1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Impact of On-Street Parking in the Core of a University Campus Ryan Fries* Assistant Professor Box 1800, EB2063 Department of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Box 1800, Edwardsville, IL 62026, phone: 618-650-5026, rfries@siue.edu Anne Dunning Assistant Professor 164 Lee Hall Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, 1-864-656-0151 anned@clemson.edu Mashrur Chowdhury Associate Professor 216 Lowry Hall Department of Civil Engineering Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 1-864-656-0151 mac@clemson.edu

*Corresponding Author August 1, 2009

Word Count 6,585 (4,085 + 1,500 figures and tables)

1
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ABSTRACT Limited information is available on how removing parking from the center of a university campus will impact the neighboring transportation system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mobility impact of relocating such parking. A traffic simulation model was employed to evaluate the transportation system before and after such a change in parking management. The findings suggest that due to the significant number of motorists searching for the high-demand parking in the core of campus, relocating this parking to periphery lots will reduce the average travel time, even when accounting for the increased walking time.

2
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

INTRODUCTION Determining the correct design and quantity of parking to provide in pedestrian areas has flummoxed transportation planners for decades. People must have means of entering places where pedestrian life thrives, but creating space for vehicles usually compromises quality of pedestrian vitality. At issue is the conflict between two goals of transportation planning: access and mobility. Most people want unfettered passage directly to their destinations (mobility through supply of vehicle infrastructure) combined with vibrant street life and multiple amenities in close proximity (access through pedestrian infrastructure and provisions. University campuses experience this conflict acutely. Parking is often a significant source of town-gown conflict and one of the most emotional issues within any university campus (1). People coming to campus want front-door parking as they rush to classes and offices, but they expect a safe environment for students to mill about. On the vehicle side, delivery trucks must reach loading docks, employees must maintain facilities and grounds, people must access academic buildings (frequently in large numbers at set times throughout the day), and small-scale freight ranging from architectural models and presentation boards to multiple backpacks of books must make it to class intact and in time. On the pedestrian side, hoards of people enter and exit buildings and crosswalks as classes change, bands and demonstrators perform, students with their heads in books, against a cell phone, or between headphones step into streets, and people of all ages and physic all conditions interact. University parking engineers and planners must simultaneously balance competing agendas to avert uproars from the town, students, faculty, or staff. Both adding and reducing parking stir volatility into this already-bubbling cauldron. If quantity of supply is difficult to touch, perhaps the provision can be altered in another way. In the quest to find the right balance between vehicle and pedestrian needs on a campus, can design help alleviate this conflict? The objective of this paper was to identify through simulation the effects of different parking strategies on campus access and mobility. The rural campus of Clemson University in South Carolina has served as a test bed for micro-simulation of alternatives for parking allocation. TRENDS IN CAMPUS PARKING National trends are changing the character of university campuses and their reliance on core parking. While transportation planning on university campuses has usually focused on automobiles (2), safety concerns are motivating the creation of pedestrian campus cores. To create these pedestrian-friendly areas, several campuses have noted plans to reduce the volume of automobiles in the core campus. These schools include Louisiana State University (3), Cornell University (4), the University of South Carolina (5), the University of New Hampshire (6), the University of Connecticut (7), the University of California schools (8), and Penn State University (9). This list is not meant to be comprehensive, nor does it imply that these campuses have made significant progress towards reducing core campus volumes, rather the list represents a general consensus that the problem exists.

3
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

To reduce vehicle circulation in campus cores, some have relocated parking to the periphery of campus (1-5), some have simply removed core campus parking (3), and others are allowing the eventual expansion of buildings to reclaim the core campus parking spaces (4; 5). All of these approaches have met different types and levels of resistance from the campus and local community. Providing significant amounts of curb parking promotes motorists searching for parking, particularly when there is little price difference between on-street and off-street parking (10). Such is the case on most university campuses, where parking is allocated by selling annual permits valid for multiple parking locations (2; 11). Searching for parking, or cruising, has long been a topic of study. Due to the difficulties of identifying those who are cruising for parking versus those using the road for mobility, estimates of the percent of cruising vehicles ranges from 8 to 74 percent from studies published between 1927 and 2001 (12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21). While these studies are published across several generations, they provide evidence of the significant range that cruising vehicles can represent. Factors influencing these percentages can include the price difference between on- and off-street parking, parking turnover rates, time of day, and special events. Thus, removing on-street parking has the potential to reduce traffic volumes, albeit by an uncertain amount. PREVIOUS WORK Previous efforts examining parking focused on either urban areas or campus cores. Studies focusing on the former compared community vitality to parking, measured the number of motorists cruising for parking, attempted to represent the decision making or routing behavior of drivers searching for parking, and examined the income of parking meters under varying strategies. These studies focusing on urban locations will be presented first. Parking in Urban Areas Several investigations have examined the link between downtown parking and the vibrance of the central business district. Best-practices for downtown parking have included changing parallel parking into diagonal parking and using one agency to manage the often-diverse aspects of parking, such as signing, striping, enforcement, planning, development, and financing (22). Others suggest that reducing parking requirements is a significant factor, finding that cities that provided less parking also used less parking and were, generally more vibrant (in terms of the number of people around) These researchers proposed that the findings could guide planning agencies to remove parking minimums and instead, place maximums on parking spaces provided (23). Similar guidance has been offered when promoting transit oriented development (24), and designing mixed-use parking facilities. Further study on the topic of changing parking codes has predicted that reducing parking minimums will only cause a reduction in parking provided by offices, medical plazas, and retail; having little impact on banks and groceries that usually provide more than minimum local parking requirements (25). When on-street parking is provided cheaper than off-street locations, motorists are encouraged to search for on-street parking, or cruise. It is challenging to identify motorists who are cruising as compared to those using the road for throughput. The proportion of motorists cruising is significantly impacted by several factors including the under-pricing of curb parking, the 4
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

overpricing of off-street parking (10), time of day, average parking duration, and special events. While previous estimates of the percent of cruising vehicles ranged from 8 to 74 percent, some argue that properly pricing curb parking is the key to reducing traffic cruising for parking spaces (20). Others have used simulation models as tools for evaluating parking metrics. One study focused on the searching time, probability of finding a space, and parking meter revenues. Parking searching time was found linearly related to the parking duration, decreasing at approximately the same rates. Additional findings indicated that with newer parking meters, those that reset and show a zero balance after a vehicle pulls out of the space, parking revenues could increase by approximately 23 percent (26). Other research using simulation to model on-street parking focused on the calibration and accuracy of a new simulation tool (27). Parking on University Campuses Many studies of parking on university campuses have focused on factors impacting travel mode. On a European college campus, researchers found that employees would only change their automobile dependence if a fee was charged for parking (28). While most universities use parking permits to allocate parking (2; 11), recent works have evaluated the efficacy of using access gates and card readers to control parking on the campus of Virginia Polytechnical Institute (29). While parking design and planning vary significantly between uses (30), the studies presented illustrate that cost and location of available parking are key factors in vehicle cruising. As universities grow, usurping parking lots for new buildings is a common practice. Additionally, trends towards safer pedestrian-friendly campuses increase pressure to remove parking in the core of campuses. This paper sought to isolate the impact of parking cost and examine the traffic volume changes from parking relocation. METHODOLOGY A traffic simulation model was developed using the software VISSIM. The details of this process and of the core campus parking scenarios are presented in the proceeding sections. Simulation Model Development The researchers conducted a thorough review of available traffic simulation software, focusing on abilities to model local and arterial streets, actuated and coordinated signals, public transit vehicles, pedestrian, parking behaviors, and offering a three dimensional display. The deciding factor was the ability to model detailed parking maneuvers. Based on these characteristics VISSIM was chosen to model the Clemson University campus. The model building process began by gathering aerial photographs and scaling them in AutoCAD. The output of this step was one overlay figure containing multiple high-clarity aerial photographs able to be inserted and scaled in the simulation program in a single step. The links, nodes, parking lots, and intersections were created based on this compilation of aerial photographs. The final network contained approximately 20,000 links or connectors and approximately 740 nodes. 5
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Next, traffic control devices and volumes were input into the model. Traffic control included 12 traffic signals and approximately 200 stop signs. The volumes were collected from manual counts, video footage, and HiStar traffic counts around campus in fall of 2007. The information from these sources was used to create 44 origin-destination matrices, including one matrix for each hour, for each vehicle class. The 11 different vehicle classes were based on parking privileges and included 1) commuter student, 2) faculty and staff, 3) university service cars, 4) university service medium trucks, 5) handicapped, 6) student residents, 7) non-campus visitors, 8) large trucks (tractor or semi-trailers), 9) medium trucks, 10) buses, and 11) motorcycles. The model simulated the 4-hour midday period when parking was most difficult to find and when campus was at its peak occupancy. Pedestrian volumes, also counted during fall 2007, were input at each crosswalk and not included in an origin-destination matrix. Researchers also incorporated the operation of nine bus routes through and around campus, including the number of boarding and alighting passengers based on a 2007 Ridership Count Survey (31). Because there were several routes available to travel between each origin and destination, a dynamic assignment approach was taken. This method required the researchers to run the model several times, incrementally increasing volumes, to assign the proper amount of vehicles to each route. After the volumes did not significantly vary between runs, less than a 15 vehicle difference on key links, researchers began calibrating the model based on volumes as suggested by previous studies (34,35,36). During this process, link cost and driver behavior parameters were adjusted to recreate the volumes and speeds observed on campus. After the volumes were within five percent and the speeds were within one mile per hour on key links, the model was considered calibrated. TABLE 1 displays the minor differences between the observed volumes and the simulated volumes on 20 key campus links during the four-hour midday period. Note that no individual link varied by more than five percent of the observed and the total volume was within one percent, thus exceeding standard practice in calibration (34, 35, 36). Validation was the final step to ensure the simulation model reflected the real world accurately. Researchers used speeds (32; 33; 34) as the measure of effectiveness to ensure drivers were reacting to the simulated network similarly as the observed drivers reacted to the real built environment around Clemson. These speeds were observed numerically and graphically (in a speed contour map) and compared to measured speeds along those segments. FIGURE 1 presents an example of a speed contour map for the Clemson network and aided the researchers in identifying discontinuities in the traffic flow and potential discrepancies with the observed traffic environment. Simulation Scenario Operation The simulation scenarios were designed to capture the impact of removing on-street parking spaces from the core of campus. The base scenario included parking spaces as they were during the fall semester of 2007 and the parking removal was simulated using this same parking demand. Because VISSIM does not recognize the willingness of drivers to travel faster in wider lanes, core campus speeds were not used as a measure of effectiveness; however, the authors do recognize the need for modifying the built environment to maintain low vehicular speeds through 6
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

the core of campus if on-street parking is removed. The key measures of effectiveness were travel time and delay. The simulation software modeled parking search based on distance and attractiveness. Within the model, researchers heuristically assigned an attractiveness number to each parking lot based on its proximity to traffic generators, where closer parking spaces were more attractive. When the vehicles traversed the link prior to their destination parking lot, routing decisions were used to reroute them if the lot was full. A new parking lot was chosen based on proximity to the vehicle and the attractiveness; thus, vehicles would choose the next closest parking location in their destination zone. FINDINGS Currently, parking in the core of campus is allowed for faculty and staff, service vehicles, handicapped motorists, and motorcycles. Because of the large amounts of pedestrian traffic, there exist many vehicle-pedestrian conflict areas. Conflicts can be greatly reduced by lowering the vehicular volume through the campus core. One scenario of reducing core-campus volumes is to remove parking spaces. To evaluate this alternative, the simulation model was used. Onstreet parking was removed on Calhoun Drive south of Fort Hill Street and on Fernow Street north of Palmetto Boulevard. It was assumed that this number of parking spaces was added to lots E3 and E4, and the findings accurately indicate the reduction in volumes in the core of campus. Refer to Error! Reference source not found. to located these facilities in and around Clemsons core campus. Table 2 illustrates the findings from the simulation tool with respect to delay. Because there is no overlap in the confidence intervals between the current conditions and the parking removal scenario, there is significant ( >0.05) evidence that delay will be reduced by removing corecampus parking. The key route through campus, Calhoun Drive contains many crosswalks and traffic control devices that slow vehicles. Further, there is a lower probability of finding available parking and thus longer search times. Removing this parking can simplify this process for drivers, guiding them directly to lots on the edge of campus where their parking search will be faster. The travel time findings were similarly conclusive. Table 3 shows the 95-percent confidence intervals of the vehicle travel times before and after core-campus parking removal. As shown, both the travel time variability and magnitude are less after removing the core campus parking. Examining the changes in required walking times from each parking facility provides valuable information to clarify the difference in travel times. Walking times between the existing and proposed parking locations revealed that travelers require approximately 6 minutes, on average, to walk from the proposed lot to the existing core-campus parking location. This additional walking time represents 507 minutes of added travel time, negating the savings from fewer cruising vehicles as shown in Table 4. Another factor to consider is the added walking times required for those leaving campus with a vehicle during lunch (or other mid-day commitment). Each motorist that was relocated from 7
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

core-campus parking is further impacted if they must use their vehicle during the day. Each such trip adds another 12 minutes of delay due to the parking relocation. As shown in the last column (to the right) of figure 5, if only half of the motorists that would have parked in the core campus make one trip from campus during the day, the relocated parking is no longer saving Clemson motorists time. These findings indicated no significant change in delay, or speeds with the removal of the core campus parking. There was a significant change in the travel times and traffic volumes on several key routes, such as a reduction on Calhoun drive through the core of campus and on facilities turning into to the core of campus from the north. CONCLUSION Pedestrian-friendly campus cores have been goals for many university campuses around the country. Competing concerns of convenient parking and pedestrian safety have not always favored safety. Previous work has continually shown that travel behavior is challenging to alter, at best, and motorists searching for parking can significantly increase the traffic volumes. Removing parking within the core of a university campus might be the most effective method of reducing the number of conflicts between motorists and pedestrians. This study used a microscopic, dynamic assignment, traffic simulation model to evaluate the impact of removing core-campus parking spaces at Clemson University, South Carolina. The findings indicated a reduction in network vehicular travel times, likely due to the location of campus parking lots adjacent to arterials at the periphery of campus. Overall, there was no significant change in the total network delay due to the additional walking time required. Instead of frustratingly searching for parking, travelers would enjoy more fresh air if parking was relocated. These findings provide justification for the relocation of core-campus parking to periphery parking lots. While safety concerns have always been a motivating factor for this parking change, the findings of this study can provide the extra justification needed to approve such a relocation of parking. Future research can investigate the energy and emissions impacts of relocating parking on university campuses. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Clemson Parking Services sponsored this study.

8
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Dagget, j. and R. Gutkowski. University Transportation Survey: Transportation in University Communities. City of Fort Collins, CO. : Mount-Plains Consortium, Colorado State University, 2002. 2. Sustainable Transportation Planning on College Campuses. Balas, C. 2003, Transport Policy, pp. 35-49. 3. Desmond, Michael. Summary of LSU Parking & Traffic Analysis. Baton Rouge, LA, USA : s.n., 2005. 4. Urban Strategies, Inc., Polshek Partnership Architects, Stantec, and New England Engineering. Cornell Master Plan for the Ithica Campus. [Online] 2008. [Cited: November 11, 2008.] http://www.masterplan.cornell.edu/. 5. Jerman, P. Campus Sustainability Achievement Award Application University of South Carolina. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. [Online] 2006. [Cited: November 5, 2008.] <http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/usout. 6. University of New Hampshire. University of New Hampshire Campus Master Plan. [Online] 2004. [Cited: November 9, 2008.] http://www.unh.edu/cmp/pdf/UNHCampusMasterPlan2004.pdf. 7. Veilleux, R. Parking Changes Take Effect. Advance University of Connecticut. [Online] 1997. [Cited: November 8, 2008.] http://advance.uconn.edu/1997/970822/08229703.htm . 8. University of California. University of California Transportation and Parking Program Principles. [Online] 2002. [Cited: November 12, 2008.] http://www2.ucsc.edu/taps/pdf/principles.pdf. 9. Penn State Office of Physical Plant Division of Campus Planning and Design, Sasaki Associates. University Parking Campus Master Plan Update. [Online] 2008. http://www.opp.psu.edu/construction/upmp/current/index.cfm. 10. Cruising for Parking. Shoup, D. C. 2006, Transport Policy, pp. 479-486. 11. Innovative Parking Management Strategies for Universities: Accomodating Multiple Objectives in a Constrained Environment. Isler, E.E., L.A. Hoel, M. D. Fontaine. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council, 2005. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CDROM. 12. Downtown Storage Garages. Simpson, H. 1927, The Annals CXXIII, pp. 82-89. 13. Intangible economics of highway transportation. Hogentogler, C. A. Willis, E. A. Kelley, J. A. Washington D.C : Highway Research Board, 1934. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board. pp. 189-205. 14. Street travel as related to local parking . Huber, M. Washington D.C. : Highway research Board, 1962. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Highway research Board. pp. 333352. 15. Kommentar . Bahn, Bus and. 1977, uberflussig, p. 2. 16. Toward a behavioral approach to city center parking: the case of Jerusalems CBD. Salomon, I. 1984, Cities, pp. 200-208. 17. OMalley, M.. John F. Cruising for Parking in Harvard Square: A Model to Evaluate City Planning Policies. s.l. : American Planning Associations Transportation Planning Division best student paper, 1985. 18. Clark, P. Policies to Manage Parking in the Central City Area. TP 608/PC. Cape Town, South Africa : City Planning Department, 1993. 9
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

19. Clark, P. An Assessment of the Likely Impact of Changes in Short Term Metered Parking Prices on Parkers in Central City Area. TP 608. Cape town, South Africa : Cape Town City Council, Town Planning Branch, 1993. 20. Hensher, D. Modal idversion. [book auth.] B., David H. Kenneth. Handbook of Transport Systems and Traffic Control. Amsterdam : Pergamon, 2001, pp. 107-123. 21. Three proposals for improving short-term on-street parking. . Saltzman, R. 1994. , SocioEconomic Planning Sciences, pp. 85-100. 22. The Main Street Parking Initiative. Edwards, J. D. 2006, ITE Journal, pp. 30-38. 23. Parking at Mixed-Use Centers in Small Cities. Marshall, W. E. and Garrick, N. W. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council, 2006. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 24. Arrington, G. B., Cervero, R. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel: TCRP Report 128. Washington, D.C. : Transportation Research Board, 2008. 25. Will Reducing Parking Standards Lead to Reductions in Parking Supply? Engel-Yan, J., Hollingworth, B., Anderson, S. 2007, Transportation Research Record No. 2010, pp. 102-110. 26. An Animated Simulation Model for Analyzing On-Street Parking Issues. Saltzman, R. M. 1997, Simulation, pp. 79-90. 27. Modified motor vehicles travel speed models on the basis of curb parking setting method under mixed traffic flow. Chen, J. Liu, H. Mei, Z., Wang, W., Wang, W. Washington, D. C. : National Research Council, 2008. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 28. Attitudes and Behavioral Responses to Workplace Measures. Waerden, Peter Van Der, Borgers, Aloys and Timmermans, Harry. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council, 2006. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. 29. Characterization of Service Time and Traffic Impact of Parking Control Equipment in a University Environment. Flintsch, A. M., H. Rakha. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council, 2007. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 30. Parking Design for the Real World. Helmer, T. J., Leinart, M. 2008, Parking, pp. 30-35. 31. Connectics Transportation Group, Inc. Clemson Area Transit (CAT Bus) Ridership Counts and Analysis. Clemson : Clemson University, 2007. 32. Freeway calibration and application of the Paramics model, . Y. Gardes, A. D. May, J. Dahlgren, and A. Skabardonis. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council., 2002. 81st Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 33. A Streamlined Network Calibration Procedure for California SR41 Corridor Traffic Simulation Study. Liu, H. X., Ding, L., Chen, A., Chootinan, P. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council, 2006. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. 34. A Practical Proceedure For Calibrating Microscopic Traffic Simulation Models. J. Hourdakis, P.G. Michalopoulos, J. Kottommannil. 2003, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1852, pp. 130-139. 35. Simulation of ITS on the Irvine FOT Area Using Paramics 1.5 Scalable Microscopic Traffic Simulator: Phase I: Model Calibration and Validation. B. Abdulhai, J-B. Sheu, W. Recker. (1999). California PATH Research Report: UCB-ITS-PRR-99-12. 36. A Streamlined Network Calibration Procedure for California SR41 Corridor Traffic Simulation Study. H. X. Liu, L. Ding, A. Chen, and P. Chootinan. (2006). Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January, Washington, D.C., National Research Council.

10
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

TABLE 1: Calibrated Volumes Along Key Routes

Volumes Route ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total Observed Simulated % Difference 1042 1080 4% 1141 1151 1% 1629 1603 -2% 1681 1632 -3% 204 207 1% 1230 1239 1% 1555 1590 2% 1395 1347 -3% 1786 1745 -2% 1255 1257 0% 1240 1263 2% 1380 1371 -1% 1800 1718 -5% 926 933 1% 741 757 2% 623 615 -1% 1220 1131 -7% 709 696 -2% 813 831 2% 831 794 -4% 21328 21086 -1%

2 3

11
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

Table 2: Delay reduction by removing core-campus parking

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Current Conditions Average Delay (min) High Low 3862 3917 3686

Removal of Core Campus Parking 3035 3294 2935

2 3 4 5 6 7

12
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

Table 3: Travel Time Comparison

22.0 21.5 21.0 20.5 20.0 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 Current Conditions Average Travel Time(min) High (min) Low (min) 20.8 21.4 20.2 Removal of Core Campus Parking 19.7 20.1 19.3

2 3 4

13
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

Table 4: Network Delay Estimates Including Increased Walking Times

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Current Conditions Average Delay (min) High Low 3862 3917 3686 Removal of Core Campus Parking 3542 3801 3442

Half Core Parkers Leave Campus Once Per Day 4049 4308 3948

14
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

2 3 4

FIGURE 1 Speed Contour Map Example

15
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.