CSU Master Plan Committee (MPC) Meeting · 8/9/2017 · (MPC) Meeting August 9, 2017. Agenda 1. Foothills Master Plan Update (Fred Haberecht) 2. ... 2017 ANNUAL SURVEY 18 445 11

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

)


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)


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

)


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)


22

STUDENTS: PRIMARY MODE

n=482

26%

1%

20%

1%

32%

19%

carpooling,<1%

getting a ride,<1%

university vehicle, <1%

other, <1%


23

STUDENTS: SECONDARY MODE

n=482

university vehicle, <1%

other, 0%

4%

21%

17%

18%

16%

2%

17%

4%


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)


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)


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


27

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS: SECONDARY MODE

n=171

university vehicle, 0%

other, 0%

6%

44%

18%

9%

9%

11%2%

1%


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.


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


After normal business hours


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

Documents

CSU Master Plan Committee (MPC) Meeting · 8/9/2017 · (MPC) Meeting August 9, 2017. Agenda 1. Foothills Master Plan Update (Fred Haberecht) 2. ... 2017 ANNUAL SURVEY 18 445 11