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)

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

A traffic simulation model was employed to evaluate the transportation system before and after such a change in parking management.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. relocating this parking to periphery lots will reduce the average travel time. The findings suggest that due to the significant number of motorists searching for the high-demand parking in the core of campus. even when accounting for the increased walking time. 2 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

employees must maintain facilities and grounds. . On the pedestrian side. Parking is often a significant source of town-gown conflict and one of the most emotional issues within any university campus (1). several campuses have noted plans to reduce the volume of automobiles in the core campus. If quantity of supply is difficult to touch. the University of South Carolina (5). safety concerns are motivating the creation of pedestrian campus cores. students. bands and demonstrators perform. but creating space for vehicles usually compromises quality of pedestrian vitality. faculty. or between headphones step into streets. To create these pedestrian-friendly areas. University campuses experience this conflict acutely. 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. While transportation planning on university campuses has usually focused on automobiles (2). This list is not meant to be comprehensive. These schools include Louisiana State University (3). 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. against a cell phone. 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. perhaps the provision can be altered in another way. or staff. the University of New Hampshire (6). 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. but they expect a safe environment for students to mill about. 3 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. and people of all ages and physic all conditions interact. students with their heads in books. the University of Connecticut (7). People must have means of entering places where pedestrian life thrives. delivery trucks must reach loading docks. On the vehicle side. The rural campus of Clemson University in South Carolina has served as a test bed for micro-simulation of alternatives for parking allocation.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. Both adding and reducing parking stir volatility into this already-bubbling cauldron. the University of California schools (8). TRENDS IN CAMPUS PARKING National trends are changing the character of university campuses and their reliance on core parking. Cornell University (4). and Penn State University (9). University parking engineers and planners must simultaneously balance competing agendas to avert uproars from the town. At issue is the conflict between two goals of transportation planning: access and mobility. hoards of people enter and exit buildings and crosswalks as classes change. People coming to campus want front-door parking as they rush to classes and offices. people must access academic buildings (frequently in large numbers at set times throughout the day).

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

actuated and coordinated signals. parking lots. those that reset and show a zero balance after a vehicle pulls out of the space. public transit vehicles. and parking meter revenues. average parking duration. The final network contained approximately 20. While previous estimates of the percent of cruising vehicles ranged from 8 to 74 percent. One study focused on the searching time. The model building process began by gathering aerial photographs and scaling them in AutoCAD. Additionally. . time of day. Others have used simulation models as tools for evaluating parking metrics. As universities grow.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). some argue that properly pricing curb parking is the key to reducing traffic cruising for parking spaces (20). parking revenues could increase by approximately 23 percent (26). 5 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. pedestrian. probability of finding a space. 11). METHODOLOGY A traffic simulation model was developed using the software VISSIM. nodes. and intersections were created based on this compilation of aerial photographs. The deciding factor was the ability to model detailed parking maneuvers. and special events. usurping parking lots for new buildings is a common practice. The links. While parking design and planning vary significantly between uses (30). While most universities use parking permits to allocate parking (2.000 links or connectors and approximately 740 nodes. trends towards safer pedestrian-friendly campuses increase pressure to remove parking in the core of campuses. the studies presented illustrate that cost and location of available parking are key factors in vehicle cruising. decreasing at approximately the same rates. Other research using simulation to model on-street parking focused on the calibration and accuracy of a new simulation tool (27). Simulation Model Development The researchers conducted a thorough review of available traffic simulation software. The details of this process and of the core campus parking scenarios are presented in the proceeding sections. parking behaviors. researchers found that employees would only change their automobile dependence if a fee was charged for parking (28). focusing on abilities to model local and arterial streets. and offering a three dimensional display. 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. Parking searching time was found linearly related to the parking duration. Additional findings indicated that with newer parking meters. recent works have evaluated the efficacy of using access gates and card readers to control parking on the campus of Virginia Polytechnical Institute (29). Based on these characteristics VISSIM was chosen to model the Clemson University campus. Parking on University Campuses Many studies of parking on university campuses have focused on factors impacting travel mode. This paper sought to isolate the impact of parking cost and examine the traffic volume changes from parking relocation. On a European college campus.

and 11) motorcycles. These speeds were observed numerically and graphically (in a speed contour map) and compared to measured speeds along those segments. . video footage. less than a 15 vehicle difference on key links. Simulation Scenario Operation The simulation scenarios were designed to capture the impact of removing on-street parking spaces from the core of campus. Pedestrian volumes. The volumes were collected from manual counts.35. were input at each crosswalk and not included in an origin-destination matrix. 2) faculty and staff. 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. After the volumes were within five percent and the speeds were within one mile per hour on key links. The information from these sources was used to create 44 origin-destination matrices. 35. 10) buses. This method required the researchers to run the model several times. Because there were several routes available to travel between each origin and destination.36). Traffic control included 12 traffic signals and approximately 200 stop signs. researchers began calibrating the model based on volumes as suggested by previous studies (34. 5) handicapped. Validation was the final step to ensure the simulation model reflected the real world accurately. including the number of boarding and alighting passengers based on a 2007 Ridership Count Survey (31). to assign the proper amount of vehicles to each route. Note that no individual link varied by more than five percent of the observed and the total volume was within one percent. core campus speeds were not used as a measure of effectiveness. Researchers used speeds (32. a dynamic assignment approach was taken. also counted during fall 2007. however. After the volumes did not significantly vary between runs. The 11 different vehicle classes were based on parking privileges and included 1) commuter student. 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. thus exceeding standard practice in calibration (34.1 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. 9) medium trucks. Because VISSIM does not recognize the willingness of drivers to travel faster in wider lanes. traffic control devices and volumes were input into the model. 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. The model simulated the 4-hour midday period when parking was most difficult to find and when campus was at its peak occupancy. Researchers also incorporated the operation of nine bus routes through and around campus. 8) large trucks (tractor or semi-trailers). and HiStar traffic counts around campus in fall of 2007. for each vehicle class. 4) university service medium trucks. 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. 3) university service cars. 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. the model was considered calibrated. incrementally increasing volumes. including one matrix for each hour. 33. 6) student residents. During this process. 7) non-campus visitors. link cost and driver behavior parameters were adjusted to recreate the volumes and speeds observed on campus. 36).

researchers heuristically assigned an attractiveness number to each parking lot based on its proximity to traffic generators. and the findings accurately indicate the reduction in volumes in the core of campus. the simulation model was used. vehicles would choose the next closest parking location in their destination zone. Each motorist that was relocated from 7 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. negating the savings from fewer cruising vehicles as shown in Table 4. The travel time findings were similarly conclusive. . Because of the large amounts of pedestrian traffic. Refer to Error! Reference source not found. One scenario of reducing core-campus volumes is to remove parking spaces. When the vehicles traversed the link prior to their destination parking lot. This additional walking time represents 507 minutes of added travel time. Another factor to consider is the added walking times required for those leaving campus with a vehicle during lunch (or other mid-day commitment). The key measures of effectiveness were travel time and delay. It was assumed that this number of parking spaces was added to lots E3 and E4. there is significant (α >0.05) evidence that delay will be reduced by removing corecampus parking. Walking times between the existing and proposed parking locations revealed that travelers require approximately 6 minutes. there is a lower probability of finding available parking and thus longer search times. both the travel time variability and magnitude are less after removing the core campus parking. routing decisions were used to reroute them if the lot was full. on average. Onstreet parking was removed on Calhoun Drive south of Fort Hill Street and on Fernow Street north of Palmetto Boulevard. A new parking lot was chosen based on proximity to the vehicle and the attractiveness. Further. The key route through campus. Examining the changes in required walking times from each parking facility provides valuable information to clarify the difference in travel times. service vehicles. Table 3 shows the 95-percent confidence intervals of the vehicle travel times before and after core-campus parking removal. 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. thus. parking in the core of campus is allowed for faculty and staff. where closer parking spaces were more attractive. there exist many vehicle-pedestrian conflict areas. To evaluate this alternative. Calhoun Drive contains many crosswalks and traffic control devices that slow vehicles. guiding them directly to lots on the edge of campus where their parking search will be faster. The simulation software modeled parking search based on distance and attractiveness. to located these facilities in and around Clemson’s core campus. Within the model. FINDINGS Currently. Removing this parking can simplify this process for drivers.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. handicapped motorists. and motorcycles. Conflicts can be greatly reduced by lowering the vehicular volume through the campus core. to walk from the proposed lot to the existing core-campus parking location. As shown.

likely due to the location of campus parking lots adjacent to arterials at the periphery of campus. South Carolina. or speeds with the removal of the core campus parking. Each such trip adds another 12 minutes of delay due to the parking relocation. Previous work has continually shown that travel behavior is challenging to alter. 8 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. The findings indicated a reduction in network vehicular travel times. Competing concerns of convenient parking and pedestrian safety have not always favored safety. These findings indicated no significant change in delay. dynamic assignment. 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. the findings of this study can provide the extra justification needed to approve such a relocation of parking. There was a significant change in the travel times and traffic volumes on several key routes. traffic simulation model to evaluate the impact of removing core-campus parking spaces at Clemson University.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. Overall. CONCLUSION Pedestrian-friendly campus cores have been goals for many university campuses around the country. As shown in the last column (to the right) of figure 5. Instead of frustratingly searching for parking. and motorists searching for parking can significantly increase the traffic volumes. at best. the relocated parking is no longer saving Clemson motorists time. . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Clemson Parking Services sponsored this study. These findings provide justification for the relocation of core-campus parking to periphery parking lots. there was no significant change in the total network delay due to the additional walking time required. travelers would enjoy more fresh air if parking was relocated. 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. While safety concerns have always been a motivating factor for this parking change. Future research can investigate the energy and emissions impacts of relocating parking on university campuses. if only half of the motorists that would have parked in the core campus make one trip from campus during the day.

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

B. Chen. May. Clemson Area Transit (CAT Bus) Ridership Counts and Analysis. A Streamlined Network Calibration Procedure for California SR41 Corridor Traffic Simulation Study. 21. 27. .C. Characterization of Service Time and Traffic Impact of Parking Control Equipment in a University Environment. T. 1852. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 79-90. Kottommannil. Edwards. 81st Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. Skabardonis. Dahlgren. Chen. W. W. J. S. Michalopoulos. 1994. 24. 10 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. ITE Journal. 2007.. . Town Planning Branch. Borgers. Washington. J. 107-123. D. and Travel: TCRP Report 128. 2008. : Transportation Research Board. Parking. 33. 2003. January. D. 1997. P. Marshall. Recker. Chen. D. Parking Design for the Real World. Mei. N. A Practical Proceedure For Calibrating Microscopic Traffic Simulation Models. M.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. [book auth. M. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 25.. D. Modal idversion. D. Leinart.. National Research Council. Wang. J. 30-38. G. 2008. Washington.. and A. B. Washington. R. Clark. R. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. : National Research Council. 2008. 2002.. Kenneth. Waerden. P. Arrington.C. 2006. Effects of TOD on Housing. Inc. : National Research Council. Hensher. 30-35. X. pp. 22. Connectics Transportation Group. Hollingworth.C. An Animated Simulation Model for Analyzing On-Street Parking Issues. Washington. . 30. H. 34. Gardes. 102-110. Cervero. and P. Saltzman. pp. Z. A Streamlined Network Calibration Procedure for California SR41 Corridor Traffic Simulation Study.] B. Saltzman. H. (2006). Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Clemson : Clemson University. Ding. Harry. L. Parking at Mixed-Use Centers in Small Cities. 26. Amsterdam : Pergamon. Liu.. pp. J.G. Chootinan. : National Research Council. 23. Sheu. E. J. 31. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. 130-139. A. A. David H. Freeway calibration and application of the Paramics model. pp. X. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. 2006.. J.. A. Wang.. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD-ROM. M.C. 2006. Washington. Liu.C. D. 2007. Flintsch. Rakha. California PATH Research Report: UCB-ITS-PRR-99-12. and Garrick. Modified motor vehicles travel speed models on the basis of curb parking setting method under mixed traffic flow. Three proposals for improving short-term on-street parking.. 35. Helmer. 2001. : National Research Council.5‟ Scalable Microscopic Traffic Simulator: Phase I: Model Calibration and Validation. TP 608. Simulation.. Attitudes and Behavioral Responses to Workplace Measures. H. The Main Street Parking Initiative. D. Chootinan. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences. Cape town. South Africa : Cape Town City Council.C. J. An Assessment of the Likely Impact of Changes in Short Term Metered Parking Prices on Parkers in Central City Area. Abdulhai. R. 20. Ding. : National Research Council. (1999). Peter Van Der. 2007. D. W.C. H. A. D. W. 32. Handbook of Transport Systems and Traffic Control. Parking. Simulation of ITS on the Irvine FOT Area Using „Paramics 1. Transportation Research Record No. Liu. pp. W. 2010. Anderson. B. 1993. C. Hourdakis. Washington. 36. 29. 2006. D. . L.. Will Reducing Parking Standards Lead to Reductions in Parking Supply? Engel-Yan. Washington. J-B. P. 28. Y. Washington. D. pp. 85-100. pp. Aloys and Timmermans. : National Research Council..

1 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. .

1 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. .

5 21.2 Removal of Core Campus Parking 19.0 Current Conditions Average Travel Time(min) High (min) Low (min) 20.8 21.5 18.5 20.0 20.3 2 3 4 13 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.0 21.1 Table 3: Travel Time Comparison 22.1 19.0 19.5 19.0 18.4 20.7 20. .

1 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 2 14 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. .

1 2 3 4 FIGURE 1 Speed Contour Map Example 15 TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful