Transportation Policy Committee

Transportation Policy Committee

November 5, 2007

PriceCenter: San Francisco/Santa Cruz

Minutes

Called to order at 10:05

In attendance were:
Members:
Paola Cessi, Faculty Representative (Chair)
Peter Benesch, Associated Students
Nancy Hartley, Academic Business Administrators Representative
Meagan Moore, Graduate Students Association

Staff Support:

Russell Thackston, Director of Facilities Management, Auxiliary, and Plant Services
Ed Spriggs, AVC Student Affairs, invited by Chair
Brian d’Autremont, Director of Transportation and Parking Services

Sam Corbett, Assistant Director, Transportation and Parking Services
Cynthia Davalos, Office of the VC Student Affairs, invited by Chair
Michael Gonzalez, Employee Relations
Robert Clossin, Campus Planning
Shirley Strand, Staff Support
Dan Wyman, Labor Relations

1. Call to Order: 10:05 am
   
2. Introductions: Committee members and guests introduced themselves, as this was the first meeting of the new committee term.
   
3. Overview, Background, and Discussion on TPK’s Role: Brian d’Autremont, Director of Transportation and Parking Services, shared the overview of the committee, reiterating that the Transportation Policy Committee’s (TPC) role is to advise the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services on recommendations for both parking and transportation.
   Mr. d’Autremont mentioned that the role of the Transportation and Parking Services (T & P S) department is to move people on and off of campus. It is Mr. d’Autremont’s intention that T & PS be run, in terms of communications to customers, as a public utility. This would entail advanced notice on changes and proposed changes, and interaction on these topics prior to the decision.

He gave a brief overview of the TPS organization and gave a presentation called, Access to Campus. He indicated that 1,000 more permit holders last school year have moved off campus into public transportation. Since enhancing the Rideshare program, the campus now has 1300 unused spaces. The campus is at 80% occupancy rate, which is one of the lowest in the UC system.

Dan Wyman, Labor Relations, asked how many permit holders we currently have.
Mr. d’Autremont indicated that it is 80% of the total inventory of 14,000, roughly 11,200. The cost of permits increased by 2.5% last year yielding about $350,000 for the department. However, because more people are using alternative transportation and fewer are purchasing annual permits, there is a $150,000 shortfall.

Peter Benesch, Associated Students Representative, asked if that amount was the same as predicted. He also indicated that services have been cut or consolidated.

Mr. d’Autremont responded that there are many other factors for the shortfall as well. The price of gas is a primary consideration and route changes are secondary. He indicated that some of the shuttle routes were changed to promote efficiency.

Paola Cessi, Faculty Association and Chair of TPC, asked for clarification of the “other permits” category in the presentation.

Mr. d’Autremont listed a variety of permits and also indicated that monies collected from citations goes into the Rideshare program.

AVC Ed Spriggs, guest and previous member of the committee, asked if there is data showing the occupancy rate by type: Faculty, Students, and Staff. Mr. d’Autremont indicated that that data was available in any level of detailed desired.

Mr. d’Autremont explained the debt service is currently 20% of the budget. The slides in the presentation showed that a large payment went towards the new Hopkins structure this year, as well as debt service for existing structures. It is estimated that the debt service will increase to 23% of revenues in the first year Hopkins Structure is capitalized. There are several other impacts on planning, operations, and ways to control costs. TPS can make management decisions to improve efficiency; such as, shuttle operations could run more if routes are optimized. Primarily, efficient change is occurring due to the use of the automated vehicle location system on planning, which tracks usage, schedules, and ridership. Mr. d’Autremont indicated that a third of the TPS budget is consumed by shuttles, which needs to run more efficiently. There could be changes to the services that will be frustrating to some. However, compared to the overall budget, it is not prudent to run a bus if it is only 10% occupied.

The US Open in June, which has already had a big impact on planning, also impacts the 2007-2008 budget.

He also indicated that there is criticism of the current ABS (faculty, staff, and student) system. He proposed that it is more efficient to assign people spaces in a particular lot rather than all lots. However, he indicated that it is almost impossible to give everyone what they want. The TPC has charged Transportation and Parking Services with studying this concept in 2008.

The University has been charged by the Regents to provided parking for student, staff, faculty, and visitors. Hence, pay stations were installed to meet a visitor need; one pay station can do the work of 4 full time staff. Visitor parking dovetailed well in to our current system over the past year, although a modification of the rules in Lot 207 were required.

Behind-the-scenes T2 system is due to be installed in November. It is an accounting system for permits, and internal operations.

AVC Spriggs asked for elaboration of the T2 system and whether it has been tested. Mr. d’Autremont indicated that it is behind-the-scenes accounting system for permit sales, etc. It has been beta tested.

Nancy Hartley, Academic and Business Administrators Representative, wanted to know more about the pay stations. Were they approved at a TPC meeting? There is no mention of them in the minutes.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that pay systems have been used on campus for a number of years. Until 2006, those systems have been manageable. He indicated the overall implications of the system should be reviewed as more experience with pay station systems was gathered.
Ms. Hartley indicated pay stations are not universally accepted and that she couldn’t find reference in the minutes.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that it is unlikely that these were discussed, as the committee didn’t meet on a regular basis in previous years. These pay stations were not a topic that came under the TPC’s level of involvement in previous years.
He also indicated that the Chair will decide what topics are discussed. Professor Cessi, the Chair, commented that the TPC did not wish to be involved in every detail of management, rather, that broad a spectrum of policy is the Committee’s role.

Michael Gonzalez, Employee Relations, asked if the DriveCam is operational and if reports can be generated.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that it is operational. Reports are also run from DriveCam and the AVL system, putting UCSD on the cutting edge of universities. He also indicated that TPS’s safety program is better than all other campuses in the UC.

Ms. Hartley asked if Rideshare gets involved in Shuttles

Mr. d’Autremont responded no and indicated that they were different organizational functions. He would like to get students more involved in discussion.
Mr. Spriggs expressed his concern about Gilman Drive, where all the buses stop, including the city buses. He indicated that turning down Meyers is problematic.

Professor Cessi, Chair, said that there are plans for a change.

Robert Clossin, Campus Planning, indicated that there are plans for a major change in the transit hub.

Professor Cessi asked Mr. Spriggs if he wanted the bus stop moved a little.

Mr. Spriggs suggested that it stop on the other side of Meyers.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that it is hoped that there will be a new transit hub by Summer 2008. That change will alleviate a great deal of the problem. However, the Transportation Policy Committee isn’t charged with traffic safety. Mr. Clossin indicated that transit hub is more of an operational issue. Metropolitan Transit does not want to stop somewhere that isn’t a stop area.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that as more people switch to public transportation, we need to figure out how to cohabitate with city buses.

Mr. Spriggs indicated that the city buses stop longer than they have to. He said that it is an accident waiting to happen.

Mr. Clossin indicated that he’d be surprised if this problem hasn’t already been reviewed. There is an ad-hoc traffic safety committee which advises Vice Chancellor Relyea. He suggested that the committee bring up the recommendation to the safety committee to see what options are available.

Mr. Gonzalez asked if there is an identifiable safety program that T&PS is utilizing.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that shuttle drivers are mandated to be part of the DMV pull notice program and have random testing. Everyone who has a class B license has to be enrolled in the DMV pull notice program. There is a training manager and safety coordinator on the staff of T&PS; Drivers who don’t drive safely, are disciplined and released as needed. T&PS doesn’t look at other accidents on campus.
Russell Thackston, Director of Facilities Management, put together the “how am I driving program” in order to be aware of what drivers are doing. He indicated that the program at T&PS is stronger over all.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated accidents themselves were reduced by about 30%, since our safety program began functioning.

Continuing with his presentation, he discussed communication. He indicated that T&PS intends to have information up at Blink, Paper, and in the Library in the March time-frame. He also indicated that PowerPoint presentations, such as those presented at the TPC, will be available at the website. He indicated he’s hopeful that this will facilitate representative government. He further indicated that he counts on representatives to go back to their constituencies for discussion. He indicated that it is impossible to reach all 40,000 people in the campus community on his own; there will be gaps. Part of filling those gaps is to have representatives share information with their constituencies

Mr. Spriggs encouraged the committee to pay attention to what Mr. d’Autremont was saying. He said that there is difference between committee members bringing their views to their constituency and being responsible for sharing what happens at the TPC. Committee members shouldn’t be relied on to provide communication. He said that each member takes notes to a certain degree and passes those notes on. However, they do not necessarily reflect their opinion or a consensus.

Professor Cessi indicated that is what the minutes are intended to do.

Mr. Spriggs reiterated that T&PS should not rely on committee members to communicate the TPC’s decisions. It is not a good way to communicate.

Ms. Hartley felt that parking changes should be communicated. Further, she indicated that she makes a habit of soliciting feedback from her constituency for all her committee appointments. She goes out to the affected groups for input so that she can, in fact, represent them. As far as any official notification to campus, there needs to be improvement. Communicating changes by simply posting a sign is not sufficient.

Cynthia Davalos, special assistant to the VC, Student Affairs, indicated that communicating to 21,000 students is a major challenge. It’s impossible to just inform via emails.

Professor Cessi indicated that they should be clear on role of TPC. The Committee is here to look at policies/philosophy of the campus, not micromanage. We are an advisory committee. Every decision we make will make someone unhappy. However, we can ask that Transportation and Parking Service have a consistent policy for disseminating information.
Mr. Benesch, A.S. representative, indicated that signs that were posted a month in advance were helpful as one form of community. The other is to use to give feedback. He indicated that it would be good to reach out more and in advance of changes.

Ms. Hartley indicated that if there are reasons for a policy change, then sharing with the constituency ahead of time can mitigate any possible fall out.

Mr. d’Autremont distributed a copy of the overall in-depth communication plan for T&PS. As an example of some of the plans, T&PS will be putting out 200 signs around campus with the department’s email address, . The address is on all of TPS’s blink pages. He will be discussing this at follow up forums in the January/February time frame. He indicated that he counted on the Committee’s eyes and ears to share concerns. One of the roles of the TPC is to represent those in your constituency.

1. UCSD’s Parking Demand Analysis

Assistant Director Sam Corbett gave a presentation on demand analysis. He indicated that this is an issue that the committee will be evaluating. He presented a preliminary report, saying that a considerable amount of work has gone into this effort. The report is not yet for release, but will be ready for release in 2-3 weeks. TPC members will be the first to receive when the report when the final version is done.

Most of the management recommendations for previous years have been implemented. One recommendation was to institute restrictions on freshmen parking. This hasn’t been implemented because it has not been needed. Construction will soon displace approximately 3,276 parking places. The population is expected to increase by 5,000 by 2012-2013. He referenced a TDM (Transportation Demand Management) report prepared by Sundstrom and Associates which is available to anyone on the committee.

Mr. Corbett noted that population has increased significantly, increasing 10,000 from 1995 to 2006. Nonetheless, there has only been a modest increase in the number of occupied spaces. Campus population has increased by 41%, but occupancy rates have only increased by 12%. Current parking occupancy is 80%; the campus standard is 95%. Obviously, the spaces available aren’t in the center of campus but primarily in the periphery.

Professor Cessi asked for clarification.

Mr. Corbett indicated that the numbers are based on physical counts; it includes an actual vehicle in a space.

Mr. Benesch wanted to know the totals if East campus and Regents lots were excluded from the counts.

Mr. Corbett indicated that the occupancy rate would be 90-95% if those parking lots were excluded. Quarter counts indicate that the ride-alone rate is 54%, a decrease from 56% previously, even with the population increase. The rates of which people are commuting to campus by themselves are dropping. TPS is continuing to do things to reduce the number of people commuting via single occupancy.

Transportation demand needs can be met through a variety of sources. One approach is by increasing supply: UniversityCenter (800), Revelle (1700), School of Medicine (1100), and Muir (1800) one more structure is being added to East campus, (1000) MedCenter. These parking structures cost from 30- 50 million. Cost per net spaces range from 30,000-50,000 per space. We review how spaces are utilized and reallocate to fit the needs of the community. Once you have a structure, however, it is limiting, as it is a permanently fixed cost.

Professor Cessi said that as well as considering the costs of a structure, we should also consider that it takes away space for academic programs and student housing. It is a responsibility of the committee to look at this as well.

Mr. Clossin clarified that TPC recommends a parking structure and the locations are evaluated in C/CPC.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that there should be a vibrant discussion in the campus community. In January, this committee goes through a review and then a presentation to C/CPC. This is shared governance, where everyone gets to discuss the issue.

Mr. Gonzalez asked if building of parking structures takes into consideration the spaces that are eliminated with new buildings.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated yes and that is committee needs to look at this.

Mr. Clossin responded to Mr. Gonzalez’s question saying that the planning is done all at one time. They are reviewed as a neighborhood. Parking is one element of that plan.

Ms. Hartley asked for clarification. If this committee will look at whether or not to approve a structure, we need to get enough data to have an opinion.

Mr. Corbett said that this is would be the case. Information will be available in 2-3 weeks.

Mr. Clossin clarified that that is how the parking structures were approved. Reviewed by TPC and then to other committees for review.

Mr. Benesch indicated that aside from the other options, he asked if having separate localized parking has been reviewed. He indicated that if people knew exactly where they will be going, it could be localized.

Professor Cessi indicated that this was a topic left over from last year, to tie the costs to specific locations. Areas that are more in demand would be more expensive. This is a subject that requires discussion.

Mr. d’Autremont indicated that where you park has a somewhat related impact on demand. This is impacted by a number of other things: PriceCenter expansion; price of gas, particularly when it reaches $4 a gallon; light rail or rapid transit which will have an enormous impact.

Professor Cessi indicated that there is a need to know where the vacancies occur. Is it just East Campus? These are important things to know in order to make decisions.

Ms. Hartley indicated she would like a breakdown of revenues. How many As, Bs and Ss so that she can get a better feel for this.

Mr. Spriggs reiterated that it is really important that parking and planning are collaborating. Parking in isolation can’t address all the issues and concerns. That Anna Gandolfi, Chair of the Staff Association, is the representative on TPC shows how important that this issue is to staff. East Campus is not where faculty and people coming to campus want to park.

Professor Cessi indicated that the committee needs to know the occupancy rates to 7pm, etc.;
Mr. Corbett said that all these figures are available and that parking and planning have collaborated on the entire analysis project.

Mr. Spriggs wanted to know what will happen at the end of this building period. Analysis has been done in Student Affairs that shows a tremendous crunch in the center of campus, where the heart all of the activities are held. New faculty, staff, the new music building, a new huge engineering building, instructional technology, and the Price Center changes/expansion all impact of how the campus functions. Another challenge is to convert the center of campus to a college town. Those campuses who have been banned freshmen parking all have relatively close college town communities. Our students have requested that we have a village at East Campus. He indicated that he’ll give a last plea that all these neighborhoods for parking are not equal. If our center of campus doesn’t function, it will be a significant problem for all campus.