIUM DRIVE
395
CENTER
384
PUMP STATION
McKENNA
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
237 CARLSON
PLEASANT STREET
BALCH
PLEASANT STREET
TB67
DAL WARD
RECREATION CENTER
VARSITY LAKE
249
394
DN
C K R O
R O C K
380 CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
386 235 OLD MAIN
HALE SCIENCE
241
HUMANITIES
378
FOLSOM
370
241A
239
387
6
GRANDVIEW AVE.
270
387E
275
287
PRESS BOX
271
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
278
FIELD HOUSE
296
INSTITUTE OF
FRANKLIN
FIELD
FIELD
WOODBURY
373N
FOLSOM STREET
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
373E
MUENZINGER PSYCH
MCD BIOLOGY
245 NORLIN QUADRANGLE
373S
RAMALEY
NORLIN LIBRARY PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
377 STADIUM
LESSER HOUSE
TICKET
STADIUM
455
BUILDING
DN
376
DN
DN DN
212
DN
FINE
ICAL
354
444 OFFICE ADMIN
UNIVERSITY
439
344
MEMORIAL
438
350
LIBBY HALL
BAKER HALL
CENTER
348
346
432
FIELD
REED HALL
202
WARDENBURG DRIVE
484
435
433 458
HALL
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENTAL
FIELD
HEALTH AND SAFETY CENTER
332
AVENUE
324
CHEYENNE
330 HALLETT HALL
HALL
16TH STREET
OBSERVATORY FIELD
G RE
LOOP DRIVE
T EN
E IV DR
COORS EVENTS
INSTITUTE OF
CONFERENCE
BEHAVIORAL
CENTER
17
TH
REGENT ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
SCIENCE
050
WILLARD
ST
RE ET
15TH STREET
ARAPAHO HALL
COCKERELL DRIVE
WILLARD
326
WARDENBURG
327
EUCLID
CHEMICAL
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
SOUTH TOWER
BUSINESS
334
CLUB
CROSMAN HALL
FARRAND IMIG MUSIC
EUCLID AVENUE
UNIVERSITY
434
SCIENCE
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
482
338
336
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
FARRAND
I.T.L.L.
445
432S
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
346
209
CIVIL
STORES/LABS COMPUTER
BAKER DRIVE BAKER HALL
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
COLLEGE
436
430
208
447
ELECTRICAL
BRACKETT
355S
340
TELECOMM
ADO
493
D.L.C.
440
369
COCKERELL
14TH STREET
210
COLOR
PUMP STATION
441
MECHAN-
230
ARTS
1030 13TH ST
494 AEROSPACE
MATH
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET
WOLLE
205 HENDERSON MUSEUM
363
REGENT DRIVE
SIBELL
224 221A TB40
DENISON
BUILDING
SCIENCES
355
CHEMISTRY
228 207
TORIES
442
339
EDUCATION
211
GAS REG.
EARTH
ADEN
COLLECTIONS COLLEGE AVENUE
COLORADO AVENUE
LABORA-
J.I.L.A.
CRISTOL
POWER HOUSE
221
HELLEMS
MUSEUM
18TH STREET
217
DUANE
357
MENTAL
215
BENSON
PHYSICS
L.A.S.P.
225
DESIGN
226
CLASSROOMS
SCIENCES DN
ENVIRON-
DANCE
218 ECONOMICS
INFO BOOTH
359
232
KETCHUM
LIBBY DRIVE
EKELEY
HUNTER
THEATRE &
216
13TH STREET
420
9
309
924 BDWY
312 BR OAD W AY
10
048
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
418 REGENT DRIVE
SLHS
AURORA AVENUE
E. AURORA AVE.
414 FISKE PLANETARIUM
416
412
SOMMERS-BAUSCH OBSERVATORY
KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
410 ANDREWS ROAD
KITTREDGE WEST
COMMONS
408
KITTREDGE
BUCKINGHAM
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE FIELD
28TH STREET
405
SMITH
FLEMING LAW
411
KITT RED
409
GE
407
LOOP
20TH STREET
19TH STREET
ARNETT
18TH STREET
12TH STREET
COLORADO AVE
DN
UNIVERSITY
C.I.R.E.S.
GUGGENHEIM
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
University of Colorado at Boulder DRAFT Main Campus Service Map
October 2005 BASELIN
E ROAD
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose of this Plan.................................................................................................................. ES-1 Key Issues................................................................................................................................. ES-1 Existing Conditions: Key Findings........................................................................................... ES-4 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. ES-13 Implementation..................................................................................................................... ES-20 Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose of this Plan.................................................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Scope................................................................................................................................. 1-3 The Planning Process.................................................................................................................. 1-3 Where We Are Today................................................................................................................. 1-5 Key Issues................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Existing Conditions: Key Findings............................................................................................. 1-9 Plan Implementation................................................................................................................ 1-12 Chapter 2: Auto Parking and Circulation............................................................................... 2-1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 2-1 User Findings............................................................................................................................. 2-5 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 2-6 Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................................... 2-8
Chapter 4: Shared Infrastructure Improvements................................................................... 4-1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 4-1 User Findings............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 4-1 Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................................... 4-3 Chapter 5: Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................. 5-1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 5-1 User Findings ............................................................................................................................ 5-2 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 5-2 Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................................... 5-3 Chapter 6: Pedestrian Environment...................................................................................... 6-1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 6-1 User Findings............................................................................................................................. 6-2 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 6-2 Proposed Solutions . .................................................................................................................. 6-3
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Table of Contents
Chapter 3: Transit Service..................................................................................................... 3-1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 3-1 User Findings............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 3-4 Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................................... 3-5
Page
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page ii
Chapter 7: Service and Emergency Access and Circulation................................................... 7-1 Existing Conditions and User Findings...................................................................................... 7-1 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 7-1 Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................................... 7-2 Chapter 8: Funding Mechanisms............................................................................................ 8-1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 8-1 User Findings............................................................................................................................. 8-1 Industry Best Practices............................................................................................................... 8-1 Parking Pro Forma..................................................................................................................... 8-2 Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................................... 8-6 Chapter 9: Evaluation and Implementation.......................................................................... 9-1 Qualitative Evaluation Matrix.................................................................................................... 9-1 Implementation....................................................................................................................... 9-10
Table of Figures Figure ES-1 CU Boulder Mode Split.......................................................................................... ES-4 Figure ES-2 Main Campus Spaces/Population........................................................................... ES-5 Figure ES-3 Student Parking Permit Sales.................................................................................. ES-6 Figure ES-4 Percentage of Students Buying Permits in Any Given Month.................................. ES-6 Figure ES-5 Parking Cost........................................................................................................... ES-7 Figure ES-6 Student Parking Fees in 2002$............................................................................... ES-8 Figure ES-7 Faculty/Staff Parking Prices in 2002$...................................................................... ES-8 Figure ES-8 Fee vs. No Direct Fee Parking................................................................................. ES-9 Figure ES-9 Annual Student Ridership..................................................................................... ES-10 FIgure ES-10 Faculty/Staff Who Bike to Work at Least One Day Per Week During a Typical Work Week.............................................................................................. ES-11 Figure ES-11 Walking Vs. Drive Alone Campus Master Plan.................................................... ES-12 Figure ES-12 Cost per Trip by Mode.......................................................................................... ES-12 Figure ES-13 Main Campus Potential Future Parking................................................................ ES-15 Figure ES-14 Main Campus Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors................................................... ES-16 Figure ES-15 Main Campus Service Map................................................................................... ES-17 Figure ES-16 Implementation Summary Matrix........................................................................ ES-20 Estimated Cumulative Parking “Need”..................................................................... 2-2 User Fee for Parking: By the Hour ........................................................................... 2-4 Program Costs per New Commuter . ....................................................................... 2-4 Web Survey Findings: Priority Transportation Improvements.................................. 2-5 Underutilized Parking Lots....................................................................................... 2-9 Potential Parking Structure Sites............................................................................. 2-15 Program Summary Evaluation Charts..................................................................... 2-17 Summary of Automobile and Parking Projects ....................................................... 2-18
Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-7
Percentage of Off-Campus Residents Living within a Quarter Mile of Transit.......... 3-1 2002 Average Daily CU Student Pass Boardings....................................................... 3-2 CU Student RTD Bus Pass Boarding Trends: 1992 2002 ..................................... 3-3 City of Boulder Transit Plan Map............................................................................. 3-9 Summary of Transit Projects................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 4-1: Summary of Shared Infrastructure Projects................................................................... 4-5 Figure 5-1
Faculty/Staff Who Bike to Work at Least One Day per Week during a Typical Work Week..................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2 Summary of Bicycle Programs.................................................................................. 5-5 Figure 5-3 Draft Campus Bikeway and Pedestrian Map............................................................. 5-7
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Table of Figures
Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8
Page iii
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page iv
Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2
Faculty/Staff Who Walk to Work at Least One Day per Week During a Typical Week.......................................................................................................... 6-1 Summary of Pedestrian Recommendations............................................................... 6-4
Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2
Potential Service Vehicle Corridors........................................................................... 7-5 Summary of Service Vehicle Recommendations........................................................ 7-7
Figure 8-1 Figure 8-2 Figure 8-3 Figure 8-4 Figure 8-5
Projected Campus Population................................................................................... 8-3 Projected Campus Vehicle Trips................................................................................ 8-4 Estimaed Future Parking Need: No Fee Increase...................................................... 8-4 Adjusted Parking Need at 10% Annual Fee Increase................................................. 8-5 Summary of Funding Recommendations.................................................................. 8-7
Figure 9‑1 Figure 9‑2
Evaluation Matrix By Chapter.................................................................................. 9-2 Evaluation Matrix by Cost Benefit............................................................................ 9-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of this Plan
There are Specific Opportunities to Better The following plan is designed to define the future Utilize Existing Parking Overall, the Parking and Transportation Services Division efficiently manages the existing campus parking supply, balancing the demand for permit holders who use PTS-controlled lots, which comprise a majority of campus parking supply. However, according to recent utilization surveys, on a typical day there are about 2,400 empty parking spaces at the Main Campus, East Campus and Research Park. With a maximum effective parking lot capacity of around 85%, however, not all of these spaces can be put to use. Taking all the lots with a vacancy rate of 25% or greater, and counting half the remaining capacity, there are approximately 760 spaces where utilization potentially could be increased. That is, PTS could reasonably sell an additional 760 permits for these areas, assuming they could arrange access from the organizations that control these spaces.
Most of these empty parking spaces are in the Family Housing areas, Research Park and Williams Village. Some of these spaces will not be available over the long term, particularly as development increases at Williams Village and the Research Park. Access to other spaces would require negotiations with Family Housing or Research Park leaseholders. Nevertheless, it may be possible for PTS to sell up to an additional 760 permits, while still alKey Issues lowing commuters to easily find a space in a given The Existing Conditions Report, stakeholder inter- lot. Simply better utilizing existing pavement may views, web survey and discussions with the Advi- allow CU to defer construction of a new garage sory Committee and Management Team revealed until beyond 2015, or until existing empty spaces a long list of issues that the Transportation Master are needed for other purposes. Plan should address. Among the key issues are:
Executive Summary
of parking and transportation investments for the University of Colorado at Boulder over the next two decades. This CU Boulder Transportation Master Plan, hereafter referred to as Transplan 2005 or Transplan, is to serve as a “roadmap” of comprehensive strategies and implementation programs designed to meet the diverse transportation needs of university affiliates and visitors as they move to, from, and around the CU Boulder Campus. It was developed over a 24 month period with broad input from community stakeholders including university faculty, staff, students, visitors, as well as policymakers, staff and citizens of the City of Boulder. Existing conditions were measured and compiled in a detailed Existing Conditions Report that informs this plan. Specifically, Transplan 2005 offers short, medium, and long-term strategies to address the numerous issues that may arise as the campus grows and develops, surface parking is consumed by new buildings, and daily commuting needs evolve. The results of the plan will include prioritized programs and policies based on current trends and broad sentiment among stakeholders. Implementation should serve to provide safe and efficient access to campus for all modes of transportation in a broadly utilized and cost-effective manner.
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-1
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page ES-2
There are Opportunities to Employ Price Controls and Technology to Further Enhance Parking Supply Utilization
parking space will cost approximately $2,000 a year over the term of debt financing for the facility (typically 20 years). This is difficult to recover PTS’s management of its parking supply means that from existing fees, and so funding must be accrued permit holders can almost always find a space in over long time periods or gathered by other means, their assigned lot. PTS’s relatively flat rate struc- as the State of Colorado General Fund does not ture, however, means that motorists are assigned support CU Boulder parking development. parking primarily based upon affiliation status, Community Transit Network and EcoPass rather than market pricing and their own choice. Programs are Successful, and Funding The result is that there are certain more distant lots Stability can be Improved that have a great excess in capacity, and there are many close-in lots where there is a waiting list for Boulder has one of the most successful transit permits. A sharper fee gradient would allow CU systems of any city of its size and density in the to take better advantage of its underutilized spaces. country, and CU Boulder benefits greatly from it. Visitor parking is another area that could benefit The system works because it is fast, frequent and from such a program. As commuters are linked reliable, serving most of the corridors where CU to underutilized parking, spaces can be freed up in commuters are densely concentrated. Approxicore locations to better serve the visitor population. mately 20% of CU commuters use transit to get to PTS has already begun a pilot project of low-cost campus on a given day. Moreover, at $200-$300 a peripheral parking, and has raised fees modestly year per commuter, the EcoPass program has been at meters and visitor lots to dissuade long-term one of CU’s most cost-effective investments, saving millions in avoided parking structure construction parking in visitor spaces. costs. Technology such as the planned radio-frequency access control system, variable message signs, and The successful support for regional initiatives such electronic lot counting systems are excellent ways as the Fastracks Plan illustrates that consumers and to control access on a per user basis and support organizations from throughout the Front Range the extension of existing parking supply. The first share these transit benefits and are willing to suptwo items are currently in the planning and devel- port network extension. However, both the Community Transit Network and the EcoPass program opment stages at CU Boulder. are continually faced with budget concerns and fee increases to the Regional Transit District (RTD), Financing New Parking Structures in the due in part to rising operational costs. Moreover, Future may be Expensive As the CU Boulder campus grows and new build- several of the more successful Community Transit ings displace existing surface parking lots, financing Network routes were established with one-time new parking structures under the current funding start-up funds, and they must now be funded dimechanism could require significantly higher park- rectly by the local community. In order to maintain ing permit fees. At $18,000 per space in construc- existing service levels – as well as implemented tion costs (2004 dollars), each net new structured desired improvements – Boulder’s transit service
efficiency, while already good, will have to continue point for the campus, the improvement of trafto improve, and new ongoing funding parameters fic level of service flows at the campus perimeter and sources must be identified. (especially Broadway), enhanced access for daily commutes and special events, and CU’s anchor Campus Parking Policies can be Better facility for bus rapid transit and other services Coordinated Campus-wide in the future. Any such development will likely While Parking and Transportation Services controls require multiple phases, federal funding, and may about 80% of the parking on the CU campus, include area street redevelopment as well. It is significant supplies are managed by other depart- in the interest of CU to lead in the development ments, including Family Housing, Bear Creek at of this plan in close cooperation with the City of Williams Village, Athletics, various entities at the Boulder and RTD. Research Park, and a variety of other groups. The result is a sometimes inefficient use of campus parking resources. Unified management of the campus parking inventory can enhance the efficiency of its use.
CU Boulder Needs a Dedicated System of Funding Partnership for New Pedestrian, Bike, and Service Access Routes
Executive Summary
Due to deferred maintenance, some CU pavement has degraded to the point where total reconstrucCU Boulder Should Develop a Transit tion is now necessary. This deferred maintenance Circulation Plan leading to one or more problem is primarily a result of budget shortfalls Multi-Phased Transit Centers or Transit and restrictions that have limited the availability Mall Development of maintenance and improvement funding for Past efforts have identified the need for a transit certain campus pathways, especially those that center and routing plan that can anticipate and are heavily used by a variety of departments and carry larger volumes of bus traffic more quickly outside vendors. and efficiently to and around the campus. This has included the proposal of a multi-modal transit Bike, Pedestrian and Service Vehicle center spanning Broadway in the heavily populated Circulation can be Better Planned, activity area surrounding the University Memorial Funded, Coordinated and Improved Center. To date, the campus includes a number of Campus stakeholders were nearly unanimous in bus circulation and loading areas, including the identifying bicycle, pedestrian and service vehicle use of the 18th/Colorado closure area as a de facto conflicts and confusion among their top concerns transit mall. CU will soon be served by the first about the physical campus. While many stakeholdplanned “Super Stop” on 28th Street. However, ers separated their concerns by particular mode, the as RTD develops the Fastracks/US 36 Bus Rapid issue is the same: the campus pathway and service Transit component, the campus will clearly need vehicle system has not kept up with growth and additional Super Stops. CU transit center planning changing circulation patterns. In general, the oldcould be an important step in achieving a variety est part of campus was developed without defined of goals, including the provision of a transit focal loading areas, and some of the 1970s development
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-3
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
on campus lacks sufficient space for circulation and loading at the volumes that occur today.
Existing Conditions: Key Findings
Some high-volume pathways on campus are Twelve principal findings of the Existing Condimarked for shared bicycle, service, and pedestrian tions Report are listed below, including important travel, yet are too narrow to support intended details that influenced the recommendations in traffic volumes. In other areas, major gaps exist this report: along logical and customary travel corridors. Other major travel routes are more accommodating, yet CU Boulder Mode Split may be full of parked service vehicles. Limited • 30-40% of campus affiliates drive alone to work or school at CU Boulder. guidance is provided as to where bike, pedestrians or service vehicles should travel, exacerbating the • This compares to 70-80% of the general public in the US and 58% among downtown conflicts where right-of-way is tight. There is a employees in the City of Boulder. Bicycle Dismount Zone in the densest core areas • Shifting more CU commuters from single of campus which is difficult to enforce due to a occupant vehicles to other modes will be lack of perceived bike route alternatives. Similarly, PRINT THIS DOCUMENT TO “PRESS QUALITY” PDF increasingly difficult and expensive. there have been attempts to keep service vehicles out of the core of campus, but access rules are Figure ES-1 CU Boulder Mode Split often flaunted and definition of alternative routes Drive is lacking. Even with a detailed map, wayfinding Alone 29% by any mode is difficult, since there are few street signs, no addresses and a general lack of identifiers for buildings or key places.
Creative Solutions are needed to Fund New Improvements Restrictions on uses of various funds, increased pressure on the few remaining fungible sources and other financial difficulties have placed severe limitations on CU’s ability to raise money for any transportation improvements. University departments that manage outdoor spaces have begun to coordinate improvements more closely, and this approach should be expanded to larger areas, including projects at the campus perimeter involving the city and RTD. In larger projects with regional impacts, the Transplan should offer a good foundation for federal and regional investment with an existing, broad-based consensus. Page ES-4
Other 71%
Campus Master Plan Mode Split Pedestrians 30% Automobile Driver 41%
Automobile Passenger 8%
Transit 10%
Bicycles 11%
1999 Master Plan Transportation Element Mode Split
Commute Distances/Times
• 57% of off-campus student residents live within 4 miles of Main Campus. • 48% of faculty/staff live within 4 miles of Main & East Campuses. • Increasing housing prices are causing people to live farther away from CU, limiting mode choices for those commuters. • Projects like Bear Creek at Williams Village may alleviate some of the pressure of longer commutes.
Parking Supply/Demand
• CU parking supply and demand are fairly well balanced. • The majority of the parking supply is well managed, although there are opportunities to improve management of visitor parking and extend the use of existing parking.
ES-2•
Growth in the parking supply has been slower than the growth in CU population.
Executive Summary
Main Campus Spaces/Population
Figure ES-2 Main Campus Spaces/Population 0.23
0.25 0.20
0.21
0.19
0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1990
1998
2003
Source: Space Data – PTS Population Data – Campus Master Plan + Facilities Management
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-5
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Parking Supply/Demand
• The number and percentage of students demanding parking permits has grown.
ES-3
Student Parking Permit Sales Figure ES-3 Student Parking Permit Sales 5,731
5,800
5,593
5,600 5,400
5,251
5,200 5,000
4,869
4,965
1997
1998
5,149
4,800 4,600 4,400 1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: PTS ES-4
% students buying permits in any given month Figure ES-4 Percentage of Students Buying Permits in Any Given Month 25% 20% 16%
16%
16%
17%
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
20%
20%
FY97
FY98
21%
22% 20%
21%
20%
15% 10% 5% 0%
Source: Population Data – Campus Master Plan + Facilities Management Permit Data – PTS
Page ES-6
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
Parking Displacement & Costs
• Main campus surface parking will be lost to new development. • Replacement parking will be required in more expensive structured or satellite parking facilities.
ES-5
• Providing replacement, structured parking will cost CU nearly 5 times the current cost to park one CU affiliate per year.
Figure ES-5 Parking Cost
Parking Cost
$2,500
$2,152
$2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500
$378
Est. Cost Per Round Trip Accomodated
Est. NEW Cost Per Round Trip Accomodated
Source: PTS
Executive Summary
$-
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-7
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Parking Fees
• In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of some types of parking permits has increased modestly in recent years. • The cost of other types has actually declined.
• Faculty/staff who pay for parking using the pre-tax deduction have enjoyed a significant ES-6 decline in parking fees.
Student Parking Fees in 2002$ Figure ES-6 Student Parking Fees in 2002$ $160
$145
$140
$112
$120 $100
$84
$80 $60 $40
$140 $136
$89 1997 2002
$28 $38
$20 $0 Motorcycle
Gravel
Less Proximate
Proximate
Source: PTS, converted to 2002$ using Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI ES-7
Faculty/Staff Parking Prices in 2002$
Figure ES-7 Faculty/Staff Parking Prices in 2002$ $40
$36 $37
$35
$29 $31
$30 $25
$22
$20 $15 $10
$7
$24 1996 2002
$10
$5 $0 Motorcycle
Gravel
Source: PTS, converted to 2002$ using Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI
Page ES-8
Less Proximate
Proximate
Parking Fees • About 25% of the parking supply is provided so that users pay no direct fees to park. ES-8
Figure ES-8 Fee vs. No Direct Fee Parking No Direct Fee 26%
Fee Spaces 74% Family Housing 28%
Research Park 41%
Disabled, Reserved & Motorcycle 4%
PTS S/S/F Permit 77%
Executive Summary
Other Departments 13%
Research Properties 7% Service 11%
Other Departments 7%
Short Term 12%
Source: PTS Parking Inventory
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-9
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
• CU is served by one of the best-used transit systems in the US, although funding is under pressure. • CU affiliate transit ridership trends indicate that this demand has not yet peaked. • Student and staff/faculty ridership was at its highest in history when last counted in 2002.
ES-9
Figure ES-9 Annual Student Ridership LOCAL
REGIONAL*
SKYRIDE*
1600000 50747
1400000 47624
Annual Student Boardings
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Transit Ridership
1200000 22532
288809
39072 252809
1000000 5352
800000 600000
30060
182312
179579
253301
255339
201168
215758
182373
244726
209331 1071004
400000 557764
662896
667814
604210
535429
809646
813111
822148
1998
1999
2000
933624
648426
200000 0 1992
Source: RTD Key 5 Data
Page ES-10
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
2001
2002
Transit Access
• Regional Transit District and Community Transit Network routes have been well planned to serve the densest pockets of CU affiliate residents throughout Boulder and Denver counties. • About 69% of students, staff and faculty live within ¼ mile of transit routes that provide direct service to Boulder. • Pedestrian linkages to these routes may not always be optimal to increase transit ridership. • The success of the Stampede has proven that some specific needs are still unfilled in local areas that are otherwise well-served by transit.
Bicycling Trends
• Approximately 23% of all CU students bike to campus.
• Approximately 13% of faculty/staff bike to ES-10 campus at least one day a week.
OneCard (from Buff OneCard Survey WinterSurvey 2002)Winter 2002)
80%
Percent responding
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
10 10
8
12 12
14
12 11
17
16 15
20 14
19 13
17
13 6
0% March 1998
October 1998
1999
Total
n = 480
n = 501
2000 Staff
n = 489
2001
2002
n = 506
n = 503
Faculty
n = 504
Executive Summary
FIgure ES-10 Faculty/Staff Who Bike to Work at Least One Day Per Week a Typical Week Faculty/StaffDuring Who Bike to Work atWork Least One Day Per Week during a Typical Work Week (from Buff
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-11
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Pedestrian Trends
• About 30% of CU affiliates walk to campus on a daily basis.
Funding Concerns
• Available funding sources for campus transportation improvements are severely constrained.
• About 50% of students walk to campus on a daily basis.
• Specific concerns about CU’s ability to maintain its existing programs and continue making new investments include:
• The percentage of students walking to campus has held fairly steady over the last 10 years.
How to fund new alternative programs,
• Faculty/staff pedestrian trips to campus have declined slightly since 1998.
How to fund CU’s internal bicycle & pedestrian network,
Fig ES-11 Walking Vs. Drive Alone
How to fund increasing faculty/staff EcoPass program costs,
Figure ES-11 Walking Vs. Drive Alone Campus Master Plan
How to fund new parking development, How to maintain the existing short hop transit network (especially Stampede and HOP), and, How to expand the Community Transit Network.
Project Funding Alternatives
• Preliminary analysis suggests that it will be less expensive to accommodate a limited number of new trips in alternative modes than with parking.
On-Campus Circulation
• Funding sources will be scarce for any modal TO “PRESS QUALITY” PDF improvements. • Campus stakeholders agreed that CU’s PRINT THIS DOCUMENT investment in its bicycle and pedestrian network has not kept pace with growing Figure ES-12 Cost per Trip by Mode demand. • There are significant on-campus mode conflicts between autos, service vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes that jeopardize travel safety and efficiency.
2500
$2152 2000
Parking
1500
F/S EcoPass $870
1000
500
0
$378 $324 $351
Bicycling Pedestrian
Est. Cost Per Round Trip Accomodated
Source: PTS
Page ES-12
$424
Student EcoPass
Est. NEW Cost Per Round Trip Accomodated
Recommendations During the collection of information for the Existing Conditions Report, the consultant team solicited ideas for improvements to CU’s transportation systems from various campus stakeholders, the Project Management Team and the Advisory Committee. These ideas were then distilled into a set of 55 recommendations that best addressed the Key Findings and Key Issues described above. These recommendations also follow from feedback at the CU Boulder Faculty Assembly, Residence Hall Association and community open houses. Moreover, two web surveys for the project produced over 7,000 responses, covering a wide variety of faculty, staff, students, visitors and members of the general public.
Auto Circulation and Parking (Chapter 2) • A1. Extend CU Boulder’s existing parking supply – Many lots are not fully utilized (even on Main Campus). Identify low-use portions of existing parking lots, and manage the system to direct users to these available spaces – e.g. roof of Regent Autopark, Kittredge Lot 416 (near Coors Center). • A2. Continue to promote lower cost alternatives to parking such as transit, biking and walking – Analyze each alternative and evaluate the cost/benefit. One new SOV (single occupant vehicle) in a structured parking space will cost 4-5 times as much to accommodate as one new EcoPass transit rider. • A3. Plan carefully for new parking development – use a forecasting model (provided in Transplan ) and lot counts to facilitate highly targeted planning for new replacement park-
• A4. Manage parking supply to promote greater consistency of service/price/value – PTS controls about 80% of on-campus parking supply. Consider unifying management of all spaces under one system to promote efficiency and consistency. • A5. Determine optimal parking fees based on cost and convenience for parking under the unified management structure above. • A6. Rationalize pricing and policies to promote consistency – Synthesis of A4 and A5. • A7. Balance parking demand among areas of campus and introduce more choice – Create a tiered pricing model that maintains efficient space utilization, offers commuters (especially lower-paid employees) affordable parking options, and helps to maintain adequate visitor parking supply. • A8. Lease surplus parking – in appropriate and available locations. • A9. Develop a parking and circulation plan – use the parking map and Campus Master Plan as a base, and place long-term parking at the perimeter, while improving visitor direction and access. • A10. Use technology to achieve above goals – variable message signs, access card, and lot count systems. • A11. Consider shared parking opportunities, for example between day and night or by day of week in a given location. • A12. Implement Broadway/18th/Euclid street improvements to provide more efficient circulation to, from, and around campus while enhancing access and visibility to CU’s major “front door” (UMC/University Club). This includes coordination with the City of Boulder to enhance pedestrian safety and vehicle levels of service at the most congested CU intersections along Broadway.
Executive Summary
A brief summary of the recommendations is provided below. Each section summarizes a chapter in the body of the report, where more detail can be found.
ing when and where appropriate to avoid major dislocations and service disruptions.
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-13
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Transit Service (Chapter 3) • T1. Maintain and support existing Community Transit Network and EcoPass programs – they have been cost-effective and useful to CU. • T2. Develop a transit circulation plan for the campus that facilitates efficient and comprehensive bus/shuttle circulation, to, from, and around CU campuses. • T3. Support transit prioritization measures such as bus lanes, on Broadway, 28th, US 36, Euclid/18th, Colorado, Regent, and Folsom north of Colorado in conjunction with Fastracks and other major investment programs. • T4. Implement planned Superstops and Nextbus signs. • T5. Plan for a multi-modal CU Transit Center and/or Transit Mall in coordination with T5. • T6.Support FasTracks implementation to serve CU effectively, including Bus Rapid Transit on 28th Street and Broadway. • T7. Improve Special Event Transit Options - such as Park and Ride to games. • T10. Expand the EcoPass Program – e.g. to University tenants, retirees, and regular visitors. • T11. Use CU affiliate origin/destination data collected in the planning process to help RTD and the City/County of Boulder to improve Community Transit Network service on specific routes. • T12. Work with the City, County, and RTD to explore the implementation of a new comprehensive transit system plan including improved performance standards and some route and service improvements. • T13.Support local consensus with RTD by creating a new local oversight body to guide local priorities and raise local funds.
Page ES-14
Shared Infrastructure Improvements (Chapter 4) • I1. Create a clear circulation hierarchy – define main roads, service lanes, service alleys, restricted service lanes, cartways, bike/pedestrian paths, main walkways, secondary walkways. • I2. Create a multi-use pathway system for pedestrians, bikes, and smaller service vehicles such as electric carts. • I3. Provide names for corridors and street signs. • I4. Buildings should all have physical addresses clearly posted in consistent locations. • I5. Create and implement a unified wayfinding (directional and informational sign) system for visitors and to identify service access routes. • I6. Define project management structures and funding plans for the development and maintenance of all campus corridors. • I7. Consider traffic flow improvements such as variable four-way traffic sensor systems and grade-separated crossings where congestion is highest and the greatest pedestrian safety concerns exist, e.g. Regent Drive at Fiske Planetarium.
Bicycle Facilities (Chapter 5) • B1. Continue to upgrade the East-West Bikeway. • B2. Continue to upgrade and add bike parking in convenient locations. • B3. Create a North-South Bikeway linking to the City of Boulder Bikeway System, e.g. along Folsom corridor. • B4.Complete a bike path north of the Stadium. • B5. Expand bike commuter support – i.e. shower facilities, additional bike checkout locations.
1
254
276 7
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
4
6
277
275
GRANDVIEW AVE.
12TH STREET
COLLEGE AVENUE
TB82
278
279
280
283
8
286
PLEASANT STREET
CENTER
ALUMNI
KOENIG
EUCLID
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
1030 13TH ST
288
287
290
289
212
HALE SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
257
281
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
249A
GARAGE
249
13TH STREET
INSTITUTE OF
261
264
251
AVENUE
211
COLLECTIONS
MUSEUM
215
216
GUGGENHEIM
PUMP STATION
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
VARSITY LAKE
235
15TH STREET
265
DN
DN
THEATRE &
UNIVERSITY
237
5
267
McKENNA
269
207
DN
DN
DENISON
217
218
DANCE
DN
239
DN
OLD MAIN
DN
243
HENDERSON MUSEUM
TB40
221A
HELLEMS
241
208
221
NORLIN QUADRANGLE
WOODBURY
AUDITORIUM
MACKY
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN CENTER
205
CENTER
MEMORIAL
CLUB
131
136
224
202
#1
T.B.
FINE
W A L L
ON WALL
WALL
228
209
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
R O C K
232
ARTS & SCIENCES
WOLLE ARTS
R O C K
HANDRAIL
ROCK RETAINING
OLD ROCK WALL
230
TELECOMM
210
IN DISREPAIR
382
L L W A
W A L L
C K R O
R O C K
W A L L
ATHENS COURT
DIRT PATH
370
2'
373N
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
384
IMIG
334
MUSIC
AURORA AVENUE
312
BDWY
386
L.A.S.P.
355S
924
DN
CARLSON
BR OA DW AY
324
WARDENBURG
344
354
MUENZINGER PSYCH
150 MARINE COURT
BOULDER CREEK
STUDENT
144
20TH STREET RECREATION CENTER
TB35
145
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
140 TB49
TB57
138
TB34
EXPANSION
FAMILY HOUSING
CLARE SMALL
382A
19TH STREET KETCHUM
SIBELL
EUCLID AVENUE
245
NORLIN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
CHEMISTRY
225
UNIVERSITY
CRISTOL
226
SCIENCES
EKELEY
241A
HUMANITIES
244
HALL
SEWALL
GREENHOUSE #1
380
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
136
ATHENS STREET
MACKY DRIVE
141
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
CHEYENNE
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
STADIUM
REGENT
309
ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
WARDENBURG DRIVE
FIELD
ARAPAHO HALL
326
BAKER DRIVE
346
TORIES
LABORA-
PHYSICS
359
FIELD
FOLSOM
389
CENTER
ATHLETIC
DAL WARD
AIR MONITORING STATION
COLORADO AVE
BAKER HALL
346 FARRAND
BAKER HALL
DUANE
387
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
357
387E
WILLARD
LIBBY HALL
REGENT DRIVE
HALL
378
EARTH
FARRAND
HALL
LOOP DRIVE
348
363
SCIENCES
TB67
BUILDING
TICKET
STADIUM
377
395
IVE DR
HALLETT HALL
350
BRACKETT
FIELD
TB09
330
369
MATH
STADIUM DRIVE
170
COURT
NEWTON
FRANKLIN
NKLIN
393
FRA
BUILDING
GROUNDS
394
391
191
CENTER
CHILDREN'S
BENSON
INFO BOOTH
376
392 TB12
University of Colorado at Boulder DRAFT Potential Future Parking Expansion Areas
Lots 319-329/306-308
Euclid AutoPark expansion/Lot 204
Grandview Area (limited by agreement with City of Boulder
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PLEASANT STREET
3
256
270
271
13TH STREET
INSTITUTE OF
14TH STREET
ARMORY
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
295
ECONOMICS
2
EDUCATION
296
15TH STREET
17TH STREET 16TH STREET
ATHENS NORTH COURT
RAMALEY
125
C.I.R.E.S.
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
DN
18TH STREET
TB68
FIELD HOUSE
143
ENVIRON-
373E
134
LIBBY DRIVE
MARINE STREET
HUNTER
373S DESIGN
132
POWER HOUSE
MENTAL
355 J.I.L.A.
BALCH MCD BIOLOGY
133
WILLARD
NAROPA INSTITUTE
339
MARINE STREET
ADEN
EXPANSION
332
338
340
FAMILY HOUSING
18TH STREET
COCKERELL
EXPANSION
17 TH
336
407
KITTREDGE WEST
414
OBSERVATORY FIELD
405
FLEMING LAW
434
STORES/LABS
CIVIL
408
COMMONS
OBSERVATORY
418
EN REG
E IV DR
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE
410
T
FIELD
BUSINESS
435
SLHS
SOMMERS-BAUSCH
416
SOUTH TOWER
433
436
438
ADMIN
444
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
439
441
AEROSPACE
OFFICE
440
442
TAF T AVE
FISKE PLANETARIUM
432S
SCIENCE
COMPUTER
432
ICAL
MECHAN-
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CLASSROOMS
FAMILY HOUSING
RE ET ST
327
CROSMAN HALL REED HALL KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
FOLSOM STREET COCKERELL DRIVE
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
ANDREWS
445
I.T.L.L.
447
D.L.C.
455
LESSER HOUSE
SMITH
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
19TH STREET
430
PRESS BOX 20TH STREET
BUSINESS
BASELIN
E ROAD
REGENT DRIVE ARNETT
411
412
482
COORS EVENTS
BUCKINGHAM
420
CENTER
CONFERENCE
484
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
COLORADO AVENUE
BUILDING
GAS REG.
494
FIELD
KITTREDGE
SAFETY CENTER
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
458
STATION
PUMP
493
048
9
10
SCIENCE
BEHAVIORAL
E. AURORA AVE.
050
INSTITUTE OF
COLLEGE
COL ORA DO
NO. 4
COLO
Page ES-15
Regent AutoPark Expansion
Folsom/Stadium Area
GEN
BEH
INST
RESEARCH LAB
LIFE SCIENCES
RESEARC LABORAT NO. 2
566
LAB NO.
RESEARC
LITMAN
Potential Future Parking Expansion Areas
LEGEND
30TH STREET
Figure ES-13 Main Campus Potential Future Parking
409
ROAD LOOP
GE KITT RED
AY DW OA
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET 28TH STREET
BR
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
INSTITUTE OF
3
256
270
1
254
276
COLLEGE AVENUE
7
278
279
8
286
PLEASANT STREET
CENTER
ALUMNI
KOENIG
EUCLID
289
290
212
HALE SCIENCE
288
287
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
1030 13TH ST
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
249A
GARAGE
249
280
283
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
257
281 INSTITUTE OF
261
264
AVENUE
211
COLLECTIONS
MUSEUM
215
216
GUGGENHEIM
PUMP STATION
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
VARSITY LAKE
251
235
15TH STREET
DN
DN
THEATRE &
UNIVERSITY
237
5
267
McKENNA
269
265
207
DN
DENISON
217
218
DANCE
DN
DN
DN
OLD MAIN
239
DN
243 MACKY
HENDERSON MUSEUM
TB40
221A
HELLEMS
241
208
221
NORLIN QUADRANGLE
WOODBURY
AUDITORIUM
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN CENTER
205
CENTER
MEMORIAL
CLUB
136
224
202
#1
T.B.
FINE
W A L L
ON WALL
WALL
228
209
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
R O C K
232
ARTS & SCIENCES
WOLLE ARTS
R O C K
HANDRAIL
ROCK RETAINING
OLD ROCK WALL
230
TELECOMM
210
IN DISREPAIR
382
L L W A
W A L L
C K R O
R O C K
W A L L
ATHENS COURT
DIRT PATH
370
2'
373N
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
384
IMIG
334
MUSIC
AURORA AVENUE
BDWY
924
DN
L.A.S.P.
OA DW AY
386
CARLSON
355S
312 BR
324
WARDENBURG
344
354
MUENZINGER PSYCH
150 MARINE COURT
BOULDER CREEK
STUDENT
144
20TH STREET RECREATION CENTER
TB35
145
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
140 TB49
TB57
138
141 TB34
EXPANSION
FAMILY HOUSING
143
CLARE SMALL
382A
19TH STREET KETCHUM
SIBELL
EUCLID AVENUE
245
NORLIN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
CHEMISTRY
225
UNIVERSITY
CRISTOL
226
SCIENCES
EKELEY
241A
244
HALL
SEWALL
GREENHOUSE #1
380
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
136
HUMANITIES
MACKY DRIVE
ATHENS STREET
131
346
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
CHEYENNE
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
STADIUM
REGENT
309
ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
WARDENBURG DRIVE
FIELD
ARAPAHO HALL
326
BAKER DRIVE
346
TORIES
LABORA-
PHYSICS
359
FIELD
FOLSOM
389
CENTER
ATHLETIC
DAL WARD
AIR MONITORING STATION
COLORADO AVE
BAKER HALL
FARRAND
BAKER HALL
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
357
387 DUANE
387E
WILLARD
LIBBY HALL
REGENT DRIVE
HALL
378
FARRAND
HALL
LOOP DRIVE
348
363
TB67
393
395
BUILDING
TICKET
STADIUM
377
HALLETT HALL
350
BRACKETT
FIELD
FRANKLIN
TB09
330
369
MATH
STADIUM DRIVE
170
COURT
NEWTON
IVE N DR KLI FRAN
BUILDING
GROUNDS
394
391
SCIENCES
EARTH
BENSON
INFO BOOTH
376
392 TB12
191
CENTER
CHILDREN'S
University of Colorado at Boulder Draft Main Campus Primary Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors
Planned Folsom Multiuse Path Improvements
Improve bicycle access at gate
Organize circulation
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PLEASANT STREET
6
277
275
GRANDVIEW AVE.
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
4
271
Widen shared path and improve intersection at 17th
12TH STREET
13TH STREET
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
13TH STREET
TB82
14TH STREET
ARMORY
295
ECONOMICS
2
EDUCATION
296
C.I.R.E.S.
Multiuse Path/Service Road behind Rec Center
15TH STREET
17TH STREET 16TH STREET
ATHENS NORTH COURT
HUNTER
125
RAMALEY
133
FIELD HOUSE
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
373E
TB68
ENVIRON-
BALCH MCD BIOLOGY
134
POWER HOUSE
MENTAL
355 J.I.L.A.
373S DESIGN
132
DN
18TH STREET
MARINE STREET
LIBBY DRIVE
MARINE STREET
WILLARD
NAROPA INSTITUTE
339
EXPANSION
ADEN
FAMILY HOUSING
332
338
340
EXPANSION
18TH STREET
COCKERELL
FAMILY HOUSING
336
407
KITTREDGE WEST
T AVE
414
OBSERVATORY FIELD
405
FLEMING LAW
434
STORES/LABS
CIVIL
408
COMMONS
OBSERVATORY
418
REG
T
E IV DR
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE
410
EN
FIELD
BUSINESS
435
SLHS
SOMMERS-BAUSCH
416
SOUTH TOWER
433
436
438
ADMIN
444
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
439
441
AEROSPACE
OFFICE
440
442
TAF
FISKE PLANETARIUM
432S
SCIENCE
COMPUTER
432
ICAL
MECHAN-
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CLASSROOMS
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
RE ET ST 17 TH
327
CROSMAN HALL REED HALL KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
FOLSOM STREET COCKERELL DRIVE
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
ANDREWS
445
I.T.L.L.
447
D.L.C.
455
LESSER HOUSE
SMITH
"Ho Chi Minh" Trail Improvements
19TH STREET
430
PRESS BOX 20TH STREET
BUSINESS
BASELIN
E ROAD
REGENT DRIVE ARNETT
411
412
482
COORS EVENTS
BUCKINGHAM
420
CENTER
CONFERENCE
484
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
COLORADO AVENUE
BUILDING
GAS REG.
494
FIELD
KITTREDGE
SAFETY CENTER
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
458
STATION
PUMP
493
ORA DO
048
9
10
SCIENCE
BEHAVIORAL
E. AURORA AVE.
050
INSTITUTE OF
COLLEGE
COL
RESEARC LABORAT NO. 2
COLO
Proposed Improvements
Page ES-16
Primary Pedestrian Only Routes (bikes and service limited)
GEN
BEH
INST
Primary Bicycle/ Pedestrian Routes (no motor vehicles)
NO. 4
RESEARCH LAB
LIFE SCIENCES
Shared Bicycle/ Pedestrian/ Service Facilities
566
LAB NO.
RESEARC
LITMAN
LEGEND
30TH STREET
Figure ES-14 Main Campus Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors
409
ROAD LOOP
GE
AY DW KITT RED
OA
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET 28TH STREET
BR
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PLEASANT STREET
3
256
270
1
6
277
254
276
7 8
286
PLEASANT STREET
CENTER
ALUMNI
KOENIG
EUCLID
290
289
212
HALE SCIENCE
288
287
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
1030 13TH ST
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
249A
GARAGE
249
280
283
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
257
281 INSTITUTE OF
261
264
251
216
AVENUE
211
COLLECTIONS
MUSEUM
215
GUGGENHEIM
PUMP STATION
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
VARSITY LAKE
235
15TH STREET
12TH STREET
DN
DN
THEATRE &
UNIVERSITY
237
5
267
McKENNA
269
265
207
DN
DENISON
217
218
DANCE
DN
DN
DN
OLD MAIN
239
DN
243
HENDERSON MUSEUM
TB40
221A
HELLEMS
241
208
221
NORLIN QUADRANGLE
WOODBURY
AUDITORIUM
MACKY
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN CENTER
205
CENTER
MEMORIAL
CLUB
136
224
202
#1
T.B.
FINE
W A L L
ON WALL
WALL
228
209
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
R O C K
232
ARTS & SCIENCES
WOLLE ARTS
R O C K
HANDRAIL
ROCK RETAINING
OLD ROCK WALL
230
TELECOMM
210
IN DISREPAIR
382
L L W A
W A L L
C K R O
R O C K
W A L L
ATHENS COURT
DIRT PATH
370
2'
373N
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
384
IMIG
334
MUSIC
AURORA AVENUE
924 BDWY
386
L.A.S.P.
355S
312
DN
CARLSON
BR OA DW AY
324
WARDENBURG
344
354
MUENZINGER PSYCH
MARINE COURT
150
BOULDER CREEK
STUDENT
144
20TH STREET RECREATION CENTER
TB35
145
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
140 TB49
TB57
138
141 TB34
EXPANSION
FAMILY HOUSING
143
CLARE SMALL
382A
19TH STREET KETCHUM
SIBELL
EUCLID AVENUE
245
NORLIN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
CHEMISTRY
225
UNIVERSITY
CRISTOL
226
SCIENCES
EKELEY
241A
244
HALL
SEWALL
GREENHOUSE #1
380
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
136
HUMANITIES
MACKY DRIVE
ATHENS STREET
131
CHEYENNE
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
359
346
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
BAKER HALL
REGENT
309
ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
WARDENBURG DRIVE
FIELD
ARAPAHO HALL
326
346
STADIUM
FIELD
FOLSOM
389
CENTER
ATHLETIC
DAL WARD
AIR MONITORING STATION
COLORADO AVE
TORIES
LABORA-
PHYSICS
BAKER DRIVE
387E
FARRAND
BAKER HALL
DUANE
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
357
387
University of Colorado at Boulder DRAFT Main Campus Service Map
COLLEGE AVENUE
278
279
13TH STREET
275
GRANDVIEW AVE.
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
4
271
13TH STREET
INSTITUTE OF
ECONOMICS
TB82
14TH STREET
ARMORY
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
295
EDUCATION
2
C.I.R.E.S.
296
15TH STREET
17TH STREET 16TH STREET
ATHENS NORTH COURT
RAMALEY
125
HUNTER
133
FIELD HOUSE
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
373E
TB68
ENVIRON-
BALCH MCD BIOLOGY
134
POWER HOUSE
MENTAL
355 J.I.L.A.
373S DESIGN
132
DN
18TH STREET
MARINE STREET
REGENT DRIVE
HALL
392
378
TB12
EARTH
FARRAND
HALL
LOOP DRIVE
348
363
SCIENCES
TB67
BUILDING
TICKET
STADIUM
377
HALLETT HALL
350
TB09
330
369
MATH
STADIUM DRIVE
BRACKETT
FIELD
FRANKLIN
IVE
170
COURT
NEWTON
395
N DR KLI
393
FRAN
BUILDING
GROUNDS
394
391
191
CENTER
BENSON
INFO BOOTH
376
WILLARD
LIBBY HALL
LIBBY DRIVE
MARINE STREET
WILLARD
CHILDREN'S
339
NAROPA INSTITUTE
ADEN
EXPANSION
332
338
340
FAMILY HOUSING
18TH STREET
COCKERELL
EXPANSION
336
407
KITTREDGE WEST
T AVE
414
OBSERVATORY FIELD
405
FLEMING LAW
434
STORES/LABS
CIVIL
408
COMMONS
OBSERVATORY
418
REG
T
E IV DR
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE
410
EN
FIELD
BUSINESS
435
SLHS
SOMMERS-BAUSCH
416
SOUTH TOWER
433
436
438
ADMIN
444
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
439
441
AEROSPACE
OFFICE
440
442
TAF
FISKE PLANETARIUM
432S
SCIENCE
COMPUTER
432
ICAL
MECHAN-
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CLASSROOMS
FAMILY HOUSING
RE ET ST 17 TH
327
CROSMAN HALL REED HALL KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
FOLSOM STREET COCKERELL DRIVE
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
19TH STREET
430
PRESS BOX 20TH STREET
BUSINESS
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
ANDREWS
445
I.T.L.L.
447
D.L.C.
455
LESSER HOUSE
SMITH
BASELIN
E ROAD
REGENT DRIVE ARNETT
411
412
482
COORS EVENTS
BUCKINGHAM
420
CENTER
CONFERENCE
484
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
COLORADO AVENUE GAS REG. BUILDING
494
FIELD
KITTREDGE
SAFETY CENTER
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
458
STATION
PUMP
493
048
9
10
SCIENCE
BEHAVIORAL
E. AURORA AVE.
050
INSTITUTE OF
COLLEGE
COL ORA DO
RESEARC LABORAT NO. 2
COLO
Proposed Route
Loading Dock/ Service Area
GEN
BEH
INST
Page ES-17
Pedestrian Only Routes (no vehicles)
NO. 4
RESEARCH LAB
LIFE SCIENCES
Restricted or Gated Service Routes
566
LAB NO.
RESEARC
LITMAN
Main Service Routes
LEGEND
30TH STREET
Figure ES-15 Main Campus Service Map
409
ROAD LOOP
GE KITT RED
AY DW OA
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET 28TH STREET
BR
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
• B6. Reinstate the bicycle enforcement program after eliminating the dismount zone and replacing it with low-speed “Pedestrian Safe Zones”. • B7. Add bike commuter demonstration facilities such as covered and/or secured bike parking.
Pedestrian Environment (Chapter 6) • P1. Develop a pedestrian circulation plan – give pedestrians preference in “pedestrian zones” and define day/night use of such zones. • P2. Develop dedicated funding pools to build out and maintain the campus pedestrian walkway system. • P3. Consider a “safe path” system for night use, linking nighttime pedestrians with key destinations along a well-lit, well-defined corridor.
Service and Emergency Access (Chapter 7) • S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan that reduces modal conflicts and minimizes the intrusion of service vehicles in pedestrian spaces. • S2. Redefine the service vehicle parking system and create adequate off-path service vehicle parking/loading spaces. Consider a “ring and spoke” system of access.
• S6. Ensure loading docks are adequately sized and managed, and physically expand or relocate docks where needed to support S1-S5 above. • S7. Accommodate emergency vehicle access in appropriate locations via circulation plans. Consider the use of such items as knockdown bollards for fire access where other vehicle types are not permitted.
Funding Mechanisms (Chapter 8) • F1. Agree on funding priorities among CU groups with the assistance of Transplan cost/ benefit analysis. • F2. Maintain the parking pro-forma tool designed by Nelson/Nygaard for Transplan. • F3. Collect data in a consistent manner among the City, County, University and RTD to enhance consistency and accuracy. • F4. Establish regular and timely data collection and analysis periods (e.g. modeshare data) within and between agencies to improve planning capabilities. • F5. Work with the City, County, COG, RTD, federal DOT, EPA and other agencies and private sector/donor groups to identify funding opportunities for major projects.
• S3. Convert the “worksite permit” program into a new service access system – e.g. dedicated service vehicle hubs and work staging areas in strategic campus locations to reduce impacts on pedestrian/bike circulation. • S4. Create physical barriers to define and support the new service vehicle circulation plan and reduce pedestrian space intrusions and landscape/hardscape damage by vehicles.
Executive Summary
• P4. Develop a comprehensive pedestrian signage/wayfinding system linking visitors on foot to key destinations.
• S5. “Right-size” campus fleets - promote and encourage small vehicle fleet use on an appropriately-sized multi-use pathway system versus allowing vehicles of any size to have universal access.
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-19
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Implementation The following chart takes the key programs from the previous charts and details the responsible organizations and recommended implementation timeline. It starts with programs that are low cost and timely, and that should be pursued immediately. Each subsequent tier increases in cost and complexity.
Figure ES-16 Implementation Summary Matrix Program
Responsibility
Funding Source
Implementation Timeline
Tier 1: Maintain Existing Programs and Increase Efficiency A1. Extend Supply as it Exists
PTS
Existing staff resources
Underway
A2. Continue to Promote Lower Cost Alternatives to Parking
PTS
Existing staff resources
Underway
A4. Expand Parking Management to Promote Consistency
PTS, Housing, Athletics, Research Properties, etc.
Existing staff resources
Underway
A6. Rationalize Pricing and Policies to Promote Consistency
PTS
Existing staff resources
2006-07
A7. Balance Parking Demand and Introduce More Choice
PTS
Existing staff resources
Underway
A8. Lease Surplus Parking
PTS, other departments and offcampus entities
Existing staff resources
Underway
T1. Maintain Existing CTN and EcoPass PTS, City, RTD, ASCU
Existing staff resources
Underway
F1. Agree on Priorities
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing staff resources
Underway
F2. Maintain the Parking Pro Forma.
PTS
Existing staff resources
Underway
Tier 2: Most Cost Effective New Programs
Page ES-20
A3. Plan Carefully for any New Parking
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources and future fee/fine increases
Underway and ongoing
A5. Determine Optimal Parking Fee for Resident Students
PTS, Housing, Bear Creek, Family Housing
Existing staff resources
2005-06
A9. Plan for Future Parking Needs
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources and future fee/fine increases
Underway and ongoing
T2. Develop Campus Transit Circulation Plan
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
2005-06
T6. Support Bus Rapid Transit on 28th Street and Broadway
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
RTD, City, federal and regional funds
Underway and ongoing
T9. Help Inform Community Transit Network Improvements
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
RTD, City, federal and regional funds
2005-06
T10. Assist City and RTD in New Comprehensive Transit Plan
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD, County
RTD, City, County, federal and regional funds
2005-2009
T11. Support more local involvement with RTD
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD, County
RTD, City, County, federal and regional funds
Underway and ongoing
Program
Responsibility
Funding Source
Implementation Timeline
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources as available
Underway and ongoing
I6. Define “Ownership” and Funding Plan for Campus Corridors
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources
2005-06
B1. East-West Bikeway
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources and grant funds
Funded
B2. Bicycle Parking
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources and grant funds
Underway and ongoing
B5. Commuter Support
PTS
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Underway and ongoing
B6. Bicycle Enforcement Program
PTS
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Underway and ongoing
P1. Develop a Pedestrian Circulation Plan
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, potential grant sources
2005-06
S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases
2005-06
S2. Refine the Service Vehicle Parking System
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases
2005-06
S3. Eliminate Worksite Permits
PTS
Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases
2005-06
S6. Service Vehicle Map and Brochure
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases
2005-06
F3. Collect Data
PTS, Facilities
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Underway and ongoing
F4. Partner with City and RTD for Outside Funding
PTS, Facilities Management, others
Existing resources
Underway and ongoing
A10. Employ New Parking Technologies PTS
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Continue to explore opportunities. Implement as funding becomes available
A12. Implement Broadway/18th/Euclid Improvements
Facilities Management, PTS, City, RTD
RTD, City, federal and regional funds
Continue to seek grant funding for project.
T4. Implement Planned Bus Stop Improvements
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
RTD, City, federal and Continue to support grant fundregional funds, future ing for projects. fee/fine increases, ASCU
T5. Plan for a CU Bolder Multi-modal Transit Center and/or Transit Mall
PTS, Facilities Management
Future fee/fine inContinue to seek grant funding. creases, ASCU, potential grant sources
T7. Improve Special Event Transit Options
PTS, Facilities Management, City, Athletics
Future fee/fine increase
T8. Expand EcoPass Program
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
RTD, City, federal and Continue to explore opportuniregional funds, future ties and identify funding fee/fine increases, ASCU
I1. Create a Clear Circulation Hierarchy
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Tier 3: Recommended Programs Requiring New Funding Plan
Plan in 2005-06; implement 06-07
2006-07
Executive Summary
I5) Consider Common Signage Standards and Destination Signage
Nelson Nygaard Page ES-21
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Program
Responsibility
Funding Source
Implementation Timeline
I3) Name Key Campus Corridors and Provide Street Signs
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Prioritize as funding and staff resources available
I4) Consider Giving Buildings Addresses
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Prioritize as funding and staff resources available
B3. North-South Path
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Grant funding being pursued
P2. Identify Funding to Improve Pedestrian Network
PTS, Facilities Management, building projects
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Continue to explore opportunities and identify funding
P3. Consider a “Safe Path” Nighttime Pedestrian Network
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Continue to explore opportunities and identify funding
P4. Improve Pedestrian Wayfinding
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Continue to explore opportunities and identify funding
S4) Create Physical Barriers
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Continue to explore opportunities and identify funding
S7. Ensure Loading Docks are Adequately Sized and Managed
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Continue to explore opportunities and identify funding
A11. Consider Shared Parking Opportunities
PTS, other entities
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Fund after more cost effective projects and programs are implemented.
B4. University-Stadium Path
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources
Seek grant funding once Tier 3 projects complete.
T3. Explore Transit Prioritization Measures
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
RTD, City, federal and Seek grant funding once Tier 3 regional funds, future projects complete. fee/fine increases, ASCU
I2. Create a multi-use Pathway System Oriented to Smaller Service Vehicles
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Seek grant funding once Tier 3 projects complete.
S5. Promote small vehicle use and develop a multi-use Pathway System
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources, future fee/fine increases
Seek grant funding once Tier 3 projects complete.
Tier 4: Long Term Improvements
Page ES-22
Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose of this Plan
In the past, abundant land meant that new development and associated parking could be comfortably accommodated. Now, surface parking lots themselves are earmarked as potential construction sites. Any major new parking facilities will almost certainly have to take the form of expensive parking structures, with the costs absorbed in part through higher charges and permit fees. Each new structured parking space costs about $18,000, and when structures are built atop existing surface lots, the cost per net space is higher.
A rise in permit fees sufficient to cover the cost of a new structure may depress parking demand. In some cases, moreover, it may be more cost effective to create alternatives to driving than to build more parking. Comparing cost effectiveness among Background different transportation investments, however, The University of Colorado at Boulder is facing involves addressing restrictions on various funding a classic problem encountered by many historic sources as well as the typical separation between university campuses as they grow and adapt to a capital budgets and operating budgets. Some inchanging world. While the intensity of developvestments, like parking, tend to be capital-heavy, ment on the CU Boulder campus is planned to while other investments, particularly transit, draw increase over the next decades, thereby increasing
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Introduction
The following plan is designed to define the future of parking and transportation investments for the University of Colorado at Boulder over the next two decades. This CU Boulder Transportation Master Plan, hereafter referred to as Transplan 2005 or Transplan, is to serve as a “roadmap” of comprehensive strategies and implementation programs designed to meet the diverse transportation needs of university affiliates and visitors as they move to, from, and around the CU Boulder Campus. It was developed over a 24 month period with broad input from community stakeholders including university faculty, staff, students, visitors, as well as policymakers, staff and citizens of the City of Boulder. Existing conditions were measured and compiled in a detailed Existing Conditions Report that informs this plan. Specifically, Transplan 2005 offers short, medium, and long-term strategies to address the numerous issues that may arise as the campus grows and develops, surface parking is consumed by new buildings, and daily commuting needs evolve. The results of the plan will include prioritized programs and policies based on current trends and broad sentiment among stakeholders. Implementation should serve to provide safe and efficient access to campus for all modes of transportation in a broadly utilized and cost-effective manner.
the potential effectiveness of walking, bicycling and transit, CU Boulder’s many constrained rights-ofway cannot easily be expanded. While there may be opportunities to reduce the proportion of people driving to campus, growth projections mean that the absolute number of cars is likely to rise, creating more pressure on a shrinking supply of parking, which is very expensive to replace. Adding to this pressure, employment growth and the high cost of living in Boulder has made affordable housing hard to find, forcing many students, staff and faculty to live farther from campus in areas that may be more difficult to serve by transit.
Page 1-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page 1-2
primarily from operating funds. These differences greater Front Range metropolitan area. From the present challenges to the creation of a common standpoint of transportation planning, this Main analytical playing field. Campus “village” is actually a defined network of buildings, outdoor gathering places, streets, and Both the City and the University already have a pathways. Some of the streets and pathways that strong set of policies to guide future decisions on serve the University are what remains of the grid transportation investments. The City of Boulder system of city streets that was engulfed by the Unihas adopted some of the most pro-transit, bikversity as it grew over time. Campus circulation ing and walking policies in the nation, and the today now covers several such “villages,” includUniversity’s own Campus Master Plan sets out a ing four separate Boulder Campus locations, tied clear hierarchy of preferred modes: walking, bicytogether by the Community and Regional Transit cling, transit, and lastly driving. The challenge of Networks, University shuttles, and auto circulation Transplan 2005 is to translate these policies into a and parking. Layered within and between these concrete access plan that is realistic and achievable. villages is a complex web of pedestrian pathways, CU’s parking supply is currently well managed and bike routes, and service access routes built at varicompares favorably to its peer campuses in terms ous times over the past 100+ years. of price and ratio of spaces to population. This ratio of parking to population, however, will likely Importance of Circulation Planning decrease as surface lots are developed, the campus An important first step in transportation planning population increases, and only “replacement” is to define the comprehensive access needs and parking is constructed over time. While a static routes of a campus to determine where access is or declining parking supply is potentially the most required and where improvements may be made. cost-effective future option for CU’s major invest- Within this context the most critical task at hand ment in transportation, parking supply issues can- is to define the various “layers” of circulation not be allowed to disrupt the educational mission use on and between the Boulder campuses. This of the university, and visitors must be served. analysis should include a general assessment of traffic volumes by type (car, bus, service, bike and Transplan 2005 seeks to prioritize specific propedestrian) and their interactive points or “nodes,” grams, and quantify their impact on travel behavior and the pathways (shared or multi-use) or “links” and parking and access demand. It seeks to provide needed to move each mode of traffic. Once the funding strategies and a firm timetable for their circulation requirements are clearly defined and implementation. Most importantly, any plan that mapped and superimposed upon each other, issues addresses parking requires public participation such as bottlenecks and gaps in critical links will and full buy-in from University faculty, staff and become apparent. From this mapping process, students, the City and many advocacy groups. clear and effective solutions can be devised to enhance continuous, safe, and efficient circulation for Campus Master Plan every mode based on a standard “hierarchy” of use The CU Main Campus, like many traditional that leaves the most vulnerable – pedestrians and college campuses, functions as an “urban vilthe disabled - with the most safe and convenient lage” located within the City of Boulder and the
access to their destinations, while accommodating a range of service use, bicycle travel, drop-off and loading, bus transit, visitor access and commuter parking. In general, short-term visitor, loading, and drop off parking should be located where access is convenient to the campus core, and long-term commuter parking should be located on the edges of the core where auto storage and movement will not intrude on pedestrian activity. The Campus Master Plan provides an excellent foundation from which to begin mapping CU Boulder circulation. A concerted effort to define and superimpose all circulation requirements will lead to specific findings that will form the basis of important projects to complete specific routes – whether they are mode-separated routes or multiuse paths, and to plan for future development of parking, circulation, and transit facilities.
Website All background materials can be found at the project website: visit ucbparking.colorado.edu and click “Master Plan Info.”
Plan Scope Define a comprehensive transportation strategy and implementation programs that will provide mobility for university affiliates and visitors. This should support the campus’ needs as projected by the Campus Master Plan and other analyses in short-term, medium-term, and long-term time frames. The plan should support the educational mission of the campus by providing access while maintaining the quality of the campus environment and minimizing financial risk to the university.
Transportation planning is an iterative process that follows a generally accepted set of steps and guidelines. First, it is important to establish the goals and scope of the plan. In this case, the Transplan serves as a more detailed extension of the overall Campus Master Plan adopted in March 2001. General steps in the planning process include: 1. Inventory – evaluating current trends, statistical or observed, from existing data. The inventory may also include opinion research, interviews, and surveys. 2. Analysis – analyzing the interpolation and extrapolation of definable trends from the data. Demand modeling is often used as an analytical tool 3. Oversight– receiving input from a steering committee or advisory group or groups. 4. Planning – developing policies and recommendations based on steps 1-3. 5. Implementation – allowing the plan to be implemented with development review followed by planned incremental investments. 6. Evaluation – asking, is the plan working and how? 7. Adjustment – adjusting the plan approach to account for failures and opportunities to fine tune performance. 8. Maintenance – evaluating trends through new surveys and analysis at defined intervals, continuing to adjust the plan as needed.
In the case of Transplan 2005, these steps resulted in the following: 1. Existing Conditions Report – a comprehensive inventory of key data and trends was developed. The Existing Conditions Report, published in December 2003, combines and analyzes data from a wide variety of sources to produce an up-to-date “inventory” of current conditions (2003-04), including projections and trends related to parking and
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Introduction
The scope of the plan is defined as follows:
The Planning Process
Page 1-3
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
transportation by various modes of travel to, from, and around the CU-Boulder campus. This effort was sponsored by the CU Parking and Transportation Services Division (PTS) and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administration (VCA), with executive guidance provided by a committee of 20 University leaders (students, staff and faculty) and key stakeholders from the City of Boulder and the Regional Transportation District (RTD). Additional input was gathered through surveys, group presentations, and one-on-one interviews with students, faculty, staff, visitors, and community/regional leadership.
Transplan 2005 will be successful if it can: 1. Support and enhance the entire range of modal options so that faculty, staff, students and visitors are granted more choice in their daily travels, and so that the system can continue to function if one or more modes is temporarily disrupted.
2. Analytical tools include a parking model, long term population and parking supply projections and financial analyses of various transportation programs and investments. The results of these analyses are summarized at the beginning of each chapter below.
2. Reflect the common goals of all constituents and funding entities in a balanced and practical manner while supporting the primary educational and outreach missions of the university.
3. Oversight was provided through a project management team and an advisory committee. The project management team provided day-to-day oversight over the planning process and included representatives from Parking and Transportation Services, the Vice Chancellor’s Office, and Facilities Management. The project Advisory Committee included representatives from many campus departments, the City of Boulder and the Denver Regional Transit District. A complete list of the Advisory Committee is included in the appendix. Additional input was provided by a variety of stakeholders interviewed for the Existing Conditions Report.
4. Provide recommendations that are measurable, realistic and achievable within the planning horizon (+/- 20 years).
4. The plan itself is the current document. 5. Implementation strategies are detailed in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 9. While Parking and Transportation Services will guide many of these efforts, other key players include Facilities Management, Housing, the City of Boulder, RTD, and various departmental and community groups.
Page 1-4
6. Adjustment will occur as conditions change, and the model will be available to assist planners in the future to determine the optimal mix of investments in new parking or other transportation programs as the campus demographics and physical campus environment evolve.
3. Persuade program managers within and outside the University to work together to make cost-effective use of limited federal, state, city, university, and user-based fee resources, along with better utilization of existing parking resources, to serve the diverse transportation needs of CU Boulder affiliates.
Where We Are Today This document represents 24 months of data gathering, analysis, evaluation, and group review. It contains a prioritized list of programs and policies based on the best available data, evaluation techniques and industry practices to allow CU to grow its diverse transportation and parking network in a logical and thoughtful manner over the next two decades. It has been presented at the project Advisory Committee, CU Boulder Faculty Assembly, Residence Hall Association and community open houses for comment. The City of Boulder Transportation Advisory Board passed a resolution supporting the draft plan. Two web surveys for the project produced over 7,000 responses, covering a wide variety of faculty, staff, students, visitors and members of the general public.
• Proposed solutions. These are numbered and given a letter code that corresponds with the chapter. A1, for example, is the first proposed solution in the automobile chapter. B5 is the fifth solution in the bicycle chapter. These codes are used to help define a framework for prioritizing solutions in the short, medium, and long-term and by cost for future discussion and implementation. • Solutions summary chart.
Description of Plan Format This plan is divided into several chapters:
Introduction
Chapters 2-7 cover each mode of transportation, starting with automobiles and ending with service vehicles. A chapter on “shared infrastructure” precedes the bicycle, pedestrian and service vehicle chapters since these modes share many of the same solution sets. Chapter 8 discusses funding, and Chapter 9 is an evaluation and implementation summary. Each of the chapters follows a similar format: • Existing Conditions Summary. • User Findings, also from the Existing Conditions Report, user surveys, stakeholder interviews, and open house input. • Industry Best Practices, based upon other campus peer reviews and the study team’s expertise
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 1-5
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Key Issues
allow CU to defer construction of a new garage The Existing Conditions Report, stakeholder inter- until beyond 2015, or until existing empty spaces views, web survey and discussions with the Advi- are needed for other purposes. sory Committee and Management Team revealed There are Opportunities to Employ Price a long list of issues that the Transportation Master Controls and Technology to Further Plan should address. Among the key issues are:
Enhance Parking Supply Utilization
There are Specific Opportunities to Better Utilize Existing Parking
Overall, the Parking and Transportation Services Division efficiently manages the existing campus parking supply, balancing the demand for permit holders who use PTS-controlled lots, which comprise a majority of campus parking supply. However, according to recent utilization surveys, on a typical day there are about 2,400 empty parking spaces at the Main Campus, East Campus and Research Park. With a maximum effective parking lot capacity of around 85%, however, not all of these spaces can be put to use. Taking all the lots with a vacancy rate of 25% or greater, and counting half the remaining capacity, there are approximately 760 spaces where utilization potentially could be increased. That is, PTS could reasonably sell an additional 760 permits for these areas, assuming they could arrange access from the organizations that control these spaces. Technology such as the planned radio-frequency Most of these empty parking spaces are in the access control system, variable message signs, and Family Housing areas, Research Park and Williams electronic lot counting systems are excellent ways Village. Some of these spaces will not be available to control access on a per user basis and support over the long term, particularly as development the extension of existing parking supply. The first increases at Williams Village and the Research Park. two items are currently in the planning and develAccess to other spaces would require negotiations opment stages at CU Boulder. with Family Housing or Research Park leaseholders. Nevertheless, it may be possible for PTS to sell up to an additional 760 permits, while still allowing commuters to easily find a space in a given lot. Simply better utilizing existing pavement may
Page 1-6
PTS’s management of its parking supply means that permit holders can almost always find a space in their assigned lot. PTS’s relatively flat rate structure, however, means that motorists are assigned parking primarily based upon affiliation status, rather than market pricing and their own choice. The result is that there are certain more distant lots that have a great excess in capacity, and there are many close-in lots where there is a waiting list for permits. A sharper fee gradient would allow CU to take better advantage of its underutilized spaces. Visitor parking is another area that could benefit from such a program. As commuters are linked to underutilized parking, spaces can be freed up in core locations to better serve the visitor population. PTS has already begun a pilot project of low-cost peripheral parking, and has raised fees modestly at meters and visitor lots to dissuade long-term parking in visitor spaces.
Financing New Parking Structures in the Future may be Expensive As the CU Boulder campus grows and new buildings displace existing surface parking lots, financing
new parking structures under the current funding mechanism could require significantly higher parking permit fees. At $18,000 per space in construction costs (2004 dollars), each net new structured parking space will cost approximately $2,000 a year over the term of debt financing for the facility (typically 20 years). This is difficult to recover from existing fees, and so funding must be accrued over long time periods or gathered by other means, as the State of Colorado General Fund does not support CU Boulder parking development.
start-up funds, and they must now be funded directly by the local community. In order to maintain existing service levels – as well as implement desired improvements – Boulder’s transit service efficiency, while already good, will have to continue to improve, and new ongoing funding parameters and sources must be identified.
The successful support for regional initiatives such as the Fastracks Plan illustrates that consumers and organizations from throughout the Front Range share these transit benefits and are willing to support network extension. However, both the Community Transit Network and the EcoPass program are continually faced with budget concerns and fee increases to the Regional Transit District (RTD), due in part to rising operational costs. Moreover, several of the more successful Community Transit Network routes were established with one-time
carry larger volumes of bus traffic more quickly and efficiently to and around the campus. This has included the proposal of a multi-modal transit center spanning Broadway in the heavily populated activity area surrounding the University Memorial Center. To date, the campus includes a number of bus circulation and loading areas, including the use of the 18th/Colorado closure area as a de facto transit mall. CU will soon be served by the first planned “Super Stop” on 28th Street. However, as RTD develops the Fastracks/US 36 Bus Rapid
Campus Parking Policies can be Better Coordinated Campus-wide
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Introduction
While Parking and Transportation Services controls about 80% of the parking on the CU campus, Community Transit Network and EcoPass significant supplies are managed by other departPrograms are Successful, and Funding ments, including Family Housing, Bear Creek at Stability can be Improved Williams Village, Athletics, various entities at the Boulder has one of the most successful transit Research Park, and a variety of other groups. The systems of any city of its size and density in the result is a sometimes inefficient use of campus country, and CU Boulder benefits greatly from it. parking resources. Unified management of the The system works because it is fast, frequent and campus parking inventory can enhance the efreliable, serving most of the corridors where CU ficiency of its use. commuters are densely concentrated. Approximately 20% of CU commuters use transit to get to CU Boulder Should Develop a Transit campus on a given day. Moreover, at $200-$300 a Circulation Plan leading to one or more year per commuter, the EcoPass program has been Multi-Phased Transit Centers or Transit one of CU’s most cost-effective investments, saving Mall Development millions in avoided parking structure construction Past efforts have identified the need for a transit costs. center and routing plan that can anticipate and
Page 1-7
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Transit component, the campus will clearly need additional Super Stops. CU transit center planning could be an important step in achieving a variety of goals, including the provision of a transit focal point for the campus, the improvement of traffic level of service flows at the campus perimeter (especially Broadway), enhanced access for daily commutes and special events, and CU’s anchor facility for bus rapid transit and other services in the future. Any such development will likely require multiple phases, federal funding, and may include area street redevelopment as well. It is in the interest of CU to lead in the development of this plan in close cooperation with the City of Boulder and RTD.
changing circulation patterns. In general, the oldest part of campus was developed without defined loading areas, and some of the 1970s development on campus lacks sufficient space for circulation and loading at the volumes that occur today.
Some high-volume pathways on campus are marked for shared bicycle, service, and pedestrian travel, yet are too narrow to support intended traffic volumes. In other areas, major gaps exist along logical and customary travel corridors. Other major travel routes are more accommodating, yet may be full of parked service vehicles. Limited guidance is provided as to where bike, pedestrians or service vehicles should travel, exacerbating the conflicts where right-of-way is tight. There is a Bicycle Dismount Zone in the densest core areas CU Boulder Needs a Dedicated System of of campus which is difficult to enforce due to a Funding Partnership for New Pedestrian, lack of perceived bike route alternatives. Similarly, Bike, and Service Access Routes there have been attempts to keep service vehicles Due to deferred maintenance, some CU pavement out of the core of campus, but access rules are has degraded to the point where total reconstruc- often flaunted and definition of alternative routes tion is now necessary. This deferred maintenance is lacking. Even with a detailed map, wayfinding problem is primarily a result of budget shortfalls by any mode is difficult, since there are few street and restrictions that have limited the availability signs, no addresses and a general lack of identifiers of maintenance and improvement funding for for buildings or key places. certain campus pathways, especially those that are heavily used by a variety of departments and Creative Solutions are Needed to Fund outside vendors. New Improvements Bike, Pedestrian and Service Vehicle Circulation Restrictions on uses of various funds, increased can be Better Planned, Funded, Coordinated and pressure on the few remaining fungible sources Improved and other financial difficulties have placed severe limitations on CU’s ability to raise money for any Campus stakeholders were nearly unanimous in transportation improvements. University departidentifying bicycle, pedestrian and service vehicle ments that manage outdoor spaces have begun to conflicts and confusion among their top concerns coordinate improvements more closely, and this about the physical campus. While many stakeholdapproach should be expanded to larger areas, iners separated their concerns by particular mode, the cluding projects at the campus perimeter involving issue is the same: the campus pathway and service the city and RTD. In larger projects with regional vehicle system has not kept up with growth and
Page 1-8
impacts, the Transplan should offer a good foundation for federal and regional investment with an existing, broad-based consensus.
Existing Conditions: Key Findings Twelve principal findings of the Existing Conditions Report are listed below, including a reference to the chapter in this document where the issue is explained in greater detail:
Drive Alone Population and Change (Chapter 5) • 30-40% of campus affiliates drive alone to work or school at CU-Boulder, versus 70-80% of the general public in the US, and 58% of downtown employees in the City of Boulder. • While this is a positive finding for CU-Boulder, shifting additional commuters from single-occupant vehicles (SOV) to other modes will be increasingly difficult and expensive.
Commute Distances/Times (Chapter 3) • About half of CU-Boulder affiliates live relatively close to campus. 57% of students live within four miles of Main Campus and 48% of faculty/staff live within four miles of Main & East Campuses.
• Projects like Bear Creek at Williams Village may alleviate some of the pressure of longer commutes. The EcoPass program on the one hand facilitates distance commuting to CUBoulder and on the other hand mitigates some additional roadway congestion brought on by distance commuting. Affiliates refer to the different population groups traveling to CU. These include students, faculty, staff and visitors. Detailed in Chapter 5 of the Existing Conditions report. The percentage varies depending upon what population is counted and how the measurements are taken
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Introduction
• Increasing housing prices in Boulder are causing many CU-Boulder commuters to live further away from campus, leading to increased commuter traffic in and out of Boulder during peak classroom and event hours
Page 1-9
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Parking Supply/Demand (Chapter 4) • The majority of the CU-Boulder permit parking supply is well managed by PTS. There are opportunities, however, for improved management of visitor (short-term) parking supply and greater utilization of non-PTS managed long-term parking supply. • CU-Boulder may reduce or defer the need to build new parking supply through improved utilization of existing parking in remote and non-PTS controlled areas for general use. Changes such as improved wayfinding and enhanced space leases could help to extend existing supply utilization. • Growth in CU-Boulder parking supply has been slower than growth in the CU-Boulder population, and the number of students demanding parking permits has grown beyond existing parking supply.
Parking Displacement/Construction Costs (Chapters 9 and 10) • According to the Campus Master Plan – March 2001-2008, Main Campus surface parking will continue to be lost to new development, and replacement parking will be required in more expensive structured or satellite parking facilities over time. (Chapter 9) • The last CU-Boulder parking garages were completed in 1991. Providing new replacement, structured parking may cost the university over four times the current cost to park one affiliate per year due to the higher cost of paying for new construction. (Chapter 10)
Parking Location and Fees (Chapter 4) • In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation), the cost of most types of parking permits has remained flat, or risen or fallen very slightly. • Since Fiscal Year 2001, CU-Boulder has raised permit fees annually to track with inflation. Faculty and staff who pay for park-
Page 1-10
ing using the “pre-tax deduction” achieve a significant reduction in parking costs. • About 25% of CU-Boulder’s parking is provided at no direct cost to parkers, i.e., there is no direct permit or other fee charged to users. This parking is located primarily at the Research Park and family housing.
Transit Ridership (Chapter 5) • CU-Boulder is served by one of the bestused transit systems in the US, although funding is under pressure. • CU-Boulder affiliate transit ridership is significant and growing, and trends indicate that this demand has not yet peaked. • Student and staff/faculty ridership was at its highest in history when last counted in 2002. • Regional Transit District and Community Transit Network routes have been well planned to serve the densest pockets of CU-Boulder affiliate residents throughout Boulder and Denver counties.
Transit Access (Chapter 5) • About 69% of students, staff and faculty live within ¼ mile of transit routes that provide direct service to Boulder, yet pedestrian linkages to these routes may not always be optimal for increasing transit ridership. • The success of the Stampede has proven that some specific needs are still unfilled in local areas that are otherwise well-served by transit.
Bicycling Trends (Chapter 5) • Approximately 23% of all CU-Boulder students bike to campus, and 13% of faculty/ staff bike to campus at least one day a week. • Faculty members (who generally live closer to campus) are more likely to bicycle than staff, and overall bicycle trips to work are showing a slight upward trend.
Pedestrian Trends (Chapter 5) • About 30% of CU-Boulder affiliates walk to campus on a daily basis, including over 50% of CU-Boulder students. • The percentage of students walking to campus has held fairly steady over the last 10 years, while faculty/staff pedestrian trips to campus have declined slightly since 1998. Data is not sufficient to explain this trend, but it could be due to improved transit service or greater travel distances to campus.
Pedestrian/Bike System Investment • Due to the limitations of existing funding mechanisms, most key campus stakeholders that were interviewed agree that CU-Boulder’s investment in its bicycle and pedestrian network has not kept pace with growing demand. (Chapter 8 and 10) • There are significant mode conflicts between autos, service vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes that jeopardize travel safety and efficiency. (Chapter 8)
Future Development Alternatives (Chapter 10) • Given the current high cost of new structured parking at CU-Boulder, preliminary analysis suggests that it will be less expensive to extend existing supply through new circulation and parking management techniques than to build new supply. • Preliminary analysis also suggests that it will be less expensive to accommodate a limited number of new trips in alternative modes than with structured parking, although funding sources are currently scarce for any modal improvements. • New structured parking will be most expensive to fund, followed by surface parking and transit. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are relatively inexpensive to fund in comparison to other modal accommodations.
These findings form the structural basis for the report that follows.
Funding Concerns
Introduction
• Available funding sources for campus transportation improvements are severely limited, raising concerns about CU-Boulder’s ability to maintain its existing programs and continue making new investments. Specific concerns are: how to fund new alternative programs, how to fund CU’s internal bicycle & pedestrian network, how to fund increasing faculty/staff EcoPass program costs, how to fund new parking development, and how to maintain and expand the Community Transit Network and regional transit serving CU.
Nelson Nygaard Page 1-11
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page 1-12
Plan Implementation As previously discussed, the prioritized recommendations of Transplan 2005 will serve as the basis for key investment decisions, not only within PTS, but among partner organizations within the University and with the community of Boulder and RTD. Certain capital planning items such as major roadway and parking improvements or the development of a multi-modal transit center will take months and years of group planning and budgeting to achieve, while other items may require only internal procedural changes. In either case, the plan policies and recommendations will serve as a catalyst for positive change and a “roadmap” by which to guide improvements and measure their impact, both financially and operationally, on the CU Boulder community. In other cases, the plan can guide grant-funding applications or community discussion of additional changes that will support the educational and research mission of CU Boulder and enhance the environment of the campus and community in a cost effective manner. The parking model will be used to assist in planning for a balanced parking supply. Over time, as conditions change the plan will be evaluated and can change to reflect new realities, such as mode share changes as a result of rapidly escalating energy costs or shifts in funding.
Chapter 2: Auto Parking and Circulation Existing Conditions
work or school at CU-Boulder, versus 70%-
In general CU Boulder is committed to maintain80% of the general public in the US, and 58% of downtown employees in the City of ing existing parking supply in the face of growing Boulder. affiliate needs, and not “growing” that supply, but • This low rate of automobile commuting is a providing only replacement parking for lost spaces. positive finding for CU-Boulder because it Over time this will result in a net decrease in the has allowed the campus to reduce its parking campus parking ratio, and a larger dependence on costs and traffic generation. Nevertheless, alternate modes. However, balancing supply and shifting additional commuters from singleoccupant vehicles (SOV) to other modes will demand in the face of this growth and in the face be increasingly difficult and expensive. of the potential loss of surface parking due to new construction is very important. Sudden losses of Parking Supply/Demand parking supply absent alternatives can prove cha Detailed in Chapter 5 of the Existing Conditions report. The percentage varies depending upon what population is counted and how the measurements are taken.
• The majority of the CU-Boulder permit parking supply is well managed by PTS. There are opportunities, however, for im-
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Auto Parking & Circulation
otic and detract from the university’s mission. Too While only 30%-40% of CU’s population drives much supply is expensive and takes extra money alone to campus, the physical infrastructure needs to manage. of auto storage and circulation is far greater than CU Boulder’s PTS is self-funded, and the signifithat of other modes. This is a blessing and a curse cant funding needed to build replacement parking – a blessing in that CU Boulder is saving millions structures (currently estimated at $18,000 per of dollars in construction and operational costs space) cannot be derived from general funds, but by not building a new parking structure, and a must be paid for through other means, including curse in that the campus cannot physically ac- parking fees. As a result, the recommendations commodate large surges of visitor parking such as throughout this report focus first on optimizing occurs during many special events, or even much use of existing parking resources and alternatives additional circulation in some areas without ma- to single occupant vehicle use before building new jor and expensive physical changes. Boulder land parking supply. is valued at more than $1 million per acre (if an The Existing Conditions report collected a wealth acre can be found with no structures on it). CU of data about the campus parking system, detailed is “landlocked” in four separate locations and so in chapters 4, 5, 9 and 10. Among its key findings must build “up” instead of out, while maintaining related to automobiles include: circulation among campuses. Also, high housing prices in the Boulder Valley, especially within the Key Findings city limits, are pushing affiliates (staff especially) to live farther away, thereby placing increased pressure Drive Alone Population and Change on auto commuter facilities. • 30%-40% of campus affiliates drive alone to
Page 2-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
proved management of visitor (short-term) parking supply and greater utilization of non-PTS managed long-term parking supply.
Parking Displacement/Construction Costs • Main Campus surface parking will continue to be lost to new development, and replacement parking will be required in more expensive structured or satellite parking facilities over time. (Chapter 9)
• CU-Boulder may reduce or defer the need to build new parking supply through improved utilization of existing parking in remote and non-PTS controlled areas for general use. Changes such as improved wayfinding and enhanced space leases could help to extend existing supply utilization.
• The last CU-Boulder parking garages were completed in 1991. Providing new replacement, structured parking may cost the university over four times the current cost to park one affiliate per year due to the higher cost of paying for new construction. (Chapter 10)
• Growth in CU-Boulder parking supply has been slower than growth in the CU-Boulder population, and the number of students demanding parking permits has grown beyond existing parking supply.
Figure 2-1 Estimated Cumulative Parking “Need” Students
Faculty/Staff
Total Parking Need
Number of Parking Spaces
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 -500 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 201703 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Fiscal Year
Page 2-2
Parking Location and Fees • In constant dollars, the cost of most types of parking permits has remained flat, or risen or fallen very slightly. That is, adjusted for inflation, motorists are paying about the same for their parking permits now as they have for the last decade. • Since Fiscal Year 2001, CU-Boulder has raised permit fees annually to track with inflation. Faculty and staff who pay for parking using the “pre-tax deduction” achieve a significant reduction in parking costs.
Auto Parking & Circulation
• About 25% of CU-Boulder’s parking is provided at no direct cost to parkers, i.e., there is no direct permit or other fee charged to users. This parking is located primarily at the Research Park and family housing.
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 2-3
As shown below, the cost per hour of parking decreases the longer a motorist parks.
Figure 2 2 User Fee for Parking: By the Hour Figure 2-2 User Fee for Parking: By the Hour
$1.50
$1.60 $1.40
$1.25
$1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60
$0.20
$0.19
$0.17
$0.16
$0.14
$0.12
$0.06
$0.05
Student Dirt
F/S Dirt
Student Peripheral
F/S Peripheral
Student Core
Lot 436 - Student
F/S Core
CHIP Permit
Meter
$0.00
Student MC
$0.21
$0.20
F/S MC
$0.47
$0.40
Euclid
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Key Statistical Trends
The cost per net new parking space is currently more than the cost of accommodating commuters by other modes. The chart below shows that new parking is over twice as costly per commuter as an expanded EcoPass program.
Figure 2-3 Program Costs per New Commuter Figure 2 3
Program Costs per New Commuter
$2,000
New Parking $1,758 - $2,000
$1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 F/S Eco Pass $204
$600 $400 $200 $0
Page 2-4
Ped $5
Pass $304
Ped $10
Bike $5
Est. Cost Per Round Trip Accommodated
Pedestrian
F/S EcoPass Stu $597 Eco Pass $362
Existing Stu Parking Eco $439
Bicycling
F/S Eco Pass
Bike $11
Est. Cost Per Net New Round Trip Accommodated
Student Bus Pass
Parking
User Findings In a voluntary web survey of over 1,700 CU affiliates, parking supply, availability, and location concerns were the most often mentioned issues, with 31% of respondents listing “more parking” or “faster access to parking” among their top four preferred solutions to their own perceived transportation problems at CU. Three percent of survey respondents listed “better signage” and “greater car pool emphasis” as concerns, while 2% requested “cleaner facilities” as a major concern.
Greater Car Pool Emphasis 3% More ped facilities 4% Safer routes 7%
More/cheaper housing 22%
Better signage Loaner Cars 3% Day/Night Cleaner Facilities 3% 2% More/faster Parking 31%
Bus, shuttles 25%
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Auto Parking & Circulation
Figure 2-4 Web Survey Findings: Priority Transportation Improvements
Page 2-5
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Stakeholder Interviews The following were the most commonly cited issues in the stakeholder interviews: • Not enough visitor parking (Frequently) • Visitor parking is not well-managed (Several times)
These were the most commonly offered solutions by the stakeholders:
• Waiting list. Where demand exceeds supply, some campuses use a waiting list approach for eligible motorists. • Other. Many campuses adjust parking allocation according to factors such as longevity, income, bargaining unit status, commute distance, etc. • Combination. Most campuses, in fact, use some combination of the above factors.
• Separate the cost of parking from housing at family housing (Several times)
CU currently uses a combination approach, with waiting lists for the most desirable lots.
• Work with family housing to change their parking policies (Several times)
Optimize Use of Existing Spaces
Since parking construction is so expensive, the best run campus parking systems make sure they have optimized use of existing parking lots before building new spaces. This means keeping careful Industry Best Practices track of actual utilization rates to make sure that all The following are general best practices as identified lots are approximately 85% occupied at peak. This by campus peer reviews and the experience of the allows users to easily find a space while optimizing consultant team: use of the spaces. • Better utilize family housing parking supply (Several times)
Prioritize Parking Resources
CU maintains excellent data on parking utilizaOn all college campuses, some parking spaces are tion and for the most part lot usage is optimized. always more desirable than others. In order to de- Some lots, however, could accommodate additional termine how to allocate the most and least desirable vehicles as noted in recommendation A1. spaces, campuses consider a wide variety of factors. There is no “standard” approach; rather, campuses Promote SOV Alternatives rely on their own values and traditions to allocate When considering whether to construct new parkparking. Among their key tools are: ing, it is important first to ask whether promoting transportation alternatives would be more cost • Price. Some campuses use the free market to allocate spaces, allowing everyone equal effective. For example, if the annualized cost per access to all spaces, and using price as the net new parking space is $1,000, and the annualtool to match supply and demand. ized cost per net new transit rider is $500, then the • Affiliation. Other campuses focus on campus should first consider investing in transit whether a motorist is faculty, staff, commuting student, resident student, visitor or other improvements. As the potential transit market is captured however, the cost per new rider escalates affiliation category. Different campuses prioritize affiliation categories differently, with quickly; soon it becomes more cost effective to some putting visitors first, and others putting build parking. visitors last.
Page 2-6
To make effective comparisons across various access modes, it is important for campuses to keep track of mode split and program costs and, most importantly, measure the performance of new programs.
an ideal parking structure site by using it in the interim for surface parking. For smaller parking structures built on existing surface lots, however, the cost per net space may be very high, since the new structure will have to rebuild all the existing spaces.
• Distance from population centers. Parking should be located outside the pedestrian core, but within reasonable walking distance of the population centers within the core. This reduces pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, provides convenience, and avoids the high ongoing operating costs of shuttles. • Balanced distribution. Spreading parking supply evenly across campus distributes the traffic burden generated by these facilities and allows convenient access to all campus destinations. • Traffic. The siting and management of parking is perhaps the most important tool for managing traffic and congestion. Campuses should site major parking facilities with convenient access to major roadways, and should keep available traffic capacity on those roads in mind. • Phasing. It is often appropriate to “hold”
parking lot to their front doors must not outweigh the savings from not building a parking structure. To be effective, park & ride shuttles must run frequently – at least every 10 minutes, with 5 minute headways preferable. They must also run all day, or a free taxi equivalent be provided, so that commuters who must run errands or make unexpected trips home can still reach their cars. Typically, park & ride lots are only cheaper than close-in parking structures when they can capitalize upon existing transit service.
• Park & ride lots must intercept commuters on the way to their destination. Industry surveys for both college campuses and other employment sites find commuters are often unwilling or unlikely to drive past their destination to a park & ride lot, then double back to their destination. • Park & ride permit fees must be significantly cheaper than close-in permits, or motorists
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Auto Parking & Circulation
• Sharing. Uses that have peak parking CU is currently doing an outstanding job promotdemands at night and on weekends, such as ing transportation alternatives, and is one of the hotels, theaters and stadiums, are often very model campuses in the country. It collects cost useful for “sharing” with campus commuters. Shared parking can bring costs down for all and user data on its programs, but could do more users. to provide an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the effectiveness of each of its programs, regularly estimating the cost per user as well as the “cost per Examine Full Costs of Park & Ride When faced with the question of how to replace parking space saved” for each of its investments. close-in surface lots displaced by new developments, many campuses find it tempting to avoid Build Parking As Needed in the cost of parking structures by building distant Logical Locations park & ride lots. There are many notable examples Even if parking is not needed immediately, the best where such a strategy has been successful, but there campus parking programs identify optimal parking are four key criteria that must be met before pursusites well before they are needed and work with ing a park & ride option: campus planners to hold those sites. Key parking • The costs of shuttling commuters from the site considerations include:
Page 2-7
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page 2-8
must be assigned to these lots. All people place a high value on their time and convenience. To be appealing, therefore, the permit fee savings on a park & ride lot must outweigh any actual or perceived loss of time. • The “highest and best use” of the park & ride sites must be considered. Some campuses have lost their park & ride lots to new development, only to find no viable sites for close-in structured parking. The most costly scenario for any campus is to pay the high capital cost for structured parking and still have to pay high operating costs to shuttle motorists to their front doors.
sense individual space availability and direct users to parking spaces through the use of signs located on each level. A combination of these systems and others can serve to greatly extend the effective availability and utilization of parking in today’s market where structural costs have greatly increased.
Shared time-of day parking
While much of CU’s parking is used 24-7, some is not. Whether it may be possible to share facilities outside of CU depends on space, agreements, money and commitment. However, managing CU facilities for shared use by time of day should be common practice for night events or any off-hour Role of Technology activity, including proximate parking for safety Technology innovation in the parking industry has purposes. Technology such as time-adjustable been slowly evolving and today there are numerparking payment machines and variable message ous intelligent features that can enhance parking signs (VMS) can help in this effort. supply management in the field. Parking “pay on foot” stations have become more sophisticated, and CU Boulder currently uses machines that Proposed Solutions provide flexible payment options and variable fees. A1. Extend Supply as it Exists CU Boulder is in the process of completing the Before building new supply, CU should ensure implementation of a radio frequency controlled that it achieves the maximum utilization of existing facility management system that will allow users parking spaces. This is currently being managed to access specific gated lots on campus by means through a comprehensive analysis of lot utilizaof a transponder tag carried in their vehicle. Over tion and a subsequent reevaluation of permit sales time, this system could be used to assess “real time” and allocations by lot, identifying outlying lots parking fees based on actual time of use, provide with high vacancies. Several new programs are “gated access” by specific user to various lots on addressing this need to extend supply. The first is campus, and monitor important factors helping to offer comparatively lower cost ($10 per month) supply management, such as lot turnover, average remote parking for any interested affiliate in those lots which are regularly underutilized and can be duration, and peak time of day use. served by campus shuttle or the Boulder CommuAnother technology being contemplated by CU nity Transit Network. A second is to provide pay Boulder is a variable messaging sign system which stations in some close-in permit lots to allow noncan serve to direct visitors and commuters to permit holders to utilize these lots at night. Other specific parking areas and access routes. Another potential means to extend supply include some of system used effectively in some new parking structhe technology options discussed above, specifitures is an electronic space count system which can
cally the variable message sign system and possibly Figure 2-5 shows all of the CU parking lots that had electronic space monitoring to direct drivers to an average vacancy rate of over 25%, as measured vacant spaces, although this is an expensive item by PTS in winter 2004. to retrofit into an existing garage and may be best left for discussion in new garage construction.
Figure 2-5 Underutilized Parking Lots Lot Number
Average Vacant Spaces
Total Spaces
Family Housing (1)
Percent Vacant
43 90 22 9 46 7 14
9 28 9 5 13 3 5
20.9% 31.1% 40.9% 55.6% 28.3% 42.9% 35.7%
145* (8) 146 147 149* (3) 151 162* (4) 179 192 196* (11) Subtotal
18 30 8 60 18 46 74 69 83 637
8 13 2 20 9 20 19 26 30 219
44.4% 43.3% 25.0% 33.3% 50.0% 43.5% 25.7% 37.7% 36.1% 34.4%
Family Housing: Smiley Court
506 509 510 513 515 522 533 535 539 Subtotal
52 39 26 32 7 56 40 20 21 293
18 11 12 8 5 19 14 5 6 98
34.6% 28.2% 46.2% 25.0% 71.4% 33.9% 35.0% 25.0% 28.6% 33.4%
Total Spaces
East Campus (2)
574 RBS Subtotal
176 176
Average Vacant Spaces
103 103
Percent Vacant
58.5%
Auto Parking & Circulation
125 131* (6) 138 141 142* (7) 143 144
Lot Number
Bear Creek at Williams Village (3)
618 630 Subtotal
132 270
480
402
39 34 60 16 73 23 80 10 26 3 135 29 9 23 113 146 55 35 19 60 13 412 1413
10 15 26 8 22 6 21 7 11 2 41 16 2 6 72 82 22 20 15 30 6 112 551
25.1% 43.6% 43.3% 52.8% 30.1% 27.5% 26.3% 70.0% 41.3% 82.7% 30.3% 53.7% 26.9% 26.1% 63.5% 55.9% 39.1% 55.9% 78.9% 49.7% 43.5% 27.3% 39.0%
2999
1373
45.8%
PTS Lots (4)
258 264 265 281 282 324 335 385 386 410 416 420 434 437 560 562 570 576 578 580 601 623 Subtotal
Grand Total (5)
77.2% 87.4% 83.8%
171 309
Notes
Notes (1) : College Inn, Newton, Marine, and Athens Courts. Vacancies based on RTD strike counts, less (2) Marine Street Research Properties and Housing System lots
(1)(3): College Inn, Newton, Marine, and Athens Courts. Vacancies based on RTD strike counts, less permits sold vacancies are based on 2/23/04 9 pm count less 10% (2)(4)Marine Street Research Properties and Housing System2004 lots lot counts PTS vacancies are based on January and February Totals doare notbased include disability, service, (3)(5)vacancies onmotorcycle, 2/23/04 9 pm count less 10% loading dock, visitor or metered/short-term (4) PTS vacancies are based on January and February 2004 lot counts (5) Totals do not include motorcycle, disability, service, loading dock, visitor or metered/short-term spaces
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 2-9
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
For all the vacant spaces identified in Figure 2- Campus and Williams Village. The remaining 5, PTS estimates it could sell an additional 764 spaces are distributed as follows: permits and still maintain an appropriate vacancy • Family Housing: 10% rate. Many of the available spaces, however, are • Athletics: 4% not under PTS’s control and are addressed in rec• Research Properties on the East Campus: 2% ommendation A8. • Various other departments, including the Alumni Center, College Inn, Facilities Management, Foundation Center, Housing Services, International English, President’s Office and the Transportation Center: 4%
For the 551 empty spaces in PTS lots, PTS estimated they could sell an additional 219 permits. As of fall 2005, they sold 88, improving the efficiency of the parking system.
• In addition, there are 1,261 parking spaces on leaseholds in the Research Park that are not included in the above totals. These spaces are on university land, but are included in long-term ground leases to the adjacent private buildings.
A2. Continue to Promote Lower Cost Alternatives to Parking Chapters 3-6 outline a variety of transportation improvements that offer a lower cost per commuter than building new parking. Since all of PTS’s programs, from parking construction to the faculty/staff EcoPass program, are self-funded, it may be cheaper to raise parking fees to pay for parking alternatives than it is to raise parking fees to pay for new parking.
A3. Plan Carefully for any New Parking The parking model developed for this project will help PTS identify when new parking construction will be needed in the future. It can track the effect of parking demand as population increases, and the effect on parking supply as new buildings displace existing lots. This model should be kept up to date and continually adjusted as new data becomes available.
A4. Expand Parking Management to Promote Consistency PTS manages and maintains approximately 80% of the parking spaces on the Main Campus, East
There are specific reasons why each of these organizations manages their own parking supply separate from PTS. In the case of Family Housing, the parking was built as a part of the housing projects and it is managed as an integral part of their rental market. The bulk of family housing parking charges are included in the cost of family housing rents. The first parking space is bundled into rental fees, while additional permits cost $10 per month. According to Family Housing, there are 861 Family Housing apartments, meaning 861 of the 1,052 spaces in their inventory are bundled into rent. The remainder is used for additional vehicles owned by residents and other purposes. A site-survey conducted in spring 2003 by PTS found about 500 unoccupied Family Housing parking spaces, despite the fact that the 861 family housing units contain 2,746 beds. Beginning in the fall of 2003, Family Housing and PTC coordinated the sale of PTS commuter student permits into selected Fam
Page 2-10
Source: David Cook, PTS
ily Housing lots on a trial basis to make additional Main Campus parking available to commuters and to better utilize campus parking resources while increasing Family Housing revenue.
Source: David Cook, PTS. June 2003.
demand
Auto Parking & Circulation
fees at Williams Village would depress overall housing demand there, as student chose to rent rooms off campus where parking is free. Moreover, higher fees at Williams Village than elsewhere on campus would tend to sort car-owning students The cost of parking managed by the Research from those who don’t have cars, creating very high Properties and Research Park is included in buildparking demand on the Main Campus and very ing rental fees and is not made visible to the end low parking demand at Williams Village. Any user, therefore appearing to be “free.” Athletics of these situations would jeopardize the financial and Housing Services charge their employees the underpinnings of the Bear Creek projects. same permit fees that PTS charges, although the revenue does not go to PTS. We recommend that PTS take over management and maintenance of all parking on campus, inIn total, at least 25% of the parking supply located cluding parking currently managed by Family on University property is available such that end Housing, Athletics and other departments. In the users do not see parking charges. At least 17% of case of Family Housing, additional analysis will be the campus parking supply, not including the Renecessary to determine the extent of the deferred search Park, is available to users such that they do maintenance problem and how that parking can not see parking charges. Because the exact number be upgraded without undue burden on campus of Family Housing spaces bundled into rent is not commuters. known, the percentage may be higher. In new leaseholds at the Research Park and elseIn addition, of the 3,836 permits issued to faculty/ where, and at outlying CU owned buildings, the staff in a given month in FY03, 687 (18%) were University should consider implementing the same issued to retirees at no charge. On any given day, parking and transportation benefits and fees as there are about 40 retirees parking for free in the elsewhere on campus. Such policies would help Euclid Autopark. Retirees are also included in the eliminate the spillover parking potential that curEcoPass program. rently exists in the Research Park, reduce traffic Of greater complexity is the parking being pro- congestion and improve the cost effectiveness of vided for the recently completed housing at Bear transit service for all CU commuters. Creek in Williams Village. This parking is being financed by the University of Colorado Foundation A5. Determine Optimal Parking and managed by American Campus Communities Fee for Resident Students (ACC), and certain fees and occupancy rates are As mentioned above, parking at Bear Creek is mana key component of the overall pro forma used to aged by Housing and is an important component of finance the housing there. While this parking is their finance plan. Both PTS and the CU housing being managed by ACC, the fees collected are es- programs could benefit from the following: sentially the same as PTS-managed parking at other • Maximize on-campus housing construcresident halls around campus. Very high parking tion in order to reduce commuter parking
Nelson Nygaard Page 2-11
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
• Maximize the demand for on-campus housing in order to ensure financial solvency for CU’s housing programs and excellent maintenance of its facilities
A7. Balance Parking Demand and Introduce More Choice
Different campuses use different tools to allocate demand for scarce parking. In some places, the • Carefully set student housing rents in order price and location of parking is determined solely to increase housing demand and support by the motorist’s status, with long-time faculty getsocial equity goals. ting more proximate parking. Others use a pure • Minimize the demand for parking in order market approach, allowing all motorists to pay to reduce parking construction costs and traffic. the same high price for close-in parking and the same low price for more distant parking. Many • Minimize resident student parking fees in order to remain competitive with off-campus allocate parking based upon affiliation, with fachousing and support social equity goals. ulty, staff, undergraduates and graduate students having different parking privileges. Most use A6. Rationalize Pricing and some combination of all three of these approaches, Policies to Promote adding various provisions unique to their history Consistency and politics. Some campuses have extraordinarily Over the past decades, PTS has established various complex permit systems that seek to address the special arrangements with different departments, equity concerns of the market approach and the individuals and groups to help meet their particular political concerns of the status approach. parking needs. While these arrangements made sense at the time, CU’s overall parking demand CU takes its own hybrid approach, with a clear patterns and policies have changed over time, and price gradient between proximate parking and some of these arrangements may be out of date. shuttle parking. The price gradient, however, is PTS should review its special arrangements in light not steep enough to allocate demand alone. As a of current policies and needs and update them result, more distant lots sit vacant, and CU foregoes revenue from motorists who would happily pay accordingly. more to get a closer parking space. While a pure market approach is not recommended given CU’s history and culture, introducing more choice into the permit allocation process could help CU raise revenue and more efficiently utilize its parking. Specifically, we recommend that the price of distant parking be reduced to make it more attractive, and the price of proximate parking be raised to shorten waiting lists. Providing a steeper price gradient on both ends also helps to address social equity concerns by providing a lower cost parking option than currently exists. To the extent that additional parkers can be attracted to the East
Page 2-12
– whether due to their schedule or occasional use of alternative modes – are penalized. The CHIP permit helps with those who frequently use alternative modes. Introducing limited-distribution, low-cost daily permits for more distant lots may be beneficial to those who occasionally walk, bike or take transit to campus. Similarly, introducing discounted Monday-Wednesday-Friday-only or Tuesday-Thursday-only permits could help those whose class schedules do not require them to be on campus every day.
The Campus Master Plan has already identified two potential sites for new parking structures, including an area off Folsom Drive and the Grandview area. The Williams Village area plan includes structured parking in later phases, but it is not intended to accommodate Main Campus demand. In addition, the Euclid Autopark was designed to allow the addition of at least two levels of parking and has been deemed structurally sound to accommodate such an addition (Carl Walker, 2004). The Regent Autopark could also be expanded into adjacent lots, and other spaces such as East Campus and Lot A8. Lease Surplus Parking 204 (west of University Club) have been discussed As noted in Figure 2-5, several areas around campus as potential expansion sites. The University Hill currently have vacant spaces that could be leased District has sought to cooperate with CU on some by PTS for far less than new parking could be con- type of shared parking, although space is limited structed. In fact, as of fall 2005, PTS estimates they to build such a facility. Athletics has identified a could sell an additional 545 parking permits to take desire to program a parking structure along Folsom advantage of surplus parking at Family Housing, in conjunction with the Field House expansion.
Auto Parking & Circulation
Campus lots, it may also help to ensure the future East Campus, Bear Creek and elsewhere around the of the Stampede. edges of CU, while still maintaining a comfortable vacancy rate for CU’s tenants and auxiliaries. Any change in parking pricing should carefully consider the impact on CU’s ability to attract and In 2005, PTS entered into partnerships with both retain the best employees at every level. Clearly, Family Housing and Bear Creek at Williams Village expensive parking is not a positive recruitment in order to take advantage of surplus parking in tool for most potential employees. Eliminating those locations. PTS did not identify any demand waiting lists for the best spaces through a modest for the more distance parking spaces at the Research price increase, however, may increase net employee Park and East Campus. satisfaction, particularly if it allows CU to maintain current prices for average permits and lower prices A9. Plan for Future Parking Needs for more distant lots. While major new parking construction may be Another tool for introducing additional choice several years away, it is important to begin planning and flexibility to the parking pricing system is now to identify development sites and funding opto acknowledge the irregular driving schedules portunities. Parking construction can take a year of many CU commuters. Currently, the cost of or more, and planning and financing a parking parking day-by-day in short term parking is ap- structure may take as many as four years. Planning proximately six times the daily cost of an annual for a new parking structure should therefore begin permit. Commuters who drive less than full time five years before it is needed.
Nelson Nygaard Page 2-13
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
All of the potential sites above would need to be carefully evaluated in terms of user service, costeffectiveness, potential for integration into the building fabric and transit system, and other traffic and community impacts. The Williams Village plan contains a thorough parking evaluation for Williams Village residents and it could be used as a model for future parking site evaluations on the Main Campus. The Transplan parking model can assist in determining the appropriate planning horizon for a specific number of needed spaces based on growth and user volumes. It may well be that in the final analysis one large facility or several smaller additions are developed. The specific nature and type of parking development will take further time to determine.
Shared parking is highly desirable, especially when such a facility is located to serve a fairly steady volume of day and night use. CU should continue to opportunities to sharing parking with uses that have a higher weekend and evening demand, and available capacity for commuters. In addition, it should continue to explore shared parking for its special events.
A12. Implement Broadway/18th/ Euclid Improvements and Regent/Folsom
The triangle of land at Broadway and Euclid provides a key opportunity for CU to enhance acFigure 2-6 shows potential future parking structure cess and visibility at this major campus entrance. sites on campus, though no timeline has been Improvements may include intersection adjustments to ease turning movements by buses, reduce identified for any of these facilities congestion for cars and provide better safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is also a potential site A10. Employ New Parking for a major transit center. Significant planning, Technologies design and engineering work is necessary before New technologies for improving efficiency and this valuable project can move forward. customer service in parking are always emerging, and CU should consider taking advantage of the At Regent and Folsom, CU and the City of Boulder most cost effective new technologies. Among the have applied for funding for a grade separation, more interesting include: allowing bicyclists and pedestrians traveling from Kittredge and areas south of campus to travel easily • Real time information about parking availability. Variable message signs at CU’s main into the core of campus without blocking traffic on visitor parking facilities can alert motorists Regent Drive. The project will also result in safety when their intended lot is full, and direct benefits for all users. them to available space in another lot. • Pay-on-foot/pay-as-you-leave/pay-bycell-phone. CU already uses pay-on-foot stations, allowing visitors to pay for parking through a variety of media including credit cards.
Page 2-14
A11. Consider Shared Parking Opportunities
1
6
277
275
254
276 7
GRANDVIEW AVE.
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
4
271
COLLEGE AVENUE
278
279
280
283
8
286
PLEASANT STREET
CENTER
ALUMNI
KOENIG
EUCLID
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
1030 13TH ST
288
287 289
290
212
HALE SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
257
281
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
249A
GARAGE
249
13TH STREET
12TH STREET
INSTITUTE OF
261
264
AVENUE
211
COLLECTIONS
MUSEUM
215
216
GUGGENHEIM
PUMP STATION
251
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
VARSITY LAKE
235
15TH STREET
DN
DN
THEATRE &
UNIVERSITY
237
5
267
McKENNA
269
265
207
DN
DN
DENISON
217
218
DANCE
DN
239
DN
OLD MAIN
DN
243 MACKY
HENDERSON MUSEUM
TB40
221A
HELLEMS
241
208
221
NORLIN QUADRANGLE
WOODBURY
AUDITORIUM
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN CENTER
136
205
CENTER
MEMORIAL
CLUB
131
136
224
202
#1
T.B.
FINE
W A L L
ON WALL
WALL
228
209
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
R O C K
232
ARTS & SCIENCES
WOLLE ARTS
R O C K
HANDRAIL
ROCK RETAINING
OLD ROCK WALL
230
TELECOMM
210
IN DISREPAIR
382
L L W A
W A L L
C K R O
R O C K
W A L L
ATHENS COURT
DIRT PATH
370
2'
373N
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
384
IMIG
334
MUSIC
AURORA AVENUE
BDWY
312
386
L.A.S.P.
355S
924
DN
CARLSON
BR OA DW AY
324
WARDENBURG
344
354
MUENZINGER PSYCH
150 MARINE COURT
BOULDER CREEK
STUDENT
144
20TH STREET RECREATION CENTER
TB35
145
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
140 TB49
TB57
138
141 TB34
EXPANSION
FAMILY HOUSING
143
CLARE SMALL
382A
19TH STREET KETCHUM
SIBELL
EUCLID AVENUE
245
NORLIN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
CHEMISTRY
225
UNIVERSITY
CRISTOL
226
SCIENCES
EKELEY
241A
244
HALL
SEWALL
GREENHOUSE #1
380
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
HUMANITIES
MACKY DRIVE
ATHENS STREET
ATHENS NORTH COURT
346
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
CHEYENNE
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
STADIUM
REGENT
309
ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
WARDENBURG DRIVE
FIELD
ARAPAHO HALL
326
BAKER DRIVE
346
TORIES
LABORA-
PHYSICS
359
FIELD
FOLSOM
389
CENTER
ATHLETIC
DAL WARD
AIR MONITORING STATION
COLORADO AVE
BAKER HALL
FARRAND
BAKER HALL
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
357
387 DUANE
387E
WILLARD
LIBBY HALL
REGENT DRIVE
HALL
378
FARRAND
HALL
LOOP DRIVE
348
363
SCIENCES
EARTH
TB67
393
BUILDING
TICKET
STADIUM
377
IVE
395
DR
HALLETT HALL
350
BRACKETT
FIELD
TB09
330
369
MATH
STADIUM DRIVE
170
COURT
NEWTON
FRANKLIN
NKLIN FRA
BUILDING
GROUNDS
394
391
191
CENTER
BENSON
INFO BOOTH
376
392 TB12
University of Colorado at Boulder DRAFT Potential Future Parking Expansion Areas
Lots 319-329/306-308
Euclid AutoPark expansion/Lot 204
Grandview Area (limited by agreement with City of Boulder
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PLEASANT STREET
3
256
270
13TH STREET
INSTITUTE OF
ECONOMICS
TB82
14TH STREET
ARMORY
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
295
EDUCATION
2
15TH STREET
17TH STREET 16TH STREET
296
C.I.R.E.S.
125
RAMALEY
133
FIELD HOUSE
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
ENVIRON-
373E
TB68
HUNTER
373S DESIGN
BALCH MCD BIOLOGY
134
POWER HOUSE
MENTAL
355 J.I.L.A.
132
DN
18TH STREET
MARINE STREET
LIBBY DRIVE
MARINE STREET
WILLARD
CHILDREN'S
339
NAROPA INSTITUTE
ADEN
EXPANSION
332
338
340
FAMILY HOUSING
18TH STREET
COCKERELL
EXPANSION
336
407
KITTREDGE WEST
T AVE
414
OBSERVATORY FIELD
405
FLEMING LAW
434
STORES/LABS
CIVIL
408
COMMONS
OBSERVATORY
418
EN REG
E IV DR
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE
410
T
FIELD
BUSINESS
435
SLHS
SOMMERS-BAUSCH
416
SOUTH TOWER
433
436
438
ADMIN
444
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
439
441
AEROSPACE
OFFICE
440
442
TAF
FISKE PLANETARIUM
432S
SCIENCE
COMPUTER
432
ICAL
MECHAN-
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CLASSROOMS
FAMILY HOUSING
RE ET ST 17 TH
327
CROSMAN HALL REED HALL KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
FOLSOM STREET COCKERELL DRIVE
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
ANDREWS
445
I.T.L.L.
447
D.L.C.
455
LESSER HOUSE
SMITH
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
19TH STREET
430
PRESS BOX 20TH STREET
BUSINESS
BASELIN
E ROAD
REGENT DRIVE ARNETT
411
412
482
COORS EVENTS
BUCKINGHAM
420
CENTER
CONFERENCE
484
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
COLORADO AVENUE GAS REG. BUILDING
494
PUMP
FIELD
KITTREDGE
SAFETY CENTER
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
458
STATION
493
048
9
10
SCIENCE
BEHAVIORAL
E. AURORA AVE.
050
INSTITUTE OF
COLLEGE
COL ORA DO
NO. 4
COLO
Page 2-15
Regent AutoPark Expansion
Folsom/Stadium Area
GEN
BEH
INST
RESEARCH LAB
LIFE SCIENCES
RESEARC LABORAT NO. 2
566
LAB NO.
RESEARC
LITMAN
Potential Future Parking Expansion Areas
LEGEND
30TH STREET
Figure 2-6 Potential Parking Structure Sites
409
ROAD LOOP
GE KITT RED
AY DW OA
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET 28TH STREET
BR
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Figure 2-7 Program Summary Evaluation Charts Cost
Impact
$
Low cost. Affordable within existing known resources.
$$
Medium cost. May be affordable within existing resources.
$$$
High cost. Will require some new funding sources.
$$$$
Very high cost. Will require significant new funding sources
Timeliness
! Low impact. May not result in measurable change.
! ! Medium impact. ! ! ! High impact. A highly effective program.
! ! ! ! Very high impact. Among the most effective programs.
Cost/Benefit
events.
Highly timely. Time is of the essence, and
should be implemented soon.
Low. Not recommended at this time. Medium. Should be considered. High. Valuable program. Very high. Should have first priority for implementation.
Note: At the end of each chapter is a summary chart that uses the symbols above to evaluate each potential programs order-of-magnitude cost, impact, timelines and overall cost/benefit.
Auto Parking & Circulation
Not timely. Medium connection to other
Nelson Nygaard Page 2-17
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Figure 2-8 Summary of Automobile and Parking Projects Project
Responsibility
$
!!!
$$$
!!!
$
!!
$
!
$
!!
$
!
$
!!
$$$
!!!
$
!
$$ - $$$
!
-
$ - $$$$ New parking construction will be highly expensive
!
$$$
!!!
PTS
A2. Continue to Promote Lower Cost Alternatives to Parking
PTS
A3. Plan Carefully for any New Parking
PTS, Facilities Management
A4. Expand Parking Management to Promote Consistency
PTS, Housing, Athletics, Research Properties, etc.
Staff time
A5. Determine Optimal Parking Fee for Resident Students
PTS, Housing, Bear Creek, Family Housing
Staff time
A6. Rationalize Pricing and Policies to Promote Consistency
PTS
Revenue neutral May be costly, but less than the marginal cost per commuter of building new structured parking Staff time
Staff time
A7. Balance Parking Demand PTS and Introduce More Choice
Page 2-18
Impact
A1. Extend Supply as it Exists
A8. Lease Surplus Parking
PTS, other departments and off-campus entities
A9. Plan for Future Parking Needs
PTS, Facilities Management
A10. Employ New Technologies
PTS
A11. Consider Shared Parking
PTS
A12. Broadway/Euclid Improvements
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
Staff time
May be costly, but less than the marginal cost per commuter of building new structured parking Staff time Real-time information can be high cost. Pay-on-foot stations often cheaper than meters over time.
Timeliness
Cost Benefit
Cost
Chapter 3: Transit Service linkages to these routes may not always be About 10%-20% of campus commuters take tranoptimal for increasing transit ridership. sit to campus each day, and transit ridership has • The success of the Stampede has proven been growing. Boulder and the Front Range have that some specific needs are still unfilled in an exceptional and widely acclaimed transit service. local areas that are otherwise well-served by While the cost of this service to CU is increasing transit. significantly, it still represents a cost-effective opportunity to transport significant populations of commuters and event visitors and diversify the overall transportation network without spending Figure 3-1 Percentage of Off-Campus Residents Living within a the millions of dollars needed to develop parking Quarter Mile of Transit structures. 10 minute headways
10 or 15 minute headways
10, 15 or 30 minute headways
10, 15, 30 or 60 minute headways
OffCampus Students
51%
57%
62%
63%
Faculty/ Staff
34%
46%
56%
58%
Total OffCampus Residents
46%
54%
60%
62%
Existing Conditions The following is a brief summary of the key transit findings in the Existing Conditions Report:
Key Findings Transit Ridership
Transit Service
• CU-Boulder is served by one of the bestused transit systems in the US, although funding is under pressure. • CU-Boulder affiliate transit ridership is significant and growing, and trends indicate that this demand has not yet peaked. • Student and staff/faculty ridership was at its highest in history when last counted in 2002. • Regional Transit District and Community Transit Network routes have been well planned to serve the densest pockets of CU-Boulder affiliate residents throughout Boulder and Denver counties.
Transit Access • About 69% of students, staff and faculty live within ¼ mile of transit routes that provide direct service to Boulder, yet pedestrian
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 3-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Statistical Findings/Trends In general, transit ridership has increased steadily for CU Boulder commuters, with the Hop, Skip and Stampede attracting far more riders than other routes. More importantly, transit ridership for all users has trended upward since the introduction of the student and faculty/staff EcoPass programs, as well as the initiation of the Stampede.
Figure 3 2
2002 Average Daily CU Student Pass Boardings
Figure 3-2 2002 Average Daily CU Student Pass Boardings 1,800 1,600 1,540 1,400
1,236
1,200 1,000 800
684
600
479
400
Page 3-2
85
80
77
68
63
59
52
203 203
225 225
MM
GG
DD
LL
94
NightHOP HOP Night
105
AB AB
JUMP JUMP
204 204
Bound BOUND
227 227
209 209
BB
STAMPEDE STAMPEDE
SKIP SKIP
HOP HOP
0 0
SkyRide SkyRide
139 139
200
205 205
279 249 247 239
Figure 3 3
CU Student RTD Bus Pass Boarding Trends: 1992 2002
Figure 3-3 CU Student RTD Bus Pass Boarding Trends: 1992 2002 LOCAL
REGIONAL*
SKYRIDE*
1600000 50747
1400000 47624
Annual Boardings
1200000
22532
800000
182312
255339
253301
201168
215758 209331
1071004 809646 557764
662896
667814
604210
535429
813111
822148
933624
648426
0 Weekly One-Way Bus Commute Trips 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 3-4 16,000
179579
182373
400000
Figure 3 4
244726
5352
200000
30060
252809
1000000
600000
288809
39072
Weekly One-Way Bus Commute Trips
Number of one-way bus trips
14,000
13,750
12,000
11,650
10,000 8,000
11,474
9,104
6,000 4,000
4,922
2,000 0 Prior to Buff OneCard
March 1998 October 1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transit Service
8,826
11,782
Page 3-3
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
User Findings In the 2003 web survey, 28% of over 1,700 respondents self-identified as bus riders for a majority of their commuting needs. In addition, 25% identified “more bus service” or “more shuttle service” among the four most important improvements CU Boulder could make in the transportation system. Transit availability was the second most important concern among students and third among staff.
Stakeholder Interviews The most commonly cited transit issues in the stakeholder interviews included: • Existing transit service level in jeopardy. Some CTN routes are pilot and the criteria to institutionalize has been tightened (Frequently)
• Frequency. As frequency increases, ridership increases on an upward curve. To be useful for a significant number of people, transit must run at most every 15 minutes. Service every 10 minutes is more than 50% more attractive. • Speed. To be attractive, transit must also be reasonably fast. Systems that provide prioritization treatments for buses, allowing them to bypass congestion or hold green lights, tend to be the most attractive to riders. • Reliability. From a customer’s standpoint, frequency is only as good as the worst gap in service, particularly unexpected gaps. • Span. To not leave riders stranded who need to travel during the middle of the day, or stay late at campus, a 16 hour service span per day is a typical minimum.
• Concerns about continued EcoPass (Frequently)
The Community Transit Network (CTN) in Boulder is highly successful largely because it measures well in all these performance indicators.
• Lack of transit options from outlying communities (e.g. Longmont) (Several times)
Branding and Image
The most commonly cited solution to these con- Television, film and print are full of images of the automobile as a symbol of personal freedom, opcerns was: portunity and individual identity. To counter this • Work with RTD to identify how transit symbolism, transit must project a positive image can better serve CU affiliates, especially to as well, making its passengers feel like they are and from areas outside City limits and to and from the campus perimeter along both first class citizens, rather than enduring the mode Broadway and 28th Street. of “last resort.” Boulder’s CTN has gone to great lengths to brand itself as something very different Industry Best Practices from the hourly RTD service typical in much of Frequency, Speed, Reliability, Span the rest of the region. Because most commuters place a high value on their time, they will generally choose whichever Passenger Information mode or route is the fastest – with price becoming Providing easy-to-read maps and schedules and a significant factor only as the price differential is easy-to-identify bus stops is important, particularly great. In order to transit to be attractive to those in attracting new riders unfamiliar with the system who have a choice of modes, therefore, it must do or transit in general. The local system’s bus route well in four key areas: maps as high quality and readily available, but little
Page 3-4
information is available at bus stops. Significant improvements will be made in this area when the “Super Stops” are constructed. Perhaps most valuable among the planned Super Stop improvements is real-time information about bus arrival and departure times.
Passenger Comfort A comfortable place to sit and shelter from the extremes of weather are also important, both at bus stops as well as in the vehicle. The Super Stops will provide excellent amenities at major stops, but additional improvements may be called for at minor stops.
Bus Rapid Transit
Summary Boulder has the most successful transit system of any city of its density in the United States, with higher per capital ridership than many cities significantly larger. This system is the result of a unique cooperative relationship among the city, the Denver Regional Transit District (RTD), and a variety of local employers and organizations, including CU. Boulder has emphasized fast, frequent and well marketed transit in order to capture a remarkable share of travelers who have the option of driving. By competing directly against the car in terms of convenience and travel time, Boulder’s Community Transit Network has had a measurable impact on both traffic congestion as well as parking demand, particularly on the CU campus. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways that the existing transit system can be improved, both within existing resources as well as with additional funding. These opportunities are outlined below.
Proposed Solutions T1. Maintain Existing CTN and EcoPass
As one of the most cost effective among all of CU’s transportation programs, maintaining the existing One tool for implementing each of the preceding EcoPass programs and the frequent Community best practices is to upgrade important bus stops Transit Network (CTN) service they support is of to become transit centers or “Super Stops.” These highest priority. facilities include enhanced passenger amenities including shelter and benches, as well as useful information including system maps, schedules and “Next Bus” real time information. Transit centers
Transit Centers
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transit Service
Pulling together all of the previous points, Bus Rapid Transit is emerging as a low-cost, flexible alternative to rail that produces similar ridership results. Operating like light rail on rubber tires, Bus Rapid Transit systems have proved successful in places such as Ottawa, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas and other cities around the world. The proposed Bus Rapid Transit line along the US 36 corridor from Denver via 28th Street to downtown Boulder will provide great benefits to CU, offering significant travel time savings compared to driving between most destinations in the corridor.
are also a key place to orient visitors to the campus, with campus information directories and maps.
Page 3-5
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
T2. Develop Campus Transit Circulation Plan
T4. Implement Planned Bus Stop Improvements
CU should work with the City and RTD to develop The city and university have funded two important a more formal transit circulation plan for the cam- improvements at key stops: pus. This plan should focus on several goals: • “Super Stops” at some particularly impor• Minimize bus travel time across and around campus. Reducing delay for transit allows transit to expand capacity and increase frequency at no cost. • Improve passenger comfort and amenities at key stops, including shelters, benches, maps and “Next Bus” displays. • Ensure seamlessness of intermodal connections by providing bicycle parking and pedestrian wayfinding tools.
tant bus stops, particularly along Broadway and 28th Street. These stops would include enhanced shelters, bicycle parking, transit information and real-time bus arrival information.
• “NextBus” real-time bus arrival information signs will also be installed at second-level bus stops.
In addition, we recommend that the city and CU work together to remove other barriers to entry by It should also provide additional detail for the fol- providing route maps and headway information lowing campus-related transit recommendations: at most bus stops. Low-cost display panels can be bolted to bus stop poles. The city’s existing smallsize route maps can then be put in the panels. These T3. Support Transit Prioritization maps should be updated to include basic frequency Measures Given the service frequency and passenger vol- information about each route, and the line weights umes on the Hop, Skip, Stampede and the various or colors of bus routes on the map should reflect Broadway lines, CU Boulder should support transit the relative frequency of the line. prioritization treatments on the following streets, T5. Plan for a CU Boulder Multiin priority order: • Broadway • The Euclid/18th/Colorado corridor used by the Hop, Stampede and 209
modal Transit Center and/or Transit Mall
Much initial discussion has occurred regarding the potential of a major multi-modal transit center de• Regent Drive velopment in or near the major triangular-shaped • Folsom north of Colorado destination area of Broadway/18th/Euclid. Much Such measures may include queue jump lanes for can be said in support of this concept, particularly transit that may require expanding the right of in addressing multiple concerns of poor circulation way of streets such as Broadway or 18th Street. to and from CU at Broadway during certain times Other measures include signal prioritization, traf- of day, the opportunity to focus transit near major fic management during special events, additional destinations, and the opportunity to enhance the image and functionality of a prominent gateway passenger vehicle restrictions, etc. into the campus. A major multi-modal facility should be considered in phases, and sufficient Page 3-6
right-of-way set aside to begin the development of a horizontal phase of this center. As noted in the Campus Master Plan, much of 18th Street and Colorado are currently being used as a de facto transit malls. This use could be formalized, either as a lower cost substitute for a transit center, an interim approach to organizing transit circulation, or as a permanent extension of transit service. In this constrained area, special attention must be paid to reducing transit delay and improving passenger amenities such as transit information, campus wayfinding information, shelter and Next Bus displays.
T7. Improve Special Event Transit Options Work with RTD to enhance special event transport to CU in order to reduce event-related traffic and reduce campus parking burdens. This could take the form of expanded Park and Ride programs, and the increasing cost of event parking (now $20 for major sports events) should assist in marketing these alternatives.
T8. Expand EcoPass Program
With improved service on 28th Street, the proposed Super Stop at 28th and Colorado becomes very important for CU, offering connections among the University, much of the city, the entire US 36 corridor and Downtown Denver.
• Instead of providing retirees free parking, consider offering them EcoPass
With Broadway serving as more of a “front door” to the campus, some direct connections from Broadway to the US 36 corridor should be maintained, such as the existing AB, B and DD lines. As noted above, transit prioritization treatments should be considered for Broadway, and CU should consider arranging for right of way for transit queue jump lanes or other enhancements.
T9. Help Inform Community Transit Network Improvements
• Consider reduced-cost EcoPass for part-time employees, volunteers and regular visitors to the campus.
The Existing Conditions Report maps all CU faculty, staff and student home addresses in a Geographic Information System (GIS) database, allowing readers to see where CU commuters live relative to local transit routes, differentiated by
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transit Service
CU’s EcoPass program in particular and Boulder’s CTN in general, cost CU less per commuter than its parking program. More importantly, judging from the success of the Stampede, the marginal T6. Support Bus Rapid Transit on cost per net new user is significantly less with new 28th Street and Broadway transit investments than with new parking strucOne of the most valuable major capital projects ture construction. currently being considered in the Boulder area is the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on the 36 Cor- To capitalize upon the success of the EcoPass ridor, including true Bus Rapid Transit service in program, CU should explore extending it more the 28th Street corridor. CU should work to en- broadly throughout its community, including: sure that the FastTracks plans include BRT service • Requiring tenants to offer EcoPass as a along 28th Street, and that service along Broadway condition of lease, and providing it at CU’s discount rate. is also enhanced.
Page 3-7
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
frequency of service. This analysis allowed us to sion of the Community Transit Network, adding draw the following conclusions: entirely new lines such as the Orbit. While commendable, the city’s approach for future transit has In general, CU commuters are very well served two drawbacks: by transit. As shown in Figure 3-1, the majority • It assumes existing RTD routes remain in of campus commuters live within a quarter mile place as is and tries to work around them, – easy walking distance – of a bus line that runs and every 15 minutes or better. • Fiscal reality makes the addition of entirely new, high frequency services doubtful in the near term.
This level of service is true even for commuters coming from the nearby communities of Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville and Superior, where To address these concerns, we recommend that CU dense concentrations of CU commuters follow support a City, County and RTD-led comprehenexisting transit services. sive transit plan in the Boulder area. Such a plan Interestingly, the only concentrations of commut- would have the following two elements: ers not directly served by frequent transit are within the City of Boulder, in three specific locations: • North of Downtown, between 28th Street and Broadway. A significant concentration of commuters lives in this zone, with only the RTD route 204 providing service, at every 20-30 minutes. • Northwest of Downtown, where the hourly 201 provides good coverage, but not at sufficient frequency to be attractive to significant numbers of commuters. • Southwest of Downtown, where the 210 provides good coverage but inadequate frequency.
We therefore believe that the next important transit investments for both CU and Boulder will be not in adding new lines, but in improving the efficiency, structure and frequency of existing services. This recommendation is addressed in more detail below.
T10. Assist City and RTD in New Comprehensive System Plan In its citywide Transportation Master Plan, the city includes recommendations for aggressive expanPage 3-8
• Clear Performance Criteria for Transit in the Boulder Area. These criteria would focus more toward productivity and cost effectiveness than RTD’s current priorities, which emphasize coverage. • Comprehensive Transit Restructuring Study. To best meet the city’s and CU’s transit and transportation network performance criteria, existing RTD routes and CTN routes should be examined closely and restructured to make them clearer, more efficient, and more in line with local goals.
Figure 3-5 City of Boulder Transit Plan Map
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transit Service
The City of Boulder’s 2003 Transportation Master Plan update improves upon the existing Community Transit Network and expands service to new corridors.
Page 3-9
T11. Support More Local Involvement with RTD In order to set new transit performance criteria, restructure the local transit service and, most importantly, generate a higher level of funding for local transit, it will likely make sense for a stronger local oversight body to be created within the context of RTD. The Boulder area should by no means withdraw from RTD – the entire Route 36 corridor is already inseparable from Denver and it is becoming increasingly linked. Rather, the Boulder area has different priorities from the rest of the RTD service area, and it has shown willingness and financial ability to add significant funding above the baseline level of RTD service. A new local oversight body within RTD would have several advantages: 1. Local priorities could guide transit routing and service hours allocation 2. RTD could be relieved of the responsibility of managing public outreach and consensus building in the Boulder area
Transit Service
3. Government entities in the Boulder area could increase funding for local transit, and be assured that they would direct how that money was spent 4. It would allow for the establishment of a local transit benefit district, which could raise local funding for local transit improvements.
Given the high degree of value CU has gotten from the Community Transit Network and the EcoPass program to date, CU should work closely with the city to pursue some sort of transit benefit district.
Nelson Nygaard Page 3-11
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan Page 3-12
Figure 3-7 Summary of Transit Projects
Project
Responsibility
Cost
Impact
$$$
!!!
Timeliness
Cost Benefit
T1. Maintain Existing CTN and EcoPass
PTS, City, RTD, ASCU
T2. Develop Campus Transit Circulation Plan
PTS, Facilities Management
$$
!!!!
T3. Explore Transit Prioritization Measures
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
$$$
!!!
T4. Implement Planned Bus Stop Improvements
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
$$$
!!!
T5. Plan for a CU Bolder Multi-modal Transit Center
PTS, Facilities Management
$$$
!!!
T6. Support Bus Rapid Transit on 28th Street and Broadway
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
$$$
!!!!
T7. Improve Special Event Transit Options
PTS, Facilities Management, Athletics
$$
!!
T8. Expand EcoPass Program
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
$$$
!!!!
T9. Help Inform Community Transit Network Improvements
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD
$
!!!!
T10. Comprehensive System Plan
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD, County
$
!!!!
T11. Support More Local Involvement with RTD
PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD, County
$
!!!!
Will likely come from EcoPass fee and fare increases
Chapter 4: Shared Infrastructure Improvements Before addressing pedestrians, bicycles and service vehicles, it is important to examine the obstacles and opportunities that improvements for these modes have in common. This chapter examines the issues associated with the campus’ secondary transportation system, its paths, bikeways and service lanes.
Existing Conditions Key Findings Some pavement areas are multiple-use, with no defined management or funding
are aware of the limitations and opportunities as stated earlier in this document in developing an effective multi-modal circulation plan. A circulation hierarchy and plan that serves all users in an area while reducing inter-modal conflicts should greatly ease many of the concerns expressed by stakeholders in this process. Therefore diverse user involvement in circulation planning is a key requirement.
User Findings Stakeholder Interviews
Circulation for service, bikes, and pedestrians is not well defined
These were the most common solutions offered: • Limit vehicle access on internal campus roads consistently (Frequently)
Bike, pedestrian, and service vehicle circulation • Identify different routes for bikes, peds and are critical layers in the overall campus circulation cars (Several times) plan. The physical infrastructure for these modes • Widen paths (Several times) must be obvious to the users, so that service vehicle drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians all know which routes best take them where they want to go, which Industry Best Practices routes they should avoid, and where they should Many of the best practices listed below are adexpect to share pavement space with other users. dressed in more detail in subsequent chapters on bicycles, pedestrians and service vehicles. While authority is not vested in a single entity to redevelop these spaces, most users of these spaces
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Shared Infrastructure
The following were the most commonly cited issues While it clear which entities are responsible for regarding campus circulation: CU’s buildings and its main roads, for some • No funding source for improving the oncampus pedestrian network (Frequently) paths and minor roads, responsibility may be unclear, particularly at the borders between one • Service vehicles drive on sidewalks (Several times) department’s jurisdiction and another’s, or between the City and the University. Regardless of who • Service and emergency vehicle access to residence halls (Several times) is responsible, few dedicated funding sources are available to maintain these facilities. • Wayfinding is terrible (Several times)
Page 4-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Pedestrian Core
for outside vendors who place a very high value on their time, and for whom citations are paid by the corporation rather than the driver. And many campuses, including CU, suffer damage to pathways and even building edges when large vehicle circulation remains undefined. Therefore, the placement of barriers in appropriate locations is not only a control method for circulation and safety, but can also minimize facility damage.
As CU’s Campus Master Plan identifies, a pedestrian oriented campus core is key to fulfilling any university’s academic mission. First, students must be able to reach all campus classrooms safely during the limited class change times. From a sheer geometric standpoint, the only way to handle the intense and complex movements between classes is primarily by foot and bicycle. Second, a pedestrian oriented core increases the number of chance encounters among students and faculty of different Interface between Pedestrian Core disciplines, enriching the academic experience. and Roadways Special attention should be paid to the design details where the pedestrian core meets the surroundClear Service Routes and ing roadway system. Campus pathways are only as Appropriate Loading Docks To support the pedestrian core while maintaining safe as their intersections with the roadways. The service access to campus buildings, clear service median refuges, raised crosswalks and sound engiroutes should be identified and enforced. Some neering CU uses at its key path/road intersections routes may be limited by time of day or to specific help to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. users. All buildings must have an identifiable loading dock or area, and these loading zones must be Bicycle/Pedestrian/Service Vehicle sized appropriately so that service vehicles can avoid Conflicts parking on sidewalks or paths. A “ring and spoke” Bicycles and pedestrians generally do not mix well. design is often the most appropriate way to route In fact, bicycles may have more in common with service traffic. In this design, major service routes service vehicles than pedestrians. Except where “ring” a pedestrian core area, and spokes intrude bicyclists must travel at pedestrian speeds, bicycle in specific low-volume locations. Service vehicles, routes should generally be separated from pedestriinstead of winding through a core area must return an walkways. On low speed service routes, bicycles the way they entered onto the service ring. and services vehicles can generally mix safely.
Barriers to Define Vehicle Circulation Management by Time of Day, Gates, Hierarchy Key Cards, etc. Most campuses find it necessary to place physical restrictions to prevent service vehicles from straying from designated routes. Bollards, planters, boulders, low walls and other tools may be used. Few campuses have the enforcement resources to rely on citations as a primary deterrent, particularly
Page 4-2
In order to reduce the overall volumes of motor vehicles in the campus core, it is often appropriate to restrict access except to specially authorized vehicles by time of day. Staffed gates or gates with key card access are an effective way of screening unnecessary traffic. For narrow service lanes, hydraulic or
pneumatic bollards allow through bicycle access, and they also reduce vandalism costs.
Ongoing Maintenance With intense pressure upon all campus funding sources, universities face challenges in identifying ongoing pavement maintenance funds. Maintenance issues are exacerbated by jurisdictional issues, where different schools, offices or programs are responsible for maintenance of different pavement areas.
Proposed Solutions
into the pedestrian zones should be minimized. • Through traffic should be kept toward the edges of campus to the extent practicable. • Bicycles should be separated from pedestrians to the extent practicable, and the impacts of bicycles in the pedestrian zones should be minimized by provision of bicycle parking and through circulation around the edges of the pedestrian zones. • Transit, bicycles and service vehicles may share the same routes, but pedestrians should be provided separate sidewalks or paths on these routes.
Engineering Alley -- may severely limit bicycle and motor vehicle speeds or may restrict vehicles altogether.
• All buildings must have service vehicle access and designated service routes to reach those buildings, but intrusion of service vehicles
I3-I5. Improve Campus Wayfinding As identified in other campus studies as well as the stakeholder interview process, wayfinding on campus can be challenging for newcomers. While the original campus was laid out on a simple grid
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Shared Infrastructure
The following recommendations will help enhance I2. Create a multi-use pathway walking, biking and service access on campus by system that supports use of more clearly defining facilities for these modes. smaller service vehicles As an alternative to large service and delivery I1. Create a Clear Circulation trucks, small electric vehicles and golf carts offer Hierarchy great advantages. They dramatically reduce the Most of the recommendations elsewhere in this loading zone and service lane access requirements document are built upon notions of clear circula- for campus buildings, allowing for more landtion hierarchy, identifying those corridors that are scaping and other improvements to the campus most important for each mode of transportation. environment. The proposed circulation system is based upon Electric carts have similar requirements as bicycles several principles: in terms of road space, traffic engineering and • Pedestrians are the predominant mode on parking – and also the need for separation from campus, and they should be accommodated pedestrians. Designing some multiuse paths to acsafely and efficiently. commodate small service vehicles while physically • In some locations on campus, pedestrian excluding larger motor vehicles. This can improve volumes are so high and rights of way so safely and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists constrained that vehicle access should be restricted. These “pedestrian zones” – inwhile maintaining a high degree of service access cluding locations such as UMC Plaza and to all campus buildings.
Page 4-3
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
• Standards for placement of building names following the patterns of the surrounding city, most and addresses upon and near buildings of these orienting axes were interrupted by build• Campus directory maps at key locations, in ings long ago. Some streets and many pedestrian addition to those already in place corridors are not signed. As on many campuses, • Standards for street and path signs building names are placed discretely. Visitor parking areas can be difficult to locate for newcomers, and no indication is given for alternative visitor I6. Define “Ownership” and Funding parking if one’s first choice is full. Plan for Campus Corridors In order to identify funding and implementation responsibilities for they key improvements outWayfinding Recommendations: lined above, it is important to understand which I3. Name Key Campus Corridors departments are in charge of all the various project and Provide Street Signs components, including roadways, paths, and landTo improve wayfinding, we recommend that scape, along with their construction and ongoing all major corridors on campus, particularly maintenance. For a few locations, it is unclear who those corresponding to the former street grid, is responsible. In some others, maintenance and be given names, and that street signs be put upgrade responsibilities fall to different units, and up at all intersections, including intersections therethere should be coordination between them. between one path and another.
I4. Consider Giving Buildings Addresses Once all corridors are named, signed and mapped, it is worth considering giving addresses to campus buildings. Building addresses can be useful not only for wayfinding, but for other issues such as emergency vehicle access, and electronic mapping, such as Map Quest.
I5. Consider Common Signage Standards and Destination Signage A comprehensive signage plan would be very useful for the university and could include the following elements: • Standards for destination-oriented signage on major roads, directing visitors to major campus facilities
Page 4-4
Figure 4-1: Summary of Shared Infrastructure Projects
Cost
Impact
Timeliness
Cost Benefit
I1. Create a Clear Circulation Hierarchy
PTS, Facilities Management
$
!
I2. Create a multi-use Pathway System Oriented to Smaller Service Vehicles
PTS, Facilities Management
$$$
!!!
I3) Name Key Campus Corridors and Provide Street Signs
PTS, Facilities Management
$
!
I4) Consider Giving Buildings Addresses
PTS, Facilities Management
$
!
I5) Consider Common Signage Standards and Destination Signage
PTS, Facilities Management
$$
!!
I6. Define “Ownership” and Funding Plan for Campus Corridors
PTS, Facilities Management
$
!
Shared Infrastructure
Responsibility
Project
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 4-5
Chapter 5: Bicycle Facilities CU and the City of Boulder are among the most Data bicycle-friendly places in North America. An ex- Bicycle commuting is holding relatively steady at cellent, dedicated bicycle network circumnavigates CU, between 10% and 15%. the campus and connects the campus to most neighborhoods in the City and beyond. CU’s high bicycle mode share results in significant cost savings to the campus parking system. Some cyclists, however, create hazardous walking conditions on campus, and need to be better educated about safe cycling, backed up by more effective enforcement.
Pedestrian Environment
Campus funding for bike enforcement is not dedicated, and many key routes are unclear. Anecdotally, bike traffic is increasing in 2004, and bicycle parking appears better utilized.
Existing Conditions Bicycling Trends
• Approximately 23% of all CU-Boulder students bike to campus, and 13% of faculty/ staff bike to campus at least one day a week. • Faculty members (who generally live closer to campus) are more likely to bicycle than staff, and overall bicycle trips to work are showing a slight upward trend.
Pedestrian/Bike System Investment
• Due to the limitations of existing funding mechanisms, most key campus stakeholders that were interviewed agree that CU-Boulder’s investment in its bicycle and pedestrian network has not kept pace with growing demand. (Chapter 8 and 10) • There are significant mode conflicts between autos, service vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes that jeopardize travel safety and efficiency. (Chapter 8)
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 5-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Figure 5 1
Faculty/Staff Who Bike to Work at Least One Day per Week during a Typical Work Week
Figure 5-1 Faculty/Staff Who Bike to Work at Least One Day per Week during a Typical Work Week1 25%
Staff
Faculty
20%
20%
17% 14% 12%
15% 10%
F/S Weighted Average
10% 10%
12%
8%
17%
15%
13%
16%
11%
14%
12%
13%
6%
5% 0% March 1998
n=480
October 1998 n=501
1999
2000
n=489
n=504
Base = Total respondents
User Findings Pedestrian/bicycle conflicts were among the top 10 transportation related concerns for staff, resident students and commuting students, ranking 7th in average.
Stakeholder interviews Among stakeholders, the greatest concerns included: • No funding source for improving the oncampus bicycle network; no funding, staffing or responsibility for bike issues (Frequently) • Improve on-campus bicycle circulation (e.g. Cross Campus – Folsom/28th; UMC area; 18th/Colorado corridor) (Several times) • Not enough bicycle parking; quality of bicycle parking (Several times) 1 CU Faculty/Staff Buff OneCard Tracking Survey, Winter 2002, Draft
Page 5-2
19%
2001 n=506
2002 n=503 Base = Total respondents
The most cited solutions included: • Provide more bike parking spaces (Frequently) • Improve quality of bike parking spaces (Several times) • Provide better bicycle storage for long-term need (e.g. 8-hour day) (Several times) • Enforce the dismount zone (Several times)
Industry Best Practices Continuous, Dedicated Bikeways Excellent bicycle facilities take many forms, from dedicated paths fully separated from the surrounding roadway system to bicycle lanes to traffic calmed lanes where bicycles comfortably share the road with low-speed motor vehicles. These dedicated bikeways, however, are only as good as the worst links in the network. If a bike lane suddenly disappears as it approaches a challenging
intersection, or if a path ends before it reaches a major destination, it is of little use in encouraging cycling as an alternative to driving. As the bikeway system becomes a more densely interconnected network, the rate of bicycling increases on a sharply upward curve.
Bicycle Parking
Many bicycle commuters, particularly faculty, staff and those that bicycle long distances to campus, need a change of clothes at the end of the trip, and perhaps a shower. Providing low-cost clothes lockers in administrative buildings and ensuring access to nearby showers are valuable tools for promoting bicycle commuting.
Wayfinding Major bikeways, like major roadways, should be signed. In addition, special destination signage is also helpful, particularly at intersections of major bikeways.
Proposed Solutions Bike Facility Improvements The following bicycle facility improvements should be prioritized:
Bicycle Safety Education
B1. East-West Bikeway
While extensive coursework and testing is necessary to secure a license to drive a car, anyone can ride a bicycle without special training. Basic education in the safe operation of a bicycle, however, can reduce crash and injury rates.
The Campus Master Plan includes the East-West Bikeway, stretching from Broadway to Foothills Parkway, among its two bike-related goals. It specifies these key details:
Summer Bicycle Storage Many students without cars lack the means to take their bicycles with them over the summer. A simple way to encourage bicycling is to offer low-cost summer bike storage, taking advantage of underutilized spaces, such as resident hall basements. Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Overview of Methods. Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-165, July 1999, Federal Highway Adminstration. Extensive data available. Much is summarized by the Federal Highway Administration’s Bicycle Safety Education Resource Center, available at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/fhwa.html.
• Place signs to indicate the route. • Modify the Pleasant Street corridor to allow two-way bike travel. Pleasant is important for many modes. Parking should be retained for close-in needs, handicapped, and the Macky Auditorium events. Improvements in service access would help. Pedestrian linkages need improvement. So redevelopment of this street should follow the guidelines for multimodal streets (Section IV.C.5). • Improve conditions for bicycle safety along Colorado Avenue from the Stadium to 28th Street. Consider bike lanes.
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Pedestrian Environment
After continuous bikeway, the design and placement of bicycle parking is the next most important factor for the encouragement of bicycling. The placement of racks on the “desire line” between the approach path and the front door is important. Bicycle racks should be designed to support the frame and allow the use of a variety of locks, including using a U-lock to secure both the frame and the front wheel to the rack. At residential areas, protection from weather and from theft is important. CU’s updated bicycle parking guidelines address these issues.
Commuter Showers and Lockers
Page 5-3
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
• Improve bicycle crossings of 28th Street, at grade along Colorado Avenue or below grade at College Avenue. • Add a bike path from College Avenue to the intersection of 30th and Colorado.
• Development of a grade separation at the Regent/Folsom crossing.
B4. University-Stadium Path
By adding a short stretch of new pathway, a key • Add directional signage east of 30th Street east-west connection can be created at the top of from the Colorado Avenue bike lanes to the Boulder Creek bluff, connecting University Skunk Creek path, Foothills bike path, and Avenue to Stadium Drive, behind the Student Recthe bridge over Foothills Parkway. reation Center. The steepness of the bluff behind Clare Small may require the use of retaining walls B2. Bicycle Parking The Campus Master Plan also states as a goal that to support the path. This pathway connection is campus bike racks will be of sufficient quantity prioritized because it is important for all modes, and improved quality on campus. It includes these including pedestrians and service vehicles. guidelines: • Add racks to meet enrollment growth; also where racks are insufficient such as along the Broadway bike path, where demand is being increased by new building development, and in housing areas to meet demand. • Replace dilapidated and obsolete “hook” racks campus-wide.
B5. Commuter Support
CU should expand its clothes locker, shower and commuter information programs, and collecting careful data to determine whether these are costeffective uses of transportation funding.
B6. Bicycle Enforcement Program
In addition CU should experiment with covered and secure bicycle parking, collecting user data to determine how the cost of these investments compares with the effectiveness in reducing automobile parking demand.
Bike traffic is difficult to regulate at CU. Historically, “Dismount Zones” required that bicyclists get off and walk their bikes in key pedestrian areas. The program was difficult to enforce and as a result was disbanded. CU is now considering a speed limit approach, whereby bicyclists and service vehicles would be limited to 5 mph through the B3. North-South Bikeway In addition to the above goals, we recommend that pedestrian zones. a bikeway be added, connecting the northwest and Another enforcement issue includes bikes attached southeast portions of campus. To allow for this to access rails, which is being managed through connection, two key infrastructure improvements signage and the provision of sufficient nearby bike would be necessary, including: parking spaces. By continuing to add bike parking • Development of a North-South bikeway between Broadway at Kittredge Commons along the Folsom Avenue alignment and connecting to the East-West Corridor at Colorado Avenue.
Page 5-4
where needed, creating continuous bikeways, and slowing bike traffic to walking speed in crowded areas in the pedestrian core, bike enforcement can be effectively achieved.
Figure 5-2 Summary of Bicycle Programs Project B1. East-West Bikeway
Responsibility PTS, Facilities Management
B2. Bicycle Parking
PTS, Facilities Management
B3. North-South Path
PTS, Facilities Management
B4. University-Stadium Path
PTS, Facilities Management, Athletics PTS
B5. Commuter Support
B6. Bicycle Enforcement Program PTS
Cost
Impact
Timeliness Cost Benefit
$$ $ $$ $$
!!!! !! !!!! !!!
$ $
! !
Facility Development Options
Pedestrian Environment
The following map and chart summarize all of the recommended campus pedestrian, bicycle and multiuse facility improvements, with priority level noted. Since this map covers a variety of modes, it is relevant to chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7, and it is not repeated there.
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 5-5
INSTITUTE OF
3
256
270
1
254
276
COLLEGE AVENUE
7
278
279
8
286
PLEASANT STREET
CENTER
ALUMNI
KOENIG
EUCLID
290
289
212
HALE SCIENCE
288
287
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
1030 13TH ST
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
249A
GARAGE
249
280
283
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
257
281 INSTITUTE OF
261
264
251
AVENUE
211
COLLECTIONS
MUSEUM
215
216
GUGGENHEIM
PUMP STATION
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
VARSITY LAKE
235
15TH STREET
DN
DN
THEATRE &
UNIVERSITY
237
5
267
McKENNA
269
265
207
DN
DENISON
217
218
DANCE
DN
DN
DN
OLD MAIN
239
DN
243 MACKY
HENDERSON MUSEUM
TB40
221A
HELLEMS
241
208
221
NORLIN QUADRANGLE
WOODBURY
AUDITORIUM
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN CENTER
205
CENTER
MEMORIAL
CLUB
136
224
202
#1
T.B.
FINE
W A L L
ON WALL
WALL
228
209
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
R O C K
232
ARTS & SCIENCES
WOLLE ARTS
R O C K
HANDRAIL
ROCK RETAINING
OLD ROCK WALL
230
TELECOMM
210
IN DISREPAIR
382
L L W A
W A L L
C K R O
R O C K
W A L L
ATHENS COURT
DIRT PATH
370
2'
373N
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
384
IMIG
334
MUSIC
AURORA AVENUE
BDWY
924
DN
L.A.S.P.
OA DW AY
386
CARLSON
355S
312 BR
324
WARDENBURG
344
354
MUENZINGER PSYCH
MARINE COURT
150
BOULDER CREEK
STUDENT
144
20TH STREET RECREATION CENTER
TB35
145
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
140 TB49
TB57
138
141 TB34
EXPANSION
FAMILY HOUSING
143
CLARE SMALL
382A
19TH STREET KETCHUM
SIBELL
EUCLID AVENUE
245
NORLIN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
CHEMISTRY
225
UNIVERSITY
CRISTOL
226
SCIENCES
EKELEY
241A
244
HALL
SEWALL
GREENHOUSE #1
380
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
136
HUMANITIES
MACKY DRIVE
ATHENS STREET
131
346
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
CHEYENNE
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
STADIUM
REGENT
309
ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
WARDENBURG DRIVE
FIELD
ARAPAHO HALL
326
BAKER DRIVE
346
TORIES
LABORA-
PHYSICS
359
FIELD
FOLSOM
389
CENTER
ATHLETIC
DAL WARD
AIR MONITORING STATION
COLORADO AVE
BAKER HALL
FARRAND
BAKER HALL
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
357
387 DUANE
387E
WILLARD
LIBBY HALL
REGENT DRIVE
HALL
378
FARRAND
HALL
LOOP DRIVE
348
363
TB67
393
395
BUILDING
TICKET
STADIUM
377
HALLETT HALL
350
BRACKETT
FIELD
FRANKLIN
TB09
330
369
MATH
STADIUM DRIVE
170
COURT
NEWTON
IVE N DR KLI FRAN
BUILDING
GROUNDS
394
391
SCIENCES
EARTH
BENSON
INFO BOOTH
376
392 TB12
191
CENTER
CHILDREN'S
University of Colorado at Boulder Draft Main Campus Primary Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors
Planned Folsom Multiuse Path Improvements
Improve bicycle access at gate
Organize circulation
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PLEASANT STREET
6
277
275
GRANDVIEW AVE.
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
4
271
Widen shared path and improve intersection at 17th
12TH STREET
13TH STREET
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
13TH STREET
TB82
14TH STREET
ARMORY
295
ECONOMICS
2
EDUCATION
296
C.I.R.E.S.
Multiuse Path/Service Road behind Rec Center
15TH STREET
17TH STREET 16TH STREET
ATHENS NORTH COURT
HUNTER
125
RAMALEY
133
FIELD HOUSE
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
373E
TB68
ENVIRON-
BALCH MCD BIOLOGY
134
POWER HOUSE
MENTAL
355 J.I.L.A.
373S DESIGN
132
DN
18TH STREET
MARINE STREET
LIBBY DRIVE
MARINE STREET
WILLARD
NAROPA INSTITUTE
339
EXPANSION
ADEN
FAMILY HOUSING
332
338
340
EXPANSION
18TH STREET
COCKERELL
FAMILY HOUSING
336
407
KITTREDGE WEST
T AVE
414
OBSERVATORY FIELD
405
FLEMING LAW
434
STORES/LABS
CIVIL
408
COMMONS
OBSERVATORY
418
REG
T
E IV DR
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE
410
EN
FIELD
BUSINESS
435
SLHS
SOMMERS-BAUSCH
416
SOUTH TOWER
433
436
438
ADMIN
444
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
439
441
AEROSPACE
OFFICE
440
442
TAF
FISKE PLANETARIUM
432S
SCIENCE
COMPUTER
432
ICAL
MECHAN-
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CLASSROOMS
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
RE ET ST 17 TH
327
CROSMAN HALL REED HALL KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
FOLSOM STREET COCKERELL DRIVE
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
ANDREWS
445
I.T.L.L.
447
D.L.C.
455
LESSER HOUSE
SMITH
"Ho Chi Minh" Trail Improvements
19TH STREET
430
PRESS BOX 20TH STREET
BUSINESS
BASELIN
E ROAD
REGENT DRIVE ARNETT
411
412
482
COORS EVENTS
BUCKINGHAM
420
CENTER
CONFERENCE
484
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
COLORADO AVENUE
BUILDING
GAS REG.
494
PUMP
FIELD
KITTREDGE
SAFETY CENTER
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
458
STATION
493
ORA DO
048
9
10
SCIENCE
BEHAVIORAL
E. AURORA AVE.
050
INSTITUTE OF
COLLEGE
COL
RESEARC LABORAT NO. 2
COLO
Proposed Improvements
Primary Pedestrian Only Routes (bikes and service limited)
GEN
BEH
INST
Primary Bicycle/ Pedestrian Routes (no motor vehicles)
NO. 4
RESEARCH LAB
LIFE SCIENCES
Shared Bicycle/ Pedestrian/ Service Facilities
566
LAB NO.
RESEARC
LITMAN
LEGEND
30TH STREET
Figure 5-3 Draft Campus Bikeway and Pedestrian Map
409
ROAD LOOP
GE
AY DW KITT RED
OA
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET 28TH STREET
BR
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Page 5-7
Chapter 6: Pedestrian Environment Data is not sufficient to explain this trend, The CU Main Campus is a highly walkable envibut it could be due to improved transit serronment, welcoming to pedestrians of all abilities. vice or greater travel distances to campus. Boulder Creek and its adjacent bluffs, however, provide a significant topographical obstacle for Pedestrian/Bike System Investment pedestrians. In addition, pedestrians must share • Due to the limitations of existing funding narrow pathways with high volumes of bicyclists. mechanisms, most key campus stakeholders
that were interviewed agree that CU-Boulder’s investment in its bicycle and pedestrian network has not kept pace with growing demand.
Existing Conditions Pedestrian Trends
• There are significant mode conflicts between autos, service vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes that jeopardize travel safety and efficiency.
• The percentage of students walking to campus has held fairly steady over the last 10 years, while faculty/staff pedestrian trips to campus have declined slightly since 1998.
• Safety is a noted concern among stakeholders – both walking at night and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
Figure 6 1
Faculty/Staff Who Walk to Work at Least One Day per Week During a Typical Week
Figure 6-1 Faculty/Staff Who Walk to Work at Least One Day per Week During a Typical Week 25%
Staff
Faculty
F/S Weighted Average
20% 15%
15% 10%
Pedestrian Environment
• About 30% of CU-Boulder affiliates walk to campus on a daily basis, including over 50% of CU-Boulder students.
9%
14% 10%
11%
7%
8%
7%
9%
5%
8% 8% 8%
8%
9% 6% 5%
7%
7%
0% March 1998
October 1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Base = Total respondents
Base = Total respondents . CU Faculty/Staff Buff OneCard Tracking Survey, Winter 2002, Draft, Page 14.
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 6-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
User Findings
one another. Many of these techniques have been As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, bike/pedestrian written about extensively under the title “Crime conflicts are a concern among most campus affili- Prevention Through Environmental Design” or CPTED. A book by this title was written by ates, including the key stakeholders. Timothy Crowe and numerous training programs are available around the country. CU already takes Industry Best Practices advantage of many of these techniques, including: Core and Ring Concept The pedestrian is the defining transportation modal element of any campus. To create a protected campus core where pedestrians dominate, while still providing access for automobiles and delivery trucks, many university campuses have created a ring road for vehicles, along with a campus core where through vehicular traffic is banned. CU’s unique geography means this concept cannot be implemented in its pure form.
Protection from Bicycles For most campus pedestrians, the greater concern is not being struck by a car, but by a bicycle. In general, bicycles and pedestrians do not mix well. On high-volume bicycle routes, bikes should generally be provided with a separate space, with pedestrians on a designated sidewalk.
Personal Safety Personal safety is of concern to all pedestrians, but particularly to women who walk at night. Safety can be broken down into two main components: 1) actual or statistical and 2) perceived. For transportation planners, perceived safety is just as important as actual safety; even if a place has had no reported incidents of crime, if users perceive it to be unsafe, they will prefer to drive than to walk.
• Natural access control. Stairwells in some campus buildings are enclosed with glass, with no possible points of “entrapment.” Pedestrians can see well ahead of them and take alternate routes if they feel threatened. They also know they can be seen by others who may call the police. • Natural surveillance. For many people, it is frightening to walk in a deserted place where no one can see you if you run into trouble. Increasing pedestrian activity at night, directing pedestrians to gather along designated routes and increasing the number of “active” windows looking upon these routes at night can be useful tools. In more isolated areas, emergency safety points can supplement the other techniques. • Territorial reinforcement. It is important that CU and its faculty, staff and students have a clear sense of “ownership” over the campus, including all its corners. This can be made apparent through excellent maintenance and clear design markers, as CU employs almost everywhere. Places that are more ambiguous, such as along Boulder Creek, will be frightening to some people.
Space control and assignment
Design and materials should support the safety of pedestrians as they travel at the edge of the pedestrian core, or interact with other modes as they cross the core. The key example can be found in A wide variety of design tools and other programs bollard placement where spacing prohibits non-peare available to address both real and perceived destrians from entering a space. Other items such safety, though some of them are in conflict with as unified pathway treatments can help to define a Page 6-2
space as pedestrian-dominant. Finally, signage can be used to control speed and access by other modes and to lead pedestrians down specific pathways. In any case, the pedestrian and disabled should be given the most direct routes possible between their origins and destinations.
Mixed-use routes and appropriate responses In a space-constrained environment such as CU Boulder, mixed use routes will be required. Whenever these routes are planned, pedestrians should be given their own, sufficiently wide circulation space to the extent possible apart from wheeled vehicle space. Each case will be different, but in general pedestrians and the disabled should be given preferential treatment in defined core areas, and other modes should always be required to safely yield.
• The core area bicycle dismount zone will be retained but made a more effective pedestrian area by better bicycle routes around the edges of it, such as along Pleasant Street. • There are frequent conflicts between pedestrians and other modes of transportation using walkways, including service vehicles, bicycles, skateboards, and even passenger cars. • Until and unless grade separations occur, pedestrian crossings of streets bisecting the campus will continue to be a safety and access concern, particularly across Regent Drive and University Avenue. • Safety and accessibility are overriding considerations for all walkways. • Accessibility for those with mobility impairments is a necessary consideration in the development and improvement of all pedestrian facilities. • Finally, future Williams Village and East Campus buildings should be developed to be increasingly pedestrian-friendly.
Proposed Solutions Master Plan Guidelines The campus Master Plan highlights these pedestrian-related issues and improvements:
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Pedestrian Environment
Another key concept to consider is the need to set aside sufficient circulation area for the volume of pedestrians entering or exiting a specific space. It is especially important that areas near doorways and at the edge of crowded pathways provide extra space to permit adequate circulation during crowd events, and where other modes such as bicycles, wheelchairs, or delivery carts may be present. An area approximately two feet from a building or curb edge is generally not used for circulation, and it should not be assumed that this space can always be applied to the effective circulation width of a pathway.
• Crossings of Boulder Creek and its bluff are a high priority, especially at 17th Street, the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” north of Clare Small Arts and Sciences, and crossings by the Student Recreation Center and Stadium.
Page 6-3
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
New Programs and Policies P1. Develop a Pedestrian Circulation Plan Boulder is a highly walkable community, and CU Boulder benefits greatly in terms of access to campus from the 50% of affiliates that live within walking distance. Pedestrians make good use of access tunnels that ring the campus, but some connections are weak. Many campus pathways are violated by “cross-cutting” and CU has at times formalized these “cow paths” through the placement of flagstone. Many pedestrian core areas are defined on the CU bicycle system map as “dismount zones”. Other areas need analysis and definition, and some major walkways contain gaps. A comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan can identify the key areas for improvement.
P2. Identify Funding to Improve Pedestrian Network
pus, identifying sufficient funding to implement these improvements is a challenge. See Chapter 8, Funding Mechanisms, for more detail.
P3. Consider a “Safe Path” Nighttime Pedestrian Network Many campuses have identified a primary network of nighttime paths where safety is enhanced. Such networks serve three primary purposes: they seek to concentrate pedestrians and thereby improve safety through informal surveillance, they direct pedestrians to routes known to be safer, and they help prioritize investments in safety improvements. Typical physical improvements include enhanced maintenance, even lighting, elimination of “lurking spaces,” installation of emergency phone kiosks, etc.
P4. Improve Pedestrian Wayfinding
As discussed in Chapter 4 under programs I3-I6, there are a variety of tools to improve pedestrian While there is a high degree of consensus regarding wayfinding and address a concern heard repeatedly desired pedestrian improvements on the CU camin stakeholder interviews.
Figure 6-2 Summary of Pedestrian Recommendations Project P1. Develop a Pedestrian Circulation Plan P2. Identify Funding to Improve Pedestrian Network P3. Consider a “Safe Path” Nighttime Pedestrian Network P 4 . I m p r o v e P e d e s t r i a n Wayfinding
Page 6-4
Responsibility PTS, Facilities Management
Cost
$$
PTS, Facilities Management, $ $ $ building projects PTS, Facilities Management $$ PTS, Facilities Management
$$
Impact Timeliness Cost Benefit !!! !!!
!!
!!
Chapter 7: Service and Emergency Access and Circulation Existing Conditions and User Findings
found that small electric carts are more flexible and convenient for deliveries and building service.
Data for service and emergency vehicle impacts is limited. However, affiliates note that service vehicles significantly impact pedestrian and bicycle travel, as detailed in Chapters 4 and 5.
Rely on Design Rather than Signage or Enforcement
Industry Best Practices Service and emergency routes may be subtly designed Service and emergency vehicle access should be provided to all buildings on campus, but it is not necessary for these service routes to look like alleys or driveways. Secondary, rarely used fire routes can be designed as pedestrian plazas or in turf block. Primary delivery routes used by off-campus vendors, however, should be readily identifiable to drivers.
Good design for service vehicles means that access is obvious and convenient. It also means that leaving service routes to drive through pedestrian zones is not possible. Physical controls such as gates and bollards are necessary to control service vehicles on any campus – particularly off-campus vendors.
Summary
Many departments and off-campus vendors have
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Service and Emergency Access and Circulation
With the exception of six small buildings west of Hellems, every single building on campus has a loading dock or adjacent service vehicle parking area that connects to a publicly accessible street. There is no need for vehicles to drive on campus pathways in order to access or serve buildings, whether that be for mail, heavy deliveries or maintenance. The only reason service vehicles Service Access Should not Intrude on should have for driving and parking on sidewalks Pedestrian Core and paths is to serve the campus grounds or its Pedestrians should predominate on the CU camunderground utilities. pus, and service vehicles should rarely present obstacles to pedestrians. Where a building’s front Despite these simple facts, a variety of delivery door faces a major pedestrian area, service access trucks, private passenger cars, and other vehicles should be provided at the side or rear. Where other can be found on nearly every campus sidewalk duraccess is not possible, service parking can still be ing the course of a typical day. Several key paths provided around the corner from the front door. are lined by deep tire treads where trucks routinely drive onto the lawns, breaking irrigation systems. Trucks can even be found driving through the Service Routes and Vehicles Should Bicycle Dismount Zone or parking on the lawn at be “Right Sizeed” A big truck is not necessary for all service needs. the edge of Norlin Quadrangle.
Page 7-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Some trucks ignore available metered service vehicle spaces and choose instead to park on sidewalks, where parking is free. Most simply choose the fastest and most direct route from one part of campus to another, regardless of whether the route runs through crowded pedestrian areas or across delicate landscape.
Proposed Solutions
S3. Eliminate Worksite Permits Generally speaking, only Grounds and Utilities crews should be allowed to drive full-size vehicles on campus paths and sidewalks. All other sidewalk permits should be revoked and replaced by the revised service vehicle parking system addressed above. Special, temporary sidewalk permits should be granted on a project-by-project basis, where onstreet service vehicle zones are insufficient.
S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan
S4) Create Physical Barriers that support service circulation away Service routes on campus should be identified for from Pedestrian Zones and to a hierarchy of users, including: Service Nodes • Fire truck and other emergency vehicles • Small delivery vehicles, such as electric carts • Specially permitted service vehicles, such as Facilities Management • Specially permitted delivery vehicles, including those from outside vendors • General delivery vehicles
CU cannot afford to enforce its service vehicle access rules through citations. Physical barriers – bollards, trees, boulders and other means – must be in place to prevent service vehicles from jumping curbs to take shortcuts. It is impractical to enforce the service vehicle access rules through citations only.
Well organized physical barriers should not create safety hazards for bicycles nor block fire routes. For • Temporary routes for construction the most part, primary fire routes already follow the existing service vehicle routes. For secondary S2. Redefine the Service Vehicle fire routes, it is possible to install “knock-down” Parking System bollards made of painted, sand-filled PVC or other Service parking zones should be established so that materials. While they appear substantial enough no service vehicle will ever need to block sidewalks to deter other vehicles, these bollards can simply and paths. If sidewalk parking is occurring as a be driven through in the event of an emergency, result of excess service demand, service parking without damage to the emergency vehicle. areas should be increased in size, either through reallocation of other spaces or through actual exS5. Promote small vehicle use and pansion. Funds raised through high service vehicle develop a Multi-use Pathway System permit fees should be used to fund any necessary In order to provide an incentive for service vehicle expansion. operators to switch to smaller electric carts, a system of cartways should be established. These pathways would be wider and stronger than most • General campus drop-off and pick-up
Page 7-2
campus paths, and they would be designed to accommodate a mix of bicycles, pedestrians and small electric carts. Bollard barriers should be spaced to allow access by carts but not cars.
S6. Service Vehicle Map and Brochure In order to better explain CU’s rules for service and delivery, the existing service vehicle map should be updated and made more user friendly.
S7. Ensure Loading Docks are Adequately Sized and Managed As part of S2, CU should ensure that individual building loading docks are being optimally managed. Some loading docks may need to be physically expanded.
Service and Emergency Access and Circulation Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 7-3
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PLEASANT STREET
3
256
270
1
6
277
254
276
7 8
286
PLEASANT STREET
CENTER
ALUMNI
KOENIG
EUCLID
290
289
212
HALE SCIENCE
288
287
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH CENTER
1030 13TH ST
H.G. WOODRUFF COTTAGE
249A
GARAGE
249
280
283
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
257
281 INSTITUTE OF
261
264
251
AVENUE
211
COLLECTIONS
MUSEUM
215
216
GUGGENHEIM
PUMP STATION
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
VARSITY LAKE
235
15TH STREET
12TH STREET
DN
DN
THEATRE &
UNIVERSITY
237
5
267
McKENNA
269
265
207
DN
DENISON
217
218
DANCE
DN
DN
DN
OLD MAIN
239
DN
243
HENDERSON MUSEUM
TB40
221A
HELLEMS
241
208
221
NORLIN QUADRANGLE
WOODBURY
AUDITORIUM
MACKY
CONFERENCE
COLLEGE INN CENTER
205
CENTER
MEMORIAL
CLUB
136
224
202
#1
T.B.
FINE
W A L L
ON WALL
WALL
228
209
EUCLID AVE. AUTOPARK
R O C K
232
ARTS & SCIENCES
WOLLE ARTS
R O C K
HANDRAIL
ROCK RETAINING
OLD ROCK WALL
230
TELECOMM
210
IN DISREPAIR
382
L L W A
W A L L
C K R O
R O C K
W A L L
ATHENS COURT
DIRT PATH
370
2'
373N
PORTER BIOSCIENCES
384
IMIG
334
MUSIC
AURORA AVENUE
312
BDWY
386
L.A.S.P.
355S
924
DN
CARLSON
BR OA DW AY
324
WARDENBURG
344
354
MUENZINGER PSYCH
MARINE COURT
150
BOULDER CREEK
STUDENT
144
20TH STREET RECREATION CENTER
TB35
145
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
140 TB49
TB57
138
141 TB34
EXPANSION
FAMILY HOUSING
143
CLARE SMALL
382A
19TH STREET KETCHUM
SIBELL
EUCLID AVENUE
245
NORLIN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
CHEMISTRY
225
UNIVERSITY
CRISTOL
226
SCIENCES
EKELEY
241A
244
HALL
SEWALL
GREENHOUSE #1
380
FACULTY-STAFF COURT
136
HUMANITIES
MACKY DRIVE
ATHENS STREET
131
CHEYENNE
310 UNIVERSITY ADMIN. CTR.
359
346
ANCILLIARY BLDG.
BAKER HALL
REGENT
309
ADMINISTRATIVE CTR
WARDENBURG DRIVE
FIELD
ARAPAHO HALL
326
346
STADIUM
FIELD
FOLSOM
389
CENTER
ATHLETIC
DAL WARD
AIR MONITORING STATION
COLORADO AVE
TORIES
LABORA-
PHYSICS
BAKER DRIVE
387E
FARRAND
BAKER HALL
DUANE
BICYCLE REGISTRATION BOOTH
357
387
University of Colorado at Boulder DRAFT Main Campus Service Map
COLLEGE AVENUE
278
279
13TH STREET
275
GRANDVIEW AVE.
PAGE FOUNDATION CENTER
4
271
13TH STREET
INSTITUTE OF
ECONOMICS
TB82
14TH STREET
ARMORY
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
295
EDUCATION
2
C.I.R.E.S.
296
15TH STREET
17TH STREET 16TH STREET
ATHENS NORTH COURT
RAMALEY
125
HUNTER
133
FIELD HOUSE
FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY CTR
373E
TB68
ENVIRON-
BALCH MCD BIOLOGY
134
POWER HOUSE
MENTAL
355 J.I.L.A.
373S DESIGN
132
DN
18TH STREET
MARINE STREET
REGENT DRIVE
HALL
392
378
TB12
EARTH
FARRAND
HALL
LOOP DRIVE
348
363
SCIENCES
TB67
BUILDING
TICKET
STADIUM
377
HALLETT HALL
350
TB09
330
369
MATH
STADIUM DRIVE
BRACKETT
FIELD
FRANKLIN
IVE
170
COURT
NEWTON
395
N DR KLI
393
FRAN
BUILDING
GROUNDS
394
391
191
CENTER
BENSON
INFO BOOTH
376
WILLARD
LIBBY HALL
LIBBY DRIVE
MARINE STREET
WILLARD
CHILDREN'S
339
NAROPA INSTITUTE
ADEN
EXPANSION
332
338
340
FAMILY HOUSING
18TH STREET
COCKERELL
EXPANSION
336
407
KITTREDGE WEST
414
OBSERVATORY FIELD
405
FLEMING LAW
434
STORES/LABS
CIVIL
408
COMMONS
OBSERVATORY
418
EN REG
E IV DR
COMPLEX
KITTREDGE
410
T
FIELD
BUSINESS
435
SLHS
SOMMERS-BAUSCH
416
SOUTH TOWER
433
436
438
ADMIN
444
ELECTRICAL
CHEMICAL
439
441
AEROSPACE
OFFICE
440
442
TAF T AVE
FISKE PLANETARIUM
432S
SCIENCE
COMPUTER
432
ICAL
MECHAN-
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CLASSROOMS
FAMILY HOUSING
RE ET ST 17 TH
327
CROSMAN HALL REED HALL KITTREDGE LOOP ROAD
FOLSOM STREET COCKERELL DRIVE
BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL
19TH STREET
430
PRESS BOX 20TH STREET
BUSINESS
ARAPAHOE AVENUE
ANDREWS
445
I.T.L.L.
447
D.L.C.
455
LESSER HOUSE
SMITH
BASELIN
E ROAD
REGENT DRIVE ARNETT
411
412
482
COORS EVENTS
BUCKINGHAM
420
CENTER
CONFERENCE
484
REGENT DR. AUTOPARK
POLICE/PARKING CENTER
COLORADO AVENUE GAS REG. BUILDING
494
FIELD
KITTREDGE
SAFETY CENTER
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
458
STATION
PUMP
493
048
9
10
SCIENCE
BEHAVIORAL
E. AURORA AVE.
050
INSTITUTE OF
COLLEGE
COL ORA DO
RESEARC LABORAT NO. 2
COLO
Proposed Route
Loading Dock/ Service Area
GEN
BEH
INST
Page 7-5
Pedestrian Only Routes (no vehicles)
NO. 4
RESEARCH LAB
LIFE SCIENCES
Restricted or Gated Service Routes
566
LAB NO.
RESEARC
LITMAN
Main Service Routes
LEGEND
30TH STREET
Figure 7-1 Potential Service Vehicle Corridors
409
ROAD LOOP
GE KITT RED
AY DW OA
HIGHWAY 36 AND 28TH STREET 28TH STREET
BR
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Figure 7-2 Summary of Service Vehicle Recommendations Project S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan S2. Refine the Service Vehicle Parking System S3. Eliminate Worksite Permits and replace with a new system such as a well-identified red zone system. S4) Create Physical Barriers that support service circulation away from Pedestrian Zones and to Service Nodes S5. Promote small vehicle use and develop a multi-use Pathway System S6. Service Vehicle Map and Brochure S7. Ensure Loading Docks are Adequately Sized and Managed
Responsibility Cost PTS, Facilities Management $ $ PTS, Facilities Management PTS
Impact !!!
Timeliness Cost Benefit
$$
!!
$
!!
!!!
PTS, Facilities Management $ $ $
PTS, Facilities Management
$$
!!
PTS, Facilities Management
$
!
PTS, Facilities Management
$$
!!
Service and Emergency Access and Circulation Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 7-7
Chapter 8: Funding Mechanisms While there may be general agreement on campus transportation priorities, identifying funding for new programs will be difficult given CU’s fiscal constraints. As an auxiliary, Parking and Transportation Services is primarily self funded with little General Fund revenue. Facilities Management receives modest General Fund and project-related revenue, but these sources typically come with stringent restrictions on use. Housing is also an auxiliary, with almost all of its revenues coming from rents.
Existing Conditions
• Preliminary analysis also suggests that it will be less expensive to accommodate a limited number of new trips in alternative modes than with structured parking, although funding sources are currently scarce for any modal improvements. • New structured parking will be most expensive to fund, followed by surface parking and transit. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are relatively inexpensive to fund in comparison to other modal accommodations.
User Findings As noted in Chapters 2-4, funding availability for all modes was identified as a major concern.
Funding Concerns
• how to fund new alternative transportation programs • how to fund CU’s internal bicycle & pedestrian network • how to fund increasing faculty/staff EcoPass program costs • how to fund new parking development • how to maintain and expand the Community Transit Network and regional transit serving CU
Future Development Alternatives (Chapter 10)
• Given the high cost of new structured parking at CU-Boulder, preliminary analysis suggests that it will be less expensive to extend existing supply through new circulation and parking management techniques than to build new supply.
• Both CU and RTD would like the other to pick up a greater share (Several times)
Among the suggested options for revenue included: • Increase permit costs and meter costs (Several times) • Eliminate all free parking on campus (Occasionally) • Make fines revenue-generating (Occasionally)
Industry Best Practices CU is already employing most of the transportation funding best practices, including the following:
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Funding Mechanisms
Available funding sources for campus transporta- Stakeholder Survey tion improvements are severely limited, raising Stakeholders noted the difficulty in identifying new concerns about CU-Boulder’s ability to maintain funding for projects: its existing programs and continue making new • CU – limited resources (Several times) investments. Specific concerns are: • RTD – limited resources (Several times)
Page 8-1
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Keep Parking and Transportation Self-Funded
Managers should continually strive to improve the On any campus, academic needs will always take efficiency of every transportation system, collecting priority in allocating scarce and fluctuating General data on performance, reporting to campus managFund monies. As a result, many campus trans- ers and making adjustments as necessary. portation managers are grateful for their auxiliary status, since it allows them to plan their finances Use Fine Revenue Judiciously with more steady fee and fine revenue. This type Most campus funds have restrictions on their use, of financing also helps address economic and so it is important to take advantage of all revenue ecological sustainability concerns, minimizing the sources that have fewer restrictions. Fine revenue subsidies that the least-cost commuters (pedestrians is such a source. Many campuses use fine revenue and bicyclists) provide to the highest-cost commut- to fund programs that would otherwise have no source, such as bicycle education or pedestrian ers (motorists and transit riders). safety programs. Fine revenue can also be used Analyze all Modes on the Same for parking operations in order to keep parking Playing Field fees lower. Before funding costly transportation investments, whether they be new parking structures or new Use Parking Fee Revenue transit lines, it is important to analyze whether for Parking Avoidance it would be cheaper to do something else to ac- Before building new parking structures, campus commodate the same number of people, or other transportation managers should analyze whether project objectives. Analysis across modes is chal- other transportation investments that reduce parklenging in that it requires looking at operating costs ing demand are more cost effective than building and capital costs, as well as net revenues from both new parking. In some cases, it may be appropriphysical projects as well as new programs. Annual- ate to raise parking fees to pay for transit, bicycle, izing capital costs over the life of the capital facility pedestrian, ridesharing or other improvements, allows for easy comparison of construction projects since this would result in lower parking fees than building parking to accommodate the same numand operating programs. ber of commuters.
Focus on Cost per New Commuter
In any cost analysis, the focus should be on the cost per net new commuter accommodated. For a new transit project, planners should consider how many riders are new riders – and not riders are simply switching from another route. For parking structures built on top of existing surface spaces, the net new spaces should be examined, not the total spaces.
Page 8-2
Improve Efficiency
Parking Pro Forma An important tool in any financial analysis for campus transportation is a parking pro forma. A draft pro forma was developed for CU as part of this planning process, and it will be used in the detailed implementation process of most of the plan recommendations. This simple spreadsheet model allows CU to calculate the permit fee and parking demand impacts of various population
growth and transportation investment scenarios. It includes a variety of key inputs, including: • Existing campus population, broken down by faculty, staff, students, and, to some degree, visitors • Existing campus parking supply, broken down in detail by user group • Existing campus parking utilization, based upon ongoing peak period counts by PTS staff • Existing PTS revenues and expenses • Estimated mode split for each segment of the population on a typical day • Population projections through 2018 • Campus housing production projections through 2018 • Campus parking lot displacement projections through 2018
The model then works as follows: 1. New housing is subtracted from total population trends to calculate total commuters over time.
Figure 8-1 Projected Campus Population 35,000
25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
Total Resident Hall Student Beds Total Residential Population Commuting Student Population Commuting Staff/Faculty Population Total Commuting Population
20 02 -0 3 20 04 -0 5 20 06 -0 7 20 08 -0 9 20 10 -1 1 20 12 -1 3 20 14 -1 5 20 16 -1 7
Population
30,000
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Funding Mechanisms
• Estimated price elasticity of parking demand for different population segments
Page 8-3
Figure 8-2 Projected Campus Vehicle Trips 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
Total Undergraduate Vehicle Trips Total Graduate Student Vehicle Trips Total Faculty Vehicle Trips
17
16 -
15 20
14 -
20
12 -
13
11 20
10 -
20
08 -
09
07 20
06 -
20
04 -
20
02 20
05
Total Staff Vehicle Trips
03
Vehicle Trips to Campus
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
2. Using the best available estimates of mode choice by each population group, we estimate total vehicle trips over time. For this scenario, we assume parking price and mode split are constant. In other scenarios, new transportation programs and increased parking fees reduce driving rates.
3. Factoring in data on turnover and frequency of travel to campus, we then estimate parking demand for each group. 4. Next, we take existing parking supply, subtract out expected parking losses and compare demand and supply to determine new parking need. Estimated ParkingNeed: Need, FY03-FY18 Figure 8-3 Estimaed Future Parking No Fee Increase Students
Faculty/Staff
Total Parking Need
Number of Parking Spaces
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 2002- 2003- 2004- 200503 04 05 06
2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 201307 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Fiscal Year
Page 8-4
2014- 2015- 2016- 201715 16 17 18
5. Model can then produce three key outputs: • Parking permit fees over time, adjusted to pay for investments in new transportation alternatives, as well as the construction of new parking structures. • Mode split changes over time, adjusting demand based upon the price elasticity of parking demand, as well as the availability of new transportation alternatives • Parking structure needs over time. Alternatives with higher investment in Transportation Demand Management and more efficient use of existing resources could postpone this need.
Figure 8-4 Adjusted Parking Need at 10% Annual Fee Increase 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500
Students Faculty/Staff
20 03 -0 20 4 04 -0 20 5 05 -0 20 6 06 -0 20 7 07 -0 20 8 08 -0 20 9 09 -1 20 0 10 -1 20 1 11 -1 20 2 12 -1 20 3 13 -1 20 4 14 -1 20 5 15 -1 20 6 16 -1 20 7 17 -1 8
Total Parking Need
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Funding Mechanisms
Parking Spaces Needed
Adjusted Parking Need at 10% Annual Fee Increase
Page 8-5
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Missing Data In general, CU PTS has good utilization data for its parking system. In order to allocate the appropriate number of permits for each lot and ensure optimal utilization, CU PTS staff count available spaces every day. This allows them to sell new permits for popular lots or shift motorists to underutilized areas. Nevertheless, in order to perfect the parking model, there are some data that need refinement or collection. These include: • Mode Split. Mode split data have been collected in a variety of different ways, but each approach has its limitations. CU should determine a single, consistent, statistically sound approach to measure mode split over time – at least once every two years. This is important both for larger planning efforts as well as making the detailed parking pro forma work. • CU Affiliates in Visitor Parking. Correlating our estimate of mode split and hard data about parking utilization in regular permit lots, we have made a rough estimate of the number of CU affiliates who park in visitor parking. This is an important figure. The mode split data tells us how commuters get to campus, but it does not tell us whether they park in a regular permit lot. The data says that there are approximately 1,500 more CU commuter cars on campus every day than there are regular permit spaces. Relying on excellent parking lot utilization data and staff estimates, we have allocated about 860 CU affiliates into visitor parking – consuming a total of 65% of the total visitor supply. We suggest that attendants at Euclid Autopark ask motorists their affiliation over the course of two days. • CU Affiliates Parking Off Campus. The Williams Village Parking Study cites three analyses of “spillover” of Williams Village residents who park in the surrounding neighborhoods. It also points out that many of the CU affiliates parking in the neighborhoods may not be Williams Village
Page 8-6
residents but regular CU commuters. No actual data is available. Again, to correlate our assumptions regarding total commuter cars with known data on parking utilization, we have assumed that some CU commuters park outside CU lots.
Proposed Solutions F1. Agree on Priorities The most important step before developing any financial plan is for CU to agree internally on its transportation priorities. Many of the highest priority projects in this plan – such as the campus pathway improvements -- will require funding to be pooled among more than one campus department. Ensuring interdepartmental consensus is a prerequisite to “fair share” budgeting. Development of the multi-modal circulation plan and the subsequent identification of gaps will serve to refine some of these priorities, and others will be developed over time. In general, the Transplan along with circulation plans and budgets will direct prioritization of new projects.
F2. Maintain the Parking Pro Forma As campus demographics, parking demand and other data change, CU should continually update its analysis of the cost effectiveness of its parking programs, as well as the timeline for new parking structure construction.
F3. Collect Data CU should continually update its data on the efficiency of each of its transportation programs, as well as their utilization. Tracking mode split over time is important to ensure that the right investments are put in place for each transportation program.
F4. Partner with City and RTD for Outside Funding With so many restrictions on its funding and how it uses those funds, CU should work closely with the City of Boulder and RTD to seek available regional, state and federal funding that benefits both. Having a high degree of consensus as to priorities will help CU and the City to compete well for funds, as they have historically.
Figure 8-5 Summary of Funding Recommendations Project F1. Agree on Priorities F2. Maintain the Parking Pro Forma. F3. Collect Data. F4. Partner with City and RTD for Outside Funding
Responsibility PTS, Facilities Management PTS PTS PTS, Facilities Management, others
Cost $
Impact !!!
Timeliness
Cost Benefit
$ $ $
!!! !!! !!!
Funding Mechanisms Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Page 8-7
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Nelson Nygaard
The following matrix analyzes each of the recommended solutions from Chapters 2-7 and provides a qualitative evaluation of their benefits. Benefits are measured by affiliation, by users of different modes, and by community impacts. At the far right, a column shows the relative cost of each program. Finally, the aggregate benefits are factored into the relative cost to produce an approximate “Cost/Benefit” score.
Qualitative Evaluation Matrix
This chapter pulls together the summary charts from the previous chapters and evaluates how well each program performs according to 16 criteria. One set of criteria examines how the program benefits are distributed among CU’s faculty, staff, students, visitors and non-campus community. Another set of criteria includes how the programs affect the users of each mode of transportation. A third set of criteria look at larger factors, including congestion management and quality of life. Finally, data on cost and cost effectiveness are repeated from the earlier charts. Taken together, the information in this chapter is intended to help CU’s policymakers prioritize all the various investments that are considered in this plan. CU does not have the resources it needs to implement all of the programs included here. While cost effectiveness is a highly important criterion for prioritizing these potential investments, it is not the only one. Policymakers must ensure that the benefits of their investments are distributed across the entire community, not just focused on any one group. Many of these benefits will be qualitative rather than quantitative. As a result, the charts mix qualitative and quantitative measures in a simple visual scale, described in the next section.
Chapter 9: Evaluation and Implementation
Page 9-1
A1. Extend Supply as it Exists A2. Continue to Promote Lower Cost Alternatives to Parking A3. Plan Carefully for any New Parking A4. Expand Parking Management to Promote Consistency
A7. Balance Parking Demand and Introduce More Choice A8. Lease Surplus Parking A9. Plan for Future Parking Needs A10.
Employ New Parking Technologies
A11. Consider Shared Parking Opportunities A12. Implement Broadway/18th/Euclid Improvements Transit T1. Maintain Existing CTN and EcoPass
T2. Develop Campus Transit Circulation Plan T3. Explore Transit Prioritization Measures T4. Implement Planned Bus Stop Improvements T5. Plan for a CU Bolder Mulit-modal Transit Center and/or Transit Mall
Key:
Excellent
Very Good
Cost Effectiveness
Cost
Quality of Life
Congestion Management
Deliveries
Carpoolers
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Transit Riders
Drivers
Non-CU
Visitor
Grad
Other Benefits
Benefits by Mode
$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$ $$$ $$$
$$$ $$ $$$ $$$
A5. Determine Optimal Parking Fee for Resident Students A6. Rationalize Pricing and Policies to Promote Consistency
Undergrad
Program Automobiles
Staff
User Benefits
Faculty
Evaluation Criteria
$$$
Good
Fair
Poor
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Figure 9‑1 Evaluation Matrix By Chapter
Page 9-2
T11. Support more local involvement with RTD Infrastructure Improvements I1. Create a Clear Circulation Hierarchy I2. Create a mulit-use Pathway System Oriented to Smaller Service Vehicles I3) Name Key Campus Corridors and Provide Street Signs I4) Consider Giving Buildings Addresses I5) Consider Common Signage Standards and Destination Signage I6. Define “Ownership” and Funding Plan for Campus Corridors Bicycle Facilities B1. East-West Bikeway B2. Bicycle Parking B3. North-South Path B4. University-Stadium Path
Key:
Excellent
Very Good
Cost Effectiveness
Quality of Life
Carpoolers
Cost
Congestion Management
Bicyclists
Non-CU
Visitor
Grad
Deliveries
T9. Help Inform Community Transit Network Improvements T10. Assist City and RTD in New Comprehensive Transit Plan
Pedestrians
T8. Expand EcoPass Program
Transit Riders
T7. Improve Special Event Transit Options
Other Benefits
Benefits by Mode
Drivers
T6. Support Bus Rapid Transit on 28th Street and Broadway
Undergrad
Program
Staff
Faculty
User Benefits
$$$ $$ $$$ $
$ $
$$
$$$ $ $
$$
$$$
Good
Fair
Poor
$$ $ $$ $$
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Page 9-3
B5. Commuter Support B6. Bicycle Enforcement Program Pedestrian Environment P1. Develop a Pedestrian Circulation Plan P2. Identify Funding to Improve Pedestrian Network P3. Consider a “Safe Path” Nighttime Pedestrian Network P4. Improve Pedestrian Wayfinding Service and Emergency Access and Circulation S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan S2. Refine the Service Vehicle Parking System S3. Eliminate Worksite Permits S4) Create Physical Barriers S5. Promote small vehicle use and develop a multi-use Pathway System S6. Service Vehicle Map and Brochure S7. Ensure Loading Docks are Adequately Sized and Managed Funding Mechanisms F1. Agree on Priorities F2. Maintain the Parking Pro Forma. F3. Collect Data.
Key:
Excellent
Very Good
Cost Effectiveness
Cost
Quality of Life
Deliveries
Carpoolers
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Transit Riders
Drivers
Non-CU
Congestion Management
Other Benefits
Benefits by Mode
Visitor
Grad
Undergrad
Program
Staff
Faculty
User Benefits
$ $
$$ $$$ $$ $$
$$ $$ $ $$$
$$ $
$$
$ $ $
Good
Fair
Poor
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Page 9-4
F4. Partner with City and RTD for Outside Funding
$
Key:
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Cost Effectiveness
Cost
Quality of Life
Deliveries
Carpoolers
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Transit Riders
Drivers
Non-CU
Congestion Management
Other Benefits
Benefits by Mode
Visitor
Grad
Undergrad
Program
Staff
Faculty
User Benefits
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Page 9-5
The next chart takes all of the programs from Figure 9-1 and re-sorts them according to cost effectiveness. For this effort, professional judgment was used to establish qualitative “cost” and “benefit” evaluations. Since so many of the projects and programs listed here are not yet well defined, no detailed cost estimates could be performed. For some projects, costs could vary widely depending upon the design details. For these reasons, this chart should be used only as a starting point in prioritizing individual recommendations for implementation.
Figure 9‑2 Evaluation Matrix by Cost Benefit
Key:
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$
Cost Effectiveness
Quality of Life
Cost
Congestion Management
Deliveries
Carpoolers
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Drivers
Other Benefits
Transit Riders
F3. Collect Data. F4. Partner with City and RTD for Outside Funding T1. Maintain Existing CTN and EcoPass T10. Help Inform Community Transit Network Improvements T11. Assist City and RTD in New Comprehensive Transit Plan T12. Support more local involvement with RTD T2. Develop Campus Transit Circulation Plan
Non-CU
F2. Maintain the Parking Pro Forma.
Visitor
F1. Agree on Priorities
Grad
A1. Extend Supply as it Exists
Undergrad
Program
Benefits by Mode
Staff
User Benefits
Faculty
Evaluation Criteria
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Cost Benefit Evaluation
Page 9-6
A8. Lease Surplus Parking A9. Plan for Future Parking Needs B5. Commuter Support B6. Bicycle Enforcement Program
Key:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $
Cost Effectiveness
Cost
Deliveries
Carpoolers
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Transit Riders
Drivers
Non-CU
Very Good
Staff
Quality of Life
B4. University-Stadium Path P1. Develop a Pedestrian Circulation Plan S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan A2. Continue to Promote Lower Cost Alternatives to Parking A4. Expand Parking Management to Promote Consistency A6. Rationalize Pricing and Policies to Promote Consistency A7. Balance Parking Demand and Introduce More Choice
Other Benefits Congestion Management
B3. North-South Path
Visitor
B2. Bicycle Parking
Grad
B1. East-West Bikeway
Faculty
Program A3. Plan Carefully for any New Parking A5. Determine Optimal Parking Fee for Resident Students
Benefits by Mode
Undergrad
User Benefits
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Page 9-7
S4) Create Physical Barriers S5. Promote small vehicle use and develop a multi-use Pathway System S6. Service Vehicle Map and Brochure
Key:
Excellent
Staff
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Congestion Management
$$
Deliveries
Carpoolers
Bicyclists
$$$
Pedestrians
Transit Riders
Drivers
Non-CU
Visitor
$$
Grad
Undergrad
Cost Effectiveness
S3. Eliminate Worksite Permits
Cost
P4. Improve Pedestrian Wayfinding S2. Refine the Service Vehicle Parking System
Other Benefits
Faculty
Program I1. Create a Clear Circulation Hierarchy I2. Create a mulit-use Pathway System Oriented to Smaller Service Vehicles I3. Name Key Campus Corridors and Provide Street Signs I4. Consider Giving Buildings Addresses I5. Consider Common Signage Standards and Destination Signage I6. Define “Ownership” and Funding Plan for Campus Corridors P2. Identify Funding to Improve Pedestrian Network P3. Consider a “Safe Path” Nighttime Pedestrian Network
Benefits by Mode
Quality of Life
User Benefits
$ $ $$ $$$ $$$ $$ $$ $$ $ $$$
$
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Page 9-8
Congestion Management
Quality of Life
Good
Very Good
Fair
Poor
$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$
Cost Effectiveness
Deliveries
Cost
Carpoolers
Transit Riders
Drivers
Non-CU
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Excellent
Visitor
Grad
Key:
Undergrad
T9. Expand EcoPass Program A10. Employ New Parking Technologies A11. Consider Shared Parking Opportunities
Other Benefits
Staff
Program S7. Ensure Loading Docks are Adequately Sized and Managed T3. Explore Transit Prioritization Measures T4. Implement Planned Bus Stop Improvements A12. Implement Broadway/18th/Euclid Improvements T6. Plan for a CU Bolder Mulit-modal Transit Center and/or Transit Mall T7. Support Bus Rapid Transit on 28th Street and Broadway T8. Improve Special Event Transit Options
Benefits by Mode
Faculty
User Benefits
Not applicable
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Page 9-9
The following chart takes the key programs from the previous charts and details the responsible organizations and recommended implementation timeline. It starts with programs that are low cost and timely, and that should be pursued immediately. Each subsequent tier increases in cost and complexity.
Figure 9‑3 Implementation Summary Matrix Program
Responsibility
Tier 1: Maintain Existing Programs and Increase Efficiency A1. Extend Supply as it Exists PTS A2. Continue to Promote Lower Cost Alternatives to PTS Parking A4. Expand Parking Management to Promote Consis- PTS, Housing, Athletics, Retency search Properties, etc. A6. Rationalize Pricing and Policies to Promote Con- PTS sistency A7. Balance Parking Demand and Introduce More PTS Choice A8. Lease Surplus Parking PTS, other departments and off-campus entities T1. Maintain Existing CTN and EcoPass PTS, City, RTD, ASCU F1. Agree on Priorities PTS, Facilities Management F2. Maintain the Parking Pro Forma. PTS Tier 2: Most Cost Effective New Programs A3. Plan Carefully for any New Parking
Funding Source
Implementation Timeline
Existing staff resources Existing staff resources
Underway Underway
Existing staff resources
Underway
Existing staff resources
2006-07
Existing staff resources
Underway
Existing staff resources
Underway
Existing staff resources Existing staff resources Existing staff resources
Underway Underway Underway
PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources and future fee/fine Underway and ongoing increases A5. Determine Optimal Parking Fee for Resident PTS, Housing, Bear Creek, Existing staff resources 2005-06 Students Family Housing A9. Plan for Future Parking Needs PTS, Facilities Management Existing resources and future fee/fine Underway and ongoing increases
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Implementation
Page 9-10
T6. Support Bus Rapid Transit on 28th Street and Broadway T9. Help Inform Community Transit Network Improvements T10. Assist City and RTD in New Comprehensive Transit Plan T11. Support more local involvement with RTD I5) Consider Common Signage Standards and Destination Signage I6. Define “Ownership” and Funding Plan for Campus Corridors B1. East-West Bikeway B2. Bicycle Parking B5. Commuter Support
Responsibility PTS, Facilities Management
Funding Source Implementation Timeline Existing resources, future fee/fine in- 2005-06 creases, potential grant sources PTS, Facilities Management, RTD, City, federal and regional funds Underway and ongoing City, RTD PTS, Facilities Management, RTD, City, federal and regional funds 2005-06 City, RTD PTS, Facilities Management, RTD, City, County, federal and regional 2005-2009 City, RTD, County funds PTS, Facilities Management, RTD, City, County, federal and regional Underway and ongoing City, RTD, County funds PTS, Facilities Management Existing resources as available Underway and ongoing PTS, Facilities Management
Existing resources
2005-06
PTS, Facilities Management PTS, Facilities Management PTS
Existing resources and grant funds Existing resources and grant funds Existing resources, future fee/fine increases Existing resources, future fee/fine increases, potential grant sources Existing resources, potential grant sources Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases Existing resources, future service vehicle fee/fine increases
Funded Underway and ongoing Underway and ongoing
B6. Bicycle Enforcement Program
PTS
P1. Develop a Pedestrian Circulation Plan
PTS, Facilities Management
S1. Establish a service vehicle circulation plan
PTS, Facilities Management
S2. Refine the Service Vehicle Parking System
PTS, Facilities Management
S3. Eliminate Worksite Permits
PTS
S6. Service Vehicle Map and Brochure
PTS, Facilities Management
Underway and ongoing 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Program T2. Develop Campus Transit Circulation Plan
Page 9-11
F4. Partner with City and RTD for Outside Funding
Responsibility PTS, Facilities
Funding Source Implementation Timeline Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Underway and ongoing creases PTS, Facilities Management, Existing resources Underway and ongoing others
Tier 3: Recommended Programs Requiring new Funding Plan A10. Employ New Parking Technologies PTS A12. Implement Broadway/18th/Euclid Improve- Facilities Management, PTS, ments City, RTD T4. Implement Planned Bus Stop Improvements PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD T5. Plan for a CU Bolder Multi-modal Transit Center PTS, Facilities Management and/or Transit Mall T7. Improve Special Event Transit Options PTS, Facilities Management, City, Athletics T8. Expand EcoPass Program PTS, Facilities Management, City, RTD I1. Create a Clear Circulation Hierarchy PTS, Facilities Management I3) Name Key Campus Corridors and Provide Street PTS, Facilities Management Signs I4) Consider Giving Buildings Addresses PTS, Facilities Management B3. North-South Path P2. Identify Funding to Improve Pedestrian Network
PTS, Facilities Management
PTS, Facilities Management, building projects P3. Consider a “Safe Path” Nighttime Pedestrian PTS, Facilities Management Network
Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Continue to explore opportunicreases ties. Implement as funding becomes available RTD, City, federal and regional funds Continue to seek grant funding for project. RTD, City, federal and regional funds, Continue to support grant fundfuture fee/fine increases, ASCU ing for projects. Future fee/fine increases, ASCU, poten- Continue to seek grant fundtial grant sources ing. Future fee/fine increase Plan in 2005-06; implement 06-07 RTD, City, federal and regional funds, Continue to explore opportunifuture fee/fine increases, ASCU ties and identify funding Existing resources, future fee/fine in- 2006-07 creases, potential grant sources Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Prioritize as funding and staff creases, potential grant sources resources available Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Prioritize as funding and staff creases, potential grant sources resources available Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Grant funding being pursued creases, potential grant sources Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Continue to explore opportunicreases, potential grant sources ties and identify funding Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Continue to explore opportunicreases, potential grant sources ties and identify funding
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Program F3. Collect Data
Page 9-12
Responsibility PTS, Facilities Management
S4) Create Physical Barriers
PTS, Facilities Management
S7. Ensure Loading Docks are Adequately Sized and PTS, Facilities Management Managed Tier 4: Long Term Improvements A11. Consider Shared Parking Opportunities
Funding Source Implementation Timeline Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Continue to explore opportunicreases, potential grant sources ties and identify funding Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Continue to explore opportunicreases, potential grant sources ties and identify funding Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Continue to explore opportunicreases ties and identify funding
PTS, other entities
Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Fund after more cost effective creases projects and programs are implemented. B4. University-Stadium Path PTS, Facilities Management Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Seek grant funding once Tier 3 creases, potential grant sources projects complete. T3. Explore Transit Prioritization Measures PTS, Facilities Management, RTD, City, federal and regional funds, Seek grant funding once Tier 3 City, RTD future fee/fine increases, ASCU projects complete. I2. Create a multi-use Pathway System Oriented to PTS, Facilities Management Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Seek grant funding once Tier 3 Smaller Service Vehicles creases projects complete. S5. Promote small vehicle use and develop a multi-use PTS, Facilities Management Existing resources, future fee/fine in- Seek grant funding once Tier 3 Pathway System creases projects complete.
Nelson Nygaard
DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT
Evaluation and Implementation
Transplan 2005 -- Transportation Master Plan
Program P4. Improve Pedestrian Wayfinding
Page 9-13
