Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | diana-boyd |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
CLEMSON UNIVERSITYTravel Patterns
2005 City and Regional Planning Studio PresentationDecember 7, 2005
11:15 AM
Scott Adams Ben Boyles Mark Brown Erin Comstock Anne Dunning
2
Presentation Outline
Introduction Overview of Campus Transportation
Planning Study Methodology Results Conclusions/Recommendations
Introduction
4
Mobility Matters
Access and mobility help define the intuitive feel of a campus
Safe, easy, and convenient transportation systems can help attract students, faculty and staff to come to Clemson
5
Mobility Matters Efficient
transportation can enhance the experience of visitors and returning alumni
Environmentally conscious transportation planning can help preserve Clemson’s natural beauty & meet regional goals
Overview of University Campus Transportation Planning
7
University Campuses are Unique Environments University campuses are vibrant, distinct
communities made up of people from different backgrounds, incomes, lifestyles and attitudes
Diverse demographic and socioeconomic characteristics require a diverse set of mobility options
8
University Campuses are Unique Environments
University campus land use can provide an environment where multi-modal transportation systems can work
9
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
“Build your way out of problems”
Adding capacity (constructing new roadways, creating new parking lots, etc.) to accommodate the increasing use of the automobile.
Planning Paradigm I
The Supply-Side Approach
10
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
The limitations of a supply-side approach An almost exclusively auto-oriented approach Ineffective at solving modern transportation problems Many campus areas are “built-out” Approach is severely constrained by financial
resources
Planning Paradigm I The Supply-Side Approach
11
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
TDM programs are a package of planning strategies, incentives and disincentives, which emphasize alternatives to single occupant vehicle traveling
Shift demand from the automobile to other, more sustainable modes
Planning Paradigm II
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
12
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
Demand-side
Approach
Supply-side Approach
Transportation Systems Approach
13
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
Seeks balance between transportation demand and supply approaches by treating campus transportation as a functional system consisting of different modes integrated for optimal performance
Planning Paradigm III
A Systems Approach to Transportation
14
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
A concerted effort to balance the behavior of individuals with the efficiency of the transportation system
Recognition of social and equity aspects: the need to provide the entire population with a reasonable level of mobility
Use of transportation modes that will enable and stimulate creation of human-oriented areas
Planning Paradigm IIIA Systems Approach to Transportation
15
Evolution of University Campus Transportation Planning
Benefits of a Transportation Systems Approach Investigates a fuller range of alternativesLooks to affect transportation demand as well
as supplyConsiders the full range of travel modes
(not just the automobile!)Considers other purposes of transportation in
society
16
The Clemson UniversityTransportation Challenge Goal: A pedestrian friendly campus
Highest and best use of campus land Surface parking lot conversion
A balanced transportation systems approach is needed Multi-modal focus
Need to understand how the campus currently moves Travel Demand Survey
Studio Research Objectives
18
Studio Research Objectives How does Clemson move?
Examine Clemson campus community travel patterns including: Students
On-Campus Off-Campus
Faculty Staff Football game attendees
Examine Clemson campus transportation system challenges and opportunities
Provide recommendations that will help to create a sustainable, multi-modal campus transportation system
Methodology
20
Methodology
Three distinct surveys aimed at different aspects of campus transportation issues Internet Survey
November 21 – December 6 Travel Diary
February 2006 to coincide with Clemson University Planning Department parking study
Football Survey 2005 season (5 out of 6 home games)
Results can be applied to both short-term and long-term issues Facilities, services and transportation alternatives Not just parking
21
22
Internet Survey
1501 valid responses as of December 6
Tree structure (Each survey was unique according to how the person answered it) Classification as
student/faculty/staff Primary mode used Other modal preferences
Widespread distribution, e-mailed to all Clemson faculty, staff, and students
Intro
I05
IRB Review Language and Introduction
I04 I07I06I03
I01
Auto
A01
A11 ?
A01
A02 ?
Yes No
A07
On Campus Students
Off Campus Students
Faculty Staff
A25
Yes No
A11 ?
A01
A16
Yes No
A32
A37
Walk
A11 ?
A01
A16
Yes No
A26
A31
Auto Auto Auto
Bike
B16
B17
B27B18
B21B22
B25
B26
B23
B24
Year Round
Part Year
B18
Rail
No Commute
Commute
R01
R13
R03R02
R08
Yes No
R09
R12
Please see page 3
Walk Walk
W02
W03
W04
W01
W06
W07
W02
W05
W08
W03
W02
Yes No
On Campus Students
Off Campus Students
Faculty, Staff
Yes No
CAT
Golf Carts
C01
C09
C10C02
C11
Yes No
Off Campus Students
On Campus Students
Faculty & Staff
C01
C03
C19C02
C20
Yes No
C01
C04
C28C02
C29
Yes No
C13
C18
C27
C24
G04
G01
DemographicsDemographics
D12
D15
D08
I02
D15
D14
D14
Students
Faculty
Staff
D09
D10
D11
D01
D07
Would you be willing to complete a two-week travel diary for a chance to win an ipod or green parking pass? If so, please check here.
23
Internet Survey
On-campusStudents
Off-campusStudents Faculty Staff
2005 Actual Enrollment/Employment 6,175 10,990 1,322 2,980
Needed for 95% confidence with ± 5% interval 363 371 298 340
Needed for 90% confidence with ± 5% interval 261 265 225 249
Current Sample Size 458 568 200 275
Weight 13.483 19.349 6.610 10.836
Percent of Population 7.4% 5.2% 15.1% 9.2%
Current confidence interval at 95% (+/-) 4.41% 4.00% 6.39% 5.63%
Current confidence interval at 90% (+/-) 3.71% 3.37% 5.38% 4.74%
24
Travel Diary 401 potential participants
interested as of December 6
More focused on trip characteristics than previous two surveys
Entirely revealed behavior of trips throughout the day over the course of week
Paper format, easy to carry along for the day
Trip # _________ Date: 11 / / 2005
Origin:
Destination:
Departure Time: ________:________ a.m. / p.m.
Arrival Time: ________:________ a.m. / p.m.
Reason for Trip: _________________ (choose code from front cover)
Mode of Transportation:
Reason for Mode Choice: r Environmentally Friendly r Convenient
r Good Exercise r Fast
r No Alternative r Safe
r Easy Distance Travel r Private
r No Traffic Hassle r Inexpensive
r No Parking Hassle r OtherSecond choice
for mode?:
# Companions: ________
Companions' Relation to You:
Vehicle Notes: I am: the driver / a passenger(circle as appropriate)
My Vehicle / Not My Vehicle
WhereParked?
(check all that apply)
General Research Results
26
Passenger-Miles of TravelFor the US in 2001
Mode Split for Clemson UniversityInternet Survey Respondents
27
General Internet Travel Survey Results
Percent of Total Respondents by Classification (Un-weighted)
FrequencyValid
Percent
On campus student 458 30.51%
Off campus student 568 37.84%
Staff 275 18.32%
Faculty 200 13.32%
Total 1501 100%
28
No3%
Somewhat6%
Maybe16%
Usually31%
Yes43%
Not Sure1%
Do You Have Reasonable Access to Places Within Clemson University?
29
Average Mobility Rating by Mode for All Internet Survey Respondents (1=None and 5=Most)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Automobile Walking Transit Bike Other
Ave
rage
Mob
ility
Rat
ing
Automobile
31
What is Most Important To You While Parking at Clemson?(On-Campus Students with 1=Least and 5=Most)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Ave
rage
Sco
re
32
Fairness of Parking Regulations by Classification
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Not Fai
r at a
ll
Somew
hat fa
irFai
r
Very
Fair
Unsure
Rating
Pe
rce
nt
Re
sp
on
de
d
On-Campus Student
Off-Campus Student
Staff
Faculty
33
What Type of Parking Pricing Would You Prefer On Campus (Off-Campus Students)
Up-Front Flat Fee55%
Pay-as-you-go
10%
Reimburse-ment
Program32%
Other3%
34
Average Time toArrive at Parking Space
N
Mean (In
Minutes) Std. Deviation
Off-campus Students 442 13.2 9.74
Staff 234 19.5 13.03
Faculty 168 17.5 13.61
35
“I Need A Car…” (On Campus Students)1=Least Agreement and 5=Most Agreement
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Vacation
Shopping
Entertainment
Visit friends
Recreation
Medical care
Sporting events
Work
Research/Homework
To get to class
36
“I Need A Car…” (Off Campus Students) 1=Least Agreement and 5=Most Agreement
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
37
“I Need A Car…” (Staff) 1=Least Agreement and 5=Most Agreement
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
38
“I Need A Car…” (Faculty) 1=Least Agreement and 5=Most Agreement
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Work
Medical care
Shopping
Vacation
Entertainment
Visit friends
Recreation
Research/H
omework
To get to class
Sporting events
Walking
Envisioning Clemson as a Pedestrian-friendly Community
40
Percent of People Who Walk to Campus
Off Campus Students
Do Not Walk78%
Walk22%
Faculty / Staff
Walk16%
Do Not Walk84%
41
Reasons People Do Not Walk
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Me
an
Faculty/Staff
Off Campus Students.
43
Walk Commute Times to Campus
Walk Commute Time to Campus
0.05.0
10.015.0
20.025.030.035.0
Pe
rce
nt
Students
Faculty/Staf f
45
Activities to Which People WalkPropensity to Walk by Activity
(1=Never Walk and 5=Always Walk)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Me
an
On Campus
Off Campus
Faculty/Staff
47
Maximum Time Willing to WalkWillingness to Walk
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
5 Minutesor less
5 - 10Minutes
10 - 15Minutes
15 - 20Minutes
20 - 25Minutes
25 - 30Minutes
30+Minutes
Pe
rce
nt
On Campus Students
Off Campus Students
Faculty/Staff
Transit
50
Who is Riding Transit?
On-Campus Students
Off-Campus Students
Faculty & Staff
40% 53% 5%
51
Level of Satisfaction with CAT - On-Campus Students
2.662.52
2.42
1.69
2.011.83
2.56
1.87 1.88
2.81
3.53
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Bus routes
Location of bus stops
Service frequency
Ease of finding bus stops
Driver's attitude andhelpfulnessDisabled access
Safety and security
Music preferences
Heating/air-conditioningsuited to your comfortSeating comfort
Bus stop shelters
1 = Not Satisfied 5 = Very Satisfied
52
Level of Satisfaction with CAT - Off-Campus Students
2.05 2.12 2.13
1.71
1.99
1.76
2.48
2.00 1.99
3.56
2.81
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Bus routes
Location of bus stops
Service frequency
Ease of finding bus stops
Driver's attitude andhelpfulnessDisabled access
Safety and security
Music preferences
Heating/air-conditioningsuited to your comfortSeating comfort
Bus stop shelters
1 = Not Satisfied 5 = Very Satisfied
53
Level of Satisfaction with CAT - Faculty and Staff
2.56 2.53 2.54
1.41
2.17
1.92
2.19
1.92
3.13
3.76
3.39
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Bus routes
Location of bus stops
Service frequency
Ease of finding bus stops
Driver's attitude and helpfulness
Disabled access
Safety and security
Music preferences
Heating/air-conditioning suited toyour comfortSeating comfort
Bus stop shelters
1 = Not Satisfied 5 = Very Satisfied
54
Residence Proximity to Bus Stop and Propensity to Ride
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Less than ½ mile ½ - 1 mile 1 - 1½ mile Greater than 1½mile
Don't know
1-2 times
3-4 times
5-6 times
More than 6 times
55
Who Doesn't Ride Transit?
60%
47%
95%
On-CampusStudent
Off-CampusStudent
Faculty/Staff
56
Why Do We Not Ride Transit?
“Bus routes do not serve my needs” “Bus schedule does not serve my need” “Service frequencies do not fit my needs” “I need the flexibility to come and go
during the day” “It takes more time to get to campus when
I ride transit”
57
What Would Make Me Ride Transit?
Service to: Central
Wal-Mart Seneca
Apartment complexes
Increase in: Campus connectivity Commuter service after 6:00 PM Late night service Pendleton service hours Anderson stops
Bicycle
59
Preferred Maximum Bike Commute-Time
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Pe
rce
nt o
f P
eo
ple
Wh
o D
o N
ot
Cu
rre
ntly
Rid
e o
n C
am
pu
s
60
Bike Facilities 915 people regularly bike to and around campus 52% of all respondents requested more bike lanes, 20% are willing to
pay higher student fees for them 48% of all respondents requested covered bike racks, 19% willing to
pay higher student fees for them
December 6, 2005November 17, 2005
61
Reasons Why Bicyclists Avoid Certain Areas of Clemson
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
AggressiveDrivers
Too manypedestrians
Lack of bikelanes
Other
Pe
rce
nt
of
Pe
op
leW
ho
Bik
e o
n C
am
pu
s
62
Barriers to Biking
Hills, 21.1%
Other, 7.8%
Do not have a bike, 83.9%
Too much to carry, 48.2%
Weather, 36.4%
Commute time, 27.3%
Safety (drivers seeing you),
26.7%
Lack of bike facilities, 17.0%
Security (crime), 16.4%
Social perception, 10.2%
Mood/attitude, 9.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percent
63
A Bike Lane Alternative
Source: (Alta Planning+Design, 2004)
Source: (Alta Planning+Design, 2004)
Source: (Dan Burden, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center,
2005)
64
How Often Clemson Bikes
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Pe
rce
nt
of
Bic
yclis
ts
Football Travel Patterns
66
Football Survey 946 respondents for the season
±3.2% confidence interval 95% confidence level Student undercount
Paper surveys directed at anyone entering the stadium, aiming to catch all modes, all gates
Collected throughout games, but primarily before kick-off, at half-time and post-game
67
Football Survey
Visibility important with signs/uniforms
Catchy phrases on signs
68
Football Survey ResultsPercent Response by Affiliation
Other11%
Clemson Alumnus49%
Family or Friend19%
Visiting School Alumnus
1%
Visiting School Student
1%
Clemson Student8%Clemson Faculty or
Staff4%
Clemson Area Resident
7%
69
Football Survey ResultsDay of Arrival
1 day before17%
2 days before2%
Game Day80%
4 days before or more
1%
Note: No responses for "3 days before"
70
Percent Mode Choice
Bus or shuttle0.9%
Walk5.6%
Bike0.3%
Boat0.9%
RV1.0%
Automobile91.3%
Football Survey Results
71
Football Survey ResultsModes of Transportation Used by Out-of-Town Visitors
Automobile95.2%
Atlanta Airport0.5%
Charlotte Airport0.8%
Air-General Aviation0.1%
Greenville-Spartanburg Airport
1.0%
Other0.9%
RV1.4%
Note: No responses for "Chartered Bus"
72
Parking: Not just a car issue
Strollers get designated parking, so why don’t bikes?
73
Football Survey Results
Likelihood of Football Respondents Using Commuter Rail
Never20%
Maybe65%
Always7%
Unsure4%
No Response
4%
Alternative Transportation Options
75
How Often Would You Ride Commuter Rail Between Clemson and Greenville?
31% of the Clemson community would use commuter rail every week.
60% of the Clemson community would use commuter rail every
month.
7 days a week, 2%
6 days a week, 0%
5 days a week, 5%
4 days a week, 2%
3 days a week, 6%
2 days a week, 6%
1 day a week, 10%
Twice a month, 19%Once a month, 10%
Rarely, 25%
Never, 15%
76
Would You Support a County Wide Sales Tax To Support Commuter Rail?
On-campusstudent
Off-campusstudent Staff Faculty
Yes 40% 51% 43% 64%
No 22% 20% 26% 17%
Unsure 38% 29% 32% 19%
77
How Much Would You Be Willing To Pay For A Round Trip Rail Ticket Between Clemson and Greenville?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
$6 $6-8 $8-10 $10-12 More than$12
Not sure
Price
Pe
rce
nt
of
the
Cle
mso
n C
om
mu
nity
.
78
Reasons to Ride Rail to Greenville From Clemson1=Least Likely Trips and 5=Most Likely Trips
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Other
Entertainment/Dinin
g
To go shopping
To get to work
Recreation
To see friends and family
To get to class
Day trips for work
Sporting events
Medical Care
Ave
rage
Val
ue
79
What Factors Would Most Entice You to Ride Rail from Clemson to Greenville?1=Smallest Influence and 5=Biggest Influence
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Ticket prices
Train frequency
Park and ride costs
Park and ride availability
Travel tim
e compared to auto
Autom
obile trip costs
Latest train departure time
Train station location near home
Parking congestion at destination
Earliest train arrival tim
e
Storage facilities on train
80
How Regional Commuter Rail Can Help Clemson Become a Top 20 University
Providing convenient access to peripheral academic facilities such as the University Center in Greenville, ICAR, etc.
Concentrating student housing downtown, within easy access to the existing rail station
Creating a stronger campus community in the process
Serving as a possible recruitment tool for top students and faculty who prefer bigger city life with easy rail access to campus
81
Golf Carts??!!!! Mobility: Access across campus improves with easy access to low-speed
transportation. Congestion: More golf carts than autos can park in the same space Convenience: With smaller vehicles, more vehicles can park in existing lots
closer to buildings. Environment: Address regional air quality issues and non-attainment with
emphasis on electric or propane golf carts. Cost:
Students can use a $2000 golf cart (or a $200 bicycle on the same infrastructure) instead of a $20,000 private vehicle.
The University assumes little cost for operating this mode. The University maximizes existing infrastructure, reducing need for costly garages.
Character: Clemson further establishes its name for automotive technology through practical use
of alternative fuel vehicles. A golf-cart campus will help distinguish Clemson as a unique top-twenty university.
Golf carts have a place in this community, but will people use them?
82
"If Clemson provides appropriate parking and right of way, golf carts and similar small personal vehicles can serve as a viable transportation option for the community."
13%
17%
24%12%
25%
9% 14%
22%
25%
6%
26%
7%
19%
14%
27%8%
23%
9% 20%
20%
18%6%
24%
12%
On
-cam
pu
s S
tud
ents
Fac
ult
yS
taff
Off
-cam
pu
s S
tud
ents
33.2% of the campus community sees golf carts as a likely viable transportation option.
83
Which of the following trips would you use a golf cart for if designated lanes existed for golf carts?"
On-campus Student
Off-campusStudent Staff Faculty Overall
On Campus 68.0% 64.8% 73.1% 50.6% 64.3%
Football and Events 49.6% 44.4% 25.2% 11.7% 40.2%
Commuting 29.7% 39.8% 12.8% 21.0% 32.7%
Grocery Shopping 36.4% 22.0% 11.0% 15.7% 24.6%
Entertainment and Dining 32.2% 19.0% 14.6% 13.5% 21.7%
Visiting Friends and Family 19.8% 16.4% 6.6% 7.0% 15.5%
Other Shopping 16.2% 11.1% 9.7% 7.5% 12.0%
Medical Care 17.1% 7.9% 4.8% 6.4% 10.1%
84
"Lanes and paths designated for bicycles, golf carts, and mopeds should exist in the Clemson community."
StronglyDisagree Disagree Neutral Agree
StronglyAgree
NotSure
On campus student 7.5% 15.7% 29.0% 13.8% 28.5% 5.5%
Off campus student 6.9% 15.0% 29.0% 10.1% 35.0% 3.9%
Staff 7.0% 11.4% 27.2% 10.1% 38.2% 6.1%
Faculty 6.4% 7.0% 18.6% 8.1% 52.3% 7.6%
Total 7.0% 13.9% 27.5% 10.9% 35.7% 5.0%
Only 1/5 of the community opposes investing in infrastructure for low-speed local transportation.
46.6% of the Clemson community agrees that we have a need.
Recommendations and Conclusions
86
Themes & Recommendations Clemson needs an integrated, systems
approach to transportation Clemson community is open to new
transportation ideasGolf cartsCommuter railBicycle infrastructureHousing in close proximity to campus
87
Themes & Recommendations Safety and security are common concerns
More research is needed on this topic – the travel diary may be a venue to further explore this issue
Clemson planners should work with police and CAPS to identify and address issues
Regional transportation directly affects University demand and spending Students keep cars on campus but only use them on
breaks Demand and willingness to pay exists for commuter
rail to Greenville
88
Themes & Recommendations Students, faculty and staff show a
willingness to walk to campus if they live within a reasonable distanceClemson University / City of Clemson should
undertake a land use analysis to determine the feasibility of more student and faculty/staff housing within walking distance of campus
Campus and city need infrastructure for alternative modes beside automobile – bicycles, pedestrians, golf carts, etc.
Thank You!
Scott AdamsBen BoylesMark BrownErin ComstockAnne Dunning