CSU Master Plan Committee (MPC) Meeting · 8/9/2017 · (MPC) Meeting August 9, 2017. Agenda 1....
Transcript of CSU Master Plan Committee (MPC) Meeting · 8/9/2017 · (MPC) Meeting August 9, 2017. Agenda 1....
CSU
Master Plan Committee
(MPC) Meeting
August 9, 2017
Agenda
1. Foothills Master Plan Update (Fred Haberecht)
2. Bridge and Canopy at LSC and Engineering (Fred
Haberecht)
3. Parking and Transportation on Campus Update
(Dave Bradford and Aaron Fodge)
4. Residential Parking Permit Program (Seth Lorson,
City of Fort Collins)
Update
Foothills Campus Master Plan
Update
Foothills Campus “Sub-Campuses”
4
For Discussion
Current Conditions and Future Use
of the Bridge and Canopy at
Lory Student Center and
Engineering Building
NORTH
Context: Bridge and Canopy Location
Bridge
Canopy
Context: Bridge
Context: Canopy at LSC
Current Conditions of both Bridge and Canopy
Both the bridge and
canopy are structurally
sound, but in need of
minor repairs and
aesthetic improvements.
Elevator Locations Adjacent to Bridge
INSERT FLOOR PLANS
Elevator Locations – Upper Level
NORTH
Elevator locations
Elevator added with 1990’s Engineering Building
infill additions
Bridge no longer required for accessibility at
Engineering Building
Elevator locations
Elevator Locations – Upper Level
NORTH
Repave – Enhance
accessible route
Adjacent Campus Planning Initiatives
13
• Accessible
routes?
• Future parking
garage?
Discussion
14
• Aesthetics of the bridge? Aesthetics of the canopy?
• Function of the bridge? Function of the Canopy?
• Current location of the bridge?
• Future use & campus planning initiatives that affect the
bridge?
Informational
Parking and Transportation
on Campus Update
Parking and Transportation UpdateAaron Fodge
Dave Bradford
Colorado State University
MODE SPLIT SURVEY
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
18
445
11 8
139101
7
150
1 40
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
TOTAL PRIMARY MODEA C R O S S A L L R E S P O N D E N T T Y P E S
Personal Vehicle: 51%
Taking the bus: 17%
Biking: 16%
Walking: 12%
Carpooling: 1%
Getting a Ride: <1%
Other: <1%
# o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
(n
=8
66
)
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
19
TOTAL PRIMARY MODEY E A R - O V E R - Y E A R ( Y O Y ) C O M PA R I S O N * A C R O S S A L L R E S P O N D E N T T Y P E S
Primary Mode of Transportation 2015 2016 2017 YOY
driving a personal vehicle 62% 55% 51% -4%
taking the bus 10% 14% 17% 3%
walking 9% 13% 12% -1%
biking 14% 13% 16% 3%
car[van]pooling 2% 2% 1% -1%
other <1% <1% <1% 0%
getting a ride <1% <1% <1% 0%
skateboarding <1% <1% <1% 0%
University Provided vehicle 1% <1% <1% 0%
*CSU ’15-’16 (second semester) compared to CSU ’16-’17 (second semester)
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
20
265
138
2742
153
105
9
124
2 10
50
100
150
200
250
300
TOTAL SECONDARY MODEA C R O S S A L L R E S P O N D E N T T Y P E S
No Secondary Mode: 31%
Biking: 18%
Personal Vehicle: 16%
Taking the bus: 14%
Walking: 12%
Getting a Ride: 5%
Carpooling: 3%#
of
resp
on
de
nts
(n
=8
66
)
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
21
Secondary Mode of Transportation 2015 2016 2017 YOY
I do not have a secondary mode of
transportation30% 29% 31% 2%
driving a personal vehicle 18% 19% 16% -3%
taking the bus 12% 11% 14% 3%
walking 9% 10% 12% 2%
biking 19% 18% 18% 0%
car[van]pooling 4% 3% 3% 0%
other 2% 1% <1% -1%
getting a ride 4% 5% 5% 0%
skateboarding <1% 2% 1% 1%
University Provided vehicle <1% <1% <1% 0%
TOTAL SECONDARY MODE Y E A R - O V E R - Y E A R ( Y O Y ) C O M PA R I S O N * A C R O S S A L L R E S P O N D E N T T Y P E S
*CSU ’15-’16 (second semester) compared to CSU ’16-’17 (second semester)
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
22
STUDENTS: PRIMARY MODE
n=482
26%
1%
20%
1%
32%
19%
carpooling,<1%
getting a ride,<1%
university vehicle, <1%
other, <1%
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
23
STUDENTS: SECONDARY MODE
n=482
university vehicle, <1%
other, 0%
4%
21%
17%
18%
16%
2%
17%
4%
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
24
RESPONDENT TYPE BY DISTANCE TRAVELED TO CAMPUS (ONE-WAY)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Less t
ha
n 1
1 to
1.9
2 to
2.9
3 to
3.9
4 to
4.9
5 to
5.9
6 to
6.9
7 to
7.9
8 to
8.9
9 to
9.9
10 t
o 1
1.9
12 t
o 1
4.9
15 t
o 1
9.9
20 t
o 2
4.9
25 t
o 2
9.9
30 t
o 4
9.9
50+
Student
AdministrativeProfessional
# o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
# of miles traveled one-way
(n=458)
(n=168)
(n=103)
(n=107)
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
25
RESPONDENT TYPE BY DISTANCE TRAVELED TO CAMPUS (ONE-WAY)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Less t
ha
n 1
1 to
1.9
2 to
2.9
3 to
3.9
4 to
4.9
5 to
5.9
6 to
6.9
7 to
7.9
8 to
8.9
9 to
9.9
10 t
o 1
1.9
12 t
o 1
4.9
15 t
o 1
9.9
20 t
o 2
4.9
25 t
o 2
9.9
30 t
o 4
9.9
50+
Student
AdministrativeProfessional
# o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
# of miles traveled one-way
(n=458)
(n=168)
(n=103)
(n=107)
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
26
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS: PRIMARY MODE
n=1797%
2%
74%
13%
other, <1%
carpooling,<1%
getting a ride,<1%
university vehicle, 0%
skateboarding, 0%
other, <1%
o
1
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
27
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS: SECONDARY MODE
n=171
university vehicle, 0%
other, 0%
6%
44%
18%
9%
9%
11%2%
1%
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
28
Faculty (n=91)
State Classified
Employees (n=94)
Administrative
Professionals (n=153)
ZIP CODE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONEMPLOYEE DENSITY
VALUES:
Zip Code
Administrative
Professionals
State
Classified
Employees Faculty
80521 28 13 17
80526 27 18 15
80525 30 19 25
80524 24 8 17
80523 0 0 0
80538 9 6 3
80537 6 6 0
80550 4 7 2
80504 0 0 0
80549 7 5 0
80528 12 6 7
80501 0 0 2
80513 2 0 0
80535 2 2 0
80536 2 0 0
80512 0 2 3
80634 0 2 0
80512
80521
80634
80501
This visualization shows the
geographic distribution of
employee respondents based on
their home zip code. The larger
symbols display a greater density
of employees within that zip code
than the smaller symbols with the
largest representing 30
employees and the smallest only
representing two.
CSU PARKING & TRANSPORTATION2017 ANNUAL SURVEY
29
Students (n=416)
ZIP CODE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONSTUDENTS
VALUES:
Zip Code Students
80521 208
80526 73
80525 55
80524 38
80523 11
80538 8
80537 7
80550 5
80504 3
80549 2
80528 2
80501 2
80228 2
This visualization shows the
geographic distribution of
student respondents based
on their home zip code. The
larger dots display a greater
density of students within
that zip code than the smaller
dots with the largest
representing 208 students
and the smallest only
representing two.
A YEAR TO EVALUATE
Accomplishments• New Garage
• New Research Parking Lot
• Wayfinding in the Garages
• Trail Extensions / Buffered Bike Lanes
• Additional Transit Routes
• Multiple Access Points to Campus– Crossings
– Underpasses
• Reallocation of resources– Goal: Fill underutilized lot with new customers and relocate
some existing customers, open up more higher cost spaces
– Ingersoll: Changes to a lower cost resident hall lot
– Moby: Z area changes to a lower cost option for commuters
– Reduced meters: Moby ($1.25) and Research Blvd Lot ($1.75)
ACCESS
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Main Campus
Parking Stall Counts
Equilibrium Reached?Parking Permit vs Transportation Alternative?
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES IF/HOW YOU WORK FROM HOME? Across CSU employees
# o
f re
spo
nd
ents
(n
=37
4)
I do not work from home
Before normal business hours
one or more days a month
During normal business hours
one or more days a month
After normal business hours
one or more days a month
I mainly work from home
Press-Office City of Müenster, Germany/via
Image: Jon Orcutt
• 5% of all trips generated at UCLA in 2016/2017
• Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) do not reduce congestion or reduce emissions
Areas of concern: • Stadium: Athletics holding daytime events with little available
parking (M-F and Weekends), evening events could impede on resident halls; Alumni and Casa bring additional impacts on parking
• Richardson Design Center: Increased staffing levels and visitors as well as loading and state vehicles
• Hartshorn Redevelopment: Increased staffing levels, different visitor and state vehicle demands,
• Newsome/Aylesworth Redevelopment: Removing of parking (up to 268 resident and staff), brining in more beds, possible CSUPD relocation, Possible Admissions and other departments bring in more parking demands
• North campus: Lack of commuter student parking: Moby is the closest parking other than neighborhoods
• RP3's: Campus is almost surrounded by them, residents are complaining
PLANNING
CSU Planning - Possible alleviations:• Parking south of the stadium: Residential area costs of $6M to
purchase property (central funds), then cost of surface or garage parking up to $22M
• Reduce resident hall parking
• Build parking on the Newsome/Aylesworth site:- Obstacles: Increased vehicle traffic in the area, non-residential use, heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic exists and would be impacted
• Build a garage at Moby: Not really where the need exists- Obstacles: Less demand by commuters, athletic event disruption, heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic exists and would be impacted
• Garage at Summit: Partner with CSURF (?)Obstacles: Less demand by commuters
• Garage at Engineering: - Obstacles: High cost to build due to utilities, floodplain
• Garage at Green Hall: Costs to relocate CSUPD- Obstacles: High cost to relocate PD (central funds), small footprint
Informational
City of Fort Collins
Residential Parking Permit Program
(RP3)
57
CSU Stadium Game Day RP3August 9, 2017
58
• 6 Zones
Participating
Neighborhoods
Rules and Violations
59
Rules
• “Major” stadium events (12K+)
• Enforcement begins 4 hrs. prior
• Same Permits as Week Day
• No Commuter Permits
• 2 Guest Permits
• Barricades at neighborhood
entrances
Violations
• $100 fine
• Towing
Thank You
60