Download - Transportation Asset Management Strategy · The management of university parking and transportation services must balance the resources of the university, market conditions, the safety

PPaarrkkiinngg aanndd TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn

AAsssseett MMaannaaggeemmeenntt

SSttrraatteeggyy

November 2006

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 2

Table of Contents

Table Of Contents ......................................................................................................... 2

Letter Of Introduction ................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 21

Parking Assets ............................................................................................................ 25

Campus Development................................................................................................. 36

Transportation Assets ................................................................................................ 40

Traffic Overview .......................................................................................................... 43

Stakeholder Input ........................................................................................................ 46

Budget And Service Delivery ..................................................................................... 62

Benchmarking ............................................................................................................. 68

Observations/Comments............................................................................................ 77

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 103

Appendix A – University Park Alliance.................................................................... 129

Appendix B- Letter To City Regarding Traffic Issues ............................................ 133

Appendix C- Stakeholder Comments/Suggestions................................................ 136

Appendix D- Special Parking Request Form .......................................................... 158

Appendix E- Maintenance List ................................................................................. 159

Letter of Introduction November 17, 2006 Mr. F. John Case, Ed. D. Vice President for Finance & Administration/CFO The University of Akron Buchtel Hall Room 222 Akron, OH 44325-4715 Dear Dr. Case: The primary mission of any university is to educate students. It is no different at the University of Akron. According to President Proenza, “Our number one priority is student success. Enabling student success will continue to be the hallmark of The University of Akron.” Enabling student success requires more than classroom instructions. A modern campus must also provide amenities that complement education. Those amenities include housing, food services, athletics, as well as parking and transportation. The management of university parking and transportation services must balance the resources of the university, market conditions, the safety of all members of the campus community, and the convenience of the users. As with any aspect of university life, having a strategy to address the parking and transportation requirements in a safe, efficient, and cost-efficient manner allows the university to concentrate on its primary mission. Over the past several months, The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. (CEG), in partnership with The Integrity Group (TIG), has worked with The University of Akron to develop a viable Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy. The strategy not only provides recommendations for short-term enhancements to the existing parking/transportation infrastructure, it also provides a long-term approach for guiding the University over the next decade.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 4 We acknowledge, not only the assistance provided by the employees of the Parking Services Department, but also the representatives of the University of Akron; the Associated Student Government; the City of Akron Traffic Engineering Division; the Metro Regional Transit Authority; and the hundreds of individuals who completed the parking survey, attended one of the open forums, or offered input during the study process. On behalf of the entire staff of CEG and TIG, we are delighted to have been a partner with the University of Akron in the development of this Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy. Should you have any questions regarding the recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS GROUP, INC. Charles J. Cullen, CPFM, CAPP Director of Parking Consulting Services


Executive Summary When asked to comment upon the parking and transportation services on campus, one respondent wrote: “Parking is absolutely horrible this year on campus.” On the same day, another respondent wrote “It's really good, overall!” To the student who arrives at 11:30 AM to park in Lot 27 (Hill Street and Buchtel), the first quote is certainly applicable. To the food service employee who arrives at 7:00 AM each morning to park in the North Deck, the second quote reflects his/her opinion of the parking/transportation services. Both quotes reflect the wide range of viewpoints concerning the delivery of parking and transportation services. Both quotes have validity. The food service worker has encountered few changes over the past several years because he/she arrives when parking is readily available near his/her place of work. The student, however, has witnessed the effects of an increasing parking demand and a decreasing parking supply. The lot that provided the student convenient parking for the past two years is now filled by the time he/she arrives this year. Next year, the student will likely encounter even more difficulty. The creation of a “landscape for learning” has certainly enhanced the physical assets of the University. The main campus is pedestrian-oriented with more open space and new buildings that reflect both pleasing aesthetics and state-of-the-art functionality. The transformation of the campus landscape, however, has forced the Parking Services Department to construct large parking decks to replace surface parking that is no longer available. Partly due to underfunded maintenance programs, major repairs and renovations were also necessary at existing facilities. The result is an annual debt obligation that currently constitutes 60% of the Department’s entire budget. With millions of dollars of debt, an increasing parking demand, no reserve fund, an inadequate number of reserved spaces, and the loss of 847 spaces within the next twelve months, the Parking Services Department faces an immediate challenge of providing 1,200 parking spaces and/or decreasing demand by that amount within a very short period of time. In the future, 90 new spaces will likely be needed annually. The Parking Services Department is also responsible for campus transportation operations. Currently, that service provides only one shuttle route known as the Polsky Express. On a campus with classes scheduled up to 80 hours per week, this shuttle service operates only 30 hours per week. Even when it does operate, it is underutilized by the campus community. A viable transportation program can do more than just transport students. It can reduce parking demand, enhance safety initiatives, and link the University with the surrounding community. As UA expands its borders, the need for an enhanced transportation system will increase. The current funding method for shuttle operations will not be able to totally finance the transportation challenges in the future.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 6 The challenges facing the Parking Services Department are more than funding. Money will purchase buses but it will not motivate students to ride them. Money will build new parking spaces but if the spaces are perceived to be too distant, they will only be used as a last resort. Parking and transportation customers must perceive a value for the services purchased. All members of the campus community must be more aware of parking and transportation options and encouraged to use them. Some of the problems associated with parking and transportation functions are not the direct responsibility of the Parking Services Department or even the University. Traffic control and the placement of on-street parking near UA fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Akron. The Metro Regional Transit Authority provides the buses and drivers for the current shuttle program. These entities are intertwined with the parking and transportation programs of the University and it is important to nurture the mutual symbiotic relationships that exist between them. The steps we have outlined in this document represent months of observation and analysis along with years of experience in parking and transportation operations. They are reflective of conditions at the University of Akron and should not be considered universal in nature. Likewise, procedures utilized at other universities may not be applicable at UA because of the unique conditions and history here. After reading the summary recommendations, we encourage readers to explore the entire document to better understand the reasoning behind the recommendations. The findings and recommendations follow the format presented in the original Request For Proposal document. Following each recommendation is a letter indicating the priority established for that recommendation. An “H” represents a high priority. An “M” stands for a medium priority. An “L” characterizes a low priority.


OBJECTIVE GOALS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Provide sufficient and well-maintained parking facilities in all quadrants of the campus

a) Analyze

existing parking capacity for faculty/staff, students and visitors

There are 18,526 members of the University of Akron community who have obtained a parking permit for the fall 2006 semester. These students, employees, retirees, and commercial partners, along with visitors to the University, share 10,412 parking spaces. After peak demand is met, a reserve supply of 520 spaces should exist (5% of total) but UA has only 300 such spaces so there is a current shortage of at least 200 spaces. That current shortage, combined with the loss of Lots 10, 24, and 36 within the next year and the new parking demand to be generated by the Exchange Street housing complex will create a need for 1,200 new spaces and/or an equivalent decrease in demand. Future years will require about 90 new spaces annually over the next decade. To reduce demand, we propose:

A. Offering free Metro passes to all students and employees…………………………… B. Providing bicycle lockers and more racks………………………………………………. C. Establishing a carpool/vanpool program………………………………………………... D. Offering free parking for motorcycles and other vehicles that don’t occupy a

parking space………………………………………………………………………….….. E. Eliminating the subsidy for employee parking……………………………………….…. F. Establishing parking fees that better reflect market conditions……………………….

To increase supply, we propose:

A. Reducing visitor parking by 100 spaces……………………………………………….. B. Eliminating sales to non-University members…………………………………………. C. Reducing the number of reserved parking spaces……………………………………. D. Eliminating dedicated parking areas (faculty/staff only, students only)…………….. E. Reducing special request parking during peak periods………………………………. F. Taking steps to park more vehicles on gravel lots by using stall markings………… G. Reconverting the property at Spicer and Buchtel to parking………………………… H. Leasing additional property off-campus for parking ………………………………….. I. We recommend the construction of 1,200 spaces at the site of Lot 34 including

the area adjacent to Corbin Commons. To accommodate future campus development, a larger deck in the range of 1,600 spaces should be considered.

M L L M M H H H M M M L M H H


b) Analyze

existing methods of coordinating Special Event parking

c) Analyze the

availability and convenience of visitor parking on campus

Currently, when an agency of the University conducts some type of special event, it contacts the Parking Services Department with the essential information and forwards a sample of the permit their guests will display. Enforcement personnel then omit enforcement of vehicles with that permit. On many days, multiple permits may be valid. The existence of so many valid permits makes enforcement more difficult. It also makes billing for parking services more difficult. We recommend a centralized system, using an on-line request form to resolve both issues. An agency requesting parking for a group or activity would complete the form and submit it to Parking Services. After reviewing the request and considering the supply of parking for the date and time requested, approval would be approved or denied. If approved, permits would be delivered for distribution. The permits would be of the same design making enforcement easier. In addition, the form also serves as an invoicing document that can be processed for collection. The 298 visitor spaces are underutilized. Except for one day during the first week of the semester, we never observed more than half of the metered visitor spaces occupied. They are often used by students who cannot or chose not to find a parking space on a lot that accepts their permit.

Most visitor parking is metered. The meters we observed are models no longer in production. They are limited as to rate structures and cannot provide free parking for quick (say 5-10 minutes) visits.

Members of the campus community quickly become familiar with one or more parking locations after a few days of orientation. Visitors, however, will find locating parking difficult since no wayfinding signage exists for them. Some lots are marked at the entrance with a small indication that visitor parking is available but there are no signs on the streets around the campus to direct them to those locations. The only outward indication of visitor parking was found on the exterior of the Robinson Deck (52 visitor spaces) and West Deck (12 visitor spaces). The other 234 visitor spaces did not have any such signs. We recommend:

A. Eliminating 100 metered visitor parking spaces……………………………… B. Consolidating the visitor parking……………………………………………….. C. Installing an improved wayfinding system for drivers not familiar with the

campus……………………………………………………………………………. D. Purchasing new meters within 5 years………………………………………...

M

H L L L


d) Optimize our

current and future parking availability on campus

e) Analyze and

determine methods for handling residence student parking for those who park and do not move their vehicles all week and use prime parking spaces

f) Review the

current maintenance of parking facilities and recommend most efficient methodology for future maintenance operations

To optimize the current parking utilization, the recommendations for goal “a” are applicable. In the future, we project a modest 1% growth in student population annually from 2008 to 2011. This represents a demand for 90 new parking spaces each year. The recommended new facility with a minimum of 1,200 spaces can be built with 1,600 spaces to accommodate the future requirements and reduce the need to lease spaces from outside the University. The North Deck is a preferred location for parking by all members of the campus community. The deck fills early each day since many residents use that facility. This reduces the turnover of spaces. We propose a Gold permit that will allow 24/7 access to the facilities in the prime parking area in and near the North Deck. The price of the Gold Permit will reflect the longer duration of the permit holders in prime locations. The Gold Permit will be one option available to members of the campus community. While the Gold Permit will not eliminate the use of the prime facilities by residents, it will better reflect the parking duration of those students. Our observations conclude that maintenance is good but cleaning needs improvement. Examples of areas requiring attention are documented in the report. We recommend taking corrective action for the items mentioned and creating steps to provide better accountability for cleaning assignments. We provided a maintenance check list for reference. A consistent signage program is also recommended for the lots.

H H M


g) Coordinate with

Capital Planning and Finance & Administration for the feasibility of constructing new parking deck(s) in strategic locations

h) Determine the

impact of a new football stadium in the East Quadrant on current parking areas (current proposed location will eliminate approximately 770 spaces), including the new Greek Village

We considered only those sites currently owned by the University. While other sites such as Central-Hower High School could accommodate a large parking structure, the additional funding necessary to purchase the site and the time required to transfer the property to the University would not allow construction as quickly as desired. We also omitted sites east of Buchtel Hall not recommended by the Capital Planning Department. We concentrated our review on sites that could accommodate a large parking structure rather than several smaller structures to reduce the overall cost. Any new stand-alone parking facility should be built to allow for future expansion. Parking integrated into new buildings may be useful to provide for future parking demand but for the present, a large structure will best serve the University. We recommend the construction of 1,200 spaces at the site of Lot 34 including the area adjacent to Corbin Commons. The site provides the best opportunity to meet the increasing demand for parking in the south area of the campus, minimize traffic congestion on and near Buchtel, serves as a contingency location when repairs to Exchange and West Decks are needed, affords a good location to centralize visitor parking, and provides easy pedestrian access to the core campus. Should that site not be approved, we recommend Lot 27 with the adjacent plaza or Lot 10. The new stadium will eliminate 500+ spaces significantly decreasing parking supply. When completed, it will provide a new source of parking revenue but it will also create new traffic problems. Recommendations regarding the loss of the spaces have been previously stated.

H


Maximize efficient traffic flow into and out of all parking decks and surface lots, and around the campus

a) Investigate the

feasibility of minimizing the number of entry/exit portals to the UA campus in order to simplify entering and exiting the campus by student, employees and visitors

b) Coordinate with

the City of Akron for the performance of traffic studies and implementation of traffic improvement programs in all the streets within the UA campus

Most of the UA campus is located between Route 8 (east), East Exchange Street (south), East Market Street (north), and the railroad corridor (west). There is no north-south street that directly connects East Exchange and East Market. There is only one east-west street (Buchtel) that connects Route 8 to the western border and Downtown Akron – and Buchtel has only three lanes. There are 12 other portals to enter the UA campus, but only Buchtel affords the ability to travel directly from one end of campus to the other. As a result, Buchtel Avenue is heavily traveled each academic day. Over the years, some streets have been closed to permit the University to become more pedestrian friendly. We identified 13 portals. Some of the major portals, such as Buchtel and Goodkirk are identified with a large sign. Since traffic counts for most of these portal intersections have not been conducted since the reconfiguration of Route 8, data to base decisions upon is not available. Based solely upon our observations, we identified one portal that could be closed (Orchard & Goodkirk) without adversely impacting traffic. Generally, closing streets forces traffic to drive on other streets and without any changes to the lane capacities of the other streets, traffic congestion is not improved. We do not recommend making any changes to the existing portals. The University has forwarded several traffic and related safety concerns to the City of Akron. Of particular concern are the locations of on-street meters that hinder the sight of drivers at intersections; timing of traffic signals; and the intersections of Buchtel and Hill, Buchtel and Spicer, and Buchtel and College. Some of the traffic issues have been temporarily resolved with the closing of Central-Hower High School. That building, however, will reopen as a temporary school for several years starting with the 2007-2008 academic year. This will likely return traffic conditions to their previous levels. The Consultant Team observed several of the trouble spots identified by the staff. Most intersections along Buchtel are controlled by a traffic signal. At College and Buchtel, there is only a 4-way stop sign. During our observations of August 30, morning traffic was constant but not in sufficient quantity to create any significant backups. During the late afternoon and evening hours (3:00 PM to 6:00 PM), we observed an extended traffic backup on eastbound Buchtel at College. The data from the City indicates that more traffic travels westbound but since eastbound Buchtel has only one lane, the traffic backs up further. The difference is that westbound Buchtel has two lanes and eastbound Buchtel has only one lane for nearly the same volume of traffic.

L


The City has taken some action in response to the concerns of the University. Traffic studies have been conducted in September 2005 and May 2006. It has performed a preliminary assessment of the concerns expressed by the University in their 2003 letter. Traffic signals on Buchtel have already been timed to favor westbound vehicles in the morning and eastbound vehicles in the evening. Traffic cameras now monitor critical intersections near the campus. The City is also actively exploring the possibility of converting Spicer to a one-way street in front of the East Deck. We recommend the creation of an empowered Traffic Improvement Committee (TIC) with the City of Akron. The key word in the recommendation is “empowered.” The committee members must be authorized to act at least to the point that they can recommend action to their respective organizations. There are opportunities to improve the quality of life in and around the campus by having traffic issues addressed in a timely manner. There are also adverse consequences when the issues are not expeditiously addressed. During our internal review sessions, based upon our observations of the traffic along Buchtel Avenue, we concluded that two enhancements working in conjunction could improve the traffic. The first enhancement is the use of an intelligent signal system at all intersections on Buchtel, from Fountain to Broadway. The second enhancement is a reversible center lane on Buchtel.

H

Provide analysis of a campus shuttle bus service

a) Analyze the

necessity and feasibility of a shuttle service throughout the campus

The current shuttle program does not serve the needs of UA and is not cost-efficient. Few take advantage of the shuttle for a number of reasons. If transportation services are to be part of UA’s future, and we believe it should be, then a new approach is necessary. We recommend the initiation of an in-house shuttle service. Based on our review, it appears likely that an internal bus service could be provided on a slightly higher cost basis ($63) with smaller, more recognizable vehicles and with twice the frequency of service. The University is well suited to a small internally operated shuttle service that could be dedicated to customer service.

By better meeting the needs of the students in an UA-oriented bus, the service will gain acceptance. Building a good reputation will allow expansion of a reliable service that could eventually include a circulator route to better serve the various buildings on campus. The shuttle expansion will link parking and people and reduce the reliance on vehicle travel.

H


b) Perform a cost

comparison of a tiered/preferred parking design vs. the cost of a shuttle service

c) Prepare a model

for funding a shuttle service for the possibility of an across-the-board student transportation fee lease/purchase of our own in-house fleet

d) Utilize campus

survey feedback to assist in the preferred routes, stops and schedules required to provide sufficient shuttle services

While we recommend an in-house operation for the new shuttle bus program that operates one limited route, the expansion of the program in the future may strain the ability of the Department to meet the new demands for service. Managing a large campus shuttle service is a challenging function. There are numerous issues to consider, which include labor management, vehicle maintenance, and passenger safety, maintaining operational effectiveness and efficiency, and much more. Outsourcing should be a consideration. Given the current and future parking supply shortage, a growing demand for parking, and the expansion of the campus, the need for a viable shuttle program is important, even if the cost is greater than any tiered (zone) parking program. Moreover, the survey indicated an overwhelming (80%) rejection of a tiered parking program so we did not recommend a tiered parking program. In the future, perhaps with the completion of adequate parking supply, a tiered parking concept may be more applicable at UA. Funds for the shuttle program should be financed with revenue generated by parking fines. This will provide a dedicated source of revenue to budget transportation services. An across-the board transportation fee is not recommended. Such a fee would only increase the demand for parking at a time when parking supply is inadequate. An extensive on-line survey was used to gain insight into both parking and transportation issues. A review of the survey responses reveals an opportunity to increase service and utilization simply by improving shuttle service elements like ensuring buses run effective schedules and routes. Ridership could potentially increase by 30% by impacting these areas alone. Another 17.4% are unaware of reasons why they do not use the campus system. Our impromptu interviews with students on the street would indicate this response to the survey question may be a result of students not being aware of the shuttle service.

M


When we asked about expanding the shuttle bus service, almost 31% stated yes, while 69% indicated no. A closer examination of the individual responses reveals that of those stating yes, 182 out of 184 responses were entirely derived by students. This is a stronger indication of support from students than the overall results would tend to indicate. Student responses were nearly split on whether the shuttle service should be expanded. Extrapolating the survey percentage results to the total campus population would indicate at least viable baseline demand for transportation around the campus proper and perhaps other expanded levels of service as well. When asked if the service should be expanded, and how? The responses varied: o Gallucci, Polsky, north end of campus o EVERYWHERE - All over the campus (most common answer) o On Exchange Street o Make an actual schedule instead of it being totally random o A loop around the mid campus area, Peirce, Kolbe to Gladwin o Later in the day and into the evening to assist adult students

Determine the optimum fee structure to fund adequate parking

a) Analyze the

feasibility and practicality for the implementation of tiered/preferred parking

b) Determine and

analyze various funding alternatives, including across-the-board fee structures

There are few options for parking. Essentially, everyone pays the same fee and that fee is not adequate to fund a parking system that is now primarily garage based. A tiered-base rate structure is most reflective of the world outside of UA but it is a market driven system that allows supply and demand to set rates. Campus development and rate practices have interfered with the parking market at UA. In addition, 80% of the survey respondents did not approve such a rate system. To move from the current rate system to a tiered system is not practical at this time. An option-based rate structure with time restrictions is recommended. In the future, the University may re-visit the tiered rate system when conditions are more favorable. The Parking Services Division is not a true enterprise operation. Some services are provided at no cost to the user and campus development has forced the system to go deep into debt without compensation. While the new stadium will not be paid by students, the new parking required as a result of the new stadium will be paid by students for the next 30 years. Until the Parking Services Department is fairly compensated for its losses and/or allowed to implement rates reflective of the cost of delivering its services, a funding gap will remain.


c) Validate or

propose alternative methods to current parking procedures, including, but not limited to, lot/deck designations, permit fee amounts, parking fine amounts, lot monitoring techniques, etc.

Currently, 65% of students buy a parking permit. If all students are assessed a fee for transportation services, more will request parking and there is not enough parking already. An across the board fee cannot be implemented at this time. We recommend the Parking Services Department:

A. Receive compensation for new decks required as the result of development - The compensation can be in the form of upfront cash or assumption of debt.

B. Charge for all services (retiree parking, university vehicles, public relation person

in Robertson Deck, etc.)

C. Establish a Reserve Fund…………………………………………………………………

D. With an approved maximum, the Parking Services Department should have flexibility to establish fees for its services. Fees should reflect the cost of providing the services and market conditions. As an example, the University approves a maximum semester parking permit fee of $180. The Department would then establish its rates as part of the annual budget process. Provided the rates were justified by a review of expenditures and they did not exceed the approved maximum, the fee would be established.

E. The rates would provide options for students just like other campus enterprises

provide options for their service. Based upon the survey responses and our observations, we recommend the following:

A. Establish a mission for Department……………………………………………………...

B. Write and maintain an Operating Policies and Procedures Manual………………….

C. Establish a coordinated signage plan for all facilities………………………………….

D. Revise uniform policy for Lot Monitors…………………………………………………..

E. Use Lot Monitors to assist customers in finding parking during the first week of each semester

H H M H H M L L M M


F. Issue warning citations for minor infractions during first week of each semester…..

G. Establish formal training for Lot Monitors……………………………………………….

H. Define clear policy and procedure guidelines for citation adjudication and establish an appropriate entity for hearing citations appeals, except for instances of malfunctioning equipment or employee error.

I. Establish a pro-active program to inform the campus community of parking procedures and options

M L H M

Obtain benchmark information from other Universities that are comparable in size, urban setting, and financially, both for parking and transportation activities

a) Determine

feasibility of implementing improved methods at UA

We examined comparison data from the International Parking Institute, 7 universities that had similar characteristics of UA, 8 state universities, and Downtown Akron.

The benchmarking data from the IPI indicate that most campuses offer a shuttle and many provide programs intended to reduce parking demand. On the average, 85% of students use a shuttle but at UA, 85% of the survey respondents never ride the shuttle. Fees at the seven comparable universities varied widely from as little as $20 a year to $674.88 per year. Those campuses that provided only lot parking had lower rates. One university imposes an access fee on all students to cover the shuttle and parking operations. Most offer options for student and faculty parking. At other State universities, the annual parking rate for faculty/staff ranges from $0.00 at Ohio University to $1,104 at the University of Cincinnati. Students pay $60 annually at Bowling Green but up to $828 at the University of Cincinnati. All State universities offer a shuttle program. Two universities (Bowling Green and Wright State) finance their shuttle program solely with parking and fine revenue. The others rely on general fees and parking revenue. To limit parking demand, two universities place restrictions on permit sales to freshmen, one banning freshman residents all together. Students at UA who park in the West Deck pay $220 per year for parking which is $530 less than the Summit Garage located across the street.


b) Determine any

potential shared services

c) Ensure that all

parking facilities and services are consistent within industry standards

Tuition and fees at UA rose 5.34% this academic year. Parking fees were not increased- again. The findings of our benchmarking research were incorporated into our recommendations previously noted. We did not see any immediate opportunities for shared services. We are encouraged by the initiatives of the University Park Alliance and the new Metro hub. We recommend that the University maintain its working relationship with University Park Alliance, City of Akron, and Departments within the University. Based upon our observations and the data from other universities, the students at UA have no real options for parking. The parking rate structure is not reflective of the true cost of providing the services. Too many services are provided at no cost. The debt obligation of the Parking Service Department is excessive. The shuttle program is not effective. Campus growth has shifted the cost of new development solely onto the parking customers. There are also issues with garage cleanliness, lot monitoring efforts, and the mission of the Department. Our recommendations are intended to incorporate industry practices at UA.

M

Over the past decade, the Parking Services Department has been forced to transform from a “lot oriented” service provider to a “garage oriented” service provider. Yet the fees necessary to fund that transition have not been imposed. Parking fees remain “lot oriented” and it is unrealistic to suddenly increase fees to a “garage” level. The new challenges facing the Parking Services Department are the result of actions by other Departments. While gradual increases in parking fees are necessary, the parking customers should not be solely responsible for the actions of those other Departments. Those Departments should share in the cost of providing new parking supply.


Listing of Recommendations By Priority High Priority

1. The University must take steps to address the parking shortage. Steps include:

• Reduce visitor parking by 100 spaces • Eliminate permit sales to non-university members • Lease additional off-campus property for parking • Construct a parking deck with a minimum of 1,200 spaces on the site of

Lot 34 (Wolf Ledges and Carroll) to accommodate immediate needs. Consider a larger deck (1,600 spaces) to meet future parking demand. Alternative sites are Lot 27 (Buchtel and Hill) and Lot 10 (Spicer and Vine).

2. In the short-term, to improve its transportation service, the University must

first provide and promote an enhanced (longer hours, more frequent service), in-house shuttle program to replace the current Polsky Express. A long-term goal is to expand the shuttle program to other areas of the campus once it is perceived as a viable service to the campus community. The expanded program will require the addition of a Transportation Manager. Improvements to traffic conditions on Buchtel will further enhance the shuttle program.

3. The Parking Services Department must function as a true enterprise

operation by:

• Charging for all services provided • Receiving compensation (assumption of debt or upfront capital

contribution) for any adverse service impacts due to development • Utilizing a flexible rate structure to set rates annually below an approved

maximum • Providing more parking permit options to all members of the campus

community

4. To better address traffic, parking, and transportation concerns, an empowered Traffic Improvement Committee with the City of Akron is recommended.

5. To provide for impartial appeals of parking citations, the university must

define clear policy and procedure guidelines for citation adjudication and establish an appropriate entity for hearing citations appeals.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 19 Medium Priority To enhance the effectiveness of the High Priority steps previously presented, other complementary initiatives are recommended. These initiatives will:

1. Increase parking supply

• Reduce the number of reserved spaces • Eliminate dedicated spaces • Re-convert the property at Spicer and Buchtel to parking

2. Reduce parking demand

• Offer free Metro passes to those who do not park a vehicle on campus • Provide free parking for motorcycles • Eliminate employee parking subsidy

3. Make the Parking Services Department more financially secure

• Establish a reserve fund for capital projects • Dedicate parking fine revenue for transportations services

4. Improve service delivery

• Adopt a coordinated Special Event parking program • Correct maintenance items and improve cleaning procedures • Establish a mission for the Department • Revise uniform policy for Lot Monitors • Use Lot Monitors to assist customers during the first week of each

semester • Issue warning for minor infractions during first week of each semester • Establish a pro-active program to inform campus community of parking

and transportation options • Maintain and nurture relationships with University Park Alliance, Metro,

City of Akron – Traffic Engineering, and other University Departments

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 20 Low Priority The following steps will further enhance the University’s parking and transportation services but their implementation is not as critical as those previously presented.

• Provide more bicycle racks and lockers • Establish a carpool/vanpool program • Take steps to increase parking supply on gravel lots by marking stalls • Consolidate visitor parking • Improve wayfinding for visitors • Replace parking meters within five years • Maintain the existing entry/exit portals around the University • Write a Policies and Procedures Manual • Provide uniform signage design for all parking facilities • Establish a formal training program for Lot Monitors


Introduction E. B. White, the author and essayist, wrote: “Everything in life is somewhere else, and you get there in a car.” This is particularly true for the 18,526 members of the University of Akron community who have obtained a parking permit for the fall 2006 semester. These students, employees, retirees, and commercial partners, along with visitors to the University, share the 10,412 parking spaces that are currently available on campus. Allocating parking and transportation assets for any university requires knowledge of the history and planning guidelines of the campus; understanding the physical limitations associated with the area; determining the current inventory; assessing the needs of the campus community; creating a short-term plan to address immediate concerns; formulating a long-term approach to meet future demand; and educating users of services available. Each campus in the United States shares some common traits but each also has a unique set of circumstances that must be addressed in any parking/transportation analysis. Ohio University solved its parking shortage by prohibiting freshman residents from purchasing parking permits. Students at the University of Cincinnati voted last year to increase fees by $8 per quarter to finance an expanded shuttle program. At The Ohio State University, different rates are established for parking zones with the annual cost for faculty and staff parking ranging from $153 to $576. This report provides benchmarking data from other universities but the use of such data is intended to demonstrate the variety of approaches used by these institutions. How other universities fund and operate their parking and transportation services are not as important as determining the best methods for the University of Akron. The University of Akron is changing. The largest freshman class in fifteen years enrolled for the fall of 2006. Overall, student population increased by 4% from just one year ago. The addition to the Guzzetta Building is now opened. A new 460-bed housing project is under construction on East Exchange Street. Plans for a new on-campus football stadium will soon be announced. Nearly every change to the campus landscape impacts parking and/or transportation services. Planning for those impacts must be part of every development project. The students attending UA are accustomed to rapid response (fast-food, instant-on), technology (on-line, i-pods), convenience (one-touch, disposability), and personal mobility (automobiles). These students expect the same from the parking and transportation services they receive. Parking should be rapidly accessible and located in close proximity to their destination. A shuttle system should travel to desired locations within few minutes.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 22 For employees, parking is more than ingress and egress. The University represents an important life experience, namely employment. Employees expect a fair salary, benefits, and a place to store their vehicle while they serve the needs of the students. Employees generally appreciate the quality of parking and transportation services, particularly if the cost of such services is free or provided at a minimal cost. While the landscape of UA is changing, the fundamental purpose of the University remains the same – education. In order to focus on education, campuses make conscious decisions on which programs represent the primary mission (education) and which programs supplement the primary mission. Generally, the educational programs are supported by tuition while fees pay for other supplemental or auxiliary services. Food service is certainly one such auxiliary service. Each user of the campus food service is charged a fee for each meal or meal plan. The fee pays for far more than the cost of the ingredients used to make a pizza. The fee also covers the wages of employees, the maintenance of equipment used to bake the pizza, the cost of the dishes, and the cost of energy used to prepare the pizza. If the fees paid for food services are insufficient to cover all costs, either the University must allocate additional funds, reduce the quality or quantity of service, and/or increase the fees for food. Parking and transportation are other auxiliary services. The cost of a parking permit must reflect the cost of providing that service. That includes operating expenses, capital improvements, reserve for contingencies, and debt service. If fees and fines are sufficient to meet all expenses, the parking and transportation system will deliver a high level of service and be able to expand to meet future growth. If the fees do not cover the actual cost of the services, new revenue resources must be found or shuttle service will be less frequent, new parking spaces will not be provided, preventive maintenance will not be performed, and/or capital improvements will be postponed. This is the situation at University of Akron. Without a cash reserve or subsidy from the University to fund the renovation of existing parking structures and the addition of new ones, the Parking Services Department borrowed $52.0M. Repayment of that debt currently represents 60% of the Department’s budget. With only revenue from the sale of parking permits, parking fines, and rental of parking spaces to repay the debt and all operating expenses, the Parking system cannot afford any decrease in parking supply or increase in parking demand. Yet that is exactly the future it faces. Already at a deficit in the effective parking supply, the anticipated loss of 847 parking spaces (8% of supply) within the next twelve months and the increased demand generated by new residential housing units will further aggravate the delicate balance of parking supply and demand. New deck(s) cannot be constructed quickly enough to respond to the sudden loss of supply and increase in demand. Programs to encourage students and employees to utilize alternate transportation options also cannot be fully realized that quickly to reduce the parking demand sufficiently by the next academic year. Temporary fixes will be necessary in the short term and long-term solutions to avoid future supply challenges will be required. Both will require new funding.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 23 To develop a viable strategy that addresses the short-term and long-term parking/transportation conditions at UA, we: • Began with an inventory of existing assets (buses, parking spaces, financial

resources) • Projected the parking/transportation impact of future development • Collected input from stakeholders

o Open forums (2) o Meetings with individuals representing various campus groups, the City of

Akron, and the Metro Regional Transit Authority o On-line survey with 661 respondents o Impromptu interviews

• Made numerous observations of the parking/transportation system in operation • Sought comparisons with other universities

A major consideration of this study focused on the viability of the current campus shuttle bus system operated by the Metro and understanding the potential and feasibility of implementing a larger more encompassing shuttle service throughout the campus. A timely and reliable shuttle program can work hand in hand with campus growth initiatives and efforts to locate parking on the periphery. Any expansion of the present system, however, should be appropriately supported in order to meet the associated financial obligations with operating on a larger scale. To fully understand the elements of the transportation service and the impact of the surrounding traffic roadway issues, the consultant team performed several verifiable tasks to confirm the effects and issues which riders undergo on a daily basis. Understanding the time and distance relationships provides a more qualified understanding of the transportation demands requested by students. Walking from the midpoint of Buchtel Commons to the locations below gave perspective to the issues that students face everyday.

• Pedestrian circle adjacent to Olin Building, onward to East Deck • Pedestrian circle adjacent to Lot 57, onward to the Corner of Spicer and Vine • Corner of East Exchange Street and Lot 38 entrance • Goodyear Building circle and onward to Polsky Building • Intersection of East Buchtel and South College Street

By pacing and timing the distances listed below, interviewing students, riding the shuttle service, and reviewing the survey results, we gained a great deal of knowledge that provided a baseline for our transportation analysis.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 24 With the data, observations, and input provided, we crafted a series of recommendations to provide practical and fiscally sound parking and transportation services. Our recommendations reflect these principles: • Parking and transportation are auxiliary services that should operate on a

financially self sufficient, market-based basis • Undesirable consequences resulting from the action of agencies that adversely

impact the market should not be the responsibility of parking customers • Users of the services should perceive a value for the price paid • The allocation of services should be fair, reliable, convenient, cost-effective, and

friendly • The services provided should reflect the goals of the University

The challenges facing the Parking Services Department did not suddenly appear and they will not suddenly disappear. A “magic wand” that can build more spaces, maintain existing facilities, allow each customer to select their personal parking space, and eliminate parking fees does not exist. What does exist is this strategy to allocate the limited resources more effectively, expand services to meet future requirements, and influence the way customers perceive parking and transportation services.


Parking Assets

For the fall semester of the 2006-2007 academic year, the University of Akron has 10,412 parking spaces. A detailed listing of each lot is found in the table below.

Parking Space Inventory – September 2006

Lot # Name Type Location Permits Capacity Visitor Dedicated Available ADA1 East Deck S E A 1,051 0 7 1,044 222 Rhodes L E F 76 2 3 71 15

9 Wallaroo L E A 517 4 0 513 0

12 Greek Church L N A 107 0 0 107 013 Phi Delta L E S 101 0 0 101 014 Union L N A 151 4 4 143 415 Olin L N F 50 9 1 40 516 Accessibility L E O 18 13 0 5 518 Student Union L S O 42 27 8 7 919 Day Care L N F 40 4 4 32 120 Methodist Church L N A 83 0 0 83 022 Ritchie L N O 26 0 2 24 2423 UAPD L N O 6 1 5 0 024 Central-Howard L N A 100 0 0 100 025 Robertson S N O 97 52 40 5 526 North Deck S N A 1,136 0 22 1,114 3327 North Lot L N A 164 12 10 142 828 EJ Hall S N A 267 0 8 259 429 PFOC L N A 104 0 0 104 232 Ballet L N A 28 0 0 28 034 Computer L S A 294 9 1 284 1136 Auburn S S A 230 0 3 227 537 Schrank Deck S S A 281 0 2 279 738 Schrank Lot L S A 140 0 0 140 539 Exchange St. S S A 1,308 0 6 1,302 2441 Exchange Lot L S A 94 0 0 94 043 BCCE L W A 69 0 2 67 244 Grant L S A 96 0 3 93 1

44A Town House A L S A 12 0 0 12 044B Town House B L S A 12 0 0 12 044C Town House C L S A 10 0 0 10 044D Town House D L S A 10 0 0 10 0

45 Lincoln L N A 219 4 10 205 846 Gallucci L S A 259 29 3 227 847 Folk L S A 257 3 0 254 649 West S W A 1,493 12 29 1,452 3050 Hower L N A 19 0 0 19 052 Paul Martin L N F 197 6 1 190 753 Visitor B L W A 61 25 0 36 154 Chapel L N A 146 0 0 146 056 BCCE Turn L W O 10 8 0 2 257 Rhodes Arena L E O 24 8 0 16 1659 Garson L S A 24 0 0 24 060 Polymer L N A 9 5 0 4 161 Broadway L W A 26 0 0 26 2

dmin Serv S N A 135 0 2 133 6

10,412 298 226 9,888 301

3 Alumni L N A 8 7 0 1 14 Delta Gamma L E F 36 0 2 34 06 Joey L E A 27 0 0 27 17 Kappa L E A 48 0 0 48 08 ONAT-1 L E A 175 28 2 145 0

10 ONAT-2 L E A 261 6 0 255 1411 Eshelman L N A 37 0 0 37 1

62 Human Resour. L W A 62 0 0 62 066 Polsky L W A 113 20 0 93 569 PFOC L N O 46 0 46 0 071 A


To better explain the column designations used with Exhibit A, the following is provided

ype: refers to

:

the type of parking: “L” represents a surface lot while “S” represents a structure. T Location: provides a general indication of a lot’s location (“N”orth, “S”outh, “E”ast, and “W”est) per map elow. b

Permits: reflects the type of permits accepted on the parking facility: “S” is for students only, “F” is for faculty/staff only, “O” is used to designate a lot dedicated for special purposes, and “A” is a lot where all permits are accepted. Capacity represents the total number of spaces in the lot. Visitor column reports on the number of spaces assigned to visitors. In most instances, these spaces are metered. Dedicated column notes the number of spaces assigned exclusively to a type of vehicle (State vehicle, Police, etc.) Available represents the number of spaces available to permit holders. It is the total capacity minus visitor and dedicated spaces. ADA column records the number of ADA-compliant spaces.

West

South East

North

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 27 The pie chart below illustrates the number of spaces in the 47 surface lots and the 9 structures that comprise the existing parking supply at UA.

Parking Inventory By Parking Type

Decks, 5,998

Lots, 4,414 42.4%

The decks range in size from 135 spaces (#71 Administrative Services) to 1,493 spaces (#49 West) Note: the West Deck is also commonly referred to as the Polsky Deck. The surface lots range in size from 6 spaces (#23 UAPD) to 517 spaces (#9 Wallaroo). Of the 4,414 lot spaces, 1,443 of the spaces (33%) consist of gravel or partial gravel surfaces.

57.6%

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 28 Not all of these surface lots are actually owned by the University. Since the University cannot meet its current parking demand with on campus spaces, the Parking Services Department currently leases 472 spaces from other entities. The leases represent 4.5% of the entire parking inventory.

Lot Spaces Leased 4 – Delta Gamma 36 12 – Greek Church 107 20 – Methodist Church 83 24 – Central Hower 100 54 - Chappel 146 TOTAL 472

The majority of classroom activity is located in the North and South areas of the campus. These areas also contain more parking. A breakdown of parking spaces by areas is shown in the map below. The areas shaded in gray are parking facilities.

Parking Inventory By Location

1,834 West

3,069 South

3,175 North

2,334 East

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 29 As recorded in a previous table, not every space is available to every customer. To allow for visitors to campus, 298 spaces are provided. Another 226 spaces are set aside for special purposes. In most instances, the dedicated spaces enhance the ability of employees to perform their jobs more efficiently. The chart below illustrates the space allocation in graph format.

Parking Inventory By Space Allocation

Permits, 9,888

Visitors, 298

Dedicated, 226

To accommodate those with disabilities, the University currently provides 301 ADA-compliant spaces. Not every lot has ADA-compliant spaces and some lots have more than the required number. This is permissible under the Federal ADA guidelines provided the location of the spaces provides better accessibility. The quantity of ADA-compliant spaces actually exceeds the number of spaces required by 17 at this time.


The majority of the 9,888 spaces are designated for any permit holder. A few (101) spaces are reserved for students and 399 spaces are assigned exclusively for faculty/staff members. The pie chart below reflects the allocation of spaces for permit holders.

Parking Inventory By Permit Space Allocation

All, 9388

Employee, 399

Students, 101

The allocation of parking spaces by campus groups varies with each university. Generally, the allocation is a carryover of practices that were started decades ago. Faculty and staff sometimes view dedicated areas as a reward for their dedication to the university. Some employees leave the campus during the day and have a harder time finding a space without dedicated parking. Comments we received from faculty members mentioned re-allocating spaces in the West Deck and allocating other spaces in the campus for their exclusive use. One problem with space allocation for groups is deciding which spaces should be allocated to which group. Everyone wants a parking space as close as possible to their destination but employees and students have different destinations. The second problem is space utilization. If the North and West Decks were allocated to faculty and staff only, it is likely some spaces would not be occupied. Students unable to locate a space in other lots would risk a citation if they parked in the faculty/staff decks. In order to allocate spaces to campus groups, there must be a sufficient surplus of spaces. This is not the case at UA.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 31 In the past two years, the supply of parking spaces has been declining. There has been a net loss of 95 spaces as outlined in the following table.

Recent Parking Space Changes

Project Parking Space Impact Guzzetta Hall Expansion -167 Exchange Street Resident Hall -160 Gas Turbine Testing Facility -25 NCB Bank -40 Methodist Lot Lease Increase +50 Central-Hower School Lease +100 Roadway Building +12 Administrative Services Building +135 Net Impact -95

The effort to provide additional inventory has been costly. Expanding the lease with the nearby Methodist Church and the new lease for spaces at the Central-Hower School required additional expenditures by the Parking Services Department. Eliminating permit sales to non-University employees in the North Deck reduced revenue. The newly acquired deck at the Administrative Services Building is already undergoing structural repairs.

Lower level of Administrative Services Deck


Is the supply of parking sufficient to meet the needs of the University? No. The University of Akron Main Campus has a student population of 22,806 for the fall 2006 semester. In addition, the University has 4,635 employees (2,632 full-time, 879 part-time, and 1,124 graduate assistants). Should every student and employee arrive by car at one time, there would be a need for 27,441 parking spaces. Fortunately, every one does not arrive at the same time and many do not require parking. Parking supply must be able to accommodate all vehicles seeking parking during the peak parking period plus provide a reserve inventory of at least 5%. (Many parking planners recommend a 10% reserve.) The 5% reserve allows the University to provide parking for recruiting new students, career interviews, meetings with Administration, etc. It also allows permit holders to locate parking spaces more quickly. Perhaps more importantly, the reserve enables the University to relocate customers when displacement is necessary for repairs or new construction. When the University cannot provide a minimum 5% reserve, new parking spaces should be under serious consideration. Parking planners often used published guidelines to determine the number of parking spaces needed. The Urban Land Institute, in conjunction with the National Parking Association published The Dimension of Parking (4th edition - 2000). That publication recommends calculating parking demand for a university by multiplying the number of employees by 0.8 and adding to that product, the number of students multiplied by a factor of 0.1 to 0.5. The range for students will vary with the number of residents, availability of alternate transportation, and location of the campus, and the mix of residents and commuters. Since UA is primarily a commuter university with few transportation options, we will use .4 as the factor for students.

Parking Demand Calculation – Urban Land Institute

Group Population Parking Factor Parking DemandEmployees 4,635 .8 3,708 Students 22,806 .4 9,122 TOTAL 12,830

This formula suggests that the University needs another 2,418 parking spaces at this time (12,830 minus 10,412). Based upon actual conditions at UA, that number is excessive. Another method we have used in the past to estimate the number of spaces needed on a campus is to study the campus population and the number of permits sold to that population.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 33 Based upon our observations, and conversations with staff, the peak demand period for parking at UA is on Wednesdays, between the hours of 9:45 AM and 1:30 PM. Of the 22,806 students, about 2,575 (11.3% of the total student population) reside on campus, implying that the other 20,231 students commute. Residents who have a vehicle on campus generally occupy spaces throughout the time when the demand for parking is the highest. So the parking supply must always include a space for the number of permits sold to residents. At UA, the parking permits sold to students do not differentiate between residents and commuters so an exact count of resident parking demand is not possible. In 2005, however, the Parking Services Department performed a count of student permit holders with on-campus addresses. That count indicated that 45% of residents purchased parking permits. Assuming that percentage is valid for this academic year, 45% of the 2,575 residents represent a requirement of 1,159 parking spaces. Of the 20,231 commuters, some 2,950 attend only evening classes and another 2,117 do not have classes scheduled on Wednesdays so the permits belonging to these students may be excluded when calculating peak parking demand. The evening and non-Wednesday students represent 25% (5067 out of 20,231) of the commuter population so we will assume that 25% of commuter permits may be excluded. Total student permit sales for fall 2006 (as of 9-12-06) are 13,986. Subtracting the 1,159 representing residents from the total number of permits means that 12,827 permits were sold to commuters. Reducing that number by 25% results in 9,620 commuter student permits that could be seeking parking on a Wednesday. When one considers illness, deliberate absenteeism, class scheduling times, etc, we would not anticipate more than 70% of commuter students with parking permits on campus at any one time on Wednesday (except during the first week of each semester). Using that percentage, we conclude that 6,734 spaces are needed for commuters (.7 X 9,620). There have been 3,757 permits sold to employees. Some employees work evening or night shifts. Others may only teach on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Of course, employees may be absent because of vacation or illness. Our estimate, based upon other studies, is that 75% of employees with permits could be on campus during the peak period. This indicates the need for 2,828 spaces (.75 X 3,757) for employees. There are other permit holders that must also be accommodated. Last year, some 14,832 temporary and one-day permits were sold. Assuming 10% were used during the summer session, the other 13,348 were used during the fall and spring semesters. Perhaps half of these permits are used for weekend parking leaving 6,674 for daytime use. Using 75 academic days for each semester, the average number of temporary permits on campus on any given day is 89.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 34 So far this semester, some 82 commercial permits have been issued. We will assume that 50% of those permit holders are contractors who regularly park on campus throughout the day while the other 50% are issued service vehicles that are only on campus for brief periods of time. We will use 60% of the total number (50) to approximate the typical daily usage. Finally, 691 permits have been issued to retirees. We would anticipate a small number (say 2%) of those permit holders on campus during the peak parking period. The following table summarizes the preceding calculations.

Parking Demand Calculation – Permit Sale Analysis

Campus Member Peak Parking Demand Resident Students 1,159 Commuter Students 6,734 Employees 2,828 Temporary/One Day 89 Commercial 50 Retirees 14 Minimum Reserve 521 TOTAL 11,395

This method indicates the need for 983 additional spaces at this time (11,395 minus the current supply of 10,412). A third method used to determine the current parking requirement was to examine the number of vacant spaces during the peak period. On September 7, 2005, the second Wednesday of that academic year, the Parking staff reported nearly 500 spaces at 12 noon. On the second Wednesday of this academic year, September 6, 2006, the staff reported about 275 vacant spaces. Our observations of parking capacity this year averaged 300 vacant spaces during the peak demand period. Most of those spaces were on lots away from the core campus (Lots #54, #7, #32, #49, and #1). Some permit holders park at visitor spaces and pay an additional fee (or get cited). At 9:45 AM on September 25 on Lot #27, half of the visitor spaces were occupied by vehicles displaying valid parking permits. Others were observed on College Street at city-controlled spaces. Had these permit holders parked in an “all permit” lot, the inventory of available spaces for permit holders would have been less.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 35 Considering the minimum reserve inventory of 5% for UA, it needs 521 (5% of 10,412) spaces after all permit holders and visitors are parked. With only 300 spaces currently available, the University of Akron has an immediate need for 221 spaces. The table below summarizes the three methods used to determine the number of parking spaces needed at this time at UA.

Method Results Urban Land Institute - NPA 2,418 Population/Permit Analysis 982 Utilization Observation 221

In our opinion, the Utilization Observation method provides a more realistic estimate of the University’s immediate parking requirements. We will therefore use the 221 number (say 200) in our calculations. Historically, the demand for parking is lower during the spring semester so the University may be able to cope with the current space shortage this academic year. Bicycle Facilities The University does not provide any bicycle lockers but does supply 32 bicycle racks at locations noted on the map below.


Campus Development The University of Akron is not static. It is a dynamic educational institution, constantly enhancing its environment to meet new challenges. Planning to meet these new challenges is an on-going process. Meeting parking and transportation requirements must also be a constant endeavor. In 1999, the University launched an ambitious Master Plan designed to reshape the physical infrastructure thus creating a “new landscape for learning.” Since that time, the University has continued on the path envisioned by the Master Plan. The College of Art and Sciences Building, the Recreation and Wellness Center, and the Student Union Building are just a few examples of the reshaped campus. Many other buildings have been renovated or expanded since that time. Open spaces and pedestrian-friendly paths were created. One project, the Guzzetta Building Expansion opened during the time this report was being written. Even new parking facilities were added (North and East Decks) and existing spaces renovated. The Master Plan envisioned new decks as a means to consolidate the parking infrastructure. These new decks would “guarantee no more than a five-minute walk from car to classroom” thus “ending the hassles of the daily parking hunt.” Campus development continues and many of the resulting projects have parking implications. Sometimes the parking implications may be direct such as a loss of parking spaces and/or an increase in parking demand. The implication can also be indirect such as a street closing that distributes customers to different sections of the campus and parking sites. As development has proceeded, more and more financial burden has been placed upon the customers of the Parking Services Department. To many customers, parking is a thorn in the “new landscape”. Parking Supply Issues Currently under construction is a new residential unit (460 beds) on East Exchange Street scheduled to open in the fall of 2007. The site of this project once provided 154 spaces. When opened, the project will likely increase parking demand by 207 spaces (45% of 460) once fully occupied. Other projects/events already planned or anticipated for the near future are listed along with their associated parking implications in the table on the next page.


New Development and Parking Implications

Project Estimate

Timetable Parking Impact

Demolition of Union Building 2006 Potential for 24 new spaces Auburn Building Renovation Winter 2007 Loss of 230 spaces Carroll & Memorial Hall replacement with Outdoor Living Room

Unknown No impact is predicted

Football Stadium Complex Fall 2007 Loss of 517 spaces and demand for parking for 200+ events annually

Demolition of Bel-Aire Building 2007 No direct impact but replacement of Mill Street Bridge will disrupt traffic patterns

Cancellation of Lease (Central-Hower School)

Fall 2007 Loss of 100 spaces

Depending upon the creation of new spaces at the Union Building site, the University faces the real possibility of losing 823 to 847 parking spaces during the 2007-2008 academic year. With a shortfall of 200 spaces already, the increased demand of 200 spaces with the Exchange Street Housing project, and the 823-847 space reduction anticipated next academic year, at least 1,200 new spaces must be provided or 1,200 fewer parking customers must be realized within a year. Looking further into the future, additional development will continue. The University intends to acquire land adjacent to the campus for new development. Sites north and east of Simmons Hall and the area around Buchtel Field are envisioned as locations for future development. Parking implications for these sites are not known at this time since development plans for these locations have not been finalized. Parking Demand Issues The proposed football stadium will be far more than a venue for 6-8 games each fall. The stadium complex will be a multi-purpose facility encompassing 800,000 square feet of space that will include academic facilities, offices, retail, and residential units. University Officials anticipate scheduling between 200 to 250 events each year at the complex. These events will generate new parking demand.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 38 The existing parking supply on campus is adequate for events with attendance under 15,000 that are scheduled during evenings, weekends, and during the summer. Events scheduled at other times or events with attendance greater than 15,000 could deplete the parking supply unless new spaces are constructed. Events with attendance over 5,000 will impact traffic in and adjacent to the campus. The coordination of traffic and parking with the City will be critical to provide a safer experience for attendees. The complex will border East Exchange, Spicer, Vine and South Union streets. The East Exchange frontage will provide another opportunity for the University to connect itself with the surrounding community. Preliminary Schematic of New Football Complex East Market and East Exchange Development There is also a much broader effort to link the University with the 40-block area around the University. The University Park Alliance is the driving force behind a vision to revitalize both the East Exchange and East Market Street districts. A preliminary design study proposes a series of improvements within each district. Sections of an overview of the preliminary plan are included as Appendix A. The creation of new commercial activity and residential units accompanied with fresh landscaping will blend with the University community and encourage visitors from throughout the region to participate in the new amenities offered in the area. Parking will play an important role in this new vision for the area. Opportunities for shared parking and/or transportation resources may develop as a result of the efforts of the University Park Alliance. Shared parking opportunities will provide additional links with the neighboring community and may open new prospects for revenue resources.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 39 I-76/77 Modifications The Department of Transportation for the State of Ohio has been exploring options related to the configuration of Interstate 76/77 in Akron to improve safety. A consultant hired by the State is currently assessing “feasible alternatives” based upon a conceptual alternative. That conceptual alternative calls for the elimination of the Wolf Ledges/Grant Street interchange. Should that project proceed, the closing of that interchange will alter the way many people enter and leave the campus. Those arriving from the west will likely exit onto Broadway, then either turn right onto Thornton and left onto Wolf Ledges or turn right onto University to Wolf Ledges. Those arriving from the east who now use the Wolf Ledges exit will likely use Route 8 north to the Buchtel/Carroll exit. The consultant’s draft report is scheduled for submission in October 2006. It will then be reviewed first by the State and then by stakeholders. One of the stakeholders identified is the University of Akron. The closing of the interchange is not likely to occur before 2012 assuming the project is funded. This interstate modification is important when considering the placement of future parking facilities. Campus Population Growth Another aspect of campus development is the growth of the student population. One of the reasons the University pursued the Master Plan was to increase enrollment. The fall 2006 enrollment is the largest in 15 years. Some students who requested housing were placed on a waiting list. With new resident housing available next year, we anticipate at least a 2% increase in the student population. A 2% increase represents about 456 new students (2% of 22,800). Since about 65% of students purchase parking permits, permit sales will likely increase by 296 of which 230 will be residents. As the student population increases in the future, the faculty and staff to serve those students will also increase. The current ratio of employees to students is about 1:5 (4,600 employees to 22,800 students). Realistically, for planning purposes, we use a ratio of 1:50. So for every 50 new students, the University will hire a new employee. Over the past five years, the student population at UA has been fairly constant until this year. The sudden increase in students may be a trend that will continue in future years. Without the benefit of a crystal ball to predict future enrollment, we will assume a conservative annual increase of 1% after the 2007-2008 academic year. A 1% increase in student population between 2008 and 2011 represents a potential demand for about 150 additional parking permits sold each year which translates into the need for 90 new spaces annually and/or a program to reduce parking demand by that number.


Transportation Assets The University of Akron has no transportation assets at this time. The existing shuttle program consists of one route known as the “Polsky Express.” The service is operated by the Metro Regional Transit Authority (Metro). The current route operates with the intent to transport riders from the South College Street cul-de-sac to the Polsky Building and back. The University contracts this service Monday-Thursday from the hours of 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM, and Friday from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM during fall and spring semesters. The transportation service takes approximately 12-14 minutes to complete a shuttle circuit. The service is scheduled for every 15 minutes. The shuttle runs from the end of the South College Street cul-de-sac north, turning west onto Forge Street, then left onto Hill Street, next turning right on University Avenue. In town the shuttle turns left onto South High Street stopping at the Polsky building. From there the shuttle turns right on East State Street, right on South Main Street, and then right onto University Avenue returning to main campus.

Shuttle Route Map

The designated pick up/drop off locations are:

• South College Street cul-de-sac • Forge Street between Lot 26 and Lot 45 • East side of Polsky building near East State Street • South Main Street at Metro transfer station

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 41 Akron Metro primarily utilizes a 40’ Gillig diesel bus for the University’s transportation routes. These buses are commonly referred to as a heavy-duty transit bus. Buses of this size can seat approximately 40 passengers and safely allow standing for nearly 15 additional riders. The bus has two operating doors: a set of double doors next to the operator, and a set of double doors about halfway between the two wheels. Driver appears to utilize the kneeling feature properly that is installed on each bus as a safety and convenience option. Kneeling allows the base of the bus floor to reach about a 12” step into the vehicle, rather than 18” that would otherwise be required. Buses used during observations were equipped with on board security camera systems monitoring bus activity. Cameras were mounted inside pointing to the rear of the bus, at both doors, and facing forward from the front windshield to capture external incidents. Buses are equipped with bicycle carrying devices, which according to drivers, is very seldom used. Each bus houses electronic signage overhead the driver’s seating compartment facing outward, and another sign just aft of the forward door facing outward toward the curb. Both signs indicate the route number (#40 or #41) and the term “Univ Loop.” We obtained ridership records from Metro for 2005 and 2006. Listed below are the totals for the months applicable for comparison along with the percentage of change from the previous year.

2005 2006 % Change

January 1069 944 -12% February 2632 2448 -7% March 2817 1812 -36% April 2459 1564 -36% May 608 531 -13% August 228 419 +84% September 2355 na October 2503 na November 2037 na December 772 na

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 42 Except for August, the start of the current school year, the general trend has been a decrease in ridership. Given some of the significant changes in totals, and our inability to reconcile the passenger counts provided by Metro to our observations, we must question the accuracy of the reported passenger counts. Further study of methods of data collection, equipment used, and validation of the process should be accomplished in order to place any major confidence in the report of ridership.


Traffic Overview Parking and transportation programs must work in harmony with adjacent traffic patterns and visa-versa. A parking deck without an adequate number of entrances will cause traffic congestion. Inappropriate timing of intersection signals will delay parking customers from entering a facility. Traffic Volume Most of the UA campus is located between Route 8 (east), East Exchange Street (south), East Market Street (north), and the railroad corridor (west). There is no north-south street that directly connects East Exchange and East Market. There is only one east-west street (Buchtel) that connects Route 8 to the western border and Downtown Akron – and Buchtel has only three lanes. There are 12 other portals to enter the UA campus, but only Buchtel affords the ability to travel directly from one end of campus to the other. As a result, Buchtel Avenue is heavily traveled each class day. Since the completion of Route 8 improvements, the City of Akron has collected some traffic count data. A series of counters were placed on Buchtel Avenue and Hill Street in September 2005. On the day of the count, the data indicates that at least 888 vehicles stopped at the intersection of Buchtel and College between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. That translates into 14.8 cars per minute. The evening peak, between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM recorded 757 vehicles at that same intersection. The graph below illustrates the data from the counter positioned on Buchtel, west of College Avenue but east of the North Deck on September 13-14, 2005.

0

100

200

300

400

500

12:00PM

3:00PM

6:00PM

9:00PM

12:00AM

3:00AM

6:00AM

9:00AM

EB WB

EB = eastbound WB = westbound

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 44 The next graph illustrates the data from the counter positioned on Buchtel, west of College Avenue and west of the North Deck on September 13-14, 2005.

0

100

200

300

400

500

12:00PM

3:00PM

6:00PM

9:00PM

12:00AM

3:00AM

6:00AM

9:00AM

EB WB

We plotted the data from the previous graphs along with similar data collected from earby Hill Street to better document and analyze the traffic flow on Buchtel Avenue.

n

4,437 EB

5,593 EB 5,173 WB 2,157 SB 4,965 WB 1,902 NB

4,929 NB 5,446 SB

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 45 Most of the traffic traveling northbound on Hill turns right onto Buchtel. Nearly 10,000 vehicles encountered the intersection of Buchtel and College. In short, the data documents what most at UA already know – that traffic on Buchtel is congested and some streets that intersect with Buchtel are also congested during peak periods. Traffic Issues The University has forwarded several traffic and related safety concerns to the City of Akron. A letter dated April 17, 2003 from Mr. Ted Curtis, Vice President of Capital Planning and Facilities Management, to Mr. Donald Plusquellic, the Mayor of the City, outlined those concerns. A copy of that letter is included as Appendix B. Of particular concern are the locations of on-street meters that hinder the sight of drivers at intersections; timing of traffic signals; and the intersections of Buchtel and Hill, Buchtel and Spicer, and Buchtel and College. As part of our study, we looked at these areas. Our findings are found in the Observations/Comments Section of this report. Some of the traffic issues have been temporarily resolved with the closing of Central-Hower High School. This building, however, will reopen as a temporary school for several years starting with the 2007-2008 academic year. This will likely return traffic conditions to their previous levels. The City has taken some action in response to the concerns of the University. Traffic studies have been conducted in September 2005 and May 2006. It has performed a preliminary assessment of the concerns expressed by the University in their 2003 letter. Traffic signals on Buchtel have already been timed to favor westbound vehicles in the morning and eastbound vehicles in the evening. Traffic cameras now monitor critical intersections near the campus. The City is also actively exploring the possibility of converting Spicer to a one-way street in front of the East Deck.


Stakeholder Input People are the most important asset of the University. The viewpoints of those who actually use or provide the parking and transportation services provide the most important input. They are also the ones who will ultimately decide if any recommendation implemented will succeed or fail. We employed four different methods to seek stakeholder participation. Those methods included one-on-one meetings, two open forums, impromptu interviews, and an on-line survey. Meetings Twenty-three face-to-face meetings were scheduled with members of the University community and entities associated with the University. Several other individuals were contacted by either e-mail correspondence or phone conversations. These meetings provided valuable user insight into the parking and transportation services at UA. It also provided an opportunity for the individuals or groups to offer suggestions for improvement. Each day, visitors enter the campus to attend meetings, tour the campus, conduct business, or attend an activity. The ability of these visitors to conveniently park on campus was expressed during the course of several meetings. Several organizations, such as Athletics Department and the Center for Career Management, have working relationships with Parking Services to provide parking for their customers/guests. The following is a summary of other comments/suggestions we received about parking and transportation services during those meetings:

• Traffic congestion is bad at College and Buchtel and Spicer and Buchtel

• The bus hours should be expanded to accommodate student schedules

• Traffic is usually bad during the first week or so of each semester then things settle down

• The gravel lots are hard to walk on

• Students are concerned with safety and overall cost of education

• We have good relations with Jim and his staff

• Provide more linkage with Metro

• Students from the Summit County region are not accustomed to transit and many are unfamiliar with urban realities including paying for parking

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 47 Forums Two two-hour forums were conducted to gather stakeholder input. Attendance at both forums was sparse. The forums did provide the following suggestions:

• Package housing and parking options

• There should also be a marriage of class scheduling and parking/shuttle bus schedules

Impromptu Interviews Although buses run to the Polsky building, it was noted that many students were walking to and from the core of the campus. The consultant walked the same route and surveyed numerous students in the process. When asked why they did not use the shuttle, the responses varied.

• Did not know there was a shuttle available • Many students could not visually identify the bus • Did not know the bus schedule • Did not know where to pick up the bus • Felt it does not run often or quick enough to use • Used only during winter months

During various on-site observations the consultants also solicited personal interviews from students while on campus and on board the campus shuttle bus system. The majority of students were very willing and responsive with meaningful information, as well as offering valid suggestions for service improvements and perceived needs. Their input was noted for evaluation.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 48 Survey With the assistance of the staff at UA, we posted 19 parking/transportation questions on the University’s web site. A total of 661 people responded. Not every question, however, was answered by every respondent and some questions were answered more than once by the same respondent. The first question allowed the responder to identify himself/herself. Of the 661 respondents, 64.0% were students, 35.4% faculty/staff, and 0.6% visitors. A detailed breakdown of the responses is below.

RESPONSE COUNT Student resident with vehicle on campus 47 7.11% Student resident with no vehicle on campus 8 1.21% Student - commuter living one (1) mile or less from campus who drives to campus 28 4.24% Student commuter living more than one (1) mile from campus who drives to campus 329 49.77% Student commuter living one (1) mile or less from campus who does not drive to campus 6 0.91% Student - commuter living more than one (1) mile from campus who does not drive to campus 5 0.76% Faculty or Staff - living one (1) mile or less from campus who drives to campus 3 0.45% Faculty or Staff living more than one (1) mile from campus who drives to campus 226 34.19% Faculty or Staff living one (1) mile or less from campus who does not drive to campus 1 0.15% Faculty or Staff living more than one (1) mile from campus who does not drive to campus 4 0.61% Other 4 0.61% TOTAL 661 100.00%

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 49 The next two questions asked respondents who drive to inform us of the time they usually arrive and leave the campus. There were no surprises in the responses received. Some 42.6% of respondents arrive during the peak morning rush period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 33.7% leave during the evening rush period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM).

What time of the day do you normally arrive to park at UA?

KEY RESPONSE COUNTA Prior to 7:00 AM 15 B 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM 25 C 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 178 D 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM 30 E 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM 184 F 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM 57 G 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM 139 H 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM 27 I 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM 69 J 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM 12 K 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM 42 L 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM 9 M to 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 21 N 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM 4 O 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM 19 P 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM 2 Q 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM 14 R After 11:00 PM 1 TOTAL 848


What time of the day do you normally leave UA?

KEY RESPONSE COUNTA Prior to 7:00 AM 1 B 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM 85 C 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 9 D 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM 129 E 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM 8 F 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM 119 G 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM 6 H 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM 53 I 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM 7 J 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM 46 K 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM 14 L 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM 52 M 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM 33 N 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM 48 O 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM 39 P 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM 17 Q 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM 62 R After 11:00 PM 8 TOTAL 736

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 51 We next asked commuters where they usually parked. The percentage of responders parking in different areas is shown on the map below. (Note: about 1.6% parked outside of the map area.)

In what area of the campus do you usually park?

13.1% Area 1 3

15.3% Area

17.8% Area 2

RESPONSE COUNT %

Area 1 97 13.Area 2 132 17.Area 3 33 4.5Area 4 138 18.Area 5 37 5.0Area 6 113 15.Area 7 178 24.

Area not on map 12 1.6TOTAL 740

6

4.5% Area

18.6%

Area 4

24.1%

Area 7

1 8

6

3 1

5.0% Area 5

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 52 The next inquiry request in i to locate a parking space once on campus.

One you arrive at UA, how y do you normally

ed formation regarding the t me required

quickl find a parking space?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A Five minutes or less 235 39.76% B Between five and ten minutes 180 30.46% C Between ten and fifteen minutes 93 15.74% D Over fifteen minutes 83 14.04%

TOTAL 591 100%

About 40% located parking within 5 minutes and 70% were able to locate parking within 10 minutes. The fact that 30% of the parking customers stated that they need more than 10 minutes to locate a parking space reflects both the parking supply situation and customers not knowing where parking lots are located. Some lots have spaces nearly every day but they are located farther away from Buchtel Commons.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 53 Knowing how long it took customers to locate parking, we then asked about the time they must walk to reach their initial destination.

Once parked, how long do you walk to your destination?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A One minute or less 47 8.25% B One to three minutes 90 15.79% C Three to five minutes 143 25.09% D Five to eight minutes 213 37.37% E Over eight minutes 77 13.51%

TOTAL 570 100%

Only half (49%) reported being able to reach their destination within five minutes – the goal of the Master Plan. Nearly 90% required 8 minutes or less. Eight minutes to walk, however, is not considered an excessive amount. The compactness of the campus lends itself to shorter walking distances.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 54 We asked those with mobility impairments to inform us of issues related to ADA-compliant parking spaces. Most who responded requested relocation of some existing parking spaces and about the same number requested more parking spaces. When asked about improvements to the current parking program, the most overwhelming response was to provide more parking. Security and additional lighting were also ranked as areas needing improvement.

What improvements do you recommend to the parking program?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A None 25 B Lighting 184 C Signage 85 D Cleanliness 61 E More parking spaces 452 F More parking enforcement 91 G Less parking enforcement 78 H More security in parking areas 210 I Better parking permit issuance system 141 J Expand hours of Parking Office 95 K Other 98

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 55 Our next question provided respondents an opportunity to inform us of their idea of a “fair price” for parking. Many respondents (40%) elected not to select one of the rates listed in the question and opted to provide an alternative fee which, in nearly every instance, was lower than the listed rates. The responses indicate that customers are unaware of the actual cost of providing parking.

What do you consider a fair price for parking?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A $2.00 a day 277 44.25% B $3.00 a day 80 12.78% C $4.00 a day 11 1.76% D $5.00 a day 9 1.44% E Other 249 39.78%

TOTAL 626 100%

The results from this and the previous question indicate the desire for more parking but unwillingness to pay for it.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 56 We then asked a related question about parking fees: Should zones (tiered parking) be established with different parking fees charged for each zone? Eighty percent expressed their opposition to this concept. Regarding the need to travel from one end of the campus to another, 62% indicated that such travel is necessary for them. When asked about driving from one area of the campus to another, nearly 15% do so on a daily basis. The responses are below.

Do you drive from one location on campus to another?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A No 243 38.27% B Yes, once a day 94 14.80% C Yes, more than once a day 51 8.03% D Yes, about once or twice a week 94 14.80% E Yes, on rare occasions 153 24.09%

TOTAL 635 100%

It should not be necessary for a parking customer to park more than once a day particularly on a campus so compact and with a shuttle that serves the farthest building away from the campus core.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 57 Our next questions focused on the shuttle program. We first asked about the use of existing shuttle service. How often do you use the shuttle service? Over 85% never use the shuttle and about 8% only use it occasionally. A small percentage, less than 1%, reported using the shuttle everyday. Those who do not use the shuttle were asked why. Their responses are listed below.

Why don’t you use the shuttle service?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A I really don't have a need for the shuttle service 291 51.78% B The shuttle route does not serve my needs 88 15.66% C The wait time for the shuttle is too long 46 8.19% D The buses are often dirty 8 1.42% E The buses don't operate when I need them 31 5.52% F Other 98 17.43%

TOTAL 562 100% The majority (67%) indicated that they did not have a need for a shuttle or the current route did not serve them.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 58 We asked if the University should expand the shuttle bus service and most respondents (69%) replied “no”. Our final question for shuttle users asked about a “fair price” for a shuttle service. The majority, 52%, preferred a rate of less than $0.50 per ride. Other responses are listed below. Those who elected to use the optional response generally wanted a service at no cost.

What do you consider a fair price for a shuttle service?

KEY RESPONSE COUNT A Less than $.50 a day 318 52.05% B Between $.50 and $1.00 a day 130 21.28% C More than $1.00 a day 3 0.49% D Other 160 26.19%

TOTAL 611 100%

Appendix C of this report contains the written comments and suggestions received from the on-line survey. Survey Implications - Parking The responses related to parking reflected a desire for more spaces with a greater emphasis on safety. The concept of establishing parking zones with tiered-based pricing was not supported. While many wanted free or fees less than $110.00 a semester, there was some support for a maximum daily fee of $2.00 which represents a $150.00 fee per semester. With 14% not being able to locate a parking space within 15 minutes there is a need to make people aware of parking locations.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 59 Survey Implications - Transportation From a transportation perspective, the following survey questions were important:

1. How many students live less than one mile from campus who drive a car? 2. How many students live less than one mile from campus who do not drive a car? 3. How many students are campus residents? 4. How many students are campus residents with a car? 5. Do students regularly traverse opposite ends of campus? 6. Do student drive from one parking area to another to attend class/activities? 7. How often is the campus shuttle utilized? 8. Why don’t students use the shuttle? 9. Should the shuttle service be expanded?

The basis for the aforementioned questions aids in determining two critical and key ideas for this study:

1) What are the immediate shuttle needs, and 2) What are the needs in the future?

By identifying the number of on-campus students that may potentially utilize the service we can more closely predict the demand for ridership and likely success of expanding the service offered. To better examine the survey results, we isolated the student and faculty/staff responses. Sixty-four percent of the survey responses came from the student body as a whole. Students who live on campus comprised 8.32% of responses. This segment of population and their response are an important factor in how the consultant analyzed the opportunity to operate the shuttle service. Of particular interest, the majority of those respondents maintain a vehicle on campus which may limit their need for expanded services. More importantly, however, is that 13.47% of the respondents represent potential shuttle riders. This segment either lives on campus or within one mile of the downtown campus. With a campus population of approximately 24,000 students within a few years, 13.47% correlates to nearly 3,300 students living within one mile of campus and who may have the greatest need for on-campus transportation. Those students who reside more than one mile from campus totaled 50.53% of responses. While these students most likely drive to campus, their need for movement within the campus layout still exists. Reportedly there is also a small percentage, 0.6%, of faculty or staff that lives within one mile or less of the campus.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 60 About 62% of students and faculty reported that they drive from one side of campus to another in order to attend classes or other campus activity. Nearly 38% stated they drive from one side of campus to another at least once or twice a week. When asked how often the shuttle bus is utilized, 85% stated never, 14% use it, and a little less than 1% uses it daily. Asked why they don’t use the existing shuttle, there were 562 respondents.

1. 52% stated they do not have a need for it 2. 16% stated it does not serve/operate according to their need 3. 15% stated operating displeasure, too long of wait or service hours 4. 17% did not know why they do not use it

A review of the survey responses reveals an opportunity to increase service and utilization simply by improving shuttle service elements like ensuring buses run effective schedules and routes. Ridership could potentially increase by 30% by impacting these areas alone. Another 17.4% are unaware of reasons why they do not use the campus system. Our impromptu interviews with students on the street would indicate this response to the survey question may be a result of students not being aware of the shuttle service. When we asked about expanding the shuttle bus service, almost 31% stated yes, while 69% indicated no. A closer examination of the individual responses reveals that of those stating yes, 182 out of 184 responses were entirely derived by students. This is a stronger indication of support from students than the overall results would tend to indicate. Student responses were nearly split on whether the shuttle service should be expanded. Extrapolating the survey percentage results to the total campus population would indicate at least viable baseline demand for transportation around the campus proper and perhaps other expanded levels of service as well. When asked if the service should be expanded, and how? The responses varied:

• Gallucci, Polsky, north end of campus • EVERYWHERE - All over the campus (most common answer) • On Exchange Street • The bus operates in 15 minute increments so I miss class if I use it so I must

walk • Make an actual schedule instead of it being totally random • A loop around the mid campus area, Beirce, Kolbe to Gladwin Hall • Later in the day and into the evening to assist adult students

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 61 A common theme running among the student written comments and suggestions is that the shuttle should run more frequently than the 15 minute interval cycle and expanding the program to other areas would be useful.


Budget and Service Delivery The Parking Services Department is part of Auxiliary Services. Like Printing Services, and Telecommunications, Parking Services is an enterprise fund operation. All financial obligations must be met with funds it generates. No tuition or student fees are used to support its services. Those services provided include parking, enforcement, facility rental, and transportation. Revenue Summary The revenue needed to provide the services rendered are derived from the sale of parking spaces, fines from parking violators, rental of facilities, and sign manufacturing. We will look briefly at each of these revenue sources since it aids in exploring the true cost of parking and transportation.

1. Parking

Parking revenue includes permit sales, visitor parking, and special event parking.

a) Permit Sales

Permits are available to students at the rate of $110 for the fall or spring semester and $75 for the summer session. The same fee applies to all students. Full-time employees may purchase a yearly permit for $120. Departments provide a $100 per year subsidy for each employee who purchases a permit. Note: Students or employees do not receive any benefit by not requesting parking. Part-time employees are offered permits for a fall or spring semester at $60 or $25 for the summer session. Departments provide a $50 per semester subsidy. Graduate Assistants may purchase a fall or spring semester at $65 or the summer session for $35. As with other employees, the Departments provide a subsidy ($45 for the fall or spring and $40 for the summer).


Commercial entities, often companies that regularly perform services on campus, have the option of purchasing a parking permit. The cost is $120 for the fall or spring semester and $80 for the summer session. Permits for motorcycles are sold for $10 per semester. Retirees of the University and those with temporary disabilities may obtain a parking permit at no cost. One-day permits are sold for $5 each.

b) Visitor parking

Visitors to UA have several options for parking. The Robertson Deck has 52 spaces for visitors. The rate is $0.25 each fifteen minutes with a $5.00 daily maximum fee. The Parking Services Department sells books of validation stamps that can be used to reduce parking cost to visitors who park in the Robertson Deck. Another 246 spaces are also available for visitors, most are metered. All metered spaces have a rate of $0.25 for each fifteen minutes but the maximum time limit varies from 1 to 4 hours.

c) Special Event parking

A variety of events on and adjacent to campus provide opportunities to generate revenue. Concerts at the E.J. Thomas Center, sporting events at the J.A.R Center, and even Aeros baseball games are some examples. The maximum allowable fee is $5.00 per vehicle but a lower fee can be negotiated for on-campus events under certain circumstances. The Athletic Department and Parking Services have an agreement in place for basketball game parking. Some events parking will occasionally require displacement of permit holders.


2. Parking Enforcement

To protect the privileges of those who purchase a permit and to provide a safer parking environment, the Parking Services Department monitors its facilities for compliance with parking regulations. Vehicles found in violation of regulations are subject to a citation. Violations range from parking without a valid permit ($25 fine), parking in a fire lane ($50 fine), to unauthorized use of an ADA-compliant space ($250 fine). Fines are higher for second and even greater for third offenses. Fines that are not paid or appealed within 30 days are subject to a 25% late fee. Vehicles with multiple unpaid citations are subject to immobilization (booting) and/or an academic hold that blocks future registration activity. Citations may be appealed through the Associated Student Government (ASG). The Parking Services Department also exercises discretion in resolving citation issuance conflicts. Current permit users may have a recent citation for a minor violation cancelled in return for a non-perishable food product that is then donated to a local community organization.

3. Facility Rental

Parking spaces at a few facilities are leased to non-campus groups. The Chapel leases spaces in the East Deck for use on Sundays. Spaces in the West Deck are leased to the Fraternal Order of Police.

4. Transportation Services

As previously mentioned, the Parking Services Department provides the campus shuttle service (Polsky Express). Unlike other services, however, it does not generate any revenue or receive any subsidy for this service.

5. Sign Manufacturing

The Parking Services Department has the equipment necessary to produce signs. Campus agencies may utilize this service.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 65 For the 2006-2007 budget year (July 1-June 30), the Parking Services Department anticipates total revenue of $5,149,545. A breakdown of the revenue by source is shown below.

Enforcement, $385,000

Rental, $224,490

Signs, $12,700

Parking, $4,527,355

According to a national survey conducted by the International Parking Institute (IPI) and published in 2004, the average university parking agency receives only 1.3% of its revenue from rent. At the University of Akron, that percentage is at 4.3%. By renting facilities, the staff is able to minimize fees for permits. Another revenue source that helps minimize permit fees is parking enforcement. Enforcement encourages compliance with parking regulations but it also results in revenue since not everyone will comply. By imposing fines on those who elect to abuse the parking program, those who properly participate in the parking program benefit. Fines currently represent less than 10% of the total resources. Information regarding the issuance of citations is listed below.

Year # Citations Issued Percent Paid Percent Dismissed 2003 61,645 54% 24% 2004 54,460 54% 21% 2005 40,322 37% 40%

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 66 Over the past several years, the number of citations issued has declined. Part of this decrease is due to an increase in the fine amounts. Higher fines encourage compliance. Another contributing factor could be a consequence of the high percentage of citations dismissed. Four out of every 10 citations were dismissed in 2005. Some dismissal discretion is necessary to handle unusual circumstances but when more citations are dismissed than collected, the overall enforcement program is not as effective. Offenders are less likely to conform to parking regulations in the future. The dismissal of 16,000 citations not only deprived the Parking Fund over $400,000 in potential revenue, it also diminished the efforts of the enforcement personnel assigned to make the parking areas safer. As a result, employee productivity suffers resulting in fewer citations. Expenses The expense budget for the current year is $5,250,448. That amount is $100,903 more than the projected revenue. In order to balance the budget, the Parking Services Department will use remnant funds from previous accounts. The budget document indicates a balance of $49,000 for future years in those accounts.

Contract

Personnel

Debt

Insurance

Rent

RepairsSupplies

Utilities

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 67 In the preceding pie c t refers to the funds to lease property for parking. Contract refers to various contractual services such as elevator maintenance and postage. It also includes an overhead amount assessed against the Department for services rendered by the University (payroll, legal, administration oversight, etc.). This overhead is common f Our review indicates a peration in of routine operating expenses. The 2004 IPI survey indicated that universities allocate about 35% of their expenses to ersonnel costs. At U percentage is about 16 the national average.

miscellaneous repair projects

hart, ren used

or enterprise operations.

fiscally-efficient o terms

p A, the %, half ofSalaries for senior management employees do not exceed those from comparable universities. To renovate existing facilities and construct the East and North decks, the Parking Services Department borrowed $52.0M. The table below shows the distribution of

ose funds. The remaining $.4M has been used to fund thin recent years.

Facility Funds (in millions) East $12.0 North $13.6 Auburn $3.0 Exchange $3.0 Schrank $3.0 Polsky $11.0 Robertson $1.5 A J Thomas $1.0 Admin. Services $3.5 TOTAL $51.6

Debt currently now constitutes 60% of all expenditures. The typical university allocated only 23% of its expenses to debt service. Without debt, the cost of parking a permit at UA could be reduced by 50%. A $225,000 reduction in debt service will take place next fiscal year. Provided no new debt is incurred, the current debt obligation of the Parking Services will gradually decrease. We did not discover any reserve fund. A prudent parking operation sets aside funds annually for capital repairs. Generally, surface lots need little such funding but multi-story decks will require extensive repair in the future. Part of the current debt obligation is the result of repairs to existing facilities. Funds were borrowed because a reserve fund was not available. Funds for additional major repairs will be needed in the future. By saving funds each year, the Parking Services Department can avoid or at least reduce the amount of future debt.


Benchmarking To provide some comparison between the parking and transportation services offered at UA and other universities, we first looked at the previously referenced IPI survey. Then we researched over 3,000 universities to find seven that are similar to UA in terms of size, location and commuter orientation. Those seven campuses were then contacted to gather information about their parking/transportation programs. We also looked at other public universities within the State of Ohio. Finally, we recorded the cost of garage parking in Downtown Akron. International Parking Institute Survey The International Parking Institute (IPI) published the findings of a comprehensive survey of its members in 2004. An entire series of questions were directed towards colleges and universities. Some of the survey results related to the University of Akron include:

• 86.8% of respondents provided some form of shuttle service. (In the previous 2001 survey, 72.7% offered such service.)

The percentage of usage by campus members were:

o 75.0% of faculty/staff use the shuttle service o 85.3% of students use the shuttle service o 51.5% of visitors use the shuttle service

• 73.5% of universities offer an alternative transportation program

Those programs include:

o Carpool/vanpool 62.5% o Bicycle 67.9% o Walking 57.1% o Transit subsidy 46.4% o Taxi 16.1%

• 86.8% charge for visitor parking

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 69 The IPI survey asked respondents to provide fees for their parking for both students and employees. The following table shows annual parking rates for faculty, staff and students. Visitor rates are hourly. We also included the findings from the 2001 survey.

Group Location 2004 Rate 2001 Rate From To From To Faculty Garage $398 $439 $343 $428 Faculty Lot $264 $364 $205 $311 Staff Garage $388 $421 $330 $411 Staff Lot $252 $354 $189 $294 Students Garage $298 $346 $244 $298 Students Lot $204 $232 $118 $155 Visitors Garage Hourly $1.21 $3.46 $1.33 $3.38 Visitors Lot Hourly $1.39 $2.96 $1.36 $2.26

Looking at the difference in minimum fees over the three year period between the surveys, the average fee for faculty members increased by $18 to $20 each year. For staff members, fees increased $19 to $21 each year. Student fees increased from $18 to $27 annually. Visitor fees for garages decreased 12 cents. Comparable Universities The College Board maintains a database of 3,825 universities. We conducted a search of those universities to find those that most closely reflected the characteristics of UA. Those characteristics included:

• Public institution that offers a four-year program • Urban setting associated with a small (population of 50,000 to 249,999)

city • Most students are commuters • Enrollment of at least 15,000 students

That search resulted in the 7 universities listed below.

• Virginia Commonwealth • University of Kansas • Middle Tennessee State • Weber State • University of Louisiana – Lafayette • Boise State • Texas Tech

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 70 Virginia Commonwealth Of the seven universities we examined, Virginia Commonwealth University is the one that most closely resembled UA in terms of the number of parking spaces (9,022) and facilities (44 lots and 7 decks). Its projected revenue ($6.6M) and number of employees (61) are greater than UA. At Virginia Commonwealth, parking spaces are designated for employees and students. Employees are charged $56.24 per month or $674.88 for a year. Students pay $155 to $275 per semester. The student rate varies with location. Evening parking rate is $30 for access to a limited number of lots or $60 per semester to access additional lots and the decks. Visitors pay a flat rate of $5.00. Contractors may either pay the $5 daily rate or make arrangements with the Parking Office. The University offers five shuttle routes. Each shuttle route has its own operating hours and frequency. Most operate at 10 minute intervals while one provides service 30 minutes apart. An on-call escort service is available after operating hours. University of Kansas This University has 3 garages and 100 surface lots with total capacity of 13,500 spaces. They have 23 employees with annual revenue of $3.5M. Currently, they offer 19 different parking options, each with its own fee. Most permits are sold on an annual basis but a few are available on a per semester basis. Employees and students pay the same fees. For automobiles, the fees range from $200 to $295 annually. Retirees are charged $75 per year and there is a $25 fee for vehicles to load and unload at the child care center. Mopeds are charged $25 while motorcycles are charged $45 to $55, depending upon location. Visitors are charged $1.00 per hour at three different locations. Contractors are charged $265 for a year or $160 per semester. The new shuttle service began in August of 2006. It primarily serves a remote park & ride lot. The primary funding source is a $20 fee associated with every parking permit sold. The fee only covers routine operating expenses. It does not cover the cost of the employee to oversee the service or the initial startup costs. Additional funding comes from an unspecified source under the control of the administration. They are currently studying ways to make the program self-sufficient and looking to joint ventures with the local transit authority.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 71 Middle Tennessee State All parking at this University is on surface lots. The mission of the Parking and Transportation Services Department is to enable members of the campus community to reach the core of campus within 15 minutes after parking. Lots are designated for commuters, residents, and faculty/staff. Every student is charged an access fee of $105 during the fall and spring semesters. This entitles the student to one parking permit and use of the shuttle buses. During the summer semester, the access fee is not imposed since the shuttle does not operate but parking is sold for a fee to students. Faculty and staff pay $125 per year for parking. The shuttle service has three routes. They operate from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM (Monday through Thursday) and from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Friday. Meters are available for short-term parking but a visitor may also obtain a visitor parking pass at no cost. Weber State Weber State has no parking structures. All parking is on surface lots. The parking closest to the core campus is priced at $83 annually. Parking on the perimeter of the campus is $53 annually. Residents can purchase a permit for $53 for limited parking near the resident building. There is a remote lot off the main campus grounds which is served by a shuttle bus. The annual price for that lot is $20 per year. Contractors are charged $83.00 per year. A daily permit is available for $2.00 each. The university offers three shuttle routes using ten buses. Frequency between 7:00 AM to 2:00 PM is five minutes. Between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM, the shuttle operates every twenty minutes. Limited shuttle service is provided after 6:00 PM. They are averaging 16,500 rides per week. Funding for the shuttle comes from the general fee. Except for service to nearby ski areas, employees and students may ride the local transit buses at no charge.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 72 University of Louisiana at Lafayette This campus has 6,400 spaces on 45 lots. It generates $1.3M in annual revenue and has 40 employees. Faculty and staff members are granted the first opportunity to obtain parking each year. Spaces not utilized by that group are then offered to students using a lottery. Students must enter the lottery each fall and spring. Students and faculty/staff pay $50 to $55 annually for parking. Visitor spaces are located on two lots. The hourly fee is $1.00. Visitors may obtain a validation at some offices to avoid the hourly fee. The campus provides a shuttle system with limited stops. It operates from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Mondays through Thursday and from 7:00 AM to 2:00 PM on Fridays. The shuttle is funded by non-parking funds. Boise State This University offers 6,800 spaces in 30 lots and 2 garages. It generates about $3.6M in annual revenue and has 30 employees. Boise State offers individually reserved parking spaces to selected employees at a cost of $513 per year. Restricted parking areas are available to employees at a cost of $257 per year. Employee parking for general (remote) lots is sold at $119 annually. Commuter students may purchase an annual permit for a restricted lot for $218 and a permit for a general lot at $80. Resident student parking is available for $99 to $189 per year based upon location. Parking for housing units located at remotes sites is available at a lower cost. University vehicles pay $513 per year for a reserved space and $259 for a space in a restricted lot. Visitors pay $0.50 per 30 minutes with a maximum of $10 per day. Contractors pay $129 per year for a first permit and $34 for each additional permit. The University sponsors a carpool/vanpool program that features a guaranteed ride home (up to 6 per year) for emergencies. Local transit service is also available to students at no cost to them. A shuttle service travels across the campus at eight minute intervals.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 73 Texas Tech Just over 17,000 spaces are provided at this University with its 91 lots and 1 garage. It has a staff of 37 employees and generates $4.0M in annual revenue. For faculty and staff, this University offers a reserved space in a garage for $898 per year or a reserved space in a lot for $699 per year. For those who do not desire a reserved space, the annual fee is $398 for a garage space or $199 for surface parking. The cost is pro-rated during the year if a full year is not purchased. Garage parking for students is sold at $358.49 for 9 months. Parking on lots for residents is $179.24 for 9 months. Commuters may elect to park for $99.24 on a lot near the campus or $36.24 for a remote lot. Separate fees for summer sessions are charged ranging from $59.76 to $119.52. The fee for hourly parking is $1.25 with a $7.50 maximum. The local transit system (Citibus) operates two routes through the campus until 7:00 PM. After that time, an on-call shuttle service is available for students on campus from 7:00 PM to 3:00 AM. Off campus, students may call for a free taxi ride between the hours of 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM. The cost for these transportation services is paid for by the student general fee. State Universities University of Cincinnati Parking rates vary with location. For on-campus parking, faculty and staff pay $38 to $92 per month. Students pay $114 to $276 per quarter. Prior to March 2006, the University offered a limited shuttle service. It was funded through the General Fund. The students voted to approve an increase of $8 per quarter in the student fee to expand the program. Now, the University offers several routes with expanded hours. Both revenue sources (General Fund and Student Fee) are used to fund the shuttle program. Bowling Green State Faculty, staff, and students pay $60 for an annual parking permit. The shuttle service is funded by parking fees and fines.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 74 Wright State An annual permit for faculty or staff is $110. Students pay $85 for an annual permit. The shuttle service is funded with parking revenue. University of Toledo The fee for faculty and staff is $103 annually; however, many employees only pay $56 with the balance being subsidized by the University. Students pay $107.75 for an annual permit. Freshman residents are charged $85 but they are restricted to a remote lot. Their shuttle program is paid with funds from the student general fee (about $500,000). Kent State Faculty members pay $132 per year for parking. Students pay $75 to $150 per academic year for parking. The shuttle service is contracted to the local transit agency (PARTA). The University and PARTA negotiate the fee for the shuttle service. For certain bus services, such as the Akron Express, students pay a reduced fee. The service is funded with general fees. Ohio University Free parking is provided to all faculty and staff members. Commuter students are charged $105 for three quarters. Non-freshman resident students pay $165 for three quarters of parking. Parking is not sold to freshman residents. A new facility expected to open in November 2006 will offer 50 reserved parking spaces for $100 per month. Half of the spaces will be offered to students and the other 25 spaces to employees. The shuttle program is paid with General Fund revenue.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 75 Ohio State The annual cost for faculty and staff parking ranges from $153 to $576, depending upon location. For students, the annual fee ranges from $102 to $531, depending upon location. One person we spoke to indicated that the shuttle service is fully funded by parking fees and fines but another said that the general fee includes a $27 for bus usage fee. Miami University Until June 2006, faculty and staff were not charged for parking. Currently, they pay a $20 annual fee for lot parking. A new parking deck will open in October of 2006. If a faculty member wants to park in the deck, an additional $25 per month fee must be paid. Students pay $60 to $120 annually for parking. The campus shuttle service is paid for with tuition revenue. Downtown Akron We toured parking garages in the downtown area near the campus. The fees listed for those decks are in the table below.

Facility Location Monthly Fee Yearly Cost O’Neil’s State Street $55 to $64 $660 to $768 Summit County High Street $62.50 $750 Morley Broadway $60 $720 CitiCenter Main Street $64 to $87 $768 to $1,044 Cascade Mill Street $65 to $87 $780 to $1,044

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 76 Benchmarking Summary/Comments The benchmarking data from the IPI indicate that most campuses offer a shuttle and many provide programs intended to reduce parking demand. On the average, 85% of students use a shuttle but at UA, 85% of the survey respondents never ride the shuttle. Fees at the seven comparable universities varied widely from as little as $20 a year to $674.88 per year. Those campuses that provided only lot parking had lower rates. One university imposes an access fee on all students to cover the shuttle and parking operations. Most offer options for student and faculty parking. At other State universities, the annual parking rate for faculty/staff ranges from $0.00 at Ohio University to $1,104 at the University of Cincinnati. Students pay $60 annually at Bowling Green, up to $828 at the University of Cincinnati, and a reserved space at Ohio University can be purchased for $1,200 annually.. The University of Cincinnati is an urban campus with a high percentage of commuters. To accommodate expansion over the past decade, they build on land once utilized as surface parking lots. To provide parking, large decks were constructed. Over the years, their fees reflected the cost of garage parking. All State universities offer a shuttle program. Two universities (Bowling Green and Wright State) finance their shuttle program solely with parking and fine revenue. The others rely on general fees and parking revenue. To limit parking demand, two universities place restrictions on permit sales to freshmen, one banning freshman residents all together. Students in UA’s West Deck pay $220 per year for parking which is $530 less than the Summit Garage located across the street. Tuition and fees at UA rose 5.34% this academic year. Parking fees were not increased.


Observations/Comments The Consultant Team made a total of 8 trips to the campus over the course of 4 months. During those visits, we observed the employees delivering parking services, noted the condition of the parking and transportation assets, and watched customers use the services. This section of the report documents our observations which will be used in conjunction with stakeholder input to provide assistance in forming recommendations. Space Allocation

• Of the 9,888 parking spaces allocated to permit holders, only 500 are assigned to one particular group. The remaining spaces are available to any permit holder. Given the current supply of parking on campus, this “all permit” practice is encouraged since it allows maximum use of the available inventory.

• All students pay the same amount for a parking permit. Residents pay the

same as commuters. Evening only-students pay the same as full-day students. This is not a standard practice at other universities. Most universities employ lessons from Economics 101 and look at parking from a supply/demand perspective. They offer parking options that reflect market conditions. Students should have parking options just as they have options for meals, housing, class times, etc.

• Tiered or zone parking is best reflective of market conditions. At UA,

however, there is no tiered parking. A space near the campus core is the same price as a space several blocks away. Parking should be subject to the laws of supply and demand. Spaces that generate a higher demand should have a higher cost. Higher fees for high-demand spaces also encourage turnover allowing more people to use the same spaces. As a result of existing parking rate policies, residents occupy high-demand spaces for extended periods of time without any additional fee. This is particularly noticeable in the North Deck.

In many campus settings, resident parking is provided at outlying parking areas since the cars belonging to resident students are usually not driven on a daily basis. This allows close-in parking to be used by students attending class in nearby education buildings, rather than having frequent turn-over parking customers being pushed to further-out parking areas.


Unfortunately, comments we received reflect a strong disapproval for the tiered parking concept at UA. A limited parking fee structure based on duration rather than location may be able to resolve some existing parking issues while demonstrating the value of variable rates. Such a fee structure may pave the way for tiered parking in the future.

• Parking permits for faculty and staff at UA are partly subsidized by the

University. While this is not an unusual practice, it encourages automobile usage thus increasing the demand for more parking.

• Gravel lots are not

representative of a “landscape for learning” image. Gravel parking surfaces, due to the absence of painted stall lines, reduce parking efficiency. (We estimate 2%.) Customers will take more space to park their vehicle when lines are not present. The use of wheel stops also represents a tripping hazard.

• The $5.00 daily maximum fee paid by visitors translates into a semester

fee of approximately $310.

• During the first week of the semester, we observed two signs directing customers to locations with available parking. New students, however, did not know how to reach those sites being unfamiliar with the campus area.


• The 298 visitor spaces are underutilized. Except for one day during the first week of the semester, we never observed more than half of the metered visitor spaces occupied. They are often used by students who cannot or chose not to find a parking space on a lot that accepts their permit.

Shuttle Program

• During the week of August 28-September 1, Metro reported 471 riders. Several of those riders included members of the consulting team so the actual users total 467. The Parking Services Department pays Metro $1,400 each week for 30 hours of service. For that week, every time a rider used the shuttle, the University paid $3.00.

• There is an insignificant number of riders utilizing the Forge Street stop.

During the consultants’ observation periods there were no riders dropped off or picked up from Forge Street stop.


• Throughout the route, occasionally students request being dropped off at various points along the route. Metro drivers stated that if traffic conditions are safe and the bus is already stopped to meet traffic demand, they may perform a non-designated stop. However, the overwhelming majority of riders are either picked up or dropped off at South College Street Loop and the Polsky Building. Present day routing appears to be properly designed when factoring walking distance and time, hazards to avoid and traffic conditions. If however, traffic flow and control would improve on East Buchtel Ave. between Hill Street and South College Street, the University should re-route the shuttle on Forge Street because of the extremely low level of use. Not withstanding the current build-up of traffic eastbound on East Buchtel at South College Street, using this route would save over one third of a mile from the total route, per circuit. This kind of route correction, although small in value, can translate in to significant cost and time savings for the shuttle operation.

An ideal transportation setting includes dedicated roadways that minimize or eliminate untimely stops from traffic lights, stop signs, turns, and other difficult operating conditions. The nature of the University’s campus shuttle, however, requires interaction with publicly accessible city roadways and is therefore subject to the constraints and conditions generated from the general public passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, and pedestrians.

Some factors negatively impacting the efficiency of the bus operating headways include on-street private vehicle parking, multiple tight turns, traffic control lights, merging city street traffic, and a multitude of parking lots scattered throughout the route with cars that hastily enter and exit. In addition, city streets require maintenance at various times which can also impact the effectiveness of the shuttle bus route. Lastly, but certainly not least, large traffic back ups occur causing delay at roadway intersections, further challenging the shuttle bus timing. Avoiding these problems is impossible given the physical locale of the university and core campus development. Operating a successful campus shuttle system however, requires continual monitoring of the aforementioned burdens and constant coordination with operation staff in order to mitigate problems. Communicating those operational burdens with riders is good practice and lends itself to fortifying a strong appeal and feedback from the users of the system.


• The current route takes the bus from the College Street cul-de-sac to the intersection with Buchtel. This is a 4-way stop intersection. During field observation, the consultants noted a number of vehicles that were traveling west on Buchtel that totally ignored the stop sign. In several cases, there were some near-collisions. There also appears to be a pattern of traffic westbound on Buchtel that turns north or right onto College Street that ignores the stop sign. This causes the bus driver to be very tentative when entering this intersection. This observation was shared by a number of personnel from Simmons Hall that spoke to us as we observed the area.

• The stop on College Street is distinguished only by a small pole mounted sign denoting “UA Shuttle”. There is no waiting bench or shelter. The lone sign is easily missed as one walks past the area. The bus stop signs on Forge are identical.

• The stop on the High Street side of the Polsky building is also only marked only with a single “UA Shuttle” sign mounted beneath other signs. This sign make reference to a “gold” route which is a remnant of the discontinued shuttle program. The other stop at Polsky on Main Street is located at a bus waiting shelter area.


• The service is being provided by Metro Regional Transit Authority (Metro) using a standard 40-foot transit bus. The bus is wheelchair accessible with a functional kneeling feature. Other than the message sign on the bus marquee noting “Campus Loop”, there is no distinguishing signage or feature on the bus to differentiate this bus from any other Metro bus.

• We observed the shuttle on August 30th from an area directly outside

Simmons Hall. We observed the intersection of Buchtel Avenue and South College Street for congestion and shuttle bus activity. We tracked the timing of arrivals and departures along with a count of passengers.

The following table shows the timing and passenger loads on August 30, 2006.

Time Bus # Description Passengers 8:29 1303 Return to College Street 1 8:43 1303 Depart College Street 5 8:45 1303 Stopped at A&S Building 0 8:58 1303 Return to College Street 2 9:01 1303 Depart College Street 1 9:09 1303 Return to College Street 1 9:15 1303 Depart College Street 0 9:23 1303 Return to College Street 2 9:31 1303 Depart College Street 1

Observations Interrupted For Scheduled Meeting 9:57 1303 Return to College Street 4 10:02 1303 Depart College Street 2 10:09 1303 Return to College Street 0 10:28 1303 Depart College Street 3

Observations Interrupted For Scheduled Meeting 11:29 1303 Depart College Street 2 11:39 1303 Return to College Street 0 11:45 1303 Depart College Street 4 11:58 1303 Return to College Street 5 12:01 1303 Depart College Street 3 12:13 1303 Return to College Street 3 12:30 1303 Depart College Street 3

The bus skipped the 10:15 and 12:15 departures from College Street even though the schedule calls for service at those times.


• On August 31, 2006, we positioned ourselves near the intersection of Buchtel Avenue and College Street to observe traffic and shuttle operations. The bus was supposed to have its first departure from the College Street cul-de-sac at 8:00 AM. The bus did not arrive until 8:05 AM. Minimal observations of the shuttle were made on August 31 as detailed below:

Time Bus # Description Passengers 8:05 1421 Arrived at College Street 0 8:13 1421 Depart College Street 0 8:28 1421 Return to College Street 0 8:31 1421 Depart College Street 0 8:41 1421 Return to College Street 3 9:45 1421 Depart College Street 3

• We rode the bus that departed at 9:45 AM. We included ourselves in the

passenger count. During the test ride, we found the bus to be clean and odor free. The driver was friendly and courteous and very familiar with the campus. It seemed apparent that the driver had likely driven that route before since she was very familiar with traffic patterns.

• The bus was noted to have returned at the High Street side of the Polsky

Building after the consultants left the bus. It was found that the intersection of University and High Street was under construction which severely compromised the bus schedule and operation. In cases like this, the bus driver should notify their dispatch center and temporary signs should be posted at all shuttle stops to warn riders that the schedule will be disrupted due to road work. No such signs were noted.

• On September 12 and 13, additional observations of the shuttle bus were

conducted. This time, however, instead of remaining at one location, we rode the bus to permit impromptu interviews with students. The table on the following page reflects our findings from those trips.


Time Description Passengers 8:20 Start at Forge Stop 8:27 Picked Up at Forge 1 8:28 Arrived at College Loop 8:30 Departed College Loop 0 8:34 Arrived at Polsky 8:35 Departed Polsky 3 8:41 Arrived at College Loop 8:44 Departed College Loop 3 8:49 Arrived at Polsky 8:53 Departed Polsky 9:00 Arrived at College Loop 9:00 Departed College Loop 9:05 Arrived at Polsky 9:07 Departed Polsky 9:08 Departed Polsky West 1 9:14 Arrived at College Loop 9:15 Departed College Loop

September 13, 2006 11:04 Departed Polsky 3 11:11 Arrived at College Loop 11:14 Arrived at Polsky 11:14 Departed Polsky 4 11:26 Arrived at College Loop

• Information provided to us indicates that more tutoring now takes place in

the Polsky Building. Moreover, an increase in the number of classes impacting a large portion of disabled students at the University is now at Polsky. If their schedules require movement from the core campus area to the Polsky building, for example, then there may be sufficient reason to accommodate this need regardless of the quantity of students requiring that transportation service. The survey data indicates the largest group of responding students normally arrive for class between 7:00 AM through 10:00 AM and leave between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

• The University offers one on-campus fuel site near the Lincoln Building.

There are no on-campus vehicle maintenance facilities to accommodate large vehicles.


• We examined the potential for a method to transport members of the University community through the campus in an east-west direction. After looking at the campus, our original concept was to provide a tram or people mover up and down Buchtel Commons or by way of the previous path of Carroll Street. After several field observations and research, that concept was not pursued for the following reasons:

1. Considering the

distance the tram would serve and the time required to make stops to load and unload passengers, using the tram would save little, if any, time for riders.

2. The width of the walking surface is designed for pedestrian movement. Adding a tram would decrease the area for pedestrians thus decreasing overall safety.

3. The pavers that serve as a walking surface on Buchtel Commons are showing signs of wear, particularly at corners. This is probably due to the use of vehicles including large waste removal vehicles that drive on the surface. The use of a tram on a regular basis would place additional stress on the surface.

4. The existence of tunnels under Buchtel Commons, many with utilities, could pose some weight limitations on the tram.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 86 Traffic

• We toured the streets around campus to view locations with on-street meters and how their placement interferes with drivers seeing oncoming traffic at intersections and driveways. The placement of some meters does limit the view of drivers but their positioning appears to be consistent with those of other cities.

• The Consultant Team observed several of the trouble spots identified by

the staff. Most intersections along Buchtel are controlled by a traffic signal. At College and Buchtel, there is only a 4-way stop sign. During our observations of August 30, morning traffic was constant but not in sufficient quantity to create any significant backups.

Our vehicle counts from Buchtel heading westbound at College are shown below.

Time Vehicles Comments

7:05 AM 1 North Deck 45% occupied 7:10 AM 4 7:23 AM 2 7:25 AM 12 7:27 AM UA vehicle parked on

Buchtel (north lane) closing lane for 93 seconds

7:32 AM 10 7:39 AM 12 7:46 AM 8 7:52 AM 6 7:58 AM Traffic signal at Buchtel and

Union froze for 3 minutes 8:02 AM 18 8:08 AM 8 8:24 AM 20 8:30 AM 10 8:39 AM 6 8:50 AM 7 9:00 AM 4 9:25 AM 2


The largest accumulation of vehicles at any one time was observed at 8:24 AM. Considering the fact that the street has two lanes westbound, there were about 10 cars in each lane. This presented no serious traffic delays.

On one previous visit, we did observe a backup from College almost to Spicer on westbound Buchtel. This traffic congestion was attributed to new students reporting to an orientation session.

• During the late

afternoon and evening hours (3:00 PM to 6:00 PM), we observed an extended traffic backup on eastbound Buchtel at College. The data from the City indicates that more traffic travels westbound but since eastbound Buchtel has only one lane, the traffic backs up further. The difference is that westbound Buchtel has two lanes and eastbound Buchtel has only one lane for nearly the same volume of traffic.


• At the intersection of Buchtel and Hill, the traffic on Hill has the right-of-way. Traffic on Buchtel must stop. Based upon our review of the intersection and the data collected by the City, there are periods of the day when the existing traffic control setup is better because of the volume of vehicles on Hill. During other periods of the day, having the traffic on Buchtel enter Hill without stopping would improve the traffic flow.

• The intersection of Buchtel and Spicer is a concern particularly in the

evening hours. Eastbound Buchtel at that intersection has one lane for all traffic. While most vehicles heading eastbound on Buchtel proceed through to reach Route 8, some elect to turn right onto Spicer. With a major parking structure across the street, pedestrians must use that intersection to reach the deck from the campus. For safety reasons, the City forbids turning right on red at that intersection. When eastbound traffic is permitted to turn, pedestrian traffic in the crosswalk reduces the turning opportunities. These conditions, while protecting pedestrians, contribute to traffic congestion.

• Vehicles on South Forge Street attempting to turn onto South College

Street may encounter a Police vehicle north of College or a vehicle parked at a meter on the south side of College. Both reduce driver’s view of oncoming traffic. A similar situation is located at the exit to Lot #14 on Fir Hill Street.

• Sections of Buchtel Avenue could be widened but to expand the entire

street through campus would be costly and require the elimination of the North Deck pedestrian bridge.

Altering traffic patterns have an area-wide impact. While some conditions may improve with a modification at one location, the change may adversely impact traffic at a nearby location. A comprehensive study of the entire area by professionals along with community input is always warranted before making any changes. It is also important to understand that some changes will require significant funding.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 89 Portals

• Related to traffic are the portals that serve as entry points to the University. Over the years, some streets have been closed to permit the University to become more pedestrian friendly. Carroll Street is the latest example. We identified 13 portals as shown on the adjacent map.

Some of the major portals, such as Buchtel and Goodkirk are identified with a large sign. Since traffic counts for most of these portal intersections have not been conducted since the reconfiguration of Route 8, data to base decisions upon is not available. Based solely upon our observations, we identified one portal that could be closed (Orchard & Goodkirk) without adversely impacting traffic. Generally, closing streets forces traffic to drive on other streets and without any changes to the lane capacities of the other streets, traffic congestion is not improved.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 90 Enforcement

• The overall utilization of enforcement personnel appears adequate. During the fall and spring semesters, there is 1 Lot Monitor for every 2,000 spaces. Enforcement activity was observed at different locations throughout the day. The routes are rotated to minimize concerns of preferential enforcement.

• The uniforms

(essentially a safety vest) are not reflective of a professional organization. There is no visible method to identify the person as an employee of the University. This is particularly necessary in parking areas where security is always an issue. There is no name tag or badge to allow members of the campus community to identify the employee. Regardless of the uniform provided, enforcement personnel should be made to wear them while performing their duties.


• We do have some concern over the amount of training provided to enforcement personnel. There is no procedure manual to provide program guidance and new employees are usually trained in the field with an experienced employee. Field training is necessary but it should first be conducted by a supervisor. The supervisor should also determine when a new employee is ready to commence enforcement activities.

• Currently, when an agency of

the University conducts some type of special event, it contacts the Parking Services Department with the essential information and forwards a sample of the permit their guests are to display. Enforcement personnel then omit enforcement of vehicles with that permit. On many days, multiple permits may be valid. The existence of so many valid permits makes enforcement more difficult. It also makes billing for parking services more difficult.

Asset Condition Assessment We examined the parking facilities, particularly the decks, for maintenance requirements, visible hazards, and appearance. Overall, the maintenance is very good, there were few safety hazards observed, but the appearance of many facilities, particularly the larger garages, left room for improvement. Maintenance The Parking Services Department has spent millions of dollars for repair and protection of concrete surfaces; upgraded illumination; and other miscellaneous improvements. Repairs to the Administration Services Deck are currently underway. During the summer, we observed several decks getting a thorough cleaning with a pressure washer. The University employs an engineering firm to conduct condition surveys. This pro-active approach to garage maintenance will result in significant long-term savings and continued revenue-generation over the next decade.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 92 Several of the maintenance items that should be addressed include: We observed some membrane failure on the lower level of the Exchange Street Deck.

Several stairwells are showing signs of deterioration in Exchange Deck.

Several conduits were corroded due to an overhead water leak on the lower level of the Exchange Street Deck.

Also in Exchange Street, near the corroding conduits, was a control panel being corroded by the same leak.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 93 Deteriorating stairs were also found at the West Deck.

The lobby doors in the East and North Decks are not handicapped accessible.

Several areas of ponding water were observed in the E J Thomas Deck.

Some railings in the East Garage are showing early signs of deterioration.

• We observed several wide cracks in the surface of the North Deck,

particularly on Level 2. These cracks have been repaired and no further expansion of the cracks was observed.

• Some of the sealant between the sidewalk and the edge of the North Deck

along Buchtel Avenue is missing.

• Several of the metal and glass lobby doors in the North and East Decks need their hinges lubricated to eliminate squeaking.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 94 Drain pipes have a missing section on the north and west stair tower at the West Deck. There is another one on the East Deck.

Nuts are missing from the anchor on Level 5, east elevator landing, of the North Deck.

Most of the fire extinguishers in the North Deck have expired inspection dates.

Sections of Administrative Services Deck need repair (underway).

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 95 Appearance The appearance of a garage is important since it presents an image of the entire parking operation. Parking is usually the first and last University service customers encounter every day. Making a positive impact on the customers is important. The presence of debris or dirt sends a message to customers that their permit money is wasted. Greater attention to detail in cleaning efforts will further improve the image of the Department. We documented some of the items we observed. North Deck: filled trash receptacle

Broken glass on stairwell – West Deck

Dust on call box – North Deck – June 2006

Dust on call box – North Deck – August 2006

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 96 Litter in North Deck

Dust accumulation on interior window ledge – North Deck

Dust accumulation on interior windows – North Deck Note: Consultant responsible for the letters “UA” written on the dust coating.

Non-standard trash receptacle in use in North Deck

• Line striping in the Robertson Deck is faded.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 97 Signage Signage also conveys an image to customers. A signage package with uniform methods of communicating messages to drivers and pedestrians enhances the parking experience. The signs we observed in the facilities lacked uniformity. Examples are shown below. In the Martin Lot, two signs with the identical message have different color lettering.

Sign reflecting a blue/white theme found in many locations

This sign, from the West Deck, varies significantly from sign to the right from the North Deck.

ypical signage found in North Deck

T


The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 98 Service Delivery

The main page of the University’s web site has

• a direct link for parking information. This is a very useful feature particularly for prospective

• The mission of the Parking Services Department is not evident. There is

directed to meet the needs of its primary ustomers (students, faculty/staff), some practices (visitor parking,

nce the mission, policies, and procedures are established, they should rocedure Manual for employee reference and

•

not provide free parking for quick (say 5-10 minutes) visits. Second, they accept only quarters. Third, when the

students and visitors. We are not aware of any other university that provides that important link on their home page.

no mention of it in documents we reviewed or on the web site. Agencies such as Food Services proclaim their mission on their internet home page.

A mission reflects the objectives of the University and establishes the direction for policies. Policies provide guidance for the creation of procedures. While the majority of services provided by the Parking Services Department arecabsence of rate options, reserved spaces) are inconsistent with the needs of the primary customers. Obe written in a Policy and Ptraining. Most visitor parking is metered. The meters we observed are models no longer in production. Maintaining them requires a trained employee and a supply of parts. Fortunately, the Parking Services Department has such an employee and an adequate supply of parts. Our concerns with the meters are three-fold. First, meters are limited as to rate structures and can

trained employee ends his service with the University, will an equally trained replacement be available?


•

aintenance of the equipment is necessary and its use increases the time to enter or exit a facility. Given the existing traffic

• tomer service.

Primarily, however, he/she serves as a public relations liaison for the ent currently on the

market could eliminate his/her functions as an attendant. The equipment, however, could not reproduce his/her public relations role.

• We did not observe much use of the bicycle racks.

Except for the Robertson Deck, parking facilities do not use control equipment for entry or exit. Vehicles may enter and leave at any time. Parking control equipment reduces the need for enforcement personnel since only those vehicles with a valid access card could gain entry to a lot. The equipment would also provide useful data on the usage patterns of customers. M

conditions at UA and budget restraints of the Parking Services Department, the use of parking control equipment is not a wise investment.

The attendant at the Robertson Deck provides excellent cus

University – not as an attendant. Parking equipm

• Parking garages were well lit but many lots had areas of limited illumination.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 100 Wayfinding

• Members of the campus community quickly become familiar with one or more parking locations after a few days of orientation. Visitors, however, will find locating parking difficult since no wayfinding signage exists for them. Some lots are marked at the entrance with a small indication that visitor parking is available but there are no signs on the streets around the campus to direct them to those locations. The only outward indication of visitor parking was found on the exterior of the Robertson Deck (52 visitor spaces) and West Deck (12 visitor spaces). The other 234 visitor spaces did not have any such signs.

• The campus wayfinding markers provide useful information to pedestrians

but their ability to convey messages to drivers is limited due to the size of the lettering.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 101 Sites For New Parking Facilities Our analysis of parking conditions concluded that 1,200 new spaces are required. While touring the campus, we examined potential sites for a new parking deck. We considered only those sites currently owned by the University. While other sites such as Central-Hower High School could accommodate a large parking structure, the additional funding necessary to purchase the site and the time required to transfer the property to the University would not allow construction as quickly as desired. We also omitted sites east of Buchtel Hall not recommended by the Capital Planning Department. We concentrated our review on sites that could accommodate a large parking structure rather than several smaller structures to reduce the overall cost. Any new stand-alone parking facility should be built to allow for future expansion. Parking integrated into new buildings may be useful to provide for future parking demand but for the present, a large structure will best serve the University. When locating new parking structures one must consider the dimensions of the site; the demand for parking; vehicle capacity and traffic volume of adjacent streets; traffic direction; and pedestrian walking distance to destination. Note: the use of many of the sites will decrease supply for at least 9 months unless a new facility can be built in phases over several summers. Our analysis of the sites is on the next page. Below are garages from other universities showing the ability of parking decks to be both functional and attractive. Parking with student housing and administrative offices

Stand-alone 1,600-space deck


Site Review Summary

Site Advantages Disadvantages Lot 10 • Near new parking generator-stadium

• Favorable site footprint • Near Route 8

• Distance to center of campus • Increased traffic congestion likely due to close

proximity to East Deck and limited street capacity

Lots 2 + 13 • Near new parking generator-stadium and JAR Arena

• Favorable site footprint • Good access from nearby streets • Near Route 8 • Close to campus center

• May need corner building for efficient site • Increased traffic congestion likely due to close


Lots 2 + 13 + 8 • Near new parking generator-stadium and JAR Arena

• “L-shaped” footprint not ideal but would reduce overall height of structure

• Near Route 8 • Good access from nearby streets • Close to campus center

• Need to span over Carroll Street • Increased traffic congestion due to close


Expand Lot 1 • Less expense • Some of garage could remain open

during construction • Less traffic impact • Near Route 8

• Expansion could not provide enough spaces • Distance from center of campus

Lot 34 + land adjacent to Corbin Commons

• Adjacent to campus core • Easy egress and ingress from several

streets • Large site • Serve as overflow parking for Polsky

area

• Irregular footprint • Distance from major relief street

Lot 27 + Plaza • Make use of an underutilized area (Plaza)

• Near center of campus • Less disruption of existing parking • In high parking demand area

• Reduce open area on campus • Distance from major relief street

Lot 45 • Large site • Serve as overflow to North Deck

• Would require the elimination of Lincoln Building and fuel station

• Distance from campus core • One-way street

Lots 43 + B • Minimal disruption to current customers • Ability to hide parking in hillside

• Hillside site may be insufficient for the spaces required

Lots 46 + 47 • Would accommodate new residential parking demand in area

• Eliminate a potential new residential building behind Gallucci

• Distance to campus core Lot 44 • Would accommodate new residential

parking demand in area • Site too small

Lot 49 • Assist with parking demand at Polsky and College of Business

• Multiple access locations

• Expansion could not provide enough spaces

Between 37 & 39 • Prime location • Minimal disruption of existing parking

• Site could not provide enough spaces


Recommendations Our recommendations are assembled into four groups. – Parking Services, Transportation Services, Traffic Issues, and Funding. These groups respond to the objectives outlined in the original Request For Proposal. Parking Services 1. Develop program to reduce parking demand

Every student or employee that doesn’t need a garage parking space saves the University $13,500. That is the average cost of constructing a parking space in northern Ohio. The demand for steel and concrete worldwide has increased the cost of these commodities in recent years. A current 400-space garage in the New York City area is being budgeted at $23,000 per space. Efforts to reduce parking demand at UA is difficult due to the fact that most students and employees live more than a mile from campus and, according to discussions with members of the campus community, people from the Akron region are not accustomed to using public transportation. Nevertheless, any reduction in parking demand reduces capital outlay for new decks. To reduce parking demand, we propose:

A. Offering free Metro passes to all students and employees B. Providing bicycle lockers and more racks C. Establishing a carpool/vanpool program D. Offering free parking for motorcycles and other vehicles that don’t occupy

a parking space E. Eliminating the subsidy for employee parking F. Establishing parking fees that reflect market conditions

2. Consolidate and reduce visitor parking

Visitor parking totals 298 spaces at 24 different locations. We have never observed more than 50% of those spaces occupied and a high percentage of those using visitor parking are permit holders. We recommend reducing metered visitor parking by one-third. In areas of the campus with several locations, consolidate visitor parking. The consolidation will allow more effective wayfinding.


The reduction in the number of meters will not reduce revenue if rate recommendations for visitor parking are approved. Most importantly, the most important customers of the Parking Services Department, the permit purchasers, will appreciate the additional 100 spaces.

3. Provide parking permit options

Students have options when it comes to meal plans, housing, and class scheduling but they have few options for parking. The same parking fee applies to all customers regardless of location and parking duration. In the world outside of UA, and in most campuses, parking is subject to market forces. Supply and demand are factors that help determine fees. A “one price fits all” policy is not reflective of a free market economy. Parking options should be made available so students and employees can select the parking plan that best fits their situation. Establishing parking options represents a significant change in the parking culture at UA. To minimize the transition to a new system, we suggest the establishment of only 5 basic permit options. They include:

A. One-Day Permit: valid at any “all permit” lot for a single day B. Universal (Gold)Permit: valid at any authorized lot at all times C. Restrictive (Blue) Permit: not valid at certain lots between 10:00 PM and

6:00 AM D. Evening/Weekend Permit: valid from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM on weekdays

and all weekends E. Flex Permit: These permits would be authorized for a particular lot (say

Lot 41) but during times when those spaces are needed for special activity parking, the flex permit customers would be dislocated but allowed to park in an “all permit” lot.

The lots we envision to limit parking for those with a restrictive (Blue) permit are located within the designated area on the map. Restrictions on permit usage during UA-sponsored or authorized events such as basketball (and football) games will continue. For events not sponsored by UA, valid permits should be honored.


4. Construct a new deck with at least 1,200 spaces

We identified about 300 vacant parking spaces on campus during peak parking periods. With the loss of the Auburn Deck, that surplus will be reduced by 200 spaces. It is not uncommon this semester for Lot #9, with a capacity of over 500 spaces to have 70% occupancy. The loss of that lot for the stadium complex will require those 350 customers, and the 200 additional residents with vehicles from the new Exchange Street Building to fit into the 100 remaining spaces. Measures to increase supply and decrease demand will have some positive impact but not enough to eliminate the realization that another deck is necessary if the planned development proceeds. Moreover, the new spaces must be provided quickly. We recommend the construction of 1,200 spaces at the site of Lot 34 including the area adjacent to Corbin Commons. The site provides the best opportunity to meet the increasing demand for parking in the south area of the campus, minimize traffic congestion on and near Buchtel, serves as a contingency location when repairs to Exchange and West Decks are needed, affords a good location to centralize visitor parking, and provides easy pedestrian access to the core campus. To more effectively address future parking demand, 1,600 spaces can be built on the site. Should that site not be approved, we recommend Lot 27 with the adjacent plaza or Lot 10.

34

10

27

5. Centralized special event parking requests

The current practice of agencies each issuing permits for special event parking causes enforcement and billing difficulties. A centralized system, using an on-line request form, would resolve both issues. An agency requesting parking for a group or activity would complete the form and submit it to Parking Services. After reviewing the request and considering the supply of parking for the date and time requested, approval would be approved or denied. If approved, permits would be delivered for distribution. The permits would be of the same design making enforcement easier. In addition, the form also serves as an invoicing document that can be processed for collection. A sample form from a University is found as Appendix D.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 106 6. Establish a mission for Department

By creating a mission statement, based upon the University’s goals, the Department can better evaluate its practices and prioritize its services. A clearly-defined mission empowers management to make sound decisions.

7. Write and maintain an Operating Policies and Procedures Manual

With a mission, the Department should document what employees do, how they do it and when they do it. Writing an Operating Policy and Procedure Manual forces the Department to reevaluate every service it provides and how it is delivered. Once completed, the document forms the basis for measuring the quantity and quality of service delivery.

8. Create plan to address immediate parking shortfall

The ability to construct 1,200 spaces within 12 to 18 months is a challenge. Temporary parking options must be available until the new spaces are built. Some of those steps include:

A. Reducing visitor parking B. Eliminating sales to non-University members C. Reducing the number of reserved parking spaces D. Eliminating dedicated parking areas (faculty/staff only, students only) E. Reducing special request parking during peak periods F. Taking steps to park more vehicles on gravel lots by using stall markings G. Reconverting the property at Spicer and Buchtel to parking H. Leasing property off-campus for parking (Property on Fountain Avenue

north of East Exchange Street and the site at the northeast corner of East Exchange and Fountain are viable candidates for new parking.) The triangular grass area at South College and East Mill Streets that is part of the Central-Hower property could also be converted into parking.

9. Review assignment of reserved (dedicated) parking spaces

Some 226 spaces are dedicated for specific vehicles. Some of these spaces are in high-demand areas. While some dedicated spaces are necessary for certain safety and maintenance functions, a policy should be adopted that clearly defines the qualifications for space dedication. Then the use of every dedicated space should be reviewed in light of the policy and appropriate changes implemented.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 107 10. Provide a routine cleaning/maintenance check list to track daily activity of staff

To better meet the cleaning/maintenance challenges of the parking areas, the Parking Services Department should update its cleaning schedule and include a checklist for employees to document each shift. A monthly review of the documents along with a field inspection of all facilities should be completed monthly and documented. Appendix E of this document includes cleaning/maintenance guidelines for the facilities at UA. It can be used to assist the Department in creating daily work and monthly inspection forms.

11. Plan on 90 new spaces every year after 2008

Assuming a 1% annual growth in student population, the Department should plan on adding 90 new spaces each year after 2008. This does not imply that 90 actual spaces must be constructed each year but it does require the University to be pro-active with parking planning so future shortfalls can be avoided. The most cost-effective method is to construct 1,600 spaces on Lot 34 when the 1,200 spaces are built.

12. Establish a coordinated signage plan for all facilities

All parking facilities should reflect a common signage package. Messages should be universally expressed. The signage package should complement signs used at other University locations.

13. As a test to increase parking supply on gravel lots, add an asphalt strip to designate

stalls’ marking. If the test is successful, expand the program.

Ideally, all gravel lots should be resurfaced with blacktop. Considering the cost to blacktop the lots and the reality that those lots will likely be used for future development, a major resurfacing project is not recommended. Without stall markings, customers will generally occupy more space for their vehicles. We suggest selecting a lot (Lot 14 is a good candidate) and providing a blacktop path or strip, approximately 18 inches wide in front of each row of parking. Lines could then be painted on the blacktop to provide better parking guidance to customers. If successful, the program could be expanded to other gravel lots.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 108 14. Revise uniform policy for Lot Monitors

Lot Monitors should wear their uniforms at all times while on duty. New uniforms that identify the employee should be purchased. It is not necessary to purchase “police-style” uniforms. A pull-over smock with appropriate text on the front and back will be sufficient. Smocks can be worn over clothing and do not represent a significant expenditure.

15. Begin a program to replace parking meters within 5 years

Even with a supply of parts and a qualified repair person on staff, the existing meters do not provide the Parking Services Department with the rate flexibility and revenue accountability needed in today’s parking environment. While not an immediate priority, new meters should be purchased within five years.

16. Use Lot Monitors to assist customers in finding parking during the first week of each

semester

During the first week of each fall and spring semester, Lot Monitors should be stationed at key locations to assist customers with parking availability. Lot Monitors are familiar with parking locations on campus and can communicate parking availability information to others. This program will also demonstrate the goodwill of the Parking Services Department. Parking availability may also be broadcast on the University’s radio station.

17. Issue warning citations for minor infractions during first week of semester

During the parking adjustment period that begins each fall and spring semester, we recommend issuing warning citations for minor violations. Warnings serve as friendly reminders of parking requirements without the stigma of an actual citation. At this time, fines for first-time offenders of minor violations are usually waived so the warnings will not decrease revenue.

18. Establish formal training for Lot Monitors

Enforcement personnel should undergo a thorough training program conducted by a supervisor. This will help ensure a common recognition of violations and the consistent application of discretion.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 109 19. Define clear policy and procedure guidelines for citation adjudication and establish

an appropriate entity for hearing citations appeals, except for instances of malfunctioning equipment or employee error.

Currently, the Parking Services Department, the agency responsible for the issuance of most parking citations, adjudicates the vast majority of citations presented for appeal. The discretion displayed by Parking Services staff in handling appeals and negotiating settlements merits recognition for its customer relations value but, in our opinion, undermines enforcement activity and opens the Department to claims of unequal treatment. The University has also granted adjudication authority to the Associated Student Government (ASG). Both entities adjudicate with little policy guidance and neither entity represents an independent authority that is essential in fairly handling appeals. The University must review current adjudication practices, define clear policy guidance, and establish the best entity for hearing appeals. An independent third party (retired attorney or judge) may perform this function. In addition, appeals should be made on-line to reduce paperwork.

20. Maintain working relationship with University Park Alliance, City of Akron, Metro, and

Departments within the University

Our meetings with various agencies within and outside of the University indicate the existence of good working relationships with the Parking Services Department. To ensure these relationships continue, we have made it a recommendation.

21. Correct maintenance items contained in this report 22. Establish a pro-active program to inform the campus community of parking

procedures and options

Some students walking to Polsky Building are not aware of the shuttle. Many customers know the location of one or two parking lots. Few realize the cost of building a parking space. When people know what services they receive for their money and better understand the cost of providing those services, changes in price and/or service delivery are more likely to be accepted. It is not enough to have a brochure. Parking Services staff could attend freshmen orientations, participate in local radio talk shows, conduct an annual open forum, etc. A pro-active approach to provide information will not build more spaces but it will better educate customers so they see value in the services provided.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 110 Transportation Services Transportation and parking programs must function in a mutual symbiotic manner. They must complement each other and strive to serve the needs of the campus community. The steps outlined so far focused on the parking services. We now turn our attention to transportation. 23. Provide more facilities for bicycles

Lockers and racks positioned throughout the campus will encourage ridership. Every bike on campus saves a parking space. The Department could even link with a neighboring bicycle retailer to arrange discounts on the sale, rental, or repair of bicycles. Many Metro buses have bicycle carriers so it is possible for a student to ride the bus to campus then travel within the campus using a bike. Riding helmets with UA logos could be purchased and provided at minimal cost to students and employees who bike regularly.

24. Offer Metro bus passes to all members of the campus community.

For those students and employees who do not purchase a parking permit, offer a Metro pass at no charge. Metro has expressed a willingness to offer such a program at a discounted rate to the University. The bus pass program, however, will need some promotion to be effective in impacting parking demand.

25. Establish an in-house campus shuttle program

The current shuttle program does not serve the needs of UA and is not cost-efficient. Few take advantage of the shuttle for a number of reasons. If transportation services are to be part of UA’s future, then a new approach is necessary. We recommend the initiation of an in-house shuttle service. Based on our review, it appears likely that an internal bus service could be provided on a slightly higher cost basis with smaller, more recognizable vehicles and with twice the frequency of service. The University is well suited to a small internally operated shuttle service that could be dedicated to customer service. By better meeting the needs of the students in an UA-oriented bus, the service will gain acceptance. Building a good reputation will allow expansion of a reliable service that could eventually include a circulator route to better serve the various buildings on campus. The shuttle expansion will link parking and people and reduce the reliance on vehicle travel.


Many college campus settings utilize shuttle services which are well-received and reliable. These campuses enjoy the ability to have parking at remote sites thus reducing traffic in the campus core. The remote parking also provides more options for students and employees. Selecting the Proper Bus Creating a quality shuttle program that serves the needs of the University is a very important process requiring considerable planning. Selecting the proper bus is critical. Factors that affect that decision include seating capacity; interior floor plan layout; engine and transmission specifications; braking systems; appropriate air conditioning; type of ADA equipment; communication systems; lighting requirements; graphic design; lead time to manufacturer; turning radius; and suspension. These elements can be specified at the time of ordering, but for planning purposes, understanding the capacity and engine requirements (diesel, gasoline, or an alternative-fueled vehicle), will enable a certain level of preparation. Based on the ridership information provided, the current system could be operated using a medium sized bus, seating approximately 20 – 25 people. Buses typically are designated by size and life expectancy, usually up to 5, 7, and 10 years based upon mileage caps and manufacturer’s body ratings.

The University of Akron shuttle, under its present routing, would be better served by reducing the bus length to the 29 foot to 32 foot range with seating capacities of 20-25 passengers, with the ability to safely stand 6-7 in aisles. Mid-size buses in this capacity range require less stringent and costly preventative maintenance procedures. The shorter bus length also decreases turning radius allowing a more maneuverable bus in congested traffic areas. By employing a mid-size bus the University would have the ability to meet immediate growth demand while providing flexibility to change the fleet out after enrollment, ridership and shuttle system reaches peak activity. Medium sized buses equipped with diesel engines, wheelchair accessibility and other required options for this type of service can be purchased for approximately $70,000 to $80,000 depending on final specifications and option content. Mid-size buses can reach as much as $175,000 to $200,000 per bus if alterative fuel systems such as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), mono-chassis low floor frames, and enhanced powertrain options are selected.


Measure Service Performance Accurate recording of ridership data is an important function. Through accurate recording of passenger ridership data operators and owners can predict future traffic expectations, headway demand, route and equipment expansion requirements and use of personnel. Ideally, these records should reflect, at a minimum, passenger counts stratified by hour of the day in order to facilitate accurate staffing plans. Records should be maintained that reflect not just ridership totals, but also use of wheelchair assist equipment, passengers left behind by specific bus stop, and unexpected delays that may occur. The bus departure and arrival times should be reviewed in an attempt to “split” the gap in classroom starting/ending time. Continual feedback from riders concerning the performance of the shuttle service should be solicited. In addition, monitor the service to ensure headways are maintained. These steps will create a sense of trust in the product being delivered and naturally cause an organic growth in ridership levels. Program Promotion The current shuttle service seems to be relatively unknown. The anonymous bus from Metro looks like any other Metro bus. The key to a successful shuttle system, other than reliability, is notoriety. The bus used for this service should be decorated to denote the Polsky Shuttle or some other type of familiar campus terminology. The bus stops should have large signs that draw attention to the service, with accurate service schedules posted. There should be at least a waiting bench at each stop if not a bus shelter. As inclement weather approaches every fall, prospective shuttle riders would likely appreciate a waiting shelter of some sort. It is possible that the University could contract with Metro for glass bus shelters at each stop. It could even be possible to sell advertising on or in the shelters to generate a few extra dollars for the Department’s transportation budget. The point is making the vehicle or vehicles used for the shuttle service stand out. Large bright signs or slogans on the vehicle go a long way toward recognition. Campus shuttle bus systems are generally designed to be very visible in order to attract potential users and offer a level of “service” which is appealing for student recruiting and retention purposes. Branding the shuttle bus system is an extremely important function, and designing identification specifically for the campus shuttle system should not be overlooked.


Use common University themes for branding, like:

“Take the Zip – It’s quick!”

“Ride the Roo!” “Hop on the Roo – It’s a Zip!”

With the branding established, advertise the campus shuttle service in more locations, more succinctly, and frequently.

Current Shuttle Route Enhancements The present day shuttle route, although underutilized, appears to meet the current need for transportation to and from the Polsky Building. There are opportunities, however, to enhance routing efficiencies.

• The route presently runs on Forge Street where stops are very infrequent.

Eliminating this portion of the route would save approximately one-third of a mile per loop and, more importantly, the time required to drive to and from campus. To accomplish this task, however, a long term approach to resolve the traffic congestion occurring on east and west bound E. Buchtel Avenue must be undertaken.

• Because accessibility is much greater on the east side of the Polsky

building, consider eliminating the Main Street stop at that building. • As a service enhancement facilitating more use, install an intermediate

bus stop at the Goodyear circle effectively providing the central campus core and the western campus boundary pedestrians added opportunity to use the service.

• Based upon the survey data and the current class schedule, extend

transportation operating hours from 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM or 7:00 PM.


In-House Polsky Shuttle Cost We estimate the cost of providing an in-house shuttle service to be about $63 per hour. This is more than the $50 hourly cost of using Metro but it provides twice the service and extends the hours to 3:00 PM on Fridays and 6:00 PM on other weekdays. The University may be able to lower those expenses by leasing a used bus for a backup and/or eliminating the Main Street stop.

Polsky Express. Headway 8 minute Buses 2 -25 passenger

plus 1-Back-up unit

In-Service Hours 2,820 Miles Annually 39,480

1st Yr Maintenance $ 7,100Fuel 17,800Driver (1 ft+3 pt) 64,400Bus Lease/licensing 76,800Liability Insurance 4,000Uniforms 1,000Drug & Alcohol, DOT, MVR tests

1,350

Training/Recruitment 2,900Miscellaneous 3,000

Total 178,350

Est. Hourly Cost $63


Future Route Considerations In recognizing the development efforts of the University Park Alliance, future campus shuttle routes need to incorporate services that respond to the growth opportunities within and around the campus. Planned business growth in the Spicer/Exchange District will draw students to the area for recreation and other sporting activities. Additionally, the development of the East Exchange Street Housing Project along with future parking facility expansion, suggests that more transportation resources may be needed to serve these areas, as well as the present day routing. Strong student appeal is another reason to consider expanding campus shuttle service from its present day linear route to a circular campus encompassing system. Reducing student’s time spent walking across campus enhances the student’s perception of campus life, and facilitates their use of surrounding business and campus facilities. The concept of campus perimeter shuttle bus routing is not new or uncommon with this University. The University of Akron with Metro operated a cross campus/perimeter shuttle route in 2002, 2003, and 2004. The service included 4 buses operating from 7:30 AM through 3 PM., and then 2 buses until 10:30 PM. The schedule was significantly reduced on Fridays. In review of historical ridership totals provided by Metro, buses were transporting student passengers through the 6:00-7:00 PM time frames, but very few beyond 7:00 PM. Based on this historical data, and depending on the growth, amount of student campus living, and the distribution of classroom locations, it appears the need for campus shuttle service beyond the 2:00 PM time frame is required. Establishing service after 7:00 PM will require further development and research. In any case, the demand for shuttle service is heavily dependent upon the degree of advertising, promotion and overall awareness students are provided. The campus shuttle system must effectively:

• Schedule service properly and according to student need, • Promote its use, • Brand the shuttles proven methodology, and • Monitor performance of service.

Failure to provide the above will result in the program being fated to poor ridership and negative feedback from students. Maintaining an effective method of moving students in and around campus has been demonstrated throughout similar urban universities across the country as an attractive and effective student recruiting and retention tool.


To demonstrate the amount of walking that students living on campus have to consider, and its impact on shuttle service demand, we walked to several key locations around campus. Those students parking in exterior parking facilities, attending Polsky and Athletic field house activities, realize the greatest potential for extended walking times. From To Walking Time

(in minutes) Gallucci Buchtel Commons 8 Fraternity/Sorority housing

Buchtel Commons 8

Gallucci Polsky 13-15 Simmons Hall Town Houses 10 Goodyear Polsky 7 Goodyear Recreation & Wellness 7 College of Business Bierce Library 7-9 East Deck Buchtel Commons 6 East Deck Goodyear 10 Buchtel Commons Polsky 10-12 Gallucci E. Exchange & Spicer 8-11

Considering the notion that students living on campus may be required to walk to and from campus housing more than once in order to attend their daily class/activity schedule is reasonable. Of course, an acceptable amount of walking distance can be very subjective and dependent on other factors like weather, traffic conditions, safety and security along the route. Perhaps most importantly, is the perception that less (required) walking is more appealing to prospective and current students. As the University’s population and shuttle ridership increases, along with future commercial activity, routing to meet the demands placed on the University will be required. Two serviceable ideas have been identified and should be considered viable options that enhance future service to the campus life and community.


Model for Future Campus Shuttle Service Before undertaking such large steps in operating a campus wide shuttle service, more study should be applied to the ridership potential, hours of continued operation, and, of course, financial feasibility for each route considered. Furthermore, the University should benchmark the level of service considered most efficient to meet goals. That is to say, identify the trade off between excessive service levels, which are very costly yet provide high standards of service, and deficient schedules which although may be less costly to operate, ultimately end up in lower ridership and negative perception of the service. Two components of shuttle service that have paramount impact on success of a campus shuttle system are headway, the time between buses picking up, and designated stops on the route. Excessive number of bus stops is costly in route timing and negatively affects bus maintenance. Conversely, too few stops may create a poor service perception because riders walk farther to bus stops, but provides the operation more effective route headways. The shuttle routes discussed in the following models identify a few key areas along the exterior routing of the campus which are most highly populated and visited among student population. For purposes of this review the following suggested designated shuttle bus stops are:

1. Goodyear/McDowell circle 2. Polsky Building 3. Exchange and Grant 4. South Union and Nash 5. Spicer and Vine 6. East Deck, south of entrance 7. Buchtel/College loop

The University must guard itself from excessively designating bus stops. Experience in other universities has shown that once the level of frequent bus stops is created, eliminating a stop from a route in the future can be difficult to accomplish and has severe negative repercussions on student body opinion. More importantly, maintaining an effective number of designated stops will ensure a cost effective, correct performance level for the University.


The survey on parking transportation did not relate responses to semesters. Therefore, it is not clear whether service during summer sessions is needed or at what level it may be required. Many colleges across the country opt to begin service one or two weeks prior to beginning fall session, while others maintain a diluted level of service during the summer. For the purpose of our review, two routes and service levels will be designed to operate approximately a 34-week schedule, essentially operating a week prior to fall term, breaking for December/January holiday schedules, and beginning again one week before the spring semester begins. Model 1- Single Campus Circular This route would serve the existing core campus to Polsky students and also the broader appeal for extensive service areas like East Exchange, Spicer, and the East Deck. The service would serve the South College Loop, Goodyear Circle, Polsky Building and then South High Street to East Exchange, serving the student housing and academic buildings on East Exchange before turning north on South Union, east on Vine, north on Spicer. From Spicer and East Buchtel the service would turn west ultimately returning back to South College Loop before repeating the circuit. This option aids a large number of students from most corners of the campus perimeter. Completing this circuit, including stops would take approximately 15-17 minutes depending on traffic conditions and ridership. To accommodate an eight (8) minute headway two (2) shuttle buses would be required on this route operating simultaneously. Additional study would be needed to predict with more accuracy the number of riders that may potentially be expected, thus dictating the number of buses in service and establishing headways. If popularity increased to the degree that headway times are compromised due to extensive boarding and de-boarding of riders, additional buses could be placed on route to minimize delay. This operation significantly addresses the need for student movement from key areas around campus to central core areas and the following:

• Beirce Library • Goodyear Circle/McDowell • Polsky Building • Gallucci and new housing development • Spicer District and proposed stadium • Athletic Field House and fraternity housing • East Deck • Any future outer perimeter parking


Campus Circular Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM – 6:30 PM

Friday 7:00 AM – 3:00 PM

Model 2- Campus Circular with Polsky “Plus” Under this service concept, the Polsky building would retain a dedicated service operating from the Polsky building to the Goodyear Circle on a continuing basis during high use hours. This service would only require the use of a smaller “cut-away” style shuttle bus which is designed to maneuver and operate with much less effort and expense than larger buses required for a campus wide service.

Single Circular Campus Route Scheduled Daily Service Hrs Mon-

Thu Fri Week

Total Loop Circuit 2.4 mi Circuit Time 16 min with stops 11.5 8 Headway 1 Bus 16 min with stops 11.5 8 54 Headway 2 Buses 8 min with stops 23 16 108 Headway 3 Buses 4 min with stops 34.5 24 162


The variation for Campus Circular routing with this option would be redirecting the service from Polsky and transition through Wolf Ledges in order to reach the East Exchange Street area. This shortening of route saves approximately .5 miles per route and decreases the circuit time by approximately 5 minutes, depending on traffic activity. By using this routing the Campus Circular can complete a circuit approximately every 10 minutes and save the shuttle operation significant expense on fuel and mileage. Campus Circular Polsky express M-Fr 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM – 2:00 PM

Friday 7:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Campus Circular / Polsky "Plus”

Scheduled Daily Service Hrs.

Mon - Thu

Fri Week Total

Loop Circuit .8 mi 7 5 Circuit Time 5 min. with stops Polsky "Plus" Headway 1 Bus 5 min. with stops 7 5 33 Headway 2 Buses 2.5 min with stops 14 10 66 Loop Circuit 2.15 mi Circuit Time 10 min. with stops 11.5 11.5 57.5 Campus Circular Headway 1 Bus 10 min. with stops 11.5 11.5 57.5 Headway 2 Buses 5 min. with stops 23 23 115 Headway 3 Buses 2.5 min. with stops 34.5 34.5 172.5


Estimated In-House Operational Costs The following table presents an overview of operating costs based upon TIG’s experience with shuttle operations and the two potential route models presented herein. The proposed operational costs are based upon service only during the fall and spring semesters and excludes holidays when no classes are in session. The total proposed system cost to operate a limited-service in-house system is extremely low compared to other campus systems that allocate many hundreds of thousands and some millions of dollars to a campus transportation system. When reviewing the proposed operating hourly costs, please note the in-service hours (the denominator) literally drives the hourly cost number. The fewer the in-service hours, as in this proposed operation, the higher the hourly system cost. Consequently, one cannot view the current Metro contract as comparing “apples-to-apples”, nor as providing other inherent value and benefits to the University.

Single Circular Rt. Circular/Polsky Plus Headway 8 minute 10/5 minutes Buses 3 -25 passenger

plus 1-Back-up unit

2-25 passenger plus 1-14 passenger 1-25 passenger back-up

In-Service Hours 3,672 3,077 Miles Annually 43,600 42,172

FTE Manager (w/benefits)

$55,800 $55,800

1st Yr Maintenance 8,200 8,200 Fuel ($3.00/gal) 21,800 21,100 PT Driver comp. 40,400 33,850 Bus Lease/licensing 76,800 74,400 Liability Insurance 35,000 33,000 Uniforms 1,000 1,000 Drug & Alcohol, DOT, MVR tests

1,350 1,350

Training/Recruitment 2,900 2,900 Miscellaneous 3,000 3,000

Total $246,250 $234,600

Est. Hourly Cost $67 $76


To create an in-house transportation system and identity requires a commitment of resources. It also creates expectations of students, visitors, faculty, parents and staff that transportation services are an on-going asset of the institution. If the University elects to start with this relatively limited service, as ridership and acceptance grows, the University will be challenged with ultimately right-sizing the operation to demand created by its 20,000 plus student body. Further into the future, the resulting estimation of a circulator bus system service will most likely grow to a fleet of between 8-to-12 buses with a corresponding annual system budget of approximately $700,000 to $1,000,000. This expenditure, however, can reduce the need for future parking. Managing the Service – Outsource versus In-house While we recommend an in-house operation for the new shuttle bus program that operates one limited route, the expansion of the program in the future may strain the ability of the Department to meet the new demands for service. Managing a large campus shuttle service is a challenging function. There are numerous issues to consider, which include labor management, vehicle maintenance, and passenger safety, maintaining operational effectiveness and efficiency, and much more. Outsourcing should be a consideration. Whether internally managed, or managed by a transportation company, there must be an individual from the University assigned to ensuring the aforementioned elements are meeting performance criteria and service objectives. If managed internally, it is recommended the University employ a full-time Manager who would be responsible for operational planning and daily functions including training. If the service is outsourced to a professional transportation firm, the University must allocate an employee who is knowledgeable in effective contract management and oversight. Without approaching this role appropriately, the University would face continuing issues relative to customer service and cost efficiency. As for the fiduciary concerns over outsourcing versus self management, the University must determine if it is capable of operating the system as effectively and efficiently as a professional transportation management firm. If the University cannot operate near the same cost level, how important is maintaining direct control through a self operating system?


Self operating campus shuttle systems are not atypical. There are many universities and colleges that operate in-house shuttles. Issues over cost management are not generally the driving forces behind their decisions to self operate, but instead a matter of control of the operation. Operating in-house requires establishing a base of operations, a facility to maintain and possibly perform mechanical repair, driver training, etc. Bus fueling is a consideration that cannot be overlooked. The availability of fuel could drive the decision on type of engine to specify when purchasing a fleet. Determining how vehicle maintenance, both mechanical and cleaning, will be performed is also a critical function. Although new, vehicles still require immediate attention from maintenance staff and regular preventive maintenance that is not covered through warranty repairs. As previously mentioned, in order to ensure success by the University, retaining a fulltime manager possessing some level of expertise in the transportation industry would be prudent. Deferring the responsibility to a current staff member holding no experience or desire to create a successful operation would lead to disappointment and potentially poor service levels provided. Prior to any shuttle expansion, it may prove beneficial to “test” the market by releasing a request for information or proposals to operate the system. Allowing firms to competitively introduce their abilities to effectively operate a campus shuttle on both price and service will provide the University of Akron confidence in deciding which type of operation to employ.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 124 Traffic Issues The traffic conditions in and around UA represent weeds in the landscape for learning. Traffic congestion and driver visibility are just two examples of traffic concerns which the University cannot address by itself. It needs the active participation of the City of Akron. Polite communications between the University and the City have not resolved outstanding traffic issues. We strongly encourage the University and the City to work together to resolve existing and future traffic issues. Only with both entities working together will the issues be resolved. Our single recommendation for this matter is: 26. Initiate and maintain an on-going and empowered Traffic Improvement Committee

(TIC) with the City of Akron

The key word in the recommendation is “empowered.” The committee members must be authorized to act at least to the point that they can recommend action to their respective organizations. There are opportunities to improve the quality of life in and around the campus by having traffic issues addressed in a timely manner. There are also adverse consequences when the issues are not expeditiously addressed. The new stadium complex will attract up to 20,000 people. That represents a major demand on the traffic infrastructure in the area. Street capacity, signal timing, route designations, etc. should be an integral part of the planning process. Based upon our discussions with City officials, this does not appear to be the case. The types of issues that this TIC could address include: • Sharing of on-street parking resources

• Location of meters to improve driver visibility

• Improvements to the Buchtel Avenue corridor

During our internal review sessions, based upon our observations of the traffic along Buchtel Avenue, we concluded that two enhancements working in conjunction could improve the traffic. The first enhancement is the use of an intelligent signal system at all intersections on Buchtel, from Fountain to Broadway. The second enhancement is a reversible center lane on Buchtel.


Traffic signals would be installed at every intersection, including Buchtel and South College. Sensors would be positioned to monitor traffic flow. The sensors generate vehicle accumulation data that is then used to adjust the signals to respond to actual traffic conditions in real time. The purpose of the intelligent signal system is to keep Buchtel free-flowing unless a vehicle is detected along one of the intersecting streets. When a vehicle is detected, the system would cycle the signal to “red” for Buchtel to allow cross traffic to clear. The same situation would arise whenever a pedestrian would use the call button to get a signal change to allow pedestrian traffic to cross Buchtel. A reversible center lane would be programmed to provide two lanes westbound on Buchtel in the morning. At midday, the lane would be closed to traffic. In the afternoon and evening, the lane converts to an eastbound lane. Overhead lights inform drivers of the correct use of the lane. These suggestions require funding and may represent new concepts to the region but they are starting points for the TIC to consider.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 126 Funding At the University of Akron, like many universities, the cost of parking and transportation is paid with user fees. The establishment of fees must reflect the cost of providing the service and market conditions. For parking, market conditions reflect the supply and demand of spaces. Some changes in the market are the result of standard activities (maintenance, population increases, etc.) but at UA, the parking market has been and is about to be altered by forces not under its control – development. Under current practices, the Parking Services Department is not compensated when development forces the construction of more expensive decks. Customers of the Department (faculty, staff, students, visitors, etc.) pay that cost. Our funding recommendations include: 27. Operate the Parking Services Department as a true enterprise fund

In the business world, owners of property receive compensation for their land when sold. When one firm damages another, compensation is made to correct the wrong. Businesses provide products and services for a fee. Fees, usually zoned or tiered based, are set by market conditions present at each facility. The Parking Services Department pays for all operating expenses including administration overhead, utilities, grounds maintenance, and even Police services. Yet it does not receive compensation for some of the services (such as retiree parking and spaces for University vehicles) it provides. Fees do not reflect the full cost of service delivery and compensation for eliminated spaces are not provided. A significant portion of the current debt obligation is the result of the campus development. New buildings on land once used for parking forced the construction of new decks. The University has announced that the new stadium complex will not be paid by student fees. What about the parking required as a result of the new stadium? The new parking spaces required by the construction of the stadium should not be the sole responsibility of the parking customers. A new garage parking space costs $13,500. Even with no interest, that requires a repayment of $450 per year for 30 years. The current parking fee is only $110 per semester. The budget of the Department will not support $16M in new debt (1,200 spaces @ $13,500) without significant rate increases. At 6% interest, the annual debt obligation would be about $1.2M, about 24% of the entire budget. A minimum 20% across-the-board increase in parking fees would be necessary for a new deck.


To provide the replacement spaces required as result of new campus development, we recommend: • Charging for all services rendered

• Receiving compensation for new decks required as the result of

development - The compensation can be in the form of upfront cash or assumption of debt.

28. Fund transportation programs with parking fine revenue

Funds for the shuttle program should be financed with revenue generated by parking fines. This will provide a dedicated source of revenue to budget transportation services.

29. Establish a Reserve Fund

To avoid excessive debt obligation in the future and assist with the financing of repairs, a reserve fund should be established. Each year, a portion of revenue should be placed into that fund. The amount should reflect the age of the facilities. We recommend an annual amount of $45 for every space in a facility under ten years of age and $65 for every space in a facility 10 years of age or over. With 2,187 spaces in new facilities (North and East Decks) and 3,217 spaces in the other decks, the amount is $307,520. Every two years, that cost per space should be adjusted.

30. Provide rate flexibility

With an approved maximum, the Parking Services Department should have flexibility to establish fees for its services. Fees should reflect the cost of providing the services and market conditions. As an example, the University approves a maximum semester parking permit fee of $180. The Department would then establish its rates as part of the annual budget process. Provided the rates were justified by a review of expenditures and they did not exceed the approved maximum, the fee would be established.


Incorporating that rate setting flexibility with our proposed permit recommendations and assuming no new debt, results in the following: Parking Service Minimum Fee Maximum fee

Gold permit $175 per semester $250 per semester Blue permit $125 per semester $150 per semester Evening permit $60 per semester $80 per semester Summer permit $60 per summer session $80 per summer session One-Day permit $5.00 each $8.00 each Retiree permits $25 yearly $40 yearly Motorcycles No charge No charge Visitor parking $1.00 per hour $2.00 per hour Event parking $5.00 per vehicle $10 per vehicle University vehicle 40% discount 20% discount After a few years under the new rate flex program, the Department may offer discounts to purchasers of yearly permits. Also, with a reliable transportation program, fiscally sound parking program, and adequate supply, it may be possible to charge an access fee to replace the flex rate program.


Appendix A – University Park Alliance

A lively campus commercial district represents an essential component of a successful university community. This district should serve students, faculty, and staff at the university; other residents of the neighborhoods around the university; and residents of the larger region who will be attracted to the unique businesses that thrive near a university. The stretch of Exchange Street between Route 8 and the corner of the campus at Union Street has already emerged as a university-oriented commercial district, primarily serving students. This area in particular, and all of Exchange and Market streets near the university, would benefit greatly from a broader array of uses that could capitalize on unmet market needs. The top priority would be a new supermarket, which would serve students, faculty, staff, and nearby residents and directly enhance livability in the university vicinity. Additional larger “destination” uses (for example a region-serving bookstore and café) would draw people from a broader region to support new businesses along East Exchange and East Market streets. Other enterprises would help draw a wide range of people to spend additional time in the area include cafés, restaurants, bookstores, entertainment venues, music stores, and similar businesses.


A student-oriented commercial district is important to supporting a university community and to enhancing the quality of student life at the University of Akron. As noted on the previous page, both districts need a broader and more appealing mix of businesses, including cafés, restaurants, entertainment, bookstores, record stores, and potentially a grocery that can serve the wider neighborhood. Exchange Street between Route 8 and the corner of cam pus at Union Street should continue to serve that purpose. However, the district should be improved and "cleaned up" by improving its visual quality, mix of uses and sense of safety.


Although pedestrian-oriented improvements are highly desirable, it is important to recognize that the university serves (and likely will continue to serve) a large commuter population. Providing new housing options would attract a much greater share of students, faculty, and staff to a university community by offering options that do not now exist. Sites on Exchange Street and in nearby neighbor-hoods, particularly those facing the new athletic fields, should be developed for a mix of apartments, townhouses, and similar housing types appropriate higher-density parking solutions in each commercial area will bolster each district's economic viability while simultaneously improving the quality of the pedestrian environment.



Appendix B- Letter to City Regarding Traffic Issues




Appendix C- Stakeholder Comments/Suggestions Except for the editing of profane words, the comments and suggestions are presented as written. In some instances, comments were truncated by the limitations of the comment fielding the on-line survey. Having a parking pass should give one a shuttle pass automatically. Parking is probably the worst thing about the University of Akron. The first week of school, I ALWAYS miss usually my first two classes, and the lines at the parking offices are OUTRAGEOUS! You should open more counters during the beginning of the semes. We do not need a bus service. I would suggest that students living in the residence halls be issued a parking permit that allows them to park in a more remote parking area on campus instead of parking in the heart of campus where the commuter students, faculty and staff need to park. Provide more convenient spaces and secure areas for UA departmental vehicles. Provide free parking for service/repair vendors. Comments published in the Buchtelite about the demise of the Auburn Parking Deck showed an alarming ignorance of the parking situation for people who park there. Parking spaces are difficult to find during peak hours -- if unable to arrive on campus before 9 during the fall or spring, it can take a long time to find a space. It's too late; close in parking already gone and going. I love the deck system. I do not believe that faculty and staff should have to pay for parking. It should be included in the cost of the Parking permit. My God, we are the only business I have ever heard of that makes employees PAY TO PARK!!! Parking areas to compensate for the loss of existing areas, like Auburn Deck. How about parking some Segway Human Transporters at various secured locations on campus (Polsky, Library, Student Union, JAR, Leigh, etc.) for faculty and staff use? We could check them out by using our Zip Card. We could run errands or get to our meeting. Maybe pricing should be based on a percentage of your salary. A dean that makes $100,000 pays the same as a staff member at $25,000...doesn't seem fair. Provide parking in outer areas for students who live on campus and do not need to leave on a daily basis. Find solutions to or expand the visitor parking system as many offices work with outside community members.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 137 Parking Office personnel should be more available to answer questions by phone at the start of each semester. Many people get the voice mail and not a live person when calling this department. Designate Lower Shrank deck for larger vehicles. Other decks in that immediate area can not accomidate large vehicles. Make Lot 14 faculty/staff only during the day! This would help so much. It would be nice to have more shade for surface lots. "Perhaps a home parking area, based upon location of office for faculty and staff is the most fair. A tiered system penalizes those who can't afford the extra cost - just another discriminatory practice to add to the list. It seems ridiculous to tell m" Allow visitors to pay for longer periods of time in the visitor meters. Events parking sometimes causes problems for employees and students. University vehicles occupy space needed for employees" I know of commuter students for years who have quit college after a few days of not finding a parking place. That should never be an issue. The worst parking is Broadway, near Olin Hall and JAR. More parking should be available. During mid-morning and lunch hour is terrible. I should not have to leave an additional 15 minutes just to get a parking space. My schedule varies so I do not have a "normal" daily schedule. Your survey forced me to answer the questions as if I work an 8:00 to 5:00 shift. One day per week I work a noon to 9:00 p.m. shift and parking is awful. I can spend 20 minutes looking for There shouldn't be a charge for students or faculty or staff. It should be a free service. I feel the Parking Office operates efficiently and courteously. Too bad they need to charge for everything. Should be an across the board fee for transportation / shuttle services. Just a single dollar charge per student per semester would pay for the current shuttle. We need online vehicle registration for all members of the campus community; will aid in enf. Please agressively ticket people that can't seem to park within the lines. It is very frustrating to see many spaces wasted because people are not properly parking. Also, heavily fine people who refuse to purchase a pass, but go easy on those of us who All parking spaces at the high school across from CAS need to be taken over when the school closes, and used for FACULTY AND STAFF ONLY. There are NOT enough F/S-only lots to serve the heart of campus. Faculty and staff should have some privilege in I feel that at least one floor of each parking deck and a few of the lots, should be disignated for staff. During peek times we can't help the students if we have to fight them for parking.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 138 Summer should be all access parking to any lot. Lots are not full, why restrict? We have dedicated parking so "finding a spot" is not an issue. We have to drive so that we are available for emergency response at any time. My complaint is that parking permits are not based on income. Someone making $7.00/hr should pay less then those m If you are thinking about charging to ride the shuttle- don't. Parking permits are already expensive enough to have to pay for a shuttle from the only $110 far-away parking spot you can find to your destination. I work in the Polsky Building. If I attend a meeting on campus in the afternoon, or a training in the library in the afternoon and take the shuttle, it is usually not available when I get out later in the afternoon. This includes Friday - yes, things st Overnight parkers in the garages should have to park on the top floors, or at least on the second from the top so that snow can still be removed in the winter. Time and gas is wasted by having daily commuters circle up and up and up, looking at those same Parking Services should be a Service to the campus not a irritant to the students and faculty. The Fees are ridicules and the attitude is a very poor. This is not a very good way to attract people to The University of Akron. Lets just give them a $25 tic" Increase parking fees! Undergrads are constantly parking in the faculty lots. Also, I see a lot of students in the summer using faculty passes and parking in faculty lots. Faculty continually get relegated to second class citizens on the parking. We may be paying for parking for 25 years while we work here, while the student is supposed to be more important since they pay for parking for maybe four years. Does not seem right. About twice a week during the school year, I don't arrive until 11:00 a.m. It is nearly impossible to find a parking place. I am also carrying heavy books, etc. that makes it difficult and tiring. I would love to have assigned parking for faculty!! "Student parking permits should automatically be put onto the account. Less greenspace = more parking spaces! I think everyone should have one ticket dismissal each semester( regardless of having a parking permit or not). Parking services should not ticke For faculty / staff: permit to park in closest lot to office without "extra" fees. (It sounds like a tiered fee system is being considered - bad idea! This will reward the wealthier faculty / staff once again.)

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 139 I believe that parking should be free for staff. This is a cost of doing business for the university. We could eliminate the cost of tracking who has a pass, providing payroll deduction, accounting for the moneys in individual department accounts, compu "I think the parking decks are GREAT! I do miss the faculty/staff ONLY parking; it was less damaging to my car. I love the students, but my car does tend to get much more dinged up and scratched in the lots that have all permits. The Polsky deck is much improved from the earlier days. Thanks for that! SIGNAGE. Label lots by the buildings they serve to help visitors (park here for Student Union, Mary Gladin Hall, etc.) My co-workers and I rarely move our cars during the workday in the Fall and Spring terms because it is so difficult to find another parking space. Students, evening students, resident students and employees have different parking needs. Parking is ok for a "typical day" when I arrive before 7:30 in the morning, and generally find a reasonable parking spot in a convenient location. However, it can be very frustrating on those days when I need to leave campus and return, especially if I ne I am concerned about parking availability at Polsky when Developmental Progams moves over there. If I have to park across campus, then I would use the shuttle service because i am usually carrying books etc. If you charge for the service then it becomes a factor as well. I guess one has to determine if the university wants to have people on campus an Assign parking locations (lots or garages) to each faculty/staff according to the nearness to their office location. Actually, I NEVER SEE ANYONE ON THE BUS...so unless I am blind, forget about this service...I'm sure it isn't cheap The map of parking areas was too little for me to read so I thought I'd let you know I usually park on the east side of campus behind JAR or in the east deck. Faculty should be given preference in their specific work areas. They should be able to park where they work. I should clarify my parking situation. I work in an office where during the summer, we are here at work from 6:30am to 4:30pm. I don't have a parking problem at that time; however, during regular working hours, the north parking deck is generally pretty Students living on campus should have designated parking areas. Not on main floors and main parking areas where all spaces are utilized leaving commuters students to spend extra time looking for parkings spaces

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 140 Not closing parking lots for special events on campus. I pay my fee to park my car when I have have class or work. I should not be barred from lot simply because the university has decided they would like to make more money from someone else. More parking decks. Less space to park more cars, makes sense! But I know you have thought of that already Turn the gravel parking area across from EJ, next to the new parking deck, into another parking deck. Most students have to go from main campus to Polsky several times a day. They should not have to pay a fee. Offer another survey regarding the traffic lights around the University, mainly on Buchtel and Mill Streets. Thank you for painting lane lines in the North parking deck - it should help where folks like to take up the entire lane. There is not enough staff parking -- and the Auburn deck is closing -- I do not feel safe walking across campus at night and I'm worried that when the time changes and Auburn deck is gone, I'll be at risk for attack. dont want to pay for parking to go to work If they have a parking pass, the shuttle fee should be free, if not 5o cents per use. All permit system is miserable failure. Doesn't allow for employees needs. allowing residence hall students to tie up spots in heart of campus area entire week is inexcuseable. "Parking on campus is ATROCIUS!!! I hope you are able to get a handle on it! Designated Faculty/Staff places would be nice! We have enough to worry about without also worrying about a parking space! We pay A LOT for parking, but where does it go? I kn" Parking decks are clean and i have always felt safe using them even though i typically leave campus after dark..i have also appreciated the option of calling the campus escorts when it' really late... i believe satellite parking should be a minimal cost.." When I say free for faculty/staff I mean full time faculty/staff Leave parking lot 37 as faculty/staff only, especially because of the closing of lot 36 in the future.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 141 I think that the residents should not be able to park in the spaces closest to the heart of campus. Many cars never move and just create problems for commuters. If I were to come anytime after 8 am to the school I would have to arrive at the school aro I don't think that faculty, staff, and students paying to park on campus should, then, have to pay for shuttling from one area to another. Addition of facilities needs to be balanced with parking needs. Numerous facilities are being built in our area of the campus, each on former sites of parking, with no replacement of the parking. An ordinary business appearing before a zoning commission Students living in the residence halls should either be charged a higher fee in order to park their car in the decks and leave it in the same spot for days at a time, or they should have to park on the outer edge of campus and make better use of the shutt Faculty have been told on occasion that they cannot park in their regular lots even with a parking tag when they are heading for a class due to some special event on campus. This should not be allowed to happen. The cost of parking permits (especially to students) is outrageous...could only be justified if the permit guaranteed a parking place, which is does not. The situation often forces students to choose (unfairly) between a ticket or a penalty for arriving l I think dorm students with cars should not get ""prime"" parking spots especially since the cars are parked for quite awhile. Also, you shouldn't consider moving the handicap parking farther out without realizing you would need year-round parking trams sin" Residential students whose cars sit for days at a time should be offered a reduced rate to park in areas farther from the heart of campus like the East campus parking deck. Also, the employees from Wonder Bread should not park in the North campus parking I usually park around,near north deck area but had trouble discerning its location on the map here If people are to park farther away due to lack of parking, need to incrase shuttle service such as that at kent state" GET MORE PARKING PLACES CLOSER TO CAMPUS The upkeep of the lot I park most often in, lot 62, has been lacking. Many people I know will not park there due to the large pot holes throughout the driving lane of the lot, it is often refered to as the "warzone lot" I emailed the parking services se I prefer a paved lot with lines like the one behind the JAR. More lighting behind the rec center!

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 142 With tuition raising far faster than inflation, I am curious just why the shuttles shoiuld cost anything at all. I think the Polsky deck should return to designated sections for Fac/Staff parking, that being on the Broadway level the area closest to the skywalk. The idea of perimeter parking is fine if there was a good shuttle service and patrolled perimeter lot. As faculty, I frequently take projects, equipment, computer, lunch, etc. home with me. Carrying 30 or 40 projects along with texts for a ten minute wal To expect disabled people to park and hop ona shuttle is very unrealistic When the parking pass is issued take down all of the possible cars that the student may drive to school, so that if he/she needs to take the other car they don't have to worry about the pass. In other words log into your computers what cars the student wi parking enforcement officers are rude. The parking passes are quite expensive since they are per semester. Reducing the price of parking per semester by about $10 per permit, or offering students the option of buying yearly pass with a minor discount. There needs to be more parking on campus, particularly around the north parking deck. It is not right to have to pay $110 for a parking pass and not be able to find a parking space I work in the law school building and my hours vary. Even this summer when there were no classes, many days I was not able to get a handicapped spot close to the building. More are needed in areas close to the building. Parking tickets should be a form of punishment for those who abuse their right to park, not a source of income for UA. The ticket fines should be reduced to reflect that. I am concerned/exasperated with ticketing of people like myself who are too preoccupied to remember to change their permits from one university to the next, yet drive the same vehicle daily where a simple computer check would show proper registration. It Not happy with extra $10 to park a motorcycle. The parking pass can be used on any vehicle I own with the exception of my motorcycle. The motorcycle tag should be free (or at least a lot less expensive) with paid parking pass. The last time we filled out a survey on parking issues, the parking office just blew everything and everyone off. It would be nice to have a parking office who cared. I think that some lots should be designated as faculty/staff only also, parking decks such as the North Campus Parking Deck should have some floors designated as Faculty/staff only. I also think it would be a good idea to have different parking permits f

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 143 Please remember the Administrative Services locations; students do need to visit these areas on ocassion too. Thank you for the opportunity to comment about parking at UA. I have to leave to visit students at off-campus clinical sites and I am concerned about being able to find a space upon returning mid-morning or in the afternoon. Is it possible for there to be designated spots available for clinical faculty that frequent Parking meters don't give time to get to destination and back-talk to the part time faculty In my opinion too many students/faculty/staff are simply too lazy to find a parking space a little farther away from where they have class or work, and they would rather complain than take the time to park a little farther away and walk. The East Parking Deck needs to targeted for residence hall students living in area #7 so that those spaces can be free for faculty, administrators, support staff to use to report to work. I am thrilled that the University bought the parking lot in front of Central Hower, way to go Parking!!!!!!!!!!! Parking decks at the far edge of campus are OK if the shuttle runs more frequently or if there are more vehicles during the rush times for the 8-5 staff. You need more stopping points also. Thanks. More Handicapped spaces are needed in faculty/staff lots. they should lower the price of tickets it is outrageous The shuttle should be FREE to all students, faculty, and staff who have purchased a parking permit, becuase the cost of the permits are so high. There also needs to be better options for visitors to come to the campus. $5 per day is extremely high for m Parking passes are priced WAY too high! Everyone is fed up with the parking situation at UA. Freshman living on campus should not be issued parking permits. They should be required to use an expanded shuttle service to get to their classes. A lot of other schools where my friends go they dont have a big prob with the parking, yet i know this school is larger but its omost like your priority to make money is more than the well being and growth for our students. 110 dollars a semester is redic Lower price of parking pass or make it good for 1 year instead of semeseter. Its hard enough for a college student to afford books. The University has done a great job with parking decks and improvements. Walking has never been an issue for me. I consider it a part of the college experience, even in harsh weather.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 144 shuttle service should be free to UA students and have more than one route. also have longer hours. KSU has a great bus shuttle system. Parking on Campus should be free if you are a student with an identifiable sticker on your windshield. As much as tuition is, and the very little that I come there( 2 nights a week) for only 2 hrs at a time, the parking pass is outrageous in price for me I think that the University of Akron should look at surrounding schools and how they operate their parking permits. For instance, I do not see it necessary for a freshman living in a dorm to have priority parking over a freshman commuter student, or any c More decks, possibly consider underground parking if that's a possibility--well lit and secured. Remove the meters by the student union or decrease them so people with a parking permit don't need to pay. I am olny on campus 2 times per week. With the price of parking being $110, and there being 15 weeks per semester, I am paying $3.66 per day I park there. A full time student on campus everyday only pays $1.46 per day. We should pay the same rate. The More security and ticketing of reckless drivers are needed; security cameras in decks/lots would deter theives. Better visibility around turns in decks is needed (block last two parking spaces in row ends). More parking is needed near Schrank Halls. Not to be mean, but i pay 110 dollars for a parking pass, and rarely can find a parking spot. I have taken classes this summer, and in the smaller lots, like olin, have found it hard to find a place to park. I do not like that I have to come to school an Would like to see a more reasonable fee for part-time evening students. I rarely, if ever, can find a place to park in a faculty lot. It is too bad that faculty cannot be assured of a handy parking spot. A separate (reduced) parking fee for those students who attend class only in the evening. sometimes it feels like there are more permits sold then spaces. and it takes soooo long to cost the lots to find no spaces, then you are late. maybe have a acurate lot full signal, digital We need more spaces! Also, people who take up 2 spaces should be fined more heavily than anyone else. The current price for a parking permit is a rip off I think the parking is a rip off. $110 for a semester!!! that is way to much. Maybe if that pass lasted me the entire year i wouldn't complain about $110. The university is making a bunch of money off parking off poor college students who go to class a

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 145 My last school provided a drunk bus for free to help promote less Drinking and Driving and all Shuttles to School where free I think there are enough parking spaces to serve students as long as they are willing to walk, just please enforce tickets more for people who don't bother to buy a pass. Parking is horrible during the hours of 8:30a-3:30p. I have had to circle many lots in order to find a parking space and only then it was by luck that someone was leaving. Please don't spend any more money building parking decks or lots; it won't make people any more satisfied with parking, and will only bring more complaints about the price of permits. I do not want to see UA go to a reserved parking spot system. I have been at a university that did this, and it created more headaches than benefits. It sounds good on paper, but in reality, when you have a specific space to park in, that's great until Parking after 5PM should be free in order to make it safer for us non-conventional student who work full-time during the day and go to school part-time in the evenings. It is very unsafe for women to walk far to and from class in the dark; on one occasio Parking costs should be lowered. Prices should be made according to use (if on campus only once a week then permits should be based on 1 day only for the whole semester, same for 2 days or 3 days. Only if you come to campus more than 3 times a week should Parking at UA is a nightmare. Students speed around parking decks and lots in attempt to quickly find a space. Parking spaces are far too limited. It is next to impossible to find a parking space between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. I also think parking areas Resident Freshmen with vehicle restrictions may be more apt to spend time on their studies than running around. Resident Freshman without cars or cars in main prime parking areas would greatly reduce a great number of parking and transportation problems. Faculty should not have to compete for parking spaces. The students will only show respect for the faculty if the University does. This is the only job I've had where I have no idea where I'm going to park each day. I also don't know how I'm going to b Incoming freshman that live on campus should not be allowed to have a car their first year like many of the other universities do. This would open more spaces up for the commuters. We need more space that is close to the campus and so people dont have to walk miles. Also, some of the closest lots are faculty/Staff, perhaps a trade would be in order

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 146 The parking passes are outrageously expensive and we do not have enough parking spots. I try to walk as much as I can to avoid the hassle, but I am still paying $220 a year for just a few days of parking. Yes. Freshmen living on campus should not be allowed cars. It is done on other campus's. With UA wanting to be a more residential university this would be a step in keeping those additional youngsters safe. Guests to the university are permitted to park in the Exchange Deck near the Student Union when there are events going on in the Ballrooms. That is not fair, they have no parking pass, do not pay, and take up our spaces. Stop building buildings we don't need and build more, higher parking decks. You need more parking spaces. It is impossible to get a spot anywhere in the new deck by Simmons Hall. When there are Aeros games the parking deck, between Polsky's and CBA; people who pay $5 take the spots on the third level deck and than those of us who have permits, that we paid $110+ for have to park on the lower deck (2nd)(where lighting and safety ar My only concern is the maintenence and cleanliness of the lots. I would prefer having paved lots to having the existing gravel lots. maintenance of gravel lots should be a higher priority for the parking services, the lot that i park in, 69, has been in terrible shape since the beginging of last spring session and still as of 8-26-06 it has not been taken care of. Parking is too expensive, less parking enforcement it is out of hand I would use a shuttle from parking spots that are farther out. Especially if they ran frequent enough and would take me fairly close to key buildings on campus. The last two semesters I have scheduled early classes but when I have a class that starts at 1 How about MORE PARKING!!! I HATE the parking situation, which causes more stress than necessary. IT WOULD BE NICE TO FEEL SAFE ON CAMPUS! Stop closing parking lots down for events at the university of akron. If I have a class at that time it makes it very difficult for me to reach my class on time. There is never any reason why i should pay hundreds of dollars to park on campus then be de Provide MORE parking! There are too many passes sold for the amount of parking available. Also, people need to be fined more for not having passes or FOR PARKING CROOKED OR NOT RIGHT IN THE PARKING SPOTS. It causes problems and wastes spots for people. In the winter time wh

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 147 There are a lot of people who think it's okay to speed through the parking decks - I've been literally inches away from getting hit on MORE than one occasion. I wish there were some kind of way to enforce LEGAL and SAFE driving practices in the parking de U of A definitely needs more parking spaces. When a student is paying over a hundred dollars to park and then drives to every parking area to find a space, to no avail, that's a problem. Also, the parking "police" shouldn't ticket on the first week. I mea There is no reason the ramp between levels 2 and 3 and level 3 in the North Parking deck should be closed from 6pm Sunday - 6am Monday. Its unnecessary and a true inconvenience, especially to those who might park there on a Saturday and not have the need NEED MORE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE!!! STUDENTS PAY $110.00 A SEMESTER TO PARK ON CAMPUS AND HALF OF US CAN'T FIND A SPOT. PARKING IS REDICULOUS AND CHEATS US OUR MONEY!! PLUS, HALF THE TIME WE ARE LATE TO CLASS BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A PARKING SPAC I feel that it was not the best idea to build an apartment building where there was some parking spaces. There should have been another garage built before the Exchange Street complex. So now when it's time for the students to move into this complex in a Parking passes should not cost $110 per semester. They should be affordable to everyone to have access. This is especially needed when the lots are filling up and often times a student has to park at the opposite side of campus from where his class is loc cheaper parking passes, the price currently is ridiculous and we have to buy 2 a year. campus officials had to raise the price of a parking ticket (without a permit) because too many people were doing it, but they didnt stop to realize that the reason be just add more parking. In the winter, the parking decks are often icy when walking and driving. It would also be nice if some oversized parking spaces where available to those of us who drive trucks and can barley fit in the parking spaces available. Trucks continually are manu Linking Akron public transportation and selling monthly pass or making part of the fees (like CSU) might promote travel in and around Akron. Making Bus schedules accessable would help as well. The current system may be adequate how ever information is n Tthis year we didn't have any time before class started to get parking permits. we should at least get the first week to get situated. plus the lines the first week are an inconvinence and take time from where i should actually be.(CLASS) There should al i went to ksu, they had shuttles every 7-10 minutes continuously for the farther away areas

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 148 I personally feel that there needs to be more parking provided for students. It seems as if there is more students and vehicles than parking spaces. in comparison to the limited parking and the amount of time it takes to find a parking spot that isn't even close to any of the classes i am taking, i think that the price of parking is insane and should be lowered. we spend all this money to park our ca everything is over priced - if i am paying 110 a semester to park i should feel safe and always be able to find a spot - also we shouldn't hand out flyers for events for parking because those people are taking up the spaces that everyone else pays for - a I have a 30 minute commute one-way to campus, but once I factor in the time it takes to find a parking space and the time it takes to drag my bags to my office, it's not worth the time to come to campus on days I don't teach. I'd rather save the 1 hr ++ I am a graduate student in the MPH program. My classes are on Saturdays, just one day per week, on a day when almost no one else is around. At one time, MPH students only had to pay $25 for a permit. I would like to see that arrangement revitalized as an As a law student, I would pay more money to have a designated law school parking lot. This is the second semester in a row where I have not recieved my parking permit in the mail like I should have. I have recieved all other U of A correspondence at my current address with no problems but for some reason the parking services just can't ge REDUCE THE OUTRAGEOUS PRICE OF THE PARKING PERMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOWER FINES!!!!!!!!! IF WE COULD AFFORD A PARKING PASS, WE WOULD BUY ONE!!!!!! FINES JUST HURT THE "COLLEGE STUDENT" MORE, WE DONT HAVE VERY MUCH MONEY AS IT IS. The cost of a shuttle should be included in my tuition and should run at all times classes are in session! If need be make an ID for students who attend the U of A to present to the shuttle driver that says "I attend the U of A" and please do not charge $ There are two things about the Simmons parking garage (the side towards the Lincoln bldg) that bug me - (1) it says you can't turn left when coming out of the garage. Since everyone does it, just tell people to use caution when turning left! (2) on the More parking spaces and LESS parking enforcement. Parking on campus costs too damn much especially when there aren't enough parking spaces across campus The expense of parking passes is too much. I'm sure you hear that a lot, but it really is. I know personally I don't have much money after I buy books and all my supplies. I think it is silly for us to have to pay to park.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 149 more parking near the middle of campus is needed. Distribute the cost of parking services across the student population and include it in the cost of tuition (like KSU). I'm sure those of us who do not live on campus contribute financially in some way to the cost of construction and maintenance of the re please low cost of parking fee and maybe up the cost of the shuttle bus Lower parking tickets and lower the prices of parking passes. That is bulls***. 4 parking tickets is the price of I pass. The city of Akron's parking tickets are lower. Quit trying to get rich and SERVE THE STUDENTS, WE PAY FOR IT. I think there should be more street parking available for those who only have one or two classes or either parking pass prices should be based on the number of hours you are enrolled for, because it really is no need to buy a parking pass if you only have Parking should be priced more reasonably and there should be stricter enforcement of the permits for handicapped spaces, especially students waiting in cars near the dorms. Put more security in the lots. Have a guard to check the cars when they pull in or collect money when cars pull out if they don't have a pass. It would beat paying 8 people to walk around and check that cars that are always moving in an out. This way e "Parking Fines are Obscene. Whole levels of parking decks should not be closed off for special events." There should be a designated parking lot for non-student, non-faculty who park on campus for an event. I don't know how many classes I had to miss or was very late to because of some special event at the student union or other places on campus. The ate Consider a one way flow around the parking deck adjacent to Simmons. Also the cars along College Street are parked toooo close to the intersection of Forge. It is difficult to see and dangerous pulling out of Forge. " I think that Dorm students should be required to park some where other then the comuter students. Farther away. After all they do not need there car on a day to day basis. They live on campus!!!! The dorm students take up all the parking for those of us t why is the parking office in the business of balancing the university budget? 110.00 per semester for a parking pass? 25.00 Parking tickets at .25 cent meters that cost .25 per fifteen minutes--and you have the rudest staff on campus. When your system d Parking is too expensive

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 150 You should start enforcing policies based on distance to campus. Those students who live in off campus or on campus housing within 1 mile of campus should not be allowed to park in the heart of campus and maybe should not be allowed to have a permit. For The shuttle should run down brown every 30min. a semester pass should be offered for a set price. And like a gym membership many people would only use once in a while or bad weather, yet they would have prepaid full price. Please see comments regarding Schrank parking deck. I think that the meters should take other coins instead of just quarters. Almost every day I see visitors having to hunt people down to see if they have quarters to exchange them for their dimes, etc. This is just crazy since there are no change machine People should be assigned parking spaces based on where they're main building is. Also, upperclassmen should have the first rights to those parking spaces. It doesnt seem to be commonly used by the people I associate with. I didn't even know it existed. Lots should be made easier to enter / exit, better pavement / less stone lots with designated parking spaces. More parking would be a plus and stricter consicuences for those who choose to park in ua spots without permits. I buy a permit every semester and dont feel that it is right for me to be without a parking space considering the amount of money that permit I'm not a fan of paying $110 for a permit and then having to use a meter. More centralized parking decks, please. I live an hour away from campus, and even though I try to get here 30 mins befopre the class, It is still a hassel to find a parking spot, which causes me to get to my classes late. Plus I have to walk from the Polsky buildeing to Oling Hall and back to P Better lighting. More escorts so the wait time is less. By the way, the excort option is wonderful, and I am so thankful that UAkron provides this service. Unfortunately, I'd usually rather take my chances than wait 15 minutes for them to show up. When special events occur such as basketball or other activities in which the general public is useing our parking fascilities, drivers with current parking passes should be able to park in that same location without haveing to pay the five or ten dollar more parking spots. I am unfamilar with the shuttle service. The campus isn't all that large and walking is no problem for me.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 151 meter the whole campus for 25 cents a hour. Its only fair since tickets generate a tremendous revinue, and the meters will more than pay for the parking lots in due time. The University makes enough money on the students already, they should stop over c NO FRESHMEN LIVING ON CAMPUS SHOULD HAVE A PARKING PASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This would free up parking. I feel that the school is making way too much money off of the students, by large ticket prices and the cost of parking passes. Every college around us has cheaper parking passes. Being a comuter I pay enough to drive to school in gas. I can't afford to p more parking. more access. Parking pass is too expensive. $75 per semester is reasonable. The amount spent on tuition and going to UA is quite an expensive investment in it's own right. i think parking passes shoule be in the range of tens of dollars, or make them good for a whole year. free shuttle service. tuition is high enough to cover cost of a shutle ride Prioritize the parking passes by class rank. Closer parking for seniors/grad students/faculty. Kent State uses this type of system. I understand that parking is a big problem since our school is mostly a commuter school. However I myself have been late for class or had to basically run to some classes due to the inaility to find a parking space. Possibly moving resident parking to a Give the faculty/staff spots on the third floor of Polsky back. Passes are rediculously expensive. Raising prices is not the answer to combat parking space shortages, the answer is to add more parking lots (decks). FREE service to students with Zip cards. If we are already paying for a parking pass why should we pay to use the shuttle to get us from our parked car to the other side of campus? As students we pay a high price for our parking permits and it really frustrates me when I arrive at the Polsky parking deck to find a sigh charging $5.00 for event parking. I already paid to park in the parking deck and I feel that the University is sell offer offcampus parking sites for those in the dorms who don't really need to take up parking places that the commuter students could use instead of having to take 30 minutes to find a parking spot and then being late to class. Parking permits cost tooooo much. I go to one class 2 times a week from 6:40 to 7:50. I should not have to pay over a $100 for a perking permit. That is outrageous, especially considering how much classes cost now! UA makes their money and plenty of i

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 152 There needs to be a better flow of traffic and more parking decks in the simmons hall area/buchtel ave towards the chapel. It is true chaos to find a parking space sometimes and it's really difficult when you don't have a "disability" but you're not able Since Central Hower is closed, can we use their parking area? I think all parking area should be allow to be used by everyone. The close ones shouldn't just be for faculties only. I mean we're paying them, we should get to park closer too. I would suggest the addtion of more parking spaces or another parking deck. Also, I would suggest that all freshmen and sophomores living on campus should not be allowed to park on campus. Also, all freshmen and sophomores that commute to campus should on The major problem on the central campus is that so many spaces are taken by dorm residents. Perhaps there should be a separate long-term area for them, possibly at a reduced rate. The shuttle is nice, but stops early certain times on Friday, thus leaving you stranded. That doesn't even make sense. Keep faculty lots for faculty; when attending meetings off-campus, it sometimes can be difficult to park. If students and faculty share parking, it will be very inconvenient to return to campus. We need more parking lots. Maybe more decks since they utilize more parking spots than an open parking lot. There is a serious lack of parking. Please give us a new deck near main campus! Thanks ;) The overall issue with parking is the over abundance of parking passes and not enough parking spaces. Furthermore, this creates a very hostile parking situation for persons who have to pay $110.00 per semester for parking in the first place. We pay enough to go here already parking and shuttle should be MUCH cheaper, also visitor parking should be improved, they should not pay so much to come visit their loved ones. Rather than having to pay for our parking pass seperately (whether via online or in person), it should just be added in to our "college fees" as is the library fee, etc. The pass should be sent to us via mail. Teh parking permit fee is outrageouse. The other thing is, since I pay the high amount of $110.00 a semester, I should not have to compete for parking spaces with EJ Thomas, or teh Aero's or other special shows taking place. Discounted rates for the parking lots which are a greater distance from the heart of the campus would be helpful.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 153 you really need to get more parking areas it is unbeliveable how long it takes to find a parking spot it should not be this much trouble to get to class! The parking deck connected to the CBA should be used for CBA students only. The system for issuing permits should be changed to gurantee that permits are not over sold. This could be done by considering the students' class time schedule when approving a Parking is a joke. It is obvious that more spaces are needed so quit beating around the bush do somthing about it. I think that by designating parking passes, like at Kent State, whether it be by class rank or by choice of wanting to spend extra money on a permit is a great idea because I already think that a $110 parking permit is a bit ridiculous. I know that it ma More stop signs and traffic lights installed. Free parking or less expensive parking. Speed bumps. Parking passes should not cost so much you have to think as college students we dont have much money and 110 per semester is alot. It should be that price for the entire year and 55 per semester. The parking at the university is terrible pretty much anytime of the day. It often takes me at least 15 to 20 minutes to find a parking spot anywhere near campus and that is ridiculous considering the fact students pat $110 per semester to have someplace On Tuesday, August 29th, I arrived at UA at 8:15 and the parking near my class was full, so was the parking deck. I drove through all the lots and eventually found one at the other side of campus. Then I left and returned back for my next class at 10:45 I am very pleased with the parking situation. Each lot is well lit, as well as the paths to get to each building. I feel very safe. During the Akron Aeros games while fall & Spring semesters are in, the lot should not be used for Aeros parking. Students have paid for a permit so they can park in the deck. They should not be incoveninced with not having a parking spot. In addition, I have no comments. I feel busses should be expanded that way you can get around and it should be free To have a parking permit for Graduates that are only attending school only part of the week and don't need the whole week pass.

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 154 allow more parking space like build parking decks higher (more then the three levels there is) i am willing to walk down and up flights of stairs if i could only find a parking space. spending and hour finding a parking space is crazy!!!! my pet peeve is students who can not park in frot of the parking block. they are in too much of a hurry to straighten out their vehicle and take 2 spaces, or stick way out. Mandatory parking classes should be the "punishment" or their pass is revoked:) The fines are ridiculously high and most of the time you had your tag up they just didn't see it I just don't think it's fair that I, spend $110 PER semester for a lamenated card, that supposedly gives me the right to park in designated areas, and then end up still having to park at parking meters, which spends more of my money. That's just not right It's really good, overall! We need MORE parking, with more students than ever, parking is even WORSE!!!! It already was in a bad situation and the university keeps removing parking for buildings or grass(!!!!!) which is a pain. Additionally we keep adding to the number of students Cheaper parking passes Parking is absolutely horrible this year on campus. I used to be able to drive to different parking lots as I needed to across campus throughout the day. But this year I'm lucky if I can find a space in time to make it to one of my classes. Parking decks I am currently riding my bike to one three credithour class three days a week. I work off campus 30-35 hours a week in a retail establishment so I really have no other need for campus parking other than for my class. I am realy not interested in paying The parking program here at the University of Akron is a complete mess. The biggest problem is the price of parking. It is annoying to pay $110 for parking when it takes me more than 15 minutes to find a parking space. Usually the parking space is not Working in the Chemistry Department for only a short time, I've seen the number of parking lots on this end of campus decreasing. A bank now occupies one lot and a maintanence building another large lot. There was discussion on removing one set of parki please resuce the parking fees be less strict with parking tickets especially if the parking situation is unavoidable more parking lots scattered so there are more options on where to park and extended shuttle route

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 155 When parking in a metered lot it is frustrating that i have to have quarters when i usually have more dimes and nickels. the city meters take dimes and nickels why can't the university's? more parking I know this has been repeatedly stated in the Parking Services literature, but I still believe that part-time students should not have to pay the same price for parking as full-time students. I am a part-time graduate student, using the Polsky Parking de The parking deck located near the arts and science building (I believe its the west deck) is rediculously packed at all times of the day, even in the evening. I believe most of the cars are student residents that are in dorms, not classes. I know other ca Either build more parking areas or have students living on campus to park off campus, or at least not in the heart of campus. The North Campus Parking Deck for example is already almost full just from students living in the dorms. There is no reason for t Lower the price but check driving records and sell passes by that good drivers come first(means less acadents) Visiters parking should be free because if a friend stays over for the weekend, the friend would end up paying a lot of money! Putting parking meters in a faculty lot is ridiculous. If someone pays for the their permit, as p/t faculty does, then why ask them to pay more by using the meters? Students that live on campus should only park near campus on the weekends. No other major Ohio campus lets their dorm students park on main campus during the week. There would be quite a few more spaces to park if lots like the Union bldg lot, and the computer center lots were paved and painted so people would stop taking up as much room to park since there are no lines. Also, I pay more and more in tuition every ti I think there should be a designated area for Fresman. I went to Kent so I was used to the Freshman parking in a certain area and only having to fight with the upper classmen for parking spaces. Now here at Akron I have to fight with everyone and hope no educate new students of parking deck locations. All students are aware of the NOrth deck b/c that is where orientation parking is. Have assistants suggests parking for student's first class. Freshman should not be allowed to have cars on campus. This is one of the only school where they are allowed to have them, and park them on campus. Kent has a great program where they have their students park at the stadium during the week, out of the way

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 156 Parking on campus is HORRIBLE. I have missed classes and am late to classes no matter how early I get to campus. This is my 4th year and I have never had this problem before. Even if you have properly displayed your permit in your car, sometimes you still get tickets due to careless of parking employees. Also, the services in the parking dept are lousy, she believes it was my fault. The worst, unprofessional service department Typically we visit evenings or weekends. Often we are bringing or taking away supplies for the student. Would be great if the University could offer closer short-term parking for visitors, even if it's metered, during off-hours. Or a special parking pas the parking sucks I think it is extremely unfair when I spent $110 on a parking pass because there have been several instances this semester when I have had to park at a meter, and then pay for that...so I have spent at least $20 in addition to the cost of the pass. I als If expanding the shuttle bus is just another way for Akron U to hike up the price of tuition or parking then it is something that I do not want to see happen. I realize that people need public transport. but I dont want to dish out more money on somethin Although I have not used the shuttle service in a couple of semesters, I appreciated the service and the routes before they were changed. They were an invaluable service and as an non-traditional student, I greatly appreciated those times when I needed t HAVE MORE SPOTS!!!! And if the new spots are too far away, have a free shuttle running from the far spots to main campus, like Kent State does. The price to park has gone up so much in the last 10 years, I am a returning student. It is offten hard to find a spot to park and frankly at times I wonder why I have a parking pass if there is not a place to park. Just need more parking spaces Kids pay soo much just to attend school. Books, living, food, tuition, transportation, computers, calculators, etc... Why the f*** do we have to pay to park here? Seriously!!!! Since tuition is so high now, there really should be a break on parking rates. Also, the fact that if you forget the permit one morning, you will come out to a ticket is bad practice. The devices that these patrol use to issue tickets should automatically The amount of money charged for a parking vialation of 25.00 is out ragious. for an adult student who has no other choice to park where it is available, a 25.00 ticket could feed their family for 2 days at the minimum

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 157 The students should not have to pay at all for a parking pass-and if they do then it does not need to cost $110.00 per semester. The tuition is high enough and life is hard already if you have to pay for other bills.its not fair to pay to go to school and More people should ride scooter/bikes or skate on campus... lower our dependance on fossil fuels!!!


Appendix D- Special Parking Request Form


Appendix E- Maintenance List See following pages.


PARKING MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES The following guidelines are based upon the 1996 recommendations of the Parking Consultants Council. Additional material provided by CEG staff based upon conditions at the University of Akron. As with any guidelines, these are

eneral in nature. Parking Services Department should comply with any specific maintenance instructions provided y manufacturers or suppliers. It is strongly suggestion that a Ma anc be tained a

e Items ily

t

Ann

ua u tes

gb inten e Log

hly

main

terl

y

for e

lly

ch facility.

ally

Maintenanc Da

Wee

kly

Mon

Qua

r

Sem

i-

Ann N

o

CLE ANING • Sweep entrance and exit areas, lobbies, and other X

public areas

• Sweep curbs and all entry/exit areas X • Sweep and remove debris from expansion joints X • Empty trash cans X Cashier booth

Sweep floors and dust fixtures ng window and door tracks

X

X

Clean slidi Wash walls and ceiling

X

Elevators Clean floors, doors, door tr

Clean interior walls acks

X

X

Sweep steps andStairs

landings

s

X X

Clean handrails Clean window

X

Lobbies/Landings Clean floors

Clean windows Clean ceiling and light

fixture covers

X

X X

Parking deck floors or asphalt lot surfaces – ping

X mechanical swee

Parking deck floors – power washing X , 5 1 Remove graffiti X Clean parking meter domes X Clean signs & graphics X Clean overhead pipes and conduits X Remove ponding water X

DOORS AND HARDWARE Check operation of door closers X

panic door hardware X Check operation of Check operation of all mechanical and motorized

accessible doors X

Lubricate door locks, hinges and mechanisms X

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 161 Maintenance Items

Dai

ly

Wee

kly

Mon

thly

Qua

rter

ly

Sem

i-A

nnua

lly

Ann

ually

Not

es

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Check light fixtures and exposed conduit X Relamp fixtures X Examine electrical distribution panel X 5 Check exit warning system X

ELEVATOR Check for proper operation X Check auto-rebound door mechanism X Check for leveling with floor landings X Check indicator lights and buttons X Perform preventive maintenance X 4 Perform local code inspections X 6

HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

Check thermostats for proper operation X Check filters X 2 Perform preventive maintenance X 4

LANDSCAPING Remove trash X Mow, trim, weed X

PAINTING Check for rust spots on:

Doors and door frames Handrails and guardrails Pipe guards, exposed pipes, and conduits Other metal surfaces Walls and ceilings, lobbies, offices

X X X X X

Check for appearance Line Striping

Signs Walls, ceilings, offices, lobbies Curbs

X X X X

Repaint surfaces 3 Re stripe X

PARKING CONTROL EQUIPMENT Check for proper operation – off street equipment

Printer legibility and correct time X X

Check for proper operation –on street meters X Perform preventive maintenance 5, 7 Cabinet door locks functioning X Ticket and journal tape inventory X Fee Display legibility X

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 162 Maintenance Items

Dai

ly

Wee

kly

Mon

thly

Qua

rter

ly

Sem

i-A

nnua

lly

Ann

ually

Not

es

PLUMBING/DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Check for proper operation

Sanitary facilities Irrigation Floor drains Trench drains Sump pump Fire protection system

X

X X X

X X

5 4 4

Drain water system for winter X 5 ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING Check for leaks and deterioration

Roofing and flashings Joint sealant in floors Construction joints Expansion joints Windows, floors, and walls Floor membrane areas

X X X X X X

SAFETY CHECKS X Handrails and guardrails X Tripping hazards X Check posting of safety procedures X Check first aid supplies X Fire extinguishers - inventory X 4 Fire extinguisher - testing X Verify/update MSDS X Emergency spill material supply X Elevator and other equipment

inspection reports X

Accident/Incident forms X SECURITY SYSTEMS Check for proper operation

Customer Service or panic button control Customer Service or panic button stations Stair, door locks, safe and other alarm systems

X

X X

4 4

SIGNS (GRAPHICS) Check signs for:

Correct positioning Cleanliness Legibility and accuracy

X

X X

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Parking and Transportation Asset Management Strategy – University of Akron Page 163 Maintenance Items D

aily

Wee

kly

Mon

thly

Qua

rter

ly

Sem

i-A

nnua

lly

Not

es

Ann

ually

SNOW AND ICE CONTROL Check operation of snow removal

equipment X 8

Check de-icing supply X 8 Verify snow detail staffing (or

contract) and assignment 8 X

Remove/treat snow and ice X STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Check for:

Floor surface deterioration Water leakage Cracking of concrete Parapet walls Bearing plates – Administrative Services Rusting of steel Guard cables

X

X

X X

X

X X

Clearance (headache) bar height X Repair 9 Replace protective concrete floor

coating 9

Notes: 1. For facilities in a snow region, at least one of the washings should be completed after snow season 2. Unless manufacturer specifies a different frequency. 3. Painting should be performed every 5 years under normal conditions 4. This equipment should be under a service contract for regular preventive maintenance service and emergency

repair service. 5. This work should be performed by specially trained, in-house personnel or by a contractor authorized to

perform this service. 6. As required by local code requirements 7. According to manufacturer specifications 8. This should be completed approximately 1 month prior to snow season 9. As per engineer’s recommendations