Page 1

Parking Facilities Master Plan West Virginia University

Final Report

Submitted To:

West Virginia University Transportation & Parking Department

Submitted By:

DESMAN AS SO CI AT E S

June, 2009


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………i I

INTRODUCTION...…….……………………………………………………….………1

II

METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………2

III

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING & FUTURE SUPPLY & DEMAND CONDITIONS………………………………………………………………4 A B C D E F G

IV

REVIEW OF CURRENT OPERATIONS……………………....................................25 A B C D E

V

Transportation & Parking Operations …………………………………………...25 Permit Sales & Space Assignment……………….………………………………25 Permit Rates and Fines for Violations…………………………………………...27 Parking Enforcement & Appeals………………………………………………...29 Parking Related Revenues and Expenses………………………………………..30

PARKING FACILITY MAINTENANCE……………………………………………31 A B C D E

VI

Current Parking Supply by Campus……………………………………………...4 Current Peak Parking Utilization…………………………………………………9 Parking Permit Sales and Space Assignment…………………………………….10 Pedestrian Questionnaires Summaries ………….……………….……................12 Population-based Parking Demand Model ……………………………………...14 Assessment of Future Parking Supply & Demand Conditions…………………..21 Summary of Existing & Future Conditions…………..………………………….23

Objective…………………………………………………………………………31 Definitions………………………………………………………………………..31 Deterioration Mechanisms Overview……………..……………………………..31 Summary of Condition Assessment…...………………………............................32 Summary of Budgetary Repairs and Recommendations………...………………36

PHYSICAL & OPERATIONAL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS & COST......38

A Parking Space Allocation & Assignment………………………………….…….38 B Permit Sales & Parking Permits………………………….………………………41 C Parking Enforcement and Adjudication….………………………………………42 D Transportation Demand Management Strategies……………...............................47 E Location, Capacity and Cost of Parking Structures…….………………………..48 F System-wide Operating/Maintenance Costs & Revenue Requirements………...51 ______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University

Draft Report


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY West Virginia University, located in Morgantown, West Virginia is, in effect, a collection of three separate but interrelated campuses; Downtown, Evansdale, and Health Science (see Exhibit A). As of fall 2007, WVU had a population of over 22,000 commuting and 5,000 resident students as well as some 13,000 employees. The different character of these three campuses, the topography of the area and the need to travel between each combine to complicate access and circulation management. DESMAN, Inc was retained by the West Virginia University and its Transportation & Parking Department to quantify WVU’s parking needs and to develop recommendations that could address any shortfalls within a fiscally and physically responsive manner. The methodology used for this study examines these issues from five sources of information; available data, field surveys, stakeholder interviews, pedestrian questionnaires and general observations. From an organizational standpoint this report is divided into four phases; an assessment of existing and future supply and demand conditions, a review of current operations & management, an evaluation of and recommendations regarding facility maintenance, and physical and operational recommendations and system-wide cost analysis. An Assessment of Existing and Future Supply and Demand Conditions With 1,591 spaces, the Downtown Campus has the lowest parking inventory, 60% of which are allocated to employees, 10% to resident hall students, and 20% to Short-term users. There are 13 open spaces available in the Downtown Campus which counts for less than 1% of the total inventory. The greatest volume of parking spaces exists on the Evansdale Campus (4,118), 42% of which are allocated to open parking. Open spaces are generally used for overflow parking when the spaces that are assigned (but not reserved) to specific user groups become full. The Health & Science Campus has a total supply of 3,137 parking spaces and the largest number of mixed use spaces (1,506). This inventory also includes those areas/spaces that serve the Law School. It is unusual for an institution as large as WVU to dedicate so few parking spaces to commuting students. With a 2007 commuting student population of over 22,000, only 578 spaces are dedicated solely to commuting student use. It is also interesting to note that there are zero student spaces provided by the University on the Downtown campus. This reinforces the importance of the PRT, Mountain Line service, and the need for effective space assignment and enforcement procedures. The Transportation and Parking Department provided information on peak parking occupancy by campus and by space allocation for a typical weekday in April, 2008 With regards to the overall parking occupancy, the Downtown Campus reaches 94% occupancy during the peak period. 77% of spaces in Evansdale campus and 78% in Health and Science campus are occupied during the peak period. From a practical capacity standpoint the three campuses enjoy a practical surplus of 1,312 spaces overall. For the year 2007, 5,974 parking permits were issued to employees, commuting students, and resident hall students. Of that total only 1,609 permits were issued to commuting students. In comparison to the 22,000 non-resident students, this equates to a permit to student ratio of .07, or 7 permits issued per 100 students. Given that many employees (particularly faculty) and commuting students are not on-campus all day or every day, parking administrators are able to issue more permits than the number of spaces available.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page i


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

This is referred to as oversell. It is understood that the Transportation and Parking Department does not oversell permits on the Downtown and Evansdale campus in an effort to be flexible to the needs of special use permits. Defined as Series 90 permits, these special use permits allows key individuals the ability to park in multiple spaces. This dramatically limits the Transportation and Parking Department’s ability to maximize the utilization of Downtown and Evansdale facilities. According to extensive pedestrian questionnaires, 53% of commuting students, 85% of staff, and 70% of faculty arrive to campus via the automobile. Though the auto utilization percentages were relatively low, suggesting some success in the use public transportation and other trip modes, the persons per auto ratios were low. Only 9 out of every 100 commuter student vehicles and 5 out of every 100 faculty/staff vehicles have a passenger (rideshare/carpool). Residential distribution patterns for WVU employees, commuting students, and resident hall students are concentrated within three adjacent zip codes. This suggests that those destined for the campus don't need to rely on single-occupant vehicle travel and that public transportation initiatives should have a better cost to benefit ratio than most regional service providers could achieve. As noted previously, it was surprising to find that only 5,974 permits were issued in the fall of 2007 though the population of employees, commuting students, and resident hall students exceeded 35,000. There is a huge discrepancy between the number of commuting students and resident hall students who choose to purchase a permit and the estimated peak demand for those spaces. The discrepancy is more significant considering that estimates of peak period parking demand only reflect a small percentage of total commuting students; a group that commutes to the campuses on different days and at different times of the day. The true demand for student parking permits should equal the total number of students (22,613 per fall 2007 enrollment) times the student auto use/auto passenger percentages (49% drive/park and 4% passengers), or 11,980 annual student permits. It would appear that only 18% (+/-) of students who drive or ride in a car to campus choose to purchase a University parking permit. Even when factoring campus population growth and development on the three campuses, the University does not and will not have a parking shortfall. However, there are a number of issues which limit the effectiveness of the parking system and greatly frustrate its parking constituency. • • • • • • • •

Parking permits are undersold so as to meet the needs of Series 90 permits. The large volume of open and mixed parking spaces limits the effectiveness of the space allocation and permit issuance program. The large number of mixed spaces (employee & student) increases the complexity of parking management and enforcement. There is insufficient parking capacity to meet student needs (though it could be argued short origin to destination travel and the regional transportation system provides satisfactory alternatives to singleoccupant-vehicle travel). Students are dependent to a great degree on Coliseum parking. This supply is unavailable to them during events. The number of permits that are issued represent only a fraction of the demand that exist, thereby reducing the parking revenue that is generated to support the system. Student access to the Downtown Campus is dependent on the PRT and Mountain Line. Those employees that work on the Downtown Campus but must use the PRT and Mountain Line for access stated through the questionnaire that they felt greatly inconvenienced.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page ii


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

• • • • •

Enrollment on the campus is targeted to reach 28,500 students, suggesting an increase in demand by 90 spaces. However, that target is already in reach and growth beyond that volume is unknown. The Facilities Master Plan and current programming identify a net increase in supply by 321 spaces system-wide. However, the Downtown Campus will lose 312 spaces. Though an overall surplus of parking spaces will exist system-wide that surplus is primarily at the Health Sciences campus. The Downtown Campus will experience a deficit of roughly 3,000 spaces. Though there is an imbalance between parking demand (Downtown) and supply (Health Sciences), the PRT and Health Sciences parking structure are uniquely positioned to manage this condition. The key to resolving the supply/demand imbalance is not in additional parking capacity but in parking management, PRT and Mountain Line service levels, parking pricing, and enforcement.

Review of Current Operations The University’s Transportation and Parking Department is a self-operated entity within West Virginia University. The basic function of its transportation role is to ensure mobility on, around and between the campuses by providing various scheduled and non-scheduled shuttle services. Parking permits are sold in the Transportation and Parking office. Currently there are five types of parking permits: student, employee, Series 90, emeritus, and visitor. Generally speaking, permit rates are separated by student permit and employee/vendor permit. All permits are sold annually, however rates for students are advertised at a semester rate and employee/vendor permits are advertised at a monthly rate. Currently (2008) the permit rates for employees range from $14 (gravel lots) to $56 per month (Area 90) depending on location. Student rates range between $84 (gravel lots) to $120 (paved) per semester depending on location. Short term parking lots are located on Downtown and Evansdale campuses. Visitors pay automated pay stations (pay and display). No traditional mechanical/electronic meters or cashiers are used. The pay stations are older VenTek 400 models which are hard-wired (not solar powered) and only accept cash and coins as forms of payment. No change is given. Current rates are $0.50 to $0.75 per hour depending on location. Violation fines range from $3 for Failure to Properly Display a Parking Permit and Failure to Register a Vehicle with a Valid Permit to $500 for a third ADA violation. In all there are 52 different violations loaded into the parking database. The violation which comprises the vast majority of the citations written is a No Permit violation for $10. Parking enforcement for the University’s parking program is performed by its own enforcement personnel using hand-held computers that are used to issue citations and collect citation information. Hand-written citations are used as back-ups in the event a hand-held computer malfunctions. Ideally, the University’s Parking Department feels it should have 13 full-time enforcement personnel, however only 8 are currently employed. The majority of revenue (roughly 75%) brought in by the University’s Parking and Transportation Department is done so through parking fees, which encompasses permit and short-term sales. Fines from parking citations account for the rest. Total budgeted revenues for FY 2008 are about $3,000,000.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page iii


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

As with most operations of this type and size, labor and its related expenses account for the largest expense (roughly 60%). Other expenses range from parking lot maintenance and small projects to utilities and debt service. Total budgeted expenses for FY 2008 are about $2,950,000. Parking Facility Maintenance The objective of this phase of the study was to determine the present physical condition of the WVUparking facilities based on limited visual observations. From this evaluation, recommendations have been made for appropriate maintenance approaches. Maintenance construction cost estimates have been developed based on current prices in the Morgantown, WV metropolitan area. A ten year life cycle maintenance program was developed in response to the visually noted deficiencies of the various facilities at this time of the surveys and includes a combination of maintenance repairs/rehabilitation work items based on the type of facility. The total maintenance cost for all of the WVU facilities observed, over the ten years covered under this report is $5,021,600. While the total ten year maintenance cost for all of the facilities works out to be approximately $670 per car space or $67 per space per year; if no maintenance work is done, a restoration effort to bring the facilities back to their original condition would be exponential. Physical & Operational Recommendations and System Costs At present, the University has a complicated mixture of space assignments/allocations, namely the mixed and open spaces and Series 90 permits. Furthermore, it has been established that there are insufficient parking spaces to meet student parking demand if the University wishes to satisfy that demand without making use of other public or private parking facilities. As a result, most commuting students do not purchase a parking permit and many choose to park in the Coliseum lots which are outside the Transportation and Parking Department’s purview. To address both of these issues it is recommended that more short-term parking be developed. This would mean the conversion of some centrally located employee and mixed parking facilities on the Downtown and Evansdale campus. If additional sections of the Mountainlair garage are converted to a short-term parkign, the most effective way to operate it is to install pay-on-foot automated pay stations. While this system has higher up-front costs than regular pay and display units, the fact that the system is gated means that no enforcement is required in the garage, which will lower labor costs and free up a much needed enforcement person. The University should consider utilizing on-line permit sales for all permit holders. Through this system, the University will no longer be required to physically issue its parking permits. Instead, through an agreement with a major permit service provider employees and students can order their permits on-line. Once payment is received and the user information is confirmed, the permit is sent directly to the user. This system will not only streamline the permit issuance process but will significantly reduce the workload of the Transportation and Parking Department staff. It is recommended that five additional full-time enforcement personnel be hired. In an effort to be more cost sensitive the University could explore the use of student workers to expand enforcement efforts. Existing full-time personnel could be used as field supervisors who both enforce parking regulations and guide/monitor part-time student workers. Other colleges and universities have approached parking enforcement in this way with success.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page iv


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

It is recommended that the 52 different violations be consolidated into 22 categories. By consolidating many of the violation types, citation issuance and management will be streamlined. Rather than having numerous violation types that need to be managed in the database and are subject to different interpretation by different individuals, it is best to have violation types that are easy to understand, concise, and effective. The focus of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques is the reduction of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. The primary mechanism used to accomplish this is the introduction of mass transit and car pooling incentives. An increase in any of the transportation alternative strategies will result in the reduction of total automobiles located on campus, while alleviating the parking constraints/vehicular congestion and promoting unimpeded movement across the campus. The University has a great opportunity to explore alternatives to future parking construction, by enhancing the existing shuttle services to circulate between and around all three campuses, and by using pricing strategies (higher rates) to discourage parking demand on the Downtown Campus. Some of the many strategies employed to enhance ridesharing include carpooling and van pooling with preferential parking locations and/or reduced fees (short-term parking facilities on the Downtown campus should create significant interest) and providing rideshare services that can range from on-campus bulletin boards to the use of computerized ride-matching services. As noted previously, WVU should expand on the number of short-term parking spaces and restrict the number of parking permits that are issued. This would cause those preparing to travel to the campus to consider their actions each trip as they would be required to pay each trip. Encouraging individuals to understand the cost of the commuting pattern is the first step in promoting non-SOV alternatives. A cash-out program is an attractive alternative for WVU employees. An employee can choose to forgo the opportunity to purchase a parking permit in lieu of a cash payment. The employee can then explore and fund other alternatives including van and carpool programs, Mountain Line service, spouse pick-up and drop-off, etc. Based on the recommendations that have been presented its is anticipated that salaries and benefits for the Transportation and Parking Department would increase by nearly $200,000 (enforcement staffing), the department should establish an annual budget of $100,000 for TDM pilot programs to test the effectiveness of various alternatives, and the budget for necessary facility maintenance for the first two years is over $1 million each year. Presuming that many of these improvements are implemented by FY2009, total parking related expenditures will exceed $4.1 million, or $466 per space per year. For the Transportation and Parking Department to cover the cost of these facilities as is required of an auxiliary department, parking revenues from permits, transient parking (hourly pay-as-you-go), and enforcement would need to increase 20% in 2009 and 2010, at which point they could be stabilized. It is anticipated that much of that revenue increase would be generated by the increase in short-term spaces and hourly rates. The Transportation & Parking Department must fund those functions and services that best meet parking needs without being a financial strain on the University or its constituency. With the parking operations and management recommendations contained in this report, particularly as it relates to short-term parking, hardware and software upgrades, and enforcement, the Transportation and Parking Department will be poised to establish an equilibrium between cost, convenience, and sustainability.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page v


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

I.

INTRODUCTION The provision of and cost associated with parking and parking related services on college and university campuses are placing greater and greater stress on their physical, financial, and aesthetic well being. On average, it costs $18,500 per structured space and $2,600 per surface space to construct parking. This does not include land value. Furthermore, it costs approximately $500 per structured space per year and $150 per surface space per year to manage and maintain these facilities. As a result, the parking revenue required to support this infrastructure can equal $100 or more per parking space per month. From an aesthetic perspective, surface parking facilities consume a large percentage of campus space, thereby reducing the amount of area preserved for academic, sports, cultural, and open space uses. On some rural and suburban settings surface parking equals 70% of the total available land. It may be unrealistic for most campus administrators to exact from its faculty, staff, and students the parking revenue required to maintain the parking system. It would also be unrealistic for these institutions to ignore the fact that most trips to the campus are completed via the automobile. Given the cost/revenue imbalance that ultimately occurs, administrators are forced to either neglect annual operations and maintenance requirements, which lead to a poor management and condition, draw upon funds from its academic budget, or ignore their parking responsibility altogether, thereby creating conflict with nearby residential and business communities. Complicating this issue further is the fact that many colleges and universities are wholly unaware of the true cost of planning, developing, managing, and maintaining parking facilities. DESMAN, Inc., a nationally recognized leader in parking and access consulting services, was retained by the West Virginia University and its Transportation & Parking Department to quantify WVU’s parking needs and to develop recommendations that could address any shortfalls within a fiscally and physically responsive manner. West Virginia University, located in Morgantown, West Virginia is, in effect, a collection of three separate but interrelated campuses; Downtown, Evansdale, and Health Science (see Exhibit A). As of fall 2007, WVU had a population of over 22,000 commuting and 5,000 resident students as well as some 13,000 employees. The different character of these three campuses, the topography of the area and the need to travel between each combine to complicate access and circulation management. In addition to some 8,800 parking spaces, access to, from, and between the campuses is also supported by the 30 year old Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system and the regional Mountain Line Transit Authority. While the PRT and Mountain Line are critical services, this study focus primarily on the supply of, demand for, and management of the University’s parking facilities.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 1


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit A: Study Area Boundary

N

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 2


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

II.

METHODOLOGY The study of parking is truly a study of relationships between people, their destination, their trip purpose, and mode of travel. As such, the methodology used for this study examines these issues from five sources of information; available data, field surveys, stakeholder interviews, pedestrian questionnaires and general observations. From an organizational standpoint this report is divided into four phases. • • • •

An Assessment of Existing and Future Supply and Demand Conditions A Review of Current Operations & Management An Evaluation of and Recommendations Regarding Facility Maintenance Physical and Operational Recommendations and System-wide Cost Analysis

The first phase includes an inventory of existing and future parking conditions on each campus as well as an analysis of population and its relationship to automobile travel and parking. It includes an examination of parking occupancy and peak parking utilizations, a comparison of demand estimates to surveyed use, and a population-based model of parking need in the future. This examination did include a survey of PRT/Mountain Line ridership and non-University parking facility usage through extensive pedestrian questionnaires of mode/parking choice. The second phase includes an analysis of parking operations, namely the policies and organizational structure that plans, develops, and maintains parking. Issues to be covered include space allocation, permit assignment/distribution, parking rates, enforcement procedures, fines, and adjudication. The third phase addresses the condition of parking lots and structures and recommends a facility maintenance program. Costs associated with daily, periodic, and long-term maintenance will be presented. Based on the understand of existing and future supply, demand, maintenance, and management conditions the final phase examines the need and location for additional parking facilities, provides an outline of transportation demand management strategies that would limit the need for additional parking, presents a parking facilities maintenance plan, standards, and schedule, and redefines the role, responsibility, policies, and procedures that the Transportation and Parking office must employ to increase the efficiency of existing facilities and the effectiveness of alternative modes of travel. All costs associated with parking planning, development, management, and maintenance will be quantified and compared to current and project parking revenues. As these recommendations must be respectful of the fiscal limits of the University and its parking constituency, any improvements that are proposed must be developed within a business management model where the costs are offset by user fees and other financing strategies. The provision and management of parking on the WVU campuses do fall under the auxiliary department definition where costs must be offset by user fees and fines.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 3


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

III.

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING & FUTURE SUPPLY & DEMAND CONDITIONS

A.

Current Parking Inventory & Space Allocation The current inventory of parking spaces was provided by the University and verified by DESMAN personnel through field surveys. The various parking lots and structures are referred to as parking areas and are allocated to different user groups and activities. Space designations include employee, commuting student, resident hall students, short-term, mixed (employees and commuting students), and open. An open space is available to any group including those without parking permits. It should be noted that this inventory refers only to lots owned by the University and does not include facilities owned/operated by the Morgantown Parking Authority, on-street spaces, or other private operators. Table 1 presents a complete inventory of parking by lot and by campus counted by the University while Exhibits B, C and D illustrate the user group assignment through color coding. With 1,591 spaces, the Downtown Campus has the lowest parking inventory, 1,099 (60%) of which are allocated to employees, 144 (10%) to resident hall students, and 335 (20%) to Shortterm users. There are 13 open spaces available in the Downtown Campus which counts for less than 1% of the total inventory. While the Downtown Campus provides the greatest number of employee spaces, there is no commuting student or mixed parking available within its boundaries. It is presumed that commuting students who drive to the Downtown Campus choose to park in short-term parking facilities, namely the Mountainliar Parking Facility (Area 9) or in private or public lots surrounding the Downtown Campus. As Graph 1 illustrates, the greatest volume of parking spaces exist on the Evansdale Campus (4,118), 42% of which are allocated to open parking. Open spaces are generally used for overflow parking when the spaces that are assigned (but not reserved) to specific user groups become full. Mixed parking supply has the second highest inventory in the Evansdale Campus and commuter student parking (297 spaces) are scattered on the Campus’s northern periphery and accounts for only 7% of the total inventory. The Health & Science Campus has a total supply of 3,137 parking spaces and the largest number of mixed use spaces (1,506). This inventory also includes those areas/spaces that serve the Law School. Overall 32% of the total parking inventory at WVU is dedicated to employee parking, 6% to commuting students, 7% to resident hall students and 8% to short-term users. The remaining 47% of the parking supply counts for mixed or open parking spaces in all three campuses. It is unusual for an institution as large as WVU to dedicate so few parking spaces to commuting students. With a 2007 commuting student population of over 22,000, only 578 are dedicated solely to commuting student use. There are another 1,760 open spaces and a share of the 2,356 mixed employee/student spaces. However, even when these open and shared spaces are included the student per space ratio is only 4.7 (22,000 divided by 4,694). Noting that half of all mixed spaces are used by employees increases that ratio to 5.4. The commuting student to space ratio observed at other universities (to be discussed) is nearer to 3.0. It is also interesting to note that there are zero student spaces provided by the University on the Downtown Campus. This reinforces the importance of the PRT, Mountain Line service, and the need for effective space assignment and enforcement procedures.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 4


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 1 Current Parking Inventory by Campus & Space Allocation WVU Facilities Downtown Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Downtown Total Evansdale Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Evansdale Total Health Science Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Health Sciences Total WVU Total Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Total

Total Inventory 1,099 0 0 144 335 13 1,591 665 297 850 167 392 1,747 4,118 1,056 281 1,506 294 0 0 3,137

Graph 1: Percentage Breakdown of Spaces by User Group by Campus

2,820 578 2,356 605 727 1,760 8,846

Downtown Health & Science Evansdale

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 5


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit B: Current Parking Allocation by User Group, Downtown Campus

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 6


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit C: Current Parking Allocation by User Group Evansdale Campus

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 7


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit D: Current Parking Allocation by User Group Health Sciences Campus

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 8


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

B.

Current Peak Parking Utilization The figures presented in Table 2 illustrate the parking inventory, peak parking occupancy, and practical surplus or deficit by campus and by space allocation for a typical weekday in April, 2008 as provided by the Transportation and Parking Department. With regards to the overall parking occupancy, the Downtown Campus reaches 94% occupancy during the peak period. 77% of spaces in Evansdale campus and 78% in Health and Science campus are occupied during the peak period. However the occupancy rates vary by user group in each campus. For example, 92% of the employee spaces in the Downtown Campus, 100% of the resident spaces in the Evansdale campus, and 85% of the mixed spaces on the Health Sciences campus are occupied during the peak period. Additionally, 96% of all short-term parking spaces throughout the three campuses are occupied during the peak. Surprisingly, though there are only 578 spaces dedicated to commuting students only 69% were occupied. The mixed and open spaces were also underutilized as campus-wide peak occupancy reached 78% and 77% respectively. Simply peak occupancy figures fail to illustrate the stress and frustration that drivers experience when trying to locate an available space. One measure of that stress is practical capacity. Practical capacity refers to the operational efficiency of a parking facility or system. A parking facility is perceived by its users to be at full operational capacity when occupancy levels reach 90-95%. Potential parkers find it difficult to locate an available space once this level is exceeded. Those individuals must continue to search for an available space, creating traffic flow problems and increasing the potential for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. In other words, the effective and efficient turnover of convenient parking spaces is most successful when the supply of spaces exceeds the peak demand for those spaces by 5-10%. For the purpose of this study DESMAN used a 95% practical capacity for WVU. Table 2 summarizes peak parking surplus and deficit from a practical capacity standpoint. System-wide, the three campuses enjoy a practical surplus of 1,312 spaces. Available spaces can be found on each campus. This analysis suggests that WVU does not have a current parking supply and demand problem. However, this assumes that the open spaces at the Coliseum are always available. This supply was developed by the Athletic Department, is not managed by the Transportation & Parking Department, and is unavailable during events. If this supply of 1,496 spaces were excluded from the analysis, a system-wide practical deficit of approximately 184 spaces would exist. Per the peak period occupancy data some 1,136 vehicles where parked in this area. Furthermore, this statement suggests that students bound for the Downtown Campus are satisfied with the parking that is provided for them on the Evansdale and Health Sciences campuses. To better understand the true demand for parking associated with students and other campus user groups and the relative frustration that each group experiences on each campus, more in depth information was required.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 9


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 2 Inventory, Peak Parking Utilization, and Practical Surplus or Deficit

WVU Facilities Downtown Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Downtown Total Evansdale Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Evansdale Total Health Science Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Health Sciences Total WVU Total Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Total

C.

Total Inventory

Parking Occupancy

Practical Capacity (95%)

Surplus/ Deficit

1,099 0 0 144 335 13 1,591

1,014 0 0 134 335 9 1,492

92% ------93% 100% 69% 94%

1,044 0 0 137 318 12 1,511

30 0 0 3 -17 3 19

665 297 850 167 392 1,747 4,118

520 219 556 167 361 1,330 3,153

78% 74% 65% 100% 92% 76% 77%

632 284 808 159 372 1,660 3,915

112 65 252 -8 11 330 762

1,056 281 1,506 294 0 0 3,137

787 182 1,287 193 0 0 2,449

75% 65% 85% 66% ------78%

1,003 267 1,431 279 0 0 2,980

216 85 144 86 0 0 531

2,820 578 2,356 605 727 1,760 8,846

2,321 401 1,843 494 696 1,339 7,094

82% 69% 78% 82% 96% 76% 80%

2,679 551 2,239 575 690 1,672 8,406

358 150 396 81 -6 333 1,312

Parking Permit Sales and Space Assignment A second measure of parking need is associated with parking permit sales and space assignment. Namely, what is the volume of permits that are issued and where do those permits allow people to park? Note that this analysis focuses on employees, resident hall students, and commuting students as it is presumed that most visitors to the campus park in the short-term areas. Table 3 revisits the parking inventory for each campus and for each allocation group and presents the number of permits issued. The permit data is based on Fall 2007 information. Overall, 5,974 parking permits were issued to employees, commuting students, and resident hall students. Of that total only 1,609 permits were issued to commuting students. In comparison to the 22,000 non-resident students, this equates to a permit to student ratio of .07, or 7 permits issued per 100 students.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 10


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 3 also presents the permit oversell ratio. Given that many employees (particularly faculty) and students are not on-campus all day or every day, parking administrators are able to issue more permits than the number of spaces available. For example, a 100 spaces student lot could serve a total of 160 student permits without fear of conflict under the assumption that on average 60% of the students are not on campus during the peak hour of a particular day. This percentage is a rough average of peak period student accumulation patterns as obtained by DESMAN from other campus parking/population studies. Administrators constantly monitor the utilization of parking facilities to determine if the oversell rate achieves a balance between capacity and peak use. Surprisingly, the Transportation and Parking department did not oversell employee or commuting student permits in any of the campus parking areas. This may explain why peak parking utilization for employee parking areas reached just 92% and 78% respectively in these areas. Student parking activity on the Evansdale campus reached only 74%. Table 3 Inventory and Fall 2007 Permits WVU Facilities Downtown Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Downtown Total Evansdale Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Evansdale Total Health Science Campus Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Health Sciences Total WVU Total Employees Commuting Students Mixed Resident Hall Students Short-term Open Total

Total Permited Spaces Inventory Employee Student Resident

Total

Permit Oversell

1,099 0 0 144 335 13 1,591

1,016 0 0 0 0 0 1,016

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 113 0 0 113

1,016 0 0 113 0 0 1,129

0.92 ----1 na na 1

665 297 850 167 392 1,747 4,118

615 0 488 0 0 0 1,103

0 275 284 0 0 0 559

0 0 0 167 0 0 167

615 275 772 167 0 0 1,829

0.92 0.93 0.91 1.00 na na 0.44

1,056 281 1,506 294 0 0 3,137

971 0 694 0 0 0 1,665

2 367 764 113 0 0 1,246

0 0 0 105 0 0 105

973 367 1,458 218 0 0 3,016

0.92 1.31 0.97 0.74 ----0.96

2,820 578 2,356 605 727 1,760 8,846

2,602 0 1,182 0 0 0 3,784

2 642 1,048 113 0 0 1,805

0 0 0 385 0 0 385

2,604 642 2,230 498 0 0 5,974

0.92 1.11 0.95 0.82 na na 0.68

It is understood that the Transportation and Parking Department does not oversell permits on the Downtown and Evansdale campus in an effort to be flexible to the needs of special use permits. Defined as Series 90 permits, these special use permits allows key individuals the ability to park

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 11


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

in multiple spaces. Area 90 permits are available to the President, Vice Presidents, the Executive Officer, Associate Vice Presidents, and Assistant Vice Presidents and grant them access to all WVU lots. Area 92 permits are issued by departments to visitors to the University and grant access to Areas 1, 5, 7, and 11 on the Downtown Campus, all parking areas on the Evansdale campus, and Area 80 on the Health Sciences campus. Area 94 permits are available to Deans, Directors, Assistant Directors and grant access to Areas 1, 6, 7, 9, and 11 on the Downtown Campus and the same locations at Evansdale and Health Sciences. This figure includes 138 Area 94 permits that are issued to WVU employees located at 1 Waterfront, a mixed use development located ½ mile south of the Downtown Campus. There are two other Series 90 groups that address planning, design, and construction employees (Area 95) and vendors (Area 96) on an as needed basis. In total, and per the Fall 2007 figures, there were 398 Series 90 permits. In comparison to the total number of permits, the multiple access permits account for 7% of all permits issued. This dramatically limits the Transportation and Parking department’s ability to maximize the utilization of Downtown and Evansdale facilities. It also questions the relationship of permit issuance to true parking need as individuals, namely students, who wish to purchase a permit for a particular lot on a particular campus may be unable to do so. D.

Pedestrian Questionnaires As noted, parking occupancy surveys and permit assignments do not reveal the true demand for parking or the frustration that different individuals experience while trying to get to campus. And as the core of any campus parking study is the study of people, their trip purpose, their trip mode (car, bus, shuttle, walk, etc.), and the relationship to their destination, extensive pedestrian surveys were conducted to gather this information. Ultimately, the study required sufficient information on mode choices so as to model the existing and future parking demand by user group and by building. Referred to as “point of access” questionnaires, survey personnel were stationed at high traffic volume areas throughout the campus in an effort to get a representative sample of all campus user groups. The survey form had the following five questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is the purpose of your trip? How long will you be here today? How did you arrive? If self parked where did you park? What is your residential zip code (origin/destination data)?

Table 4 and Graphs B1 and B2 illustrate the travel mode characteristics for each of the various user groups on campus. In total, 1,453 individuals were interviewed, including (but not limited to) 234 faculty/staff, 654 commuting students, and 527 resident students. As the study will need to develop peak parking demand ratios for each user group, this section of the report focuses on the travel characteristics for each group, with particular interest in the auto use percentage of the two larger parking groups, commuting students and faculty/staff. According to the surveys, 53% of commuting students, 85% of staff, and 70% of faculty arrive to campus via the automobile. Though the auto/passenger utilization percentages were low, suggesting some success in the use public transportation and other trip modes, the persons per auto ratios were low. Only 9 out of every 100 commuter student vehicles and 5 out of every 100 faculty/staff vehicles have a passenger (rideshare/carpool). With regards to resident student auto use, the results may be

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 12


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

misleading as the 35% of respondents that indicated they either drove or were a passenger may include students who were confused by the question. Table 4: Travel Mode Characteristics for various Campus Parking User Groups

User Group Resident Student Commuting Student Faculty Staff Event Visitor Business Visitor Other Campus Total

of # 527 654 86 148 0 13 25

sp Re

1,453

on

s se

D 30% 49% 69% 79% 0% 54% 68%

47%

r

eO ov

w

n

C

ar e ss Pa

in er g n

C

ar

5% 4% 1% 6% 0% 8% 4%

PR 29% 17% 8% 4% 0% 23% 0%

5%

19%

Graph B1: Percentage Breakdown of Commuter Student Arrival Times

T

Bu 10% 6% 3% 2% 0% 15% 0%

rS so

7%

e ttl hu k Bi 25% 23% 17% 7% 0% 0% 20%

21%

rW eo

k al O

er th

1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 8% 1%

s on rs e P 1.18 1.09 1.02 1.08 0.00 1.14 1.06

r pe

e cl hi e V

---

Graph B2: Percentage Breakdown of Employee Arrival Times

Percentage Breakdown of Commuter Student Arrival Types

Percentage Breakdown of Employee Arrival Types

23%

1%

Drove Ow n Car Passenger in Car 49%

PRT Bus or Shuttle

6%

6% 4%

3%

11%

1%

Drove Ow n Car Passenger in Car PRT

Bike or Walk 17%

4%

Bus or Shuttle

Other

Bike or Walk 75%

Other

The surveys also captured the origin and destination of the different users. Exhibit E illustrates the percentage of employees, commuting students, and resident hall students that live within various zip codes around the University. Unlike the other university’s where Desman completed these surveys including Virginia Commonwealth University, University of North Carolina, Asheville, East Tennessee State University, University of Mary Washington, and Montgomery College, the residential distribution patterns for WVU employees, commuting students, and resident hall students is concentrated within three adjacent zip codes. This suggests that those destined for the campus don't need to rely on single-occupant vehicle travel and that public transportation initiatives should have a better cost to benefit ratio than most regional service providers could achieve.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 13


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit E: Trip Origin (Zip code) Analysis (

E.

Population-based Parking Demand Estimates Occupancy counts and questionnaires do not reveal the true demand for parking by user group and they cannot capture the number of students who may be parking in faculty, staff, or visitor spaces (or vice versa), or in facilities unaffiliated with the University (i.e., City lots/garages, onstreet spaces, and private lots). Furthermore, the growth on a campus is most accurately defined by population data, i.e., student enrollment and staffing projections. Therefore, some mechanism was required that could be used to estimate current and future parking demand by user group using population data.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 14


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Based on the results of the pedestrian questionnaires, parking demand ratios for each user group/population have been developed. Table 5 documents the peak parking demand per ratio for WVU’s employees (0.46), commuting students (0.14), and resident hall students (0.21). For example, for every 100 commuting students registered for class at WVU, 14 parking spaces need to be provided during the peak period of parking activity. Table 5 then compares the WVU demand ratios to Desman experience at other universities and the findings documented by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Eno Foundation, two nationally recognized research agencies. WVU’s demand ratios for all user groups are on the lower end of the scale even when compared to institutions that are located in urban environments (Morgan State University and Worcester Poly Tech) or those states (Massachusetts) where the majority of colleges and university are well served by public transportation. Table 5 WVU Population-based Parking Demand Ratios and Comparison to other Surveys and Research

West Virginia University Surveys Desman Experience University of Mary Washington Univ. of North Carolina, Asheville Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore Morgan State University Worcester Poly Tech. East Tennessee State Univ. Montgomery College (Comm.Col.) Eno Foundation Research by State California Connecicut Virginia Pennsylvania Texas Kentucky Missouri Massachusetts Eno Foundation Research Urban Land Institute

Employee Population

Commuting Student Population

Resident Student Population

0.46

0.14

0.21

0.56 0.63 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.59 0.75

0.33 0.34 0.24 0.12 0.08 0.32 0.68

0.43 0.65 n.a. 0.18 0.38 0.60 n.a.

n.a. 0.7 0.62 0.61 0.55 0.95 0.9 0.5 0.92 0.30 - 0.90

0.27 0.23 0.44 0.13 0.33 0.21 0.37 0.13 0.37 0.25 - 0.50

n.a. n.a. 0.84 n.a. n.a. 0.98 n.a. n.a. 0.36 0.30 - 0.90

To determine the validity of these ratios for use in estimating future parking demand they were applied to the Fall 2007 enrollment and staff data and then compared to the actual parking occupancy surveys. Table 6 presents the Fall 2007 volumes for employees, commuting students, and resident hall students. Note that there is no data regarding the number of visitors, vendors, or contractors that frequent the University during the course of a typical year. Therefore, this analysis applies only to employees, commuting students, and resident hall students. The total volumes were then multiplied by the recommended parking demand ratios to estimate the peak weekday demand for parking. Based on this analysis the true peak demand equals 7,690 parking spaces.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 15


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 6 Population-based Estimated of Peak Period Parking Demand Population Group Employees Commuting Students Resident Students Visitors/Contractors (1) University Total

Total Fall 2007 (1) 7,735 22,613 5,206 n.a. 35,554

Peak Demand Ratio 0.46 0.14 0.21 n.a. ----

Estimate of Parked Vehicled during Peak Period 3,530 3,080 1,080 n.a. 7,690

(1) No daily visitor or contractor population data is available.

Table 7 then compares the results of the parking occupancy surveys to the population-based estimate of peak parking demand. Note that a number of assumption were required to convert the facility-based field surveys into employee, student, resident, visitor/contractor utilization because different user groups could be using the mixed, open, and short-term facilities (see footnotes). As noted previously, the total peak utilization per the field surveys was 7,094 spaces. Of that number it is estimated that 3,605 are employee vehicles, 2,518 are students vehicles, 831 are resident vehicles, and 140 are visitors/contractors vehicles. Presuming that the utilization-based estimate of visitor/contractors is correct (and applied to the population-based estimate) then the total population-based demand would equal 7,830, a deviation of 736 vehicles or 10%. This analysis suggests that 562 commuting students and 249 resident hall students use/park a vehicle in relation to the trip to the University but park in non-University affiliated area. The table also suggests that 75 employee spaces were occupied by commuting students or resident student vehicles. Table 7 Comparison of Utilization-based to Population-based Parking Demand Estimates Deviation Population Group Employees (1) Students (2) Resident Students (3) Visitor/Contractors (4) University Total

Utilization-based 3,605 2,518 831 140 7,094

Population-based 3,530 3,080 1,080 140 7,830

Number

%

-75 562 249 na 736

0.98 1.22 1.30 na 1.10

Current Utilization Distribution of Open/Mixed Parking Facilities: (1) Employee use estimate based on 100% of employee facility parking, 50% of mixed parking (per permit sales), 22% of open parking (as a % of the total population), and 15 of short-term parking (rough approximation). (2) Student use estimate based on 100% of student facility parking, 50% of mixed parking (per permit sales), 78% of open parking (as a % of the total population), and 60% of short-term parking (rough approximation). (3) Resident students include 100% of resident lots and 10% of short-term parking. (4) Visitor and contractor parking estimate is calculated by subtracting other user group use estimates group use estimates from the total number of occupied spaces. Note that no visitor or contractor population data was available

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 16


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

It may be hard to believe that some 736 commuting students and resident hall students choose not to park in spaces that are, on the surface, available to them given that only 80% of all parking spaces on the three campuses are occupied during the peak period. Fortunately, the pedestrian questionnaires also asked where different user groups parked. Responses included both WVU lots and other non-University areas. Table 8 summaries these findings. Note that many of the individuals who were surveyed did not know the code or name of the lot and those responses were not included. Table 8 Interpretation of “Where did you park� Responses User Group Resident Students Downtown Campus Evansdale Health Sciences/Law Center Resident Student Total Commuting Students Downtown Campus Evansdale Health Sciences/Law Center Commuting Student Total Employees Downtown Campus Evansdale Health Sciences/Law Center Commuting Student Total

WVU Facilities Responses % of Total

Non-WVU Facilities Responses % of Total

Total Responses

79 49 3 131

79% 86% 100% 82%

21 8 0 29

21% 14% 0% 18%

100 57 3 160

198 120 53 371

75% 92% 93% 82%

66 10 4 80

25% 8% 7% 18%

264 130 57 451

41 59 64 164

84% 94% 100% 93%

8 4 0 12

16% 6% 0% 7%

49 63 64 176

The findings were conclusive as they closely match the deviation noted in Table 7. For example, 18% of commuting students indicated that they parked in non-WVU facilities while the deviation between student utilization and population-based estimates was 22% (1.22). The pedestrian questionnaires conducted on the Downtown Campus were most revealing as 25% of commuting students, 21% of resident hall students, and 16% of employees who parked downtown did not park in WVU facilities. Presuming the accuracy of the population-based ratios, this condition will be further explored with an analysis of parking demand by building/campus. Given the relative accuracy of the population-based demand estimates the analysis can reexamine parking permit data. As noted previously, it was surprising to find that only 5,974 permits were issued in the Fall of 2007 though the population of employees, commuting students, and resident hall students exceeded 35,000. Table 9 compares the 2007 permits by population group to the population-based demand estimate. Table 9 Comparison of Permits to Population-based Demand Estimates Population Group Employees Students Resident Students University Total

2007 Permits

Est. Parking Demand

Permit to Demand Ratio

3,784 1,805 385 5,974

3,530 3,080 1,080 7,690

1.07 0.59 0.36 0.78

(1) Excludes estimates of visitor/contractor utilization or demand (140 occupied spaces).

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 17


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

This comparison identifies a huge discrepancy between the number of commuting students and resident hall students who choose to purchase a permit and the estimated peak demand for those spaces. The discrepancy is more significant considering that estimates of peak period parking demand only reflect a small percentage of total commuting students; a group that commutes to the campuses on different days and at different times of the day. The true demand for student parking permits should equal the total number of students (22,613 per Fall 2007 enrollment) times the student auto use/auto passenger percentages (49% drive/park and 4% passengers), or 11,980 annual student permits. It would appear that only 18% (+/-) of students who drive or ride in a car to campus choose to purchase a University parking permit. This possibility should be examined further for a number of reasons. Students who do not register their vehicle via the permitting process are, in effect, uncontrolled. The University does not know they exist therefore they cannot plan or manage their needs. Nor does the University generate any revenue. These students may be parking in Open lots or illegally in spaces designated for other groups and are not supporting their management/maintenance through the permit process. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the parking enforcement program is presented in an upcoming section. As a counter-point, students argue that there are few parking spaces available to them. A reexamination of parking inventory notes that only 578 parking spaces are dedicated to commuter student use. The student, mixed use, and open spaces that are available to them are small in number, are not located near core academic buildings, and in the case of the Coliseum lots, are unavailable during events. This issue associated with proximity to core academic destination is a critical one. As noted in the introduction, WVU is actually three campuses that are linked through the PRT, with the Downtown Campus as the academic and administrative center. To determine the relative parking surplus or deficit associated with each of the campuses, Desman used the populationbased demand ratios to estimate the peak demand by building and by campus. Table 10 compares the population-based estimate of peak parking demand to the current practical capacity of spaces that exist on the three campuses. Recall that practical capacity refers to the operational efficiency of a parking facility or system (95% of the total supply) beyond which users become frustrated when trying to locate an available space. This analysis identified a system-wide surplus of 736 spaces even when considering practical capacity. However, the Downtown Campus, which has the single greatest demand for parking, has the fewest number of spaces. This results in a Downtown Campus deficit of 2,663 spaces. Exhibit F presents a graphic illustration of the location and scale of peak demand on the Downtown Campus through “density bubbles”. The larger the “bubble”, the greater the demand for parking. Obviously, the parking demand for employees, students, and resident hall students on the Downtown Campus is satisfied to a great degree by parking located at the other two campuses. This reinforces the value of the PRT and it reduces the demand for parking by over 2,600. If the University had chosen to build those spaces, and using today’s dollars, the construction cost easily have exceeded $46 million and the annual debt service and operating cost would have exceeded $5 million.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 18


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 10 Comparison to Population-based Estimates of Peak Parking Demand to the Practical Supply of Spaces by Campus

Campus Downtown Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Downtown Subtotal Evansdale Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Evansdale Subtotal Health Sciences/Law Center Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Health Sciences Subtotal Total Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Visitor/Contractors Total

Est. Peak Observed Peak Parking Demand Utilization

Diviation

2,213 484 1,458 4,155

------1,492

-------2,663

648 571 1,296 2,515

------3,153

------638

219 25 776 1,020

------2,449

------1,429

3,080 1,080 3,530 140 7,830

-------

-------

7,094

-736

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 19


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit F Representative of Peak Downtown Campus Parking Demand by Building

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 20


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

F.

Assessment of Future Parking Supply & Demand Conditions With the development of an accurate model to predict parking demand as employment and enrollment levels change Desman then reviewed the WVU Master Plan and contacted various administrators in an effort to understand campus growth. The University has established in previous documents a target of 28,500 students by the year 2011. Using that figure, and assuming that faculty and staff levels will remain unchanged, Table 11 estimates the 2011 peak parking demand for each user group. Note that this analysis is based on the current pattern of auto utilization and transit ridership. Naturally, changes to the parking demand ratios will change these demand projections. Table 11 2011 Estimate of Peak Parking Demand based on Enrollment Projections Population Group Employees Commuting Students Resident Students Visitors/Contractors University Total

Total Fall 2011 (1) 7,735 23,300 5,200 n.a. 36,235

Peak Parking Demand Ratios 0.46 0.14 0.21 n.a.

Estimate of Parked Vehicled during Peak Period 3,530 3,170 1,080 140 7,780

(1) WVU representatives directed DESMAN to assume 28,500 students by Fall 2011. DESMAN presumed the distribution of commuting to resident students based on current ratio. No increase in employees (aka faculty/staff) or visitors/contractors has been assumed.

As the projection of 2011 commuting students and resident hall students was not specific to a particular campus, the analysis simply distributed the future demand using the 2008 populationbased estimates. As indicated on Table 12, overall peak parking demand on the three campuses will growth by 90 vehicles/spaces. Given the current concentration of academic/administrative activity on the Downtown Campus, a majority of the increase in parking demand could occur there. Table 12 Estimate of Peak Parking Demand Increase by User Group & Campus Campus Downtown Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Downtown Subtotal Evansdale Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Evansdale Subtotal Health Sciences Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Health Sciences Subtotal Total Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Visitors/Contractors Total

Parking Demand Estimates Existing (2008) Future (2011)

Increase

2,213 484 1,458 4,155

2,278 484 1,458 4,220

65 0 0 65

648 571 1,296 2,515

667 571 1,296 2,534

19 0 0 19

219 25 776 1,020 0 3,080 1,080 3,530 140 7,830

225 25 776 1,026

6 0 0 6

3,170 1,080 3,530 140 7,920

90 0 0 0 90

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 21


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Traditionally, future deficit conditions on a university campus are driven more by the loss of existing parking then by an increase in peak parking demand. This is also the case at WVU. The Master Plan and current facilities program were able to provide more detailed information on the loss of existing and development of new parking facilities (see Table 13). This list included the loss of 163 spaces in Area 7 on the Downtown Campus and the net gain of 550 spaces on the Health Science campus associated with a new parking structure in Area 81. While a net increase of 321 spaces is anticipated once these projects are completed, the Downtown Campus will lose 312 spaces. As noted previously, this is an area where the demand for parking is the greatest.

Table 13 Anticipated Parking Supply Changes during the next 10-Years Parking Change

Campus Downtown Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Downtown Subtotal Evansdale Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Evansdale Subtotal Health Sciences Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Health Sciences Subtotal Total Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Visitors/Contractors (2) Total

Area 5

-54 -54

0

Area 7

-163 -163

0

Area 11

-95 -95

0

Area 71

Area 74

Total Alumni Center

0

0

0

-47

-70

0

-47

-70

36 36

Area 81 (1)

Change

0

0 0 -312 -312

0

-117 0 36 -81

275

0

0

0

0

0

0

275 550

275 0 275 550

0 0 -54 0 -54

0 0 -163 0 -163

0 0 -95 0 -95

-47 0 0 0 -47

-70 0 0 0 -70

0 0 36 164 200

275 0 275 0 550

158 0 -1 164 321

(1) With the construction of a new parking structure Area 81 will achieve a net increase of 550 spaces. For purposes of this analysis it has been assumed to be split evenly between employees and commuting students. (2) The Alumni Center Lot would include 164 visitor, ADA accceptable, and motorcycle spaces which for purposes of this analysis are all considered visitor.

As a result, the imbalance between the Downtown deficit and the Evansdale/Health Science campuses increase. Table 14 estimates that though an overall practical surplus of 773 spaces will exist in the near future, the Downtown Campus would experience a practical deficit of 3,005 spaces. However, such an imbalance should not be considered a negative condition. It would be unrealistic to provide additional parking on the Downtown Campus. If fact, given the apparent traffic and circulation issues in downtown Morgantown, it could be argued that there is too much parking on the Downtown Campus. Though the study will examine the potential to develop additional parking on the Downtown and Evansdale campus/Coliseum, the key to resolving the supply/demand imbalance is not in additional parking capacity but in parking/transit management, parking pricing, and enforcement.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 22


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 14 Future Parking Surplus or Deficit by Campus & User Group Campus Downtown Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Downtown Subtotal Evansdale Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Evansdale Subtotal Health Sciences Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Health Sciences Subtotal Total Commuting Students Resident Students Employees Visitors/Contractors Total

G.

Current Supply

Supply Changes

Future Supply

Practical Capacity (95%)

Future. Peak Parking Demand

Future Surplus/Deficit

------1,591

-------312

------1,279

------1,215

2,278 484 1,458 4,220

-------3,005

------4,118

-------81

------4,037

------3,835

667 571 1,296 2,534

------1,301

------3,137

------550

------3,687

------3,503

225 25 776 1,026

------2,477

--------8,846

------164 321

-------

--------8,553

3,170 1,080 3,530 140 7,920

--------773

9,167

Summary of Existing & Future Conditions West Virginia University does not currently have a parking supply and demand problem. Statistically speaking there is sufficient capacity to meet peak demand. However, there are a number of issues which limit the effectiveness of the parking system and greatly frustrate its parking constituency. 1. Parking permits are undersold so as to meet the needs of Series 90 permits. 2. The large volume of open and mixed parking spaces limits the effectiveness of the space allocation and permit issuance program. 3. The large number of mixed spaces (employee & student) increases the complexity of parking management and enforcement. 4. There is insufficient parking capacity to meet student needs (though it could be argued short origin to destination travel and the regional transportation system provides satisfactory alternatives to single-occupant-vehicle travel). 5. Students are dependent to a great degree on Coliseum parking. This supply is unavailable to them during events. 6. The number of permits that are issued represent only a fraction of the demand that exist, thereby reducing the parking revenue that is generated to support the system. 7. Student access to the Downtown Campus is dependent on the PRT and Mountain Line. 8. Those employees that work on the Downtown Campus but must use the PRT and Mountain Line for access stated through the questionnaire that they felt greatly inconvenienced. 9. Enrollment on the campus is targeted to reach 28,500 students, suggesting an increase in demand by 90 spaces. However, that target is already in reach and growth beyond that volume is unknown.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 23


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

10. The Facilities Master Plan and current programming identify a net increase in supply by 321 spaces system-wide. However, the Downtown Campus will lose 312 spaces. 11. Though an overall surplus of parking spaces will exist system-wide that surplus is primarily at the Health Sciences campus. The Downtown Campus will experience a deficit of roughly 3,000 spaces. 12. Though there is an imbalance between parking demand (Downtown) and supply (Health Sciences), the PRT and Health Sciences parking structure are uniquely positioned to manage this condition. 13. The key to resolving the supply/demand imbalance is not in additional parking capacity but in parking management, PRT and Mountain Line service levels, parking pricing, and enforcement.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 24


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

IV.

REVIEW OF CURRENT OPERATIONS

A.

Transportation & Parking Operations The University’s Transportation and Parking Department is a self-operated entity within West Virginia University. The basic function of its transportation role is to ensure mobility on, around and between the campuses by providing various scheduled and non-scheduled shuttle services. The Parking side operates the university-owned parking areas, consisting of numerous permit and short-term parking facilities, as well as various miscellaneous sites on its three campuses. The main functions of the Parking operations are to: • • • • • • • •

Issue parking permits Maintain parking accounts for permit holders Manage waiting and move lists where applicable Provide parking enforcement Collect short-term parking revenues Maintain and develop parking facilities Ensure that adequate parking is provided for all user groups Ensure parking is conveniently located

The Transportation and Parking Department is located two blocks north of the Evansdale Campus. The Department is headed by the Director of Transportation and Parking. There is a plan to create an Assistant Director position; however this has not yet been accomplished. Two parking related positions are beneath the Director: Office Manager – Oversees all administrative functions and staff, including office reception, permit sales, maintaining the parking database, uploading enforcement information, revenue reporting and general customer service. Operations Manager – Oversees all field personnel and activity including parking enforcement, revenue collection from automated pay-stations, maintenance of facilities, coordinating special events and general field-related customer service (helping people find a place to park, etc.) The parking database that contains permit information, individual user accounts, enforcement data and scofflaw information is T2 System’s Powerpark. This database is commonly used in university parking programs and is effective at integrating an entire operation into one management database. T2 is no longer actively supporting its Powerpark software; so it is instead directing existing customers into a new version called FLEX, which offers additional features such as online appeals and permit sales. The University’s parking program is already in the process of converting from Powerpark to FLEX. B.

Permit Sales and Space Allocation As noted above, parking permits are sold in the Transportation and Parking office. Currently there are five types of parking permits: •

Student – Issued to University students as space warrants. In most cases, the limited number of parking spaces assigned to students means that freshmen can not purchase a parking permit.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 25


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

• • • •

Employee – Issued to University employees 90 Series – Issued to University Administrators and Vendors. Allows for parking in numerous areas. Emeritus – Issued to individuals who are classified as Professor Emeritus by the University Visitor – Issued to University visitors which allows them to park in specified permit lots.

Of these five, several sub-categories exist for the intent of more clearly defining where specific permit holders may park. Permits are valid for a one-year period beginning July 1st and ending June 30th. Students who purchase permits must pay for the full year in advance with cash, check or credit card. Employees may pay the same way or they may also pay by automatic payroll deduction for the full year or by month. Permit sales are treated differently by campus because of different supply and demand issues. On the Downtown Campus, parking is at a premium and therefore permits are not offered to commuter students. On the Evansdale and Health Science Campus, all permit types are allowed, however there are limits as to where specific permit-holders may park. Permit lots and available stalls are broken down by campus and by space allocation (employee, resident, student, mixed, open, and short-term). This inventory includes the Coliseum parking area which is not managed by the Parking Department; however it is available for University use at no charge. The University parking program maintains this lot and runs a shuttle service to it, however it only does enforcement on request by Athletic personnel, and no permits are issued for this lot. Permit Usage: Though permits are sold to specific groups, they are limited on where they can be used. Generally, most permits are assigned to a specific campus or parking area, but because of overflow concerns, they are often allowed in areas not specified on the permit itself. 90 Series Permits - These permits allow for parking in most permit areas because they are generally issued to the University’s upper-level administrators who occasionally have a need to park on various parts of the campuses. The 90 Series permits are designated as area permits for sales and tracking purposes, but they do not actually represent a specific parking area as others do. Several different 90 Series permits are issued: Area 90 has access to most permit parking areas, Area 92, 94 and 95 permits allow for access to some but not all of the areas allowed to Area 90 permits, and Area 98 permits are sold to vendors who need to park on various parts of the campuses. When the 90 Series permits are issued, the user is assigned a “base area” which is the location where they are expected to parked most of the time, but because they are allowed in different lots at different times, few permit lots are oversold and are therefore underutilized. Reciprocal parking - Reciprocal parking is allowed in several lots on each campus for the purpose of providing permit-holders from other campuses a place to park for short-term needs. While some of these lots are designated as mixed use lots, others are designated as employees’ lots.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 26


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

C.

Permit Rates and Fines for Violations Permit Rates – Generally speaking, permit rates are separated by student permit and employee/vendor permit. All permits are sold annually, however rates for students are advertised at a semester rate and employee/vendor permits are advertised at a monthly rate. In the event a student or employee terminates their parking account before the end of the one-year period that they pay for, they are issued a refund for the unused months. Currently the permit rates are as follows (Permit Types denoted in red are employee/vendor permits): Mountainlair Garage (Area 9) Area 90 One Waterfront Garage Area 92 and 94 Areas 2, 17, 23, 25 & 80 General Employee Parking Area 95 Gravel Lots Vendor Parking (area 98) Student Campus Parking Student Gravel Parking General Employee Surface Lot

$54 per month $56 per month $41 per month $43 per month $29 per month $22 per month $15 per month $14 per month $59 per month $120 per semester $84 per semester $22 per month

In most cases, permit rates reflect the location(s) where the permits are valid. More desirable hard-surface lots or garages cost more per month than out-lying gravel lots. This is a proven common-practice approach used to control the more dense and desirable parking locations. Short Term Visitor Rates – Short term parking lots are located on Downtown and Evansdale campuses. Visitors pay automated pay stations (pay and display). No traditional mechanical/electronic meters or cashiers are used. The pay stations are older VenTek 400 models which are hard-wired (not solar powered) and only accept cash and coins as forms of payment. No change is given. Current short term visitor rates are as follows: ST 1 - Greenhouse ST 2 – Upper Lair ST 3 – Lower Lair ST 4 - Percival ST 5 – Sunnyside ST 6 - Watertower ST 7 - Sunnyside

50 cents per hour 75 cents per hour 75 cents per hour 50 cents per hour 50 cents per hour 50 cents per hour 50 cents per hour

There are no time limits on any of the short term lots. Rates are set to encourage turnover yet be kept at a reasonable rate for those requiring a longer stay. Fines for Violations – Short term parking lots are located on Downtown and Evansdale campuses. Visitors pay automated pay stations (pay and display). No traditional mechanical/electronic meters or cashiers are used. The pay stations are older VenTek 400 models

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 27


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

which are hard-wired (not solar powered) and only accept cash and coins as forms of payment. No change is given. Violation fines range from $3 for Failure to Properly Display a Parking Permit and Failure to Register a Vehicle with a Valid Permit to $500 for a third ADA violation. In all there are 52 different violations loaded into the parking database. The violation which comprises the vast majority of the citations written is a No Permit violation for $10. This violation applies to most parking applications within the University’s parking system. Fines for Violations are broken down on Table 15. Violation Type

Table 15: Current Violation Type and Fine

Failing to display decal or improperly displayed Failure to register vehicle with valid permit Expired short-term permit Expired meter No permit No permit this area Expired decal 2nd citation over 3 hrs. since 1st violation No overnight parking Taking more than one space Entering when entrance is closed Altered permit Over 2 hour limit in accessible space Over 4 hour limit in accessible space Parking within 10 feet of campus roadway Left Rec Center lot Other violation as may be specified on a citation Not motorcycle/scooter/motorbike parking Bicycle improperly parked Garage parked without paid time slip Blocking emergency room entrance Parking vehicle so that decal, permit ot license cannot be seen Non designated area False or stolen permit Parked in restricted or locked off area Parked on sidewalk Parked on grass Yellow line or curb or bumper blocks No parking zone Loading/unloading zone Bus loading zone Blocking entrance or exit to building Parking in visitor space Speeding Driving left of center, unlawful passing Failure to yield right-of-way Failure to stop at stop sign Wrong way on one way street Improper turn No thru traffic Expired registration No proof of insurance Blocking other vehicles Parking on roadway Fire lane Parked in crosswalk Fire hydrant Handicapped Zone ADA violation – 1st offence ADA violation – 2st offence ADA violation – 3st offence

Violation Fee $3.00 $5.00 $10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $500.00

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 28


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

D.

Parking Enforcement and Appeals Parking enforcement for the University’s parking program is performed by its own enforcement personnel using hand-held computers that are used to issue citations and collect citation information. Hand-written citations are used as back-ups in the event a hand-held computer malfunctions. Ideally, the University’s Parking Department feels it should have 13 full-time enforcement personnel, however only 8 are currently employed. The 8 are currently assigned as follows: • • • •

3 on the Downtown Campus – 1 assigned to the Mountainlair Garage, and 2 assigned to the rest of the parking lots 2 on the Evansdale Campus 1 on the Health Science Campus 2 Floaters who also do maintenance

Because of the current lack of enforcement personnel, the Transportation and Parking maintenance and ADA van drivers are issued hand-written citation books so that they can issue citations they see while they perform their required duties. Because the short-term lots have constant turn-over, they require much more attention in order to maintain an adequate level of performance. The enforcement personnel use hand-held computers which are the best enforcement tools in use today. If properly utilized, parking account and scofflaw information is uploaded to the handheld to provide vital information for the enforcement person. This allows the person to obtain information about vehicles while in the field that can lead to better and more efficient enforcement. Handhelds can also be used to record vital occupancy data for each location that can then be downloaded into the Powerpark or FLEX database in order to provide detailed occupancy reports for the purpose of determining optimum oversell ratios. The following table represents the total number of citations issued between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008. Also shown is the current status of the citations: Total Citations 95,281 100%

Voided 13,364 14%

Paid 61,944 65%

Unpaid 19,973 21%

Unpaid Fines $194,210 ----

In July 2008, rules were implanted that allows Transportation and Parking to tow vehicles that park illegally. Any vehicle with 5 or more unpaid citations is subject to being towed. Since this policy was implemented, several cars have been towed. Cars are towed with supervision by the University’s Police Department and impounded by the Police Department until all fines and fees are paid. West Virginia state law prohibits the University from booting or immobilizing cars, so this is not done. Between 50 and 80 parking citations are appealed per month. Citations being appealed go through a designated referee who is the Assistant Director of the University’s Police Department. Appeals are submitted through the Parking Office. All decisions by the referee are final, however he is willing to talk to the petitioner by telephone or in person in order to educate the individual about

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 29


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

what they did wrong, and he will often void any citations that he believes result in the petitioner learning what it was that they did wrong. In the event an appeal is upheld and the petitioner disagrees with the decision, the appeal can go to Magistrate Court to be heard. When this happens, there is an automatic $165 fee which is paid by the party that loses the case. Because of the potential for unnecessary expense, the Transportation and Parking Department tries to avoid an appeal getting to this phase, however about 1% to 2% of appeals still do. The criteria for voiding citations varies for each individual case, so the matters involved are weighed in order to determine if a citation can be voided. Individuals who have received their first citation for a minor offence (no permit, for example), do not have a hard time getting the citation voided as long as it is understood that they learned from their mistake and will not allow it to happen again. The counter staff in the parking office has the authority to void the first citation issued to an individual. Since citation information is tracked in Powerpark, vehicle license plate numbers are easy to track for the purpose of identifying the number of citations issued to any given vehicle. As more citations are issued to a single vehicle or if the severity of the infractions is worse, higher level individuals have the authority to void a citation. These individuals are: The Director, Assistant Director, Parking Management Supervisor and Parking Judge (appeals referee). As noted in the table above, 14% of the citations issued in 2007/2008 were voided. E.

Parking Related Revenues and Expenses The majority of revenue (roughly 75%) brought in by the University’s Parking and Transportation Department is done so through parking fees, which encompasses permit and shortterm sales. Fines from parking citations account for the rest. Total budgeted revenues for FY 2008 are about $3,000,000. As with most operations of this type and size, labor and its related expenses account for the largest expense (roughly 60%). Other expenses range from parking lot maintenance and small projects to utilities and debt service. Total budgeted expenses for FY 2008 are about $2,950,000. Anticipated capital expenditures are forecast for FY 2009 and are currently budgeted at $835,000.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 30


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

V.

PARKING FACILITY MAINTENANCE

A.

Objective The objective of this engineering study is to determine the present physical condition of the WVU-parking facilities based on limited visual observations. Our field investigation was conducted on June 10 and June 11, 2008. From this evaluation, recommendations have been made for appropriate maintenance approaches. Maintenance construction cost estimates have been developed based on current prices in the Morgantown, WV metropolitan area. This report contains the professional opinion of the Engineer based on conditions observed at the time of survey. Nothing in this report shall be interpreted as any kind of guarantee or warrantee regarding the subject site/structure, but only addresses the condition of the areas that were readily accessible and observable at the time of investigation. DESMAN makes no warranty that all defects or existing conditions were discovered. The opinions stated in this report are based on visual observations and also on selected slab sounding (where applicable). The purpose of the information presented herein is to report on the present condition of the various facilities and is not to be used for construction.

B.

Definitions Unless noted otherwise, condition appraisals are based upon apparent visual observations made at the time of the condition survey. The following terms shall apply in the evaluation of the facility's components: Excellent - Is in a "like new" state and is performing its function as intended. Minor items such as isolated slab cracks and surface scaling may be present at isolated locations. Good - Exhibits some deterioration and is performing its function as intended. Small areas of wider slab cracks and isolated areas of small pot holes may be observed. Fair - Many small to medium areas of deterioration are noted though the facility is still performing its function as intended. The rate of deterioration has begun to accelerate. Poor - Significant deterioration in larger areas and the facility is may no longer be functioning as intended.

C.

Deterioration Mechanisms Overview Gravel Surface Lots These parking facilities consisted of a compacted earthen base with several inches of loose gravel. The gravel was typically ž� to 1� in size. The parking spaces were delineated by concrete wheel stops. Though gravel is an excellent drainage media for the parking surface, heavy areas of concentrated water flow can begin to erode the earthen base below, creating ruts and depressions visible at the surface. Asphalt Surface Lots The majority of the parking facilities observed was asphalt surface lots. Asphalt is a combination of many materials which can break down due to weather elements, salts and other substance attacks. As the asphalt molecules break down, much of the original benefits, including the resistance to weather, are lost. This is typically observed visually by the color change in the

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 31


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

asphalt surface. The rate of pavement deterioration depends upon many variables such as the weather conditions, traffic volumes and frequency of maintenance. If preventive maintenance is not implemented once the color change in the asphalt is observed, the continued exposure to weather, salts, oils and other harmful materials will likely accelerate the rate of deterioration. This continued deterioration of un-maintained pavement leads to minor cracking at early stages, then becomes wider and deeper with time. If these cracks are not sealed on a regular basis, water and other harmful substances will seep into the base which could damage the pavement’s load bearing capacity, ultimately causing the pavement to fail. The effects of this condition are alligator cracking, rutting and pavement spalling. At this point, it is only a matter of time before the surface lot becomes riddled with cracks, potholes and compounded drainage issues that are seemingly beyond repair. Un-maintained asphalt presents visual signs of deterioration and damage quickly, in as little as two years. Once the cracking, scaling and spalling begin, the continued lack of proper maintenance may lead to serious liability issues and the pavement investment may be at risk of complete failure. As the asphalt deterioration exponentially increases with time, repair costs will also exponentially rise. Concrete Surface Lots and Parking Structures Reinforced concrete deterioration is typically caused by one or more factors of deterioration mechanisms including corrosion of reinforcement, water penetration, freeze-thaw cycling, volume change, or chemical attack. Any one or combination of these deterioration mechanisms can adversely impact the behavior/performance of a reinforced concrete structure. These adverse impacts include corrosion-induced distress, loss of reinforcing cross section, scaling, leaking, cracking, and delamination of concrete. D.

Summary of Condition Assessment A visual condition assessment of all known WVU parking facilities was conducted to determine the present physical condition of the facilities and recommend a preventive maintenance program. The 10 year life cycle maintenance program to be presented later in this section is in response to the visually noted deficiencies of the various facilities at this time and includes a combination of the following maintenance repairs/rehabilitation work items based on the type of facility. Gravel Surface Lots Occasionally, a depression or rut was observed in the gravel indicating a consistent path of heavy water flow which may have eroded the sub-base. To mitigate this erosion, the surface lot may need to be re-graded and reconfigured to create a positive and desirable path for the water to travel. However this remedy seems extreme for these random isolated repairs. Instead it is recommended that WVU budget to have the sub-base of these areas exposed, filled, re-compacted and new gravel placed every two to three years to maintain a uniform driving surface.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 32


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Though some of the concrete wheel stops identifying parking spaces are anchored with steel dowel bars, others have become loose and have been displaced due to vehicle impact. Furthermore, the concrete wheel stops have cracked over time and with the continued seepage of moisture into the cracks have deteriorated the reinforcing in the wheel stop and its anchoring dowel bars. Wheel stops that have began to deteriorate exhibit rusted bars which protrude from the unit which may cause personal injury or property damage. These wheel stops should be replaced at this time and WVU should budget to replace several wheel stops each year. Asphalt Surface Lots In general, our visual condition survey of the asphalt parking surfaces revealed that many lots are in need of several maintenance repairs and all of the asphalt surface lots require a continuous maintenance program to provide long term economic viability for these facilities. Some of the maintenance measures that should be implemented include the repair of all ruts, depressions, surface scaling and potholes that have developed in the pavement. This should be completed approximately every 5 years. This would entail selective demolition of the pavement to expose and stabilize the layers below using lime, cement or bituminous materials and replacement of the asphalt in patches.

All visible cracks and joints throughout the surfaces should be sealed annually to prevent future deterioration. Many of the lots require the application of a seal coat at this time, which prevents continued degradation of the existing surfaces without considerable investment in an overlay. This seal coating typically has a useful life of three to five years before needing reapplication. In isolated locations, a complete asphalt overlay or an overlay in large areas of existing lots seems necessary to restore the surface lot to its original design condition.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 33


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Other miscellaneous repairs include the replacement of deteriorated wheel stops, drainage improvements, re-striping of the parking stalls and graphics and isolated retaining wall repairs. Concrete Surface Lots and Parking Structures There are approximately four structured parking decks and a few concrete surface lots whose required maintenance measures and related costs were studied for inclusion within this report. The locations of these facilities could be found on any one of the WVU campuses in Morgantown and varied in age, use, size and construction type. The limited field survey of these facilities consisted of visual observations of the garage slabs, soffits (where accessible), vertical surfaces, stairs (where applicable) and faรงade. Existing construction drawings for the four structured facilities were not available for review at this time. The evaluations of the structured parking facilities required that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions, and some of these assumptions cannot be verified without additional expenditure or performing destructive work to serviceable portions of the building facilities. The extent of our evaluation was limited to the scope of work, and DESMAN cannot guarantee that the appraisal discovered or disclosed all possible latent conditions. One of the structured parking decks, Summit Hall Garage, appeared to be under going a restoration program which may have stemmed from a structural assessment report on the facility provided by KCI Technologies on May 14, 2007. It is unclear at this time what the scope of work for this garage entailed and subsequently it is difficult to assess future maintenance costs to this facility. Therefore the budgetary maintenance costs associated with this facility are based on the conditions observed in the field at the time of the assessment.

The Mountainlair Parking Garage was also visually observed and the elevated slab surface was selectively sounded to identify any areas of currently delaminated concrete. The garage appeared to be in satisfactory condition at this time with only minor deficiencies which would be categorized more as necessary on-going maintenance repairs. It was also noted that previous maintenance measures to the garage were implemented at one point, though the extent and type of repairs are unknown. An evaluation report prepared by Frederic R. Harris, Inc. in September 2000 referenced three rehabilitation options for the plaza located above the parking garage as well as two rehabilitation options for the parking garage itself. It is uncertain which option, if any

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 34


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

were implemented based on this evaluation and what type of products were used for the repairs. Therefore for budgetary purposes, the maintenance repairs associated with this garage are based on conditions observed in the field at the time of the survey, life expectancies of the various systems noted to be installed (expansion joints, waterproof coatings, sealants, etc.) and our experience with similar structures of this type.

Area #17, located on the Downtown campus is noted to be roof top parking that is accessible from the street, with occupied classroom space below. The occupied space below is finished so the slab soffit of the parking area could not be observed at the time. It appears however that this facility may be relatively new and in excellent condition. These parking areas did not appear to be leaking, as there were no signs of water staining or water damage on the finished ceiling surfaces. The parking surface also appeared to be in sound condition with no visible spalling or cracking. Maintenance repairs for this parking facility were projected for the out years, again based on our experience with similar structure types. The fourth structured parking facility located at the Health Science Campus is designated as area 75. DESMAN distinguished this facility from another separate area also designated as area 75 with the subscript “b�. This facility appeared to have a maintenance shop or storage facility located below the parking level. The occupied space below was not accessed at the time of the survey to review the condition of the slab soffit. From visual observations the concrete parking surface appeared to be heavily scaled with noted cracking. It is assumed with occupied space below that the concrete surface observed is a topping slab and a protected waterproofing system is located below over the structural slab. Based on visual observation of the topping slab surface, the maintenance costs associated with this facility consists primarily of fully removing the

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 35


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

topping slab to replace any existing waterproofing media and replacing the concrete wearing surface. In general, the recommended maintenance repairs for concrete surfaces would include the replacement of all currently delaminated concrete, routing and sealing of visible surface cracks and construction joints, drainage improvements, installation/maintenance of waterproofing mediums such as surface sealers and waterproofing membranes, miscellaneous painting and restriping of the parking stalls and graphics. E.

Summary of Budgetary Repairs and Recommendations Maintenance repairs correct distress due to spalling, scaling and cracking which, if left unattended, can contribute to accelerated deterioration of various elements. The purpose of parking facility maintenance is to assure proper timely and preventive actions to minimize premature deterioration of the elements. Parking maintenance is most economical when consistently performed from the outset. However, it is never too late to implement a maintenance plan that will optimize your current surface conditions and prolong their life. Therefore, maintenance of the facilities are considered very important, since deferred maintenance can lead to serious deficiencies and, therefore, major costly repairs. Based on our limited visual review of the numerous facilities, none of the deficiencies noted appear to be of any serious structural concern at this time, though there are several facilities that should be addressed as a priority, such as those denoted to be in poor condition and the facilities that are structural parking decks. The remainder of the parking areas presented is less serious in nature and could be deferred until funding becomes available, however repairs to these parking areas cannot be deferred indefinitely. The defects noted at this time are considered maintenance items and may be addressed as soon as practical, in association with a continual ongoing maintenance effort, to minimize future deterioration of the structure/surface and therefore, cost effectively, extend its service life. It is recommended that a full condition survey of the specific parking areas be performed before construction documents are prepared. Construction cost estimates and recommended repair programs could then be adjusted to reflect actual findings based on the results of the condition survey. The overall cost to maintain the WVU parking facilities is tabulated on Table 16. In general, the costs reported are based on current prices in the Morgantown, WV area for labor, equipment and materials. The probable repair costs are derived from various assumptions made regarding the existing conditions to develop the probable repair quantities and also based on the limited observations conducted and our experience with similar projects. Actual cost of repairs may vary due to the time of year, local economy, bidding climate and other factors. The length of repair life expectancy is based on our experience with repairs of similar type of facilities. The costs shown are expressed in today’s value of money and do not include soft costs such as periodic inspections by facility by management staff or consultants, costs to retain consultants to develop maintenance specifications, revenue loss during maintenance work, inflation, and disruption of operations and patron inconvenience. The total maintenance cost for all of the WVU facilities observed, over the ten (10) years covered under this report is $5,021,600. Relative maintenance costs among parking facilities will vary proportionally with the level of use and the type and size of the facility. Facilities with higher traffic volumes will wear faster, thus requiring more aggressive maintenance programs.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 36


Table 16 WVU - 10 Year Life Cycle Costs Parking Designation

Auto Inventory

Parking Area

Campus

Lot Type

Current Condition

1 2 3 4 5 5 temp 6 7 8 9/st2/st3 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 st5 st7 pur h f crest J&K sum lot arnld 32 dadis stal B&E

72 14 17 20 50 59 62 165 12 238 53 99 9 18 8 25 2 4 10 16 16 22 12 14 24 78 79 65 13 1 78 159 66 23 10 3 11 5

30,925 5,000 7,000 8,200 25,000 25,000 28,000 60,000 3,500 85,000 25,000 36,000 2,900 7,975 3,300 9,825 1,600 1,500 3,650 7,000 5,450 10,000 4,000 5,500 7,500 25,675 26,000 27,600 5,000 500 35,000 65,000 25,000 8,500 4,000 1,200 4,000 3,000

Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown

Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Structural Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Structural Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Structural Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Concrete

Good Good Fair Good Fair Excellent Good Poor Poor Excellent Excellent Fair Good Good Fair Excellent Fair Poor Good Excellent Poor Poor Excellent Fair Excellent Good (on-going work) Poor (abandoned) Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Poor Poor (Under Repair) Fair Fair Good Good Excellent

40 41 43 44 45/45e 45 Street 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 60 62 70 71 72 73 74 77 78 79 st1 st4 st6 rec ctr 2001 I hall ag sci kroger p pont colis

93 85 169 32 184 10 75 110 55 65 170 13 12 118 50 8 50 57 7 70 47 150 4 70 34 15 35 157 142 93 207 98 4 7 49 167 1496

54,000 30,605 75,000 13,350 80,000 1,000 30,000 45,000 33,151 30,200 70,000 6,750 6,000 50,000 25,000 4,000 25,000 20,000 2,500 28,150 18,000 60,000 1,500 30,000 13,150 8,000 10,775 60,000 58,000 42,600 90,000 47,225 1,500 3,000 25,000 70,000 500,000

Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale Evansdale

Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Gravel/Asp Asphalt Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt

Excellent Good Good Excellent Fair Excellent Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Excellent Fair Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Good Good Excellent Excellent Good Good Fair Excellent Fair Excellent Good Good Excellent Poor Good Fair Good

42 52 61 75a 75b 76 76g 81 84 90

188 79 55 20 30 72 136 938 110 25

89,700 35,000 20,000 6,350 10,500 27,809 65,000 296,450 38,600 9,000

HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law HSC/Law

Asphalt Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Structural Gravel Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt

Excellent Good Good Good

$ $

Near Term Repairs Year 2

$

4,826.63

$

24,872.50

198,682.50 17,140.00 $195,740 $

41,188.50

$

3,316.47

$

720.00

Out Year Repairs Year 3

Out Year Repairs Year 4

Out Year Repairs Year 5

$ $ $ $ $

23,919.36 2,994.13 105.00 5,244.46 250.00

$ $ $ $ $

309.25 50.00 105.00 82.00 250.00

$ $ $

17,832.40 600.00 105.00

$ $ $

280.00 600.00 105.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

540.00 2,662.18 6,161.56 49.50

$ $ $ $

540.00 29.00 79.75 49.50

$ $ $ $ $

$

1,400.25

$ $ $

24.00 45.00 1,689.50

$ $ $

45.00 36.50

$ $

11,917.68 26,286.50

$ $

163.50 300.00

$ $

163.50 300.00

$

82.50

$

82.50

$ $

23,549.26 260.00

$ $

256.75 260.00

$ $

23,874.13 1,950.00

$ $

350.00 1,950.00

$ $ $ $

127.50 450.00 552.00 1,852.00

$ $ $ $

127.50 450.00 12.00 40.00

$

$

62,746.75

$

148,401.75 $256,100 $ $

7,518.75

11,636.25 16,290.00

$135,904.12

$54,654.00 $33,012.06 $41,142.30 $116,854.27 $

41,838.89

$

13,383.47

$47,768.63 $9,489.79

$36,252.48 $40,974.23

$306.05 $748.75

$40,005.75

$

9,639.75 $127,111.50

$28,988.10 $306.05 $748.75 $10,283.36 $1,804.88 $546.00 $300.00 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $67.50 $366.75 $36,823.82 $453.00 $90.00 $331.50 $11,007.00 $16.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

309.25 50.00 105.00 82.00 250.00 150.00 280.00 28,050.45 1,719.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

150.00 540.00 29.00 79.75 49.50

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

4.51 736.52 36.50 42.00 2,669.07 4,854.15 24.00 82.50 45.00 256.75 12,362.39 165.60 30.00 3.00 350.00 31,890.47

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

127.50 450.00 12.00 40.00

$ $ $ $

309.25 50.00 3,249.00 82.00 11,913.44 150.00 280.00 600.00 105.00 $175,950 150.00 17,659.35 29.00 79.75 1,546.37 720.00 45.00 36.50 42.00 163.50 300.00 24.00 2,560.50 45.00 256.75 260.00 165.60 30.00 3.00 350.00 1,950.00 $24,700.00 4,069.28 3,810.00 12.00 40.00

$324.00 $306.05 $748.75 $80.10 $1,804.88 $6.00 $300.00 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $67.50 $5,838.11 $286.50 $453.00 $90.00 $5,697.02 $120.00 $16.00 $6,734.89 $520.75 $0.00 $9.00 $6,734.89 $131.50 $0.00 $161.63 $285.60 $870.00 $255.60 $1,273.25 $472.25 $9.00 $1,481.33 $250.00 $1,050.00 $5,000.00

$324.00 $306.05 $748.75 $80.10 $57,261.20 $6.00 $300.00 $22,957.26 $15,230.11 $14,597.63 $30,711.71 $67.50 $366.75 $286.50 $15,098.27 $3,044.06 $331.50 $120.00 $16.00

Out Year Repairs Year 8

Out Year Repairs Year 9

Out Year Repairs Year 10

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

14,189.63 2,320.25 105.00 3,773.39 250.00 150.00 12,809.24 600.00 105.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

309.25 50.00 105.00 82.00 250.00 150.00 280.00 600.00 105.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

150.00 540.00 1,361.54 3,656.03 49.50

$ $ $ $ $

150.00 540.00 29.00 79.75 49.50

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

24.00 45.00 1,689.50 42.00 163.50 300.00 24.00 82.50 45.00 12,034.12 260.00 165.60 30.00 3.00 15,986.00 1,950.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

45.00 36.50 42.00 163.50 300.00 24.00 82.50 45.00 256.75 260.00 165.60 30.00 3.00 350.00 1,950.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

127.50 450.00 552.00 1,852.00

$ $ $ $

127.50 450.00 12.00 40.00

$ $ $ $ $

$324.00 $306.05 $748.75 $80.10 $1,804.88 $6.00 $300.00 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $67.50 $366.75 $286.50 $453.00 $90.00 $331.50 $120.00 $16.00

$131.50 $0.00 $5,155.69 $285.60 $27,326.15 $255.60 $1,273.25 $472.25 $9.00 $90.00 $250.00 $34,820.44 $5,000.00

$324.00 $14,235.33 $34,224.25 $80.10 $1,804.88 $6.00 $13,800.00 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $3,104.14 $366.75 $286.50 $453.00 $90.00 $331.50 $120.00 $772.00 $6,734.89 $23,190.98 $22,800.00 $9.00 $6,734.89 $6,121.77 $4,380.00 $161.63 $285.60 $870.00 $19,302.00 $57,520.71 $21,546.61 $9.00 $90.00 $11,394.34 $1,050.00 $233,402.75

$538.20 $350.00 $0.00 $105.00

$538.20 $350.00 $0.00 $105.00

$538.20 $16,085.50 $9,110.00 $3,032.61

$538.20 $350.00 $0.00 $105.00

$39,964.49 $5,614.38 $8,810.63 $9,509.85 $38,535.94 $22,608.00 $32,321.64 $230,932.95 $19,594.00 $437,490.00 $24,789.75 $62,627.85 $4,197.71 $10,296.10 $5,209.34 $17,771.25 $1,492.51 $2,451.77 $3,598.00 $6,324.00 $15,731.24 $33,240.65 $3,648.00 $10,656.75 $6,858.00 $37,123.87 $76,929.14 $24,957.60 $4,536.00 $450.00 $41,960.13 $193,942.22 $364,300.00 $16,598.03 $23,250.00 $1,176.00 $3,944.00 $3,120.00

$23,004.00 $306.05 $748.75 $5,687.10 $1,804.88 $426.00 $300.00 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $67.50 $366.75 $20,341.50 $453.00 $90.00 $331.50 $8,520.00 $16.00 $6,734.89 $520.75 $0.00 $639.00 $6,734.89 $131.50 $0.00 $161.63 $20,277.60 $870.00 $18,147.60 $1,273.25 $472.25 $639.00 $90.00 $250.00 $1,050.00 $5,000.00

$53,288.10 $52,324.11 $79,690.98 $16,290.86 $205,799.44 $996.00 $32,104.50 $82,651.26 $51,723.03 $58,910.93 $159,457.23 $11,131.48 $50,244.26 $58,311.32 $66,037.89 $13,163.85 $21,400.99 $20,007.00 $3,443.00 $33,674.44 $84,480.94 $45,600.00 $2,038.13 $33,674.44 $21,864.32 $8,760.00 $19,650.81 $50,018.31 $73,421.90 $65,671.98 $179,785.70 $58,634.86 $1,632.45 $11,751.08 $35,501.09 $169,281.94 $586,504.75 $162,146.25 $37,059.81 $18,220.00 $8,583.63 $353,900.00 $11,088.84 $78,038.38 $438,742.46 $55,830.94 $13,841.78

$300.00 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $67.50 $366.75

$453.00 $90.00 $331.50

$453.00 $90.00 $331.50

$2,575.00 $58,165.46 $22,800.00

$16.00 $6,734.89 $520.75 $0.00

$14,953.54 $4,380.00 $161.63

$6,734.89 $131.50 $0.00 $161.63

$870.00 $26,944.38 $114,625.49 $34,254.75

$870.00 $255.60 $1,273.25 $472.25

$90.00 $22,606.75 $1,050.00 $323,102.00

$90.00 $250.00 $1,050.00 $5,000.00

$18,874.31 $9,110.00 $4,921.03

$350.00 $0.00 $105.00

$44,393.88 $4,446.75 $35,413.45 $9,060.60

$2,217.77 $650.00 $4,446.75 $386.00 $90.00

$650.00 $4,446.75 $386.00 $90.00

$2,217.77 $650.00 $4,446.75 $386.00 $90.00

$650.00 $133,037.50 $386.00 $90.00

$2,217.77 $29,744.50 $4,446.75 $18,101.49 $4,241.18

$650.00 $4,446.75 $386.00 $90.00

$38,436.45 $350.00 $0.00 $105.00 $11,970.00 $2,217.77 $650.00 $4,446.75 $386.00 $90.00

$2,217.77

$520.75 $0.00 $1,363.13 $131.50 $0.00 $161.63 $28,598.31 $870.00 $255.60 $1,273.25 $472.25 $957.45 $90.00 $250.00 $1,050.00 $5,000.00 $121,557.00 $350.00 $0.00 $105.00 $325,050.00

$520.75 $0.00 $9.00

$520.75 $0.00 $9.00 $131.50 $0.00 $161.63 $285.60 $870.00 $255.60 $1,273.25 $472.25 $9.00 $90.00 $250.00 $1,050.00 $5,000.00

Total

309.25 50.00 105.00 82.00 250.00 10,650.00 280.00 600.00 105.00 $32,900 10,650.00 540.00 29.00 79.75 49.50 $9,450 45.00 36.50 2,982.00 163.50 300.00 1,704.00 82.50 3,195.00 256.75 260.00 11,757.60 2,130.00 213.00 350.00 1,950.00 $76,000.00 127.50 450.00 12.00 40.00 1,560.00

$1,804.88

$16,880

$274,577.71

$ $ $ $ $

Out Year Repairs Year 7

$1,804.88

$6,734.89

$13,363.74

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

309.25 50.00 105.00 82.00 250.00 11,358.00 280.00 600.00 105.00 $32,900 13,539.75 540.00 29.00 79.75 49.50 $8,321 45.00 36.50 3,174.00 163.50 300.00 1,848.00 82.50 3,483.00 256.75 260.00 12,537.60 2,286.00 225.00 350.00 1,950.00 $7,500.00 127.50 450.00 12.00 40.00 1,560.00

Out Year Repairs Year 6

$16,504.50 $720.00 $497.27 $453.00 $1,698.75 $7,622.34 $366.75

$6,734.89

Excellent Good Fair Good Good 10%

Notes: 1. Costs are in first quarter 2008 dollars 2. The costs do not include engineering, construction administration, or material testing fees.

Near Term Repairs Year 1

Subtotal Contingency

$587,194.78 $58,719.48

$945,016.40 $94,501.64

$913,728.59 $91,372.86

$43,635.96 $4,363.60

$625,736.18 $62,573.62

$106,934.75 $10,693.47

$411,390.96 $41,139.10

$610,556.84 $61,055.68

$29,916.42 $2,991.64

$291,010.21 $29,101.02

$4,565,121.08 $456,512.11

Total

$645,914.26

$1,039,518.04

$1,005,101.45

$47,999.55

$688,309.80

$117,628.22

$452,530.06

$671,612.53

$32,908.06

$320,111.23

$5,021,633.19


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Although the cost may appear high at first glance, it is important to remember that the total maintenance cost is being spread out over ten years. In general, the cost per square foot to maintain a parking facility annually usually ranges between $0.10 and $0.75 depending on age, type of structure and also on the quality of original construction. The average cost at this time to maintain all of the WVU parking facilities that were observed is approximately $0.17 per square foot per year. While the total ten year maintenance cost for all of the facilities works out to be approximately $670 per car space or $67 per space per year; if no maintenance work is done, a restoration effort to bring the facilities back to their original condition would be exponential. Continuing maintenance measures on an annual basis will pay for themselves when compared with the major restoration costs of the existing facilities. This report assumes a certain life expectancy of recommended systems and products that may be less than actually experienced by WVU. If however testing and visual observations indicate that a particular work item which is originally scheduled for maintenance is still performing as intended, then the particular work item could be deferred. The budgeted money for this work item could then be rolled over for the work to occur in future years. In addition to the structural maintenance delineated in the tables, it is also important to implement a maintenance program covering General Maintenance (Operational & Aesthetics) as part of an overall comprehensive program.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 37


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

VI.

PHYSICAL & OPERATIONAL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS & COSTS Section III identified the current imbalance between the concentration of demand in the Downtown campus and the distribution of supply on the Evansdale and Health Sciences campuses. That section noted that WVU does not need additional structured parking particularly given the development of a new parking structure in Area 81 on the Health Sciences campus and the relative effectiveness of the PRT and Mountain Line service. However, some modification to the current parking space allocation and assignment program is required. As will be noted, the key component in allocation and assignment is expansion of short-term parking and changes to permit distribution, parking enforcement, and adjudication. Additionally, colleges and universities across the country are embracing the concept of sustainability. Within the context of this parking study, sustainability relates to transportation demand management strategies or TDM. A definition more specific to the role of parking in sustainability is parking demand management or PDM, i.e., what parking related policies and procedures will reduce demand single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. Regardless of the current parking supply/demand condition or the success of space allocation and TDM strategies, there may be pressures unrelated to traditional supply/demand conditions that would require the development of additional structured parking. For example, the University may wish to replace many of the smaller inefficient parking lots downtown with a more efficient/consolidated structure, or provide additional parking to meet special event needs. Therefore, this section does include an evaluation of two sites that could support structured parking. Finally, and noting that the Transportation & Parking Department must function within the context of an auxiliary service, where revenues must equate operating expenses, this section of the report will combine the capital and operating costs associated with all recommendations into a financial model. The key to that model will be the development of a fair and effective fee structure required to support the parking program. Within the context of these recommendations it should be noted that this study focused on University owned and operated parking facilities and the PRT and Mountain Line’s influence on parking demand and space allocation. The study did not examine the role that existing nonUniversity parking facilities could play in mitigating negative parking or traffic impacts. Nor did the study explore the role that the private sector could play as a partner with the University in the development of additional structured parking facilities.

A.

Parking Space Allocation & Assignment At present, the University has a complicated mixture of space assignments/allocations, namely the mixed and open spaces and Series 90 permits. Furthermore, it has been established that there are insufficient parking spaces to meet student parking demand if the University wishes to satisfy that demand without making use of other public or private parking facilities. As a result, most commuting students do not purchase a parking permit and many choose to park in the Coliseum lots which are outside the Transportation and Parking Department’s purview. To address both of these issues it is recommended that more short-term parking be developed. This would mean the conversion of some centrally located employee and mixed parking facilities on the Downtown and Evansdale campus. It should be noted that conversion of permit parking to short-term, “payas-you-go” parking is one of the more effective TDM strategies.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 38


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Areas 5 (58 spaces) and 7 (163 spaces) on the Downtown campus (see Exhibit G) are not fully utilized employee lots as their peak parking utilization never exceeds 90%. All of Area 5 and 80 spaces in Area 7 could be converted to short-term parking under a pay-and-display program similar to that currently employed in Area ST2 and ST3; the third level of the Mountainlair garage. This approach would be attractive to those students who require only occasional access to the campus. The evidence of this is the current high rate of student utilization and vehicle turnover in Area ST2 and ST3. A portion of the employee section of the Mountain Lair garage (Area 9) is also recommended for conversion. There are 227 spaces that serve employees permit holders. It is understood that it is a preferred destination for many of the Series 90 permit holders as well. It is also understood that when this facility initially opened it was a short-term facility. Over time, request for employee and Series 90 permits has forced the Transportation & Parking Department to convert them from short-term to employee permit spaces. It is recommended that 120 of the 227 spaces revert back to short-term management. Combined with Area 5 and 7, and the existing 78 spaces in ST5 and ST7, this recommendation would create a supply of 336 short-term spaces. In theory, and presuming an average duration of stay of 3 hours and a turnover rate of 4 vehicles per space per day, these pay-as-you go short-term spaces can serve just over 1,300 different vehicles/parkers per day and generate $500,000 in annual revenue (1,300 times avg. ticket of $1.50 times 250 weekdays). Exhibit G Space Reallocation Program for the Downtown Campus

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 39


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Based on the parking utilization and permit data, the conversion of employee parking to shortterm parking in these three facilities will displace 246 permit holders (436 current permit holders in those lots less the 190 spaces that would remain unaffected). Per the April occupancy surveys, only 1,614 of the total 1,811 Downtown campus spaces were utilized during the peak period. Therefore, nearly 200 of the 246 displaced employees could be reassigned to other Downtown lots. Area 94 permit holders who have access to Area 9 would be permitted to use any Mountainlair short-term space without having to purchase a short-term parking pass. Similarly, the other Series 90 permit holders who currently have access to Area 5 and 7 will continue to have access. It should be noted that Area 5 and 7 are programmed to be eliminated under the 10year facilities management program and any remaining employee permits for the Mountain Lair should be phased out. If the Mountainlair garage is converted to a short-term facility, the most effective way to operate it is to install pay-on-foot automated pay stations. This system utilizes ticket dispensers that dispense a ticket with a magnetic stripe. Gates are utilized to control entry and exit. When someone is ready to leave, they walk to a pay-on-foot station, insert their ticket and pay at the pay station. They are issued an exit ticket which they then feed into another machine upon exit. Once the ticket is recognized by the machine as an exit ticket the exit gate raises and the car can exit the facility. While this system has higher up-front costs than regular pay and display units, the fact that the system is gated means that no enforcement is required in the garage, which will lower labor costs and free up a much needed enforcement person. If desired, the pay-on-foot stations could be set up to accept all forms of payment, including credit cards, give change, accept validations and pre-paid smart cards. This system would still be accessible to Area 94 permit holders through a card reader system. Note that it is unclear what effect such a strategy would have on downtown traffic volumes around the Mountainliar garage. It could be argued that an increase in parking turnover would increase the volume of vehicles attempting to find a parking space downtown. While this would be almost certain, the traffic would be distributed evenly throughout the course of a day based on class scheduling. At present, the vast majority of Mountainliar spaces are reserved for employees. Those employees have a more concentrated traffic distribution pattern (i.e., the traditional “9 to 5� curve) and generate more concentrated AM and PM volumes. It is recommended that the University conduct a traffic study to determine the relative impact either positive or negative that increased short-term parking capacity might have on the downtown. With regards to short-term parking, similar recommendations are offered on the Evansdale campus (see Exhibit H). Under this program Areas 54 and 57, which are mixed-use lots, and Areas 44 and 56, which are employee lots, would be converted to short-term management. This would increase the supply of short-term spaces on the Evansdale campus from 235 spaces to 436 spaces. There is sufficient parking capacity on the Evansdale campus to absorb the 80 displaced student and 104 employee permit holders that are currently assigned to these lots. Additionally, it is recommended that all open and mixed spaces, excluding those at the Coliseum, be converted to either student parking or employee parking. From a parking management standpoint it is generally recommended that different permit holders should be segregated into dedicated facilities as student parking patterns and needs are quite different from faculty and staff patterns.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 40


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Exhibit H Space Reallocation Program for the Evansdale Campus

Series 90 permit will not be impacted by this program as they already have access to “all paid parking areas� on the Evansdale campus. With regards to access and revenue control in surface lots, it would be best to be consistent and utilize the same type of pay stations that are on the existing short term lots. If pay-on-foot stations are put in the Mountain Lair garage, the existing pay and display units can be moved to the new areas. This recommendation presents an opportunity for the program to update all of its pay stations. The existing pay stations are old units that do not have the user-friendly capabilities of newer units. Replacing them with solar or hard-wired units that accept credit cards, give change, accept validations (if applicable) and smart cards will provide much better payment options for the customers. B.

Permit Sales & Parking Permits The current methods of permit sales work rather well and there appears to be no issues within the parking office or with the customers. Because students are required to visit the parking office to purchase their permit, the current location of the office (near, but not on the Evansdale Campus) can be seen as an inconvenience. In late 2009, the parking office will be relocated to the Health Science Campus near the PRT line, so this issue will correct itself. Once T2’s FLEX database is fully integrated, the University should consider utilizing on-line permit sales for all permit holders. Through this system, the University will no longer be required to physically issue its parking permits. Instead, through an agreement with Weldon, Williams and Lick (WWL), a major permit manufacturer, employees and students can order their permits on-

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 41


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

line. Once payment is received and the user information is confirmed, the permit is sent directly to the user by WWL. This system will not only streamline the permit issuance process but will significantly reduce the workload of the Transportation and Parking Department staff. It has been previously noted throughout this report that employees and students have the option of purchasing an annual parking permit. It should also be noted however, that visitors may obtain a daily permit in the parking office that will allow them to park in specified permit lots. Because there are so many different parking areas on each campus, the natural inclination of any parking program is to assign parking by location, and when one permit is good for only one location, the parking can be oversold and well utilized. The reality however is that this rarely occurs as natural factors such as reciprocal and event parking influence parking utilization. Demands by University administrators to allow special parking privileges to VIPs (President, Deans, Regents, etc.) can also play a significant roll on how well parking areas are utilized. At West Virginia University, the permit system has become too convoluted over time to allow for optimum parking utilization. Several factors contribute to this problem: •

Mixed use locations: These areas are available for students, employees and permitted visitors. As long as the permit parking is assigned to a specific location, student and employee permit sales can be controlled based on actual lot utilization to provide for optimum permit sales ratios. Visitor permits contribute a constant unknown, which means that permit sales to students and employees must be undersold in order to ensure that enough space is available on the lot to accommodate visitor demand. The solution is to do away with visitor permits. Several advantages will result: 1. Long term visitors will not have to visit the parking office to obtain a parking permit. 2. The parking office will no longer be required to offer visitor parking permits. 3. All visitor parking can be accommodated on short-term parking lots that utilize automated pay stations or other technologies to accept payment for parking. The advantage to this is that the proper pay stations can also accommodate validations and smart cards as alternative payment methods.

90 Series Permits: While these permits serve a function that is determined by the University to be a necessity, their use and allocation creates a very large reversal of proper parking utilization. Because these permits can be used in a number of permitted parking areas, the use of these permits forces parking to be undersold in order to ensure that parking is available for 90 Series permit holders. A better option is to first determine the average number of 90 Series permits that park at each location daily and to then designate that number of stalls as “90 Series” stalls. This way, there is a distinct separation between the reserved stalls and the rest of the parking area. This eliminates the unknown factor and a proper oversell ratio can be obtained on the rest of the parking lot.

Reciprocal Parking: While reciprocal parking has advantages for both the users and the parking program, it must be carefully controlled. Currently, each campus allows for reciprocal parking in certain permit lots, and those with Downtown Permits are allowed to park in any permit lot on the Evansdale Campus. As previously noted, whenever an additional element is mixed into an existing permit lot, the permit sales for that lot can not be sold for maximum utilization. In the case of the Evansdale Campus, since reciprocal parking

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 42


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

is allowed on all permit lots, none can be used to its maximum efficiency. Instead, permit lots must be undersold to ensure that there is room for the unknown number of reciprocal parkers. Reciprocal parking should not be offered in the prime parking areas. Instead, since there is a surplus of parking, it should be offered on two or so lots located on the perimeter of each campus (not outlying). These lots are less desirable than the closer lots; therefore they have less demand and underselling them can be justified.

C.

Parking Enforcement and Adjudication Parking enforcement is one of the most vital components to a successful parking operation. Without consistent enforcement, rules are quickly broken, parking customers are displaced and revenues decrease. A proper and effective enforcement program must be in place in order to ensure parking is controlled and managed properly. At West Virginia University, the enforcement personnel have a lot of ground to cover because there are so many parking areas spread throughout the three campuses. Because of this, effective staffing and efficient assignments are critical. Areas with higher turnover need more regular enforcement than areas with lower turnover and must therefore have more attention from enforcement personnel. Additionally, enforcement personnel must make an effort to stay out of a regular and predictable enforcement pattern that can be easily figured out by people trying to get away with free parking. The introduction of gated access equipment would nearly eliminate the need for parking enforcement efforts. However, most of the University’s parking facilities are smaller lots where such equipment is physically unfeasible. Additionally, vehicular queing at the larger lots would require extensive redesign to avoid “backups” onto the public right-of-way. This would cause a loss of parking capacity. Nonetheless, access and revenue control improvements should be phased in where appropriate as the parking and transportation program evolves over time. Since the enforcement personnel are short staffed, they can not provide adequate coverage of the parking areas. Ideally, low turnover areas should be checked at least twice per day and high turnover areas at least once every two hours. As things currently stand, this is not possible. On the Downtown campus, three personnel cover the 1,811 stalls: one is assigned to the Mountianlair garage (250 stalls) and the other two cover the remaining 1,591 stalls on 35 separate parking lots. Covered on foot, these two people would be lucky to hit each location twice in one shift. On the Health Science campus, there is currently only one person assigned to cover 2,914 parking stalls on 13 separate parking lots. The rest are assigned to the Evansdale campus where there is a lot of turnover in the short term lots. Additionally, the enforcement personnel are asked to perform other duties as required, such as fix broken pay stations, so they can not dedicate their entire shift to parking enforcement. In order to provide adequate coverage, it would be best to add additional personnel. These personnel should be assigned to functions as follows: •

Evansdale Campus: Several high-turnover short term lots are located within close proximity to each other. These lots should be assigned to one person during a full 8 hour shift. This person should randomly go from lot to lot throughout the day and focus only on the short term areas. Depending on occupancy, two or three more enforcement personnel should divide

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 43


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

the rest of the campus into sections, doing random enforcement on all permit lots. Since these lots are more spread out, providing them with vehicles or bicycles would be a good way to help them cover more ground in less time. If they have to walk between parking areas, much of their daily time will not be spent doing parking enforcement. •

Downtown Campus: Because of high turnover, leaving one person assigned to the Mountainlair garage is a good idea. However a good enforcement person can cover 250 parking stalls in less than an hour and if this is the case, they would have some extra time to check some of the nearby smaller permit lots (areas 23 and 25) several times per day. Since this campus has more parking demand than the other campuses and the parking areas are also spread out, three more enforcement personnel should divide the rest of the Downtown Campus into sections, doing random enforcement on all permit lots. Providing them with vehicles or bicycles would be a good way to help them cover more ground in less time. As on the other campuses, if they have to walk between parking areas, much of their daily time will not be spent doing parking enforcement.

•

Health Science Campus: This campus does not have the short term high-turnover lots that the other campuses do. However, it has some very large parking areas. Because of this, two people can cover the existing parking areas, but they need to have a way to get between the parking locations quickly or too much time will be lost. As with the other campuses, personnel should divide the Health Science Campus into sections, doing random enforcement on all permit lots while utilizing vehicles or bicycles to help them cover more ground in less time. A new parking garage will be opening on this campus in late 2009 which may have an impact on enforcement, but at this time it is not know what type of access or revenue control equipment will be utilized.

The cost analysis to be referenced later in this report is based on full-time enforcement staff salaries and benefits. In an effort to be more cost sensitive the University could explore the use of student workers to expand enforcement efforts. Existing full-time personnel could be used as field supervisors who both enforce parking regulations and guide/monitor part-time student workers. Other colleges and universities have approached parking enforcement in this way with success. However, care must be taken in the training, assignment, and review of student enforcement performance to avoid fraternization with potential violators (namely fellow students and friends). It should be noted that the hang-tag style parking permits are bar coded for identification. They can be scanned by the handheld computers carried by the enforcement personnel and while this sounds like a great idea for enforcement purposes, utilizing this method of enforcement is too time consuming to be efficient. Instead, the bar codes should be utilized as an auditing tool. Currently, there are no written procedures or guidelines for the enforcement personnel to follow. Because of the sensitivity of parking enforcement and the potential for it to give the Department and the University a bad reputation, written procedures should be established and followed for the purpose of not only having a training tool and guidelines, but also to ensure that the same enforcement practices are followed by each enforcement person for the purpose of maintaining a fair and equitable enforcement program. In the event someone questions the enforcement practices or someone appeals a citation on the grounds that the enforcement personnel were acting out of line, written procedures are the only real documentation to fall back onto in order to justify a person’s actions. Procedures pertaining to vehicle impoundment and citation appeals

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 44


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

should be included in the written procedures as well. The written procedures should be approved by and signed by the Director of Transportation and Parking and the Chief of Police, since the police department has duties pertaining to parking enforcement as well. Despite having a paid citations percentage that is in line with the industry average, measures should be put into place to streamline the collections process. Currently, there is little recourse for the parking department to collect unpaid citations. Some people have outstanding unpaid parking fines in the thousands of dollars, and the only recourse the parking department has it to hope that they can find the car in one of their parking areas and tow it. With better measures in place, those with unpaid citations can be notified and dealt with in other means, before they get to a point where they owed the University thousands of dollars. The following are recommended methods to increase and streamline collection rates: •

Create a link to the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles in order to obtain ownership information of vehicles that receive citations. This can be integrated with Powerpark to tie the information into the system and to automatically create accounts for people owing citations. T2’s Flex system offers a package called ROVER that can track the ownership information for vehicles in most states, which is beneficial on a college campus. This feature allows for the Parking Department to send letters to those with unpaid citations reminding them that they owe a fine and notifying them of any further penalties that may be incurred if the fine remains unpaid. Currently, the Parking Department has to go through the University Police Department to find vehicle ownership information, which is time consuming on both sides.

Use a collection agency to collect on any unpaid citations. Utilizing the vehicle ownership information, a collection agency could hold the person owing money accountable for the amount owed. Some states have their own central collection agency that state entities can utilize for collection purposes. These agencies have the ability withhold state tax returns. Collection agencies typically retain about 20% of the amount owed.

Understanding that the University can not immobilize or boot cars per state law, in the event it is someday allowed, it should be considered as an alternative to towing. Where space is not an issue, an immobilized vehicle sends a message to the other people parking that scofflaws are taken seriously and dealt with accordingly. Boots are a very inexpensive and effective way to collect unpaid fines. Procedures need to be in place to establish the booting criteria and associated fees.

An issue that is very apparent is the current violation fees and types. In many cases, the fees are too low to be effective when compared to the severity of the violations they are intended to deter. Additionally, there are over fifty different violation types, which is excessive. This many violation types create confusion not only for the enforcement staff who issue the citations, but also for the administrative staff, the appeals referee and the customer. Understanding that there are many different ways a car can be parked illegally, a violation type does not need to be in place for each unique instance. Instead, it is recommended to use a more broad and general type that can be applied to several different scenarios. As previously noted, the violation for No Permit is the most common violation type. This violation type is applied to citations issued in permit lots and the short-term parking areas that utilize pay-and-display. In the short term areas, the rates are 50 or 75 cents per hour with no time limit. The $10 violation fee that an individual may receive when parking and not paying is

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 45


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

enough of a deterrent for many, but in reality, $10 is not enough of a deterrent to make the violation “painful” to a point where if someone receives a citation, they will make sure to not receive one again. Additionally, if someone knows they will be parked for 10 hours, if they paid the full amount owed, they would pay either $5 or $7.50, depending on where they park. Some will see the relatively small price differential as worth the risk of not paying at all. With enforcement personnel in short supply, some permit and short term areas are not enforced often, which makes it easier for someone to park illegally and ultimately results in lost revenue for the University’s parking program. By consolidating many of the violation types, citation issuance and management will be streamlined. Rather than having numerous violation types that need to be managed in the database and are subject to different interpretation by different individuals, it is best to have violation types that are easy to understand, concise, and effective. With the current violation types, different violations with different fee amounts can be applied to the same violation. Not only does this provide non-consistent violations, it also provides inaccurate violation data for reporting purposes and can prove problematic if the citation were to be appealed. Examples of different violation types that can be applied to the same violation are: • • •

Failing to display decal ($3.00), no permit this area ($10), Parking vehicle so that decal, permit or license cannot be seen ($15). No permit this area ($10), Garage parked without paid time slip ($10) Handicapped Zone ($100), ADA violation – 1st offence ($200)

Also, unless the university’s police department uses the same handheld computers and they are tied into the parking database system, all moving violations and traffic related violation types should be removed from the system. There is no reason, nor chance, that a parking enforcement person will have the need or ability to cite someone for speeding or making an illegal turn. Table 17 provides streamlined and recommended violation types and fees: Table 17 Recommended Violation Structure

Violation Type Warning Improperly displayed permit Bicycle improperly parked Expired short-term permit Expired meter No permit Permit in visitor stall Expired permit No overnight parking Parked in no parking zone Parked in loading zone Taking more than one space Parked in restricted area Parked over posted time limit Other violation as may be specified on a citation Not motorcycle/scooter/motorbike parking Blocking drive Parked in fire lane

Violation Fee No fee $10.00 $20.00

$50.00 $200.00 $300.00 $500.00 Altered, False or stolen permit $200.00 ______________________________________________________________________________ ADA violation – 1st offence ADA violation – 2st offence ADA violation – 3st offence

West Virginia University Final Report

Page 46


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Breaking the table down, enforcement personnel should have the choice to issue a warning in certain situations. A warning is just that: a notification that a rule has been broken. It is intended to make someone aware that they have done something wrong without actually penalizing them. Minor violations must still have a violation fee set at a level that will at least deter someone from making a minor mistake in the future. The most common violations, which can result in lost revenue and a disruption of a parking area or the entire operation are bundled together and carry a violation fee that makes people think twice about breaking the rules. The most severe infractions deserve the highest violation fees. Parking in a fire lane or handicapped zone can have a detrimental effect in the event of an emergency or it can significantly impact someone with a disability. These violations should not be tolerated at any cost and subsequently carry higher violation fees. Altered, false or stolen permits have to be taken seriously for several reasons: First, anyone who displays one is breaking the law by committing a theft of services or obtaining goods and services under false pretences. Second, for false or altered permits, time, effort and expense were spent creating them which mean the act was premeditated. Third, rarely is one false permit created, which means if one is being used, the odds are good that there are more. Finally, these violations can have a significant impact on parking revenues. This is an illegal practice and should be treated accordingly. It should be noted that when an altered, false or stolen permit is found, the University’s police department should be notified and become involved right away. As noted above, the appeals process works well as is. In the hands of a capable and understanding referee, the appeals process should run smoothly. The referee needs to have a full understanding of the parking rules, citation criteria and enforcement practices and the fairness to educate people who make a mistake yet the discipline to uphold citations that were issued correctly in the event of a blatant violation. The appeals referee needs to be aware the enforcement personnel often have a tough job and support should be given to them at every opportunity without loosing site of the rules. D.

Transportation Demand Management Strategies The focus of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques is the reduction of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. The primary mechanism used to accomplish this is the introduction of mass transit and car pooling incentives. An increase in any of the transportation alternative strategies will result in the reduction of total automobiles located on campus, while alleviating the parking constraints/vehicular congestion and promoting unimpeded movement across the campus. While West Virginia University currently has an overall surplus of parking, TDM strategies are always a cost effective alternative to parking. In areas where land is scarce such as on the Downtown Campus, the construction cost for structured parking can average about $20,000 per space, which does not include the cost of land and any other related soft costs, with an additional $500 per year per space included as operating expenses. While it is always difficult at best to predict human trip behavior, facilitating a change in behavior usually requires an economic incentive or disincentive. If we assume a potential parking need of 500 spaces was determined on the WVU Downtown Campus, a 500-space parking garage at $20,000/space construction cost and $500/space annual operating cost would result in a total expense of $10.5 million over 20 years. This $10.5 million

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 47


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

dollar cost would not take into account any financing or capital repair costs that may be required for a typical garage life span of twenty years. With the PRT and Mountain Line already established and in place, WVU already has several advantages other universities do not. First, transit already exists to service areas of campus where parking demand is greater then the supply. Second, there is a surplus of parking on the Evansdale and Health Science campus, which means that people can easily park on these campuses and transit downtown. Third, surveys noted that a large percentage of employees and students are concentrated within a 10 mile radius of the campus, focusing the promotion and service efforts of the regional transit system on a smaller area. Despite the fact that ground has been broken for the new 500 stall parking structure on the Health Science Campus, the University has a great opportunity to explore alternatives to future parking construction, by enhancing the existing shuttle services to circulate between and around all three campuses, and by using pricing strategies (higher rates) to discourage parking demand on the Downtown Campus. Understanding the University has a large percentage of its community driving onto campus, subsidizing transit passes for employees, promoting carpools by offering discounted parking rates and preferred parking and offering van pools all have the potential to reduce vehicle trips to campus without using large expenditures. Some of the many strategies employed to enhance ridesharing include: • • •

Carpooling and Van Pooling with preferential parking locations and/or reduced fees (shortterm parking facilities on the Downtown campus should create significant interest). Rideshare services that can range from on-campus bulletin boards to the use of computerized ride-matching services. Run classified ads on websites, newsletters or campus newspapers.

Creating or enhancing safe and efficient bike lanes and pedestrian access must also be considered in successful TDM strategies. Making these options as attractive and convenient as possible will lead to a further reduction in parking demand. Effective ways of promoting bicycle transit are: • • • • • •

Creating unobstructed bike lanes on and off campus. Providing safe and secure bike racks. Racks that are covered from the elements have added appeal. Provide bike lockers or a bike cage for an additional level of security and protection Create and distribute cycling maps showing the best and safest route on and around the campuses, locations of bike racks, locations of showering facilities. Promote cycling with frequent events that offer free health drinks, snacks and other incentives. Allow a local bike shop to set up a bike repair station on campus in order to offer easy access to bike and tire repair services.

In today’s environment, individuals who purchase an annual parking permit consider the cost to drive and park only once; when they register their vehicle. The other 364 days out of the year they feel empowered, if not obligated, to drive and park as they’ve already paid for the privilege. As an alternative, WVU should expand on the number of short-term parking spaces and restrict the number of parking permits that are issued. This would cause those preparing to travel to the

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 48


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

campus to consider their actions each trip as they would be required to pay each trip. Encouraging individuals to understand the cost of the commuting pattern is the first step in promoting non-SOV alternatives. A cash-out program is also an attractive alternative for WVU employees. An employee can choose to forgo the opportunity to purchase a parking permit in lieu of a cash payment. The employee can then explore and fund other alternatives including van and carpool programs, Mountain Line service, spouse pick-up and drop-off, etc. Case in point, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has 5,000 employees and zero parking spaces. The TVA pays its employees $40 each month not to bring a car to its downtown Chattanooga campus. Unum Provident, also in downtown Chattanooga, has 4,000 employees and 2,800 parking spaces. Employees pay a rate of $40 per month to park. It costs Unum Provident an estimated $1,400 per space per year for debt service, operations, and maintenance. This cost does not include the value of land. In effect, Unum Provident is subsidizing employee parking at a cost of $80 per month. E.

Location, Capacity and Cost of Parking Structures The analysis of existing and future parking supply and demand conditions and the potential benefits associated with TDM strategies suggest that WVU does not need a new parking structure. However, conditions unrelated to demand projections and the success of TDM could cause the University to examine this need. As such, a parking functional designs were developed for two sites as directed by University project representatives; the Coliseum’s southeast lot (see Exhibit I) and on the Downtown campus in Parking Areas 1 and 4 just southwest of White Hall (see Exhibit J). Scalable drawing of the grade, typical, and roof level are including in the Appendix and show vehicular entry/exit points, ramping, directional flow, and parking count. Exhibit I Location/layout of a Coliseum East Parking Structure

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 49


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

The development footprint on the Coliseum site equals 242 ft. by 312 ft. Presuming a structure with grade plus four supported levels as many as 1,178 spaces could be developed. Each typical level has 247 spaces. Therefore, a grade plus five level facility could provide as many as 1,425 spaces. As the structure would displace an estimated 350 existing surface spaces the net new parking count would equal 878 spaces. Exhibit J Location/layout of a White Hall Parking Structure

The development footprint for a parking structure on Downtown Area 1 and 4 (here on referred to as the While Hall garage, is 121 ft. by 252 ft. Presuming a structure with grade plus four supported levels as many as 480 spaces could be developed. Each typical level on this structure has 99 spaces. Therefore, a grade plus five level facility could provide as many as 579 spaces. As the structure would displace 71 spaces in Area 1 and 20 spaces in Area 4 the net new parking count would equal 389 spaces. Construction cost estimates were developed based on the total building area and current standards for per square foot construction costs ($40 per square foot). Table 18 summarizes the space count, design efficiency, total and per space construction cost for each facility. Note that the number of existing parking spaces that would be displaced by new construction was included in the calculations. Given the relative design efficiency of both sites, per space construction costs are below $18,000 per space. “High-end” façade material and treatment would dramatically

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 50


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

increase these costs, particularly for the While Hall garage given its proximity to historic administrative and academic buildings. When the number of existing spaces that would be displaced is taken into consideration, the per space count exceeds $20,000 per space.

Table 18 Comparison of Total, per Space, and per Space Gained Development Costs

Coliseum

White Hall

Number of Spaces to be Developed

1178

480

Number of Spaces to be Displaced

300

91

Number of Spaces to be Gained

878

389

377,500

152,500

Total Garage Plate (Sq.ft.) Sq.ft. per Space Efficiency

320

318

$45.00

$45.00

Subtotal Construction Cost

$16,987,500

$6,862,500

General Conditions (8%)

$1,359,000

$549,000

Profit & Overhead (10%)

$1,834,700

$741,200

Total Construction Cost

$20,181,200

$8,152,700

Sq.ft. Construction Cost

F.

Construction Cost Per Space

$17,132

$16,985

Cost per Space Gained

$22,985

$20,958

System-wide Operating/Maintenance Costs & Revenue Requirements Table 19 presents all current and projected expenses and revenues associated with parking related operations. The cost associated with additional enforcement personnel, a third-party web-based permit issuance contract, pay-on-foot stations, and more consistent near-term and long-term maintenance are significant but are necessary. Salaries and benefits for the Transportation and Parking Department would increase by nearly $200,000 (enforcement staffing), the department should establish an annual budget of $100,000 for TDM pilot programs to test the effectiveness of various alternatives, and the budget for necessary facility maintenance for the first two years is over $1 million each year. Presuming that many of these improvements are implemented by FY2009, total parking related expenditures will exceed $4.1 million, or $466 per space per year. For the Transportation and Parking Department to cover the cost of these facilities as is required of an auxiliary department, parking revenues from permits, transient parking (hourly pay-as-you-go), and enforcement would need to increase 20% in 2009 and 2010, at which point they could be stabilized.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 51


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

Table 19 System-wide Operating and Maintenance Costs and Revenue Requirements Beginning Fund Balance (1) Revenue Central Allocation Parking Fines Parking Fees Student Fees (3) Other Revenue PRT Fares Total Revenues Expenditures Salaries and Wages (4)(5) Fringes (4)(5) Service Charge Construction in Process Equipment Debt Service-Capital Projects General Current Expense (6) Computer Software Utilities Internal Loan Debt Service - Paver Debt Service for Alumni Assoc Parking Lot Transportation Demand Mgmt Programming (8) New Parking Software Conversion Parking Lot Signage Modification Total Expenditures Anticipated FY09 Capital Expenditures (9) Debt Service on Coliseum Garage Net Increase/Decrease Ending Fund Balance

FY2008 $513,735

FY2009 ($91,065)

FY2010 ($867,005)

FY2011 ($969,815)

FY2012 $105,795

FY2013 $437,905

FY2014 $1,233,915

$0 $850,000 $2,230,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,080,000

$0 $850,000 $2,676,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,526,000

$0 $850,000 $3,211,200 $0 $0 $0 $4,061,200

$0 $850,000 $3,532,320 $0 $0 $0 $4,382,320

$0 $850,000 $3,532,320 $0 $0 $0 $4,382,320

$0 $850,000 $3,532,320 $0 $0 $0 $4,382,320

$0 $850,000 $3,532,320 $0 $0 $0 $4,382,320

$1,308,750 $453,400 $110,000 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $466,540 $21,000 $75,000 $20,600 $125,500 $0 $82,600 $25,000 $2,850,100 $834,700 $0 ($604,800) ($91,065)

$1,454,600 $503,930 $113,900 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $482,900 $21,700 $77,600 $20,600 $125,500 $100,000 $0 $0 $3,062,440 $1,239,500 $0 ($775,940) ($867,005)

$1,505,500 $521,600 $117,900 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $499,800 $22,500 $80,300 $20,600 $125,500 $103,500 $0 $0 $3,158,910 $1,005,100 $0 ($102,810) ($969,815)

$1,558,200 $539,900 $122,000 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $517,300 $23,300 $83,100 $20,600 $125,500 $107,100 $0 $0 $3,258,710 $48,000 $0 $1,075,610 $105,795

$1,612,700 $558,800 $126,300 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $535,400 $24,100 $86,000 $20,600 $125,500 $110,800 $0 $0 $3,361,910 $688,300 $0 $332,110 $437,905

$1,669,100 $578,400 $130,700 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $554,100 $24,900 $89,000 $20,600 $125,500 $114,700 $0 $0 $3,468,710 $117,600 $0 $796,010 $1,233,915

$1,727,500 $598,600 $135,300 $5,000 $35,000 $121,710 $573,500 $25,800 $92,100 $20,600 $125,500 $118,700 $0 $0 $3,579,310 $452,500 $0 $350,510 $1,584,425

Footnotes: (1) Projected beginning fund balance based upon most recent FY08 activity. (2) Includes Athletic football parking and Alumni lot parking. (3) Assumes Transportation (PRT) fee to stay at $70.00 with elimination of Graduate Fee waiver. (4) Salary figures include an average 5% annualized raise effective October 1st. (5) Includes salaries and fringes for Associate Director in Parking. (6) Parking - yearly contract fee for Waterfront Place Garage expired in FY09 resulting in a reduction of $182,310. (7) Expenditure reimbursements for gas, rentals, repairs. (8) Includes Flex-Car, carpool, and vanpool incentive programs. (9) Parking Software Upgrade - $68,000 Pay-on-Foot Stations and Computer Hardware Upgrade - $200,000 Initiate Lot Maintenance Program - $400,000 (NOW $645,000)

This burden need not be the responsibility of permit holders alone. Nor should the cost be covered through a dramatic increase in fines/fees for violations. Permit sales are anticipated to remain relatively stable and any increase in the fines for violations typically creates a drop in illegal parking and a drop in fine revenue. However, the doubling of the number of short-term, pay-as-you-go spaces should double the amount of transient revenue that is generated. However, it may be inappropriate to speculate at this time the actual amount of transient revenue that could be generated as these changes may reduce parking demand by encouraging more students and employees to use Mountain Line transit or other modes of travel to get to work and/or class. Paraphrasing from Abraham Lincoln, “you can satisfy all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time.� With this in mind, the role of the Transportation and Parking Department is to create equilibrium

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 52


DESMAN A S S O C I A T E S

between the University’s ability to develop and maintain parking, the inconvenience of using non-SOV modes, and the cost associated with parking a vehicle on campus. Where that equilibrium is can only be determined through comprehensive management of all parking and access related infrastructure. The University and its Transportation & Parking Department must fund those functions and services that best meet faculty, staff, student, and visitors parking needs without being a financial strain on the University or its constituency. With the parking operations and management recommendations contained in this report, particularly as it relates to short-term parking, hardware and software upgrades, and enforcement, the Transportation and Parking Department will be poised to establish that equilibrium.

______________________________________________________________________________ West Virginia University Final Report

Page 53

Parking Facilities Plan  

Doesn't Need a description

Advertisement