Cars vs. Transit

Outline



Current Access and Proposed Parking



Alternatives



The Beeline Bus: Fast, Frequent, Free



Travel Time



Enough Ridership?



Comparative Costs and Financing



Summary

Current Access to CSUEB Hayward

 The campus has many large parking lots.

 At the start of fall and winter quarters parking spaces are scarce.

 Parking permits cost $130 per quarter.

 AC Transit Bus Route 60 runs every 20 minutes from Hayward BART, and takes 18 minutes to get to campus.

 Students can ride a free campus shuttle, also slow.

Proposed Parking

The CSUEB Hayward Draft Master Plan

Parking Spaces

Fall 2008 Proposed Fall 2017 Percent increase 4,456 5,560 24.8% (CSUEB Hayward Master Plan, 2008)

What’s behind these numbers?

 Planners propose reducing demand for parking using various policies called Transportation Demand Management (TDM).  Even so, planners project a need for more parking before and after 2017.  Academic buildings would be built on some current parking lots, reducing needed spaces.

 Planners propose a parking structure for 1,100 cars to meet parking needs projected for 2017.

Alternatives

Stanford University

 Stanford began the Cash for Clean Air pro gram in 1994, paying students NOT to park on campus – now $180/year per student.  Rather than spending millions on parking garages, Stanford chose to invest in bike and transit programs to maintain campus aesthetics and promote clean air.

UC Santa Cruz

 The University invests in transit & bike paths.

 Parking spaces are limited.

 1 space per 3 students.

 Cars on campus are not allowed for Freshmen & Sophomores.

 Parking fees are extremely high.

 $684/year

Other Campus Programs

Chico...

Cal Poly...

the whole U.C. system has increasing enrollment and award-winning transit.

Access policies also include:  Ample, safe, protected bicycle parking  Pedestrian-friendly walkways  Car pooling and car sharing  Quick, reliable public transportation  Planned reduction of traffic and parking

Alternatives to a Parking Structure

 Alternative land use: Student Housing A residence hall here would be closer to campus than the proposed housing on the west low terrace, where students would have to walk up past the parking structure to reach the campus. Then, the terrace could be used for low-cost surface parking or recreation.

 Alternative access using fast, frequent, free buses: “The Beeline Bus”

The Beeline Bus – fast, frequent, free

Fast in traffic

 Mid-size, 30 foot, buses keep up with traffic  Less obtrusive than the usual 40 foot bus or articulated bus  Faster and more nimble in traffic  Mid-size bus seats 30 passengers  Diesel – electric dual mode motor or all electric  Faster hill climbing with electrical torque  Regenerative braking downhill recovers energy  Can run on sustainable biodiesel, e.g., waste cooking or motor oil

Fast On-Off Boarding

 The bus has wide doors on floor level, no steps.

 Bus stops have raised platforms for no-step on-off boarding.

 Docking parks buses very close to platform.

 Prepaid fares are checked at random by inspectors (“proof of purchase”).

 Driver does not collect fares, for faster on-off boarding.

Las Vegas MAX

Frequent

 The bus is frequent , every 10 minutes.  Travel time BART to campus is 8 minutes .

 It runs all day ; it starts before 8:00 am classes and ends after 10:00 pm.

 The bus keeps on schedule, using signal changing equipment to change red lights .

 The bus may use “ right-lane preference ” to use right turn lanes to cut past cars at intersections.

Free

 All students would ride for free  Parking charges would pay for the bus  Parking charges would increase less than for a parking structure  Students using the free bus benefit the most  All students benefit from lower parking charges and less traffic

The Beeline Route

Distance = 2.25 miles

Convenient Stops, BART to Campus

Campus Hayward BART Station

Stops on campus

Campus stops make sense

 Faster, more efficient route than Loop Road for transit-walk trips  Safer than driving around the Loop Road: Crosses three walkways on campus; crosses too many walkways and cars to count on Loop Road  More visibility & advertising for the service  Other campuses have transit stops on campus: Stanford’s Marguerite, Berkeley’s Bear Transit  Visibility and sustainability would help promote the campus

Travel Time

Total travel time is important

 “In-vehicle” time is only part of total trip time  Total time needs to include all stages:  parking and walking to bus stop  average waiting time for a bus  the in-vehicle time (bus or car)  parking on campus (car)  walking from bus or car to building entry

Time from BART to campus

 Driving: In-vehicle time to Lot C using Hayward Blvd. and proposed new entry road, park, walk to center of library: about 16 minutes  AC Transit: In-vehicle time to downtown, park, walk to bus, wait, in-vehicle time to campus, walk to center of library: about 35 minutes  Beeline Bus: In-vehicle time to downtown, park, walk to bus, wait, in-vehicle time to campus, walk to center of library: about 20 minutes

Why not AC Transit?

 AC Transit Route 60 is slow:  Slow, under-powered articulated bus  Round-about route using 2 nd St.  18 minutes run time (8 minutes for the Beeline)  Travel time 35 minutes (20 minutes for the Beeline)  AC Transit is expensive: $148 per bus operating hour ($68 for MV Transportation in Union City)  Many campuses run their own bus systems for control, efficiency, and cost savings

Why not the CSUEB Shuttle?

 A 20 minute run time; it should be 8 minutes  A 20 minute headway; it should be 10 minutes  No service Friday evening or weekends  It is limited in whom it serves  It supports no corridor development  It has a circuitous route

Driving vs. BART

 BART is expensive, but the average cost per mile for a car is even higher.

 However, the marginal cost of driving (the cost of gasoline) is low. Gasoline is about 18% of the average cost. Cars are expensive to own, but cheap to drive.

 BART, round trip, Oakland - Hayward $5.60

 Average driving cost, 30 miles, $.55/mile $16.27

 Marginal cost of gas, 25 mpg, $3/ gallon $3.58

 The Beeline Bus supports a car free lifestyle, saving a large amount of money—no car costs, no parking fees

Enough Ridership?

The Goal for a Rapid Bus: Equal the Parking Structure

 CSUEB estimates 18,755 students, faculty, and staff need access to the campus in 2017.

 The master plan projects about 2,695 students will live on-campus, leaving 16,096 people needing access from off-campus.

 With no structure, there would be about 4,460 surface spaces, 1,100 spaces short of need.

 Transit would need to serve the equivalent of 1,100 parking spaces, or about 1,300 people, to meet the goal of the proposed structure .

Data bases for analyzing transit

Data sources:  Zip codes of student residential location  Traffic model data of origin zones of 2005  Days of the week that classes meet  Time of day when students attend class  City of Hayward traffic counts by half hour  Bus capacity

CSUH Student Access To Campus, Fall 2008 by Zip Code Residential Location By Zip code BART Availability?

Local Mission, Harder Probable gateway route from home to campus I-880 from south, Harder SR 92 or SR 84 Harder

I-880 from north, A or Winton I-580 from north, downtown

I-580 from east, Second

Total

2008 percent 2001 percent* Berkeley Albany Kensington Union City Fremont Newark Hayward Castro Valley yes yes no 845 1,204 620 548 271 272 322 714

272 1,752 2,772

2.1% 13.5% 21.4% 2.4% 9.1% 20.0% Oakland Alameda Emeryville Piedmont Pleasanton Dublin Livermore San Leandro, San Lorenzo West Contra Costa The rest of Contra Costa San Francisco, Northwest Cal San Mateo Co., Palo Alto Solano, San Joaquin Santa Clara, South yes no no yes yes no yes yes no 425 883 458 1,005 458 531 446 839 1,935 434

1,888 839 915 531 1,935 446 425 434 730

14.6% 6.5% 7.1% 4.1% 15.0% 3.4% 3.3% 3.4% 5.6% 730 Total Percent 845 6.5% 1,824 14.1% 1,278 9.9% 696 5.4%

1,340 10.4% 3,034 23.4%

3,922 30.3%

12,939 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

About one third of students come through, or could come through, downtown Hayward on their way to campus.

Sample size in Fall 2001 was 13,078.

Students residing on campus were not listed. Listings from out of state and Southern California have been excluded. There is no data on transit access. The table indicates probable vehicle routes. The data from Colin Ormsby has many misspellings, wrong zip codes, and improbable residency locations. This table is simplified from C:\Users\Sherman\Documents\CSUEB Hayward Access\CSUH_transit_access_20081104.xlsx

12.2% 3.8% 7.3% 4.9% 4.0% 2.1% 3.3% 0.5% 5.3%

Where Are Students Coming From?

How many students use the “downtown corridor” from Hayward BART to campus?

 Zip code data on student residential location  About 23.4 % come via I-580 from the North via Foothill or live in the downtown Hayward area  About 10.4 % come via I-880 from the North, and could use A St. or Winton Ave.

 County traffic model data on origin zones to campus   About 18.6 % come via I-880 from the North About 14.7 % come via I-580 from the North  Both sources show about 33 % using this corridor

Most classes meet on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday Percent meeting by day of week Monday 708 23.3% Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total classes with known days 703 682 678 229 35 9 3,044 23.1% 22.4% 22.3% 7.5% 1.1% 0.3% 100%

Monday classes mostly 9:00 am to 7:30 pm Students in classes by time of day, Monday, Fall 2008

4 000 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Tuesday classes mostly 10:00 am to 7:30 pm Students in classes by time of day, Tuesday, Fall 2008

Traffic Counts in Hayward

 City counts were adjusted using the County traffic model to show campus only.

 They show a pattern similar to class meeting times.

 Both traffic counts and class schedules show travel spread evenly across the day with no strong peak concentrations.

 Even flow is ideal for transit.

Time 6am - 7am 7am - 8am 8am - 9am 9am - 10 am 10am -11am 11am - 12am 12am - 1pm 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 6am to 11pm Bee up 313 522 489 355 330 315 394 533 523 400 432 444 397 422 294 354 173 6,689 Bee down 82 278 464 443 399 390 372 333 333 414 445 512 558 416 320 304 173 6,235

Rider capacity of a two-bus system

 Each bus can carry 30 passengers, and goes one way 3 times per hour: 90 riders one way per hour.

 Each bus operates 14.5 hours to serve morning and evening classes.

 If buses on average are half full, they would carry 1,305 round trip riders per day.

 In practice, some runs will have few riders and others have standing room only.

 Even if only half full, rapid buses could meet the same need as the parking structure.

Would enough students ride?

 About 33% of students come through downtown Hayward  They would walk, take a bus or BART, or use parking along the route to reach the bus  Only 36% of students using this downtown corridor would need to ride the bus to make it feasible  They would save about $200 per quarter with little loss of time on average  For some times of day and some campus destinations they would save time.

 Some students could then live car free and afford to attend CSUEB Hayward

Comparative Costs and Financing

Estimated Cost of Parking Structure

 Per space construction cost:

about $29,200

 Amortization over 25 years at 5% interest: about

$2,050

per year  Operating costs: about

$500

per year  Total costs per space: about

$2,550

per year  Total cost for 1,100 spaces:

$2,800,000

per year

Estimating the Fee to Pay for A Parking Structure

 Parking permits must pay for parking costs, including the parking structure.

 Permits are sold fall, winter, and spring.

Total quarterly permits sold 2007-08 (students, faculty, staff ) Parking spaces 2007-08 Permits sold per space per year

24,053 4,860 4.95

 About

4.95 quarterly permits are sold per space per year

.

Two ways to estimate the parking fee

 1) Unsubsidized parking fee: those who park in the structure pay the cost of the structure.

 2) Subsidized parking fee: those who use surface parking are over-charged to help cover the cost of the parking structure.

Unsubsidized Parking Fee

 The cost of a parking structure space divided by the number of permits sold per space per year equals the cost per quarter of a student parking fee.

Permits sold per space per year 4.95

Cost of structure space per year $ 2,600 Quarterly fee $515

 The unsubsidized parking permit for the structure would cost about $515 per quarter .

Subsidized Parking Fee

 Students can be over-charged for surface parking to pay for the parking structure.

 In 2017 the plan calls for 1,100 structure spaces and 4,460 surface spaces, totaling 5,560.

Number of all spaces Number of quarter permits / year Cost of structure per year Fee increase to subsidize structure 5,560 27,522 $ 2,806,000 $102

 The quarterly parking fee overcharge for the structure would be about $102.

One more way to look at the cost of a parking structure

 Suppose we build surface parking on the same spot as the structure.

 Then, the structure only adds parking on the upper levels.

 We can subtract the surface costs from the structure costs and the surface spaces from the total structure spaces.

 The result is the cost per space for the upper spaces.

 The structure diagram shows that at least 223 spaces could be built on the same footprint.

 A surface lot would cost about $790 per space per year for amortization and operations, far less than the $2,600 per space for the structure.

 The unsubsidized surface parking permit would cost about $160 per quarter, far less than $515 permit cost per quarter for the structure.

Net cost of upper levels

 The parking structure gains about 877 spaces above the surface.

 The cost of the structure minus the cost of surface parking equals the net cost of the upper levels.

 The unsubsidized permit cost for the upper level spaces would be about $606 per quarter .  Any parking fee based on the cost of the structure is uneconomic; it won’t work.

Cost of A Two-bus System

 Capital costs are about $4.3 million:      High-tech buses are expensive, about $550,000 each Signal changing equipment Raised platform stops with shelters Guided docking at platforms Garage for office, parts, and servicing  Ramp to PE Building and Loop Rd. intersection realignment  Amortized at 5% over 25 years = $300,000 per year  Operating costs would be about $70 per bus operating hour  Operating costs for a full schedule all year = $741,000  Yearly capital and operating = $1,040,000

Paying for the Beeline Bus

 Parking fine revenue: About $150,000 per year  Parking permit fee revenue from about 4,460 surface spaces in 2017 pays for surface parking and the bus  At 4.95 permits sold per space per year, 22,073 permits would be sold 

Only $40

per permit above the cost of surface parking covers all of the cost of transit to campus And…  Class Pass - All students get a free pass.

Summary of Cost Estimates

 A 1,100 space parking structure would cost:  $102 parking fee/quarter, subsidized (added to base permit cost, currently $95 per quarter)  $515 parking fee/quarter, unsubsidized  $606 parking fee/quarter, upper levels alone  New surface parking on structure footprint would cost $160/quarter  Frequent, rapid bus would cost $40/quarter

Summary

More Parking?

 Expensive for the student  Has to be subsidized by surface parking  Expensive for the environment  Increases traffic and congestion  Increases fossil fuel use and pollution  Increases health and safety problems from accidents and a sedentary life style  Continues dependency on cars and foreign sources of energy

The Beeline Bus

 Provides access equal to or better than a parking structure; no need for a structure  Improves use of scarce land capacity: student housing instead of a parking structure  Costs student less than a parking structure  Serves all students, not just those with cars  Supports living on campus without a car  Helps enrollment growth based on increasingly convenient, fast transit access

The Beeline Bus

More sustainable, less environmental damage:  Reduces greenhouse gases and other air pollutants  Reduces fossil fuel use, reduces oil dependency  Reduces dependency on foreign oil suppliers, helps economic productivity  Reduces traffic accidents and deaths  Supports walking and biking, so improves personal health

The Beeline Bus

 Reduces congestion as it grows: buses can go to South Hayward BART, Castro Valley BART, and I-880 exits at Winton and Harder.

 Supports car-free development and affordable housing along the Mission corridor and on campus, which then increases bus frequency  Improves access between campus and downtown businesses and BART  Supports revitalization of downtown Hayward and BART ridership