Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Clemson University Travel Patterns (PowerPoint)

VIEWS: 26 PAGES: 51

									                 Clemson Travel Patterns:
    Applying State-of-the-Practice Travel Survey
           Techniques to the Local Landscape

    Ph.D. Colloquium
Friday, October 13, 2006
Anne E. Dunning, Ph.D.
    Ben Boyles      Scott Adams   Mark Brown Erin Comstock
                 William Boyles     David Myers
Outline
 The Right Time for Mobility at Clemson
  (Motivation and Research Questions)
 Methodologies
 Overview of Results
 Venues for Dissemination
 Concurrent Research




                                           2
Motivation and
Research Questions
Motivation at Clemson
   Trustee mandate: no new surface parking lots
   Increasing demand for parking
     Tenyears ago: ~30% of freshmen brought cars to
      campus
     Now: ~80% of freshmen bring private vehicles

   2004 hiring of a new parking director
   2006 study to create a Parking and
    Transportation Management Plan

                                                       4
Mobility Matters
   Access and mobility help define the intuitive feel
    of a campus
   Safe, easy, and
    convenient
    transportation
    systems can help
    attract students,
    faculty and staff



                                                         5
University Priorities
   Efficient
    transportation can
    enhance the
    experience of
    visitors and
    returning alumni

   Environmentally conscious transportation
    planning can help preserve natural beauty &
    meet regional goals

                                                  6
    Unique Environments
   University campuses are vibrant, distinct communities
    made up of people from different backgrounds, incomes,
    lifestyles and attitudes.
   Diverse demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
    require a diverse set of mobility options.
   University campus land use can provide an environment
    where multi-modal transportation systems can work




                                                             7
The Clemson University
Transportation Challenge
   Goal: A pedestrian friendly campus

   Highest and best use of campus land
     Surface parking lot conversion (multi-million dollar garages?)
     Increased research space and activity

   A balanced transportation systems approach is needed
     Multi-modal focus

   Need to understand how the campus currently moves
     Travel demand surveying
                                                                       8
Objectives
                                      How does Clemson move?


   Objectives
       Discuss best practices identified from literature and case study
        investigation.
       Examine Clemson campus transportation system challenges and
        opportunities
       Conduct statistical and spatial analysis of travel patterns in the
        Clemson community.
       Make recommendations for transportation systems and capacity
        allocations that will help to create a sustainable multi-modal
        campus transportation system



                                                                             9
Methodology
Questions
   Under what circumstances do people move at
    Clemson?
   What are the populations of interest for
    developing a transportation system?
   What types of trips do we need to understand?
   What do we need to know about those trips?




                                                    11
Triple-Survey Structure
   Three distinct surveys aimed at different aspects of campus
    transportation issues
        Internet Survey
             November 21 – December 6, 2005
             Large sample
             Stated and revealed preference questions on general daily travel patterns
        Travel Diary
             September-October 2006 coinciding with Clemson University parking
              inventory and demand study
             Small sample
             Revealed behavior with substantial detail
        Football Intercept Survey
             2005 season (5 out of 6 home games)
             Large sample
             Major events with
                   Special traveling populations
                   Unique origin-destination needs
                   Concentrated time requirements
                                                                                          12
Human Subjects Research
   Stringent requirements for review of
    research procedures, instruments, risks,
    and ethics                   What kind of risks could
     Nazi medical experiments        the campus surveys pose?
     Addictive drug research

   Special consideration of minors
    (freshmen?)

                                                           13
Internet Survey
   1,614 valid responses

   Tree structure (Each survey
    was unique according to how
    the person answered it)
        Classification as student (on
         or off campus)/faculty/staff
        Primary mode used
        Other modal preferences

   Widespread distribution, e-
    mailed to all Clemson faculty,
    staff, and students



                                         14
15
16
Internet Survey
                                                 On-campus   Off-campus
                                                  Students    Students Faculty   Staff
         2005 Actual Enrollment/Employment         6,175      10,990    1,322    2,980
Needed for 95% confidence with ± 5% interval        363         371      298      340
Needed for 90% confidence with ± 5% interval        261         265      225      249


                                 Sample Size        506         622      204      286
                                      Weight      12.204      17.669    6.480    10.420
                        Percent of Population      8.2%        5.7%     15.4%    9.6%
      Current confidence interval at 95% (+/-)    4.17%        3.82%    6.31%    5.63%
      Current confidence interval at 90% (+/-)    3.51%        3.21%    5.31%    4.74%



                                                                                    17
Travel Diary
   More focused on trip
    characteristics than previous two
    surveys

   Entirely revealed behavior of trips
    throughout the day over the
    course of week
      Origin-destination data
      Time of day
      Location-specific reporting


   Paper format, easy to carry along
    for the day

   Recruitment
      401 potential participants allowing
       personal contact
      As of October 12 th, 2006 What about
            147 diaries distributed
            49 diaries returned         statistical
                                       significance?   18
Diaries… not state of the practice

 Activity diaries               Expense?
                            Equipment reliability?
 Vehicle instrumentation       Modal bias?
                                 Privacy?
 GPS packs




                                                 19
    Football Survey
   946 respondents for the season
        ±3.2% confidence interval
        95% confidence level
        Student undercount

   Paper surveys directed at
    anyone entering the stadium,
    aiming to catch all modes, all
    gates

   Collected throughout games, but
    primarily before kick-off, at half-
    time and post-game



                                          20
Football Survey
   Visibility
    important with
    signs/uniforms

   Catchy phrases
    on signs




                     21
Football Survey Results




                          22
                                                What biases should you expect for each?

   Survey Method Comparison
                Football Intercept    General Internet                   Travel Diary
            Form design               Programming          Form design
Preparation Printing                                       Book design
                                                           Complicated production
IRB           Expedited               Expedited            Expedited…full…exempt…expedited
Supplies      Substantial             Minimal              Substantial
             E-mail                   E-mail only          E-mail
             Alumni e-newsletter                           Sign in dorms
Recruitment Greek house contact                            Signs on grounds
             Shirts and caps
             Portable signs
             Hours of heat and cold   Await web clicks     Await eager participants in the library
Distribution Lost weekends
             Sore backs
             Distribution             Planning             Diary production
Labor        Data entry               Programming          Data entry
Rejection    High                     Moderate             Low
                                                                                           23
Morale        Low                     High                 Moderate
Overview of
Modal Results
Mode Split for Clemson University
    Internet Survey Respondents




                                    25
Do You Have Reasonable Access to Places Within
             Clemson University?




                                                 26
27
What Type of Parking Pricing Would You Prefer
On Campus (Off-Campus Students)




                                                28
“I Need A Car…” (On Campus Students)
1=Least Agreement and 5=Most Agreement




                                         29
Gas Prices
   Results of the Internet Survey show that
    gas prices have a bigger effect on the
    travel habits of Clemson students and staff
    compared to faculty

   Driving less and combining trips were the
    two most cited effects of increased gas
    prices for students, faculty and staff


                                                30
Reasons People Do Not Walk




                             31
Walk Commute Times to Campus




                               32
Who is Riding Transit?


On-Campus   Off-Campus   Faculty &
 Students    Students      Staff

   40%        53%          5%



                                     33
Why Do We Not Ride Transit?
 “Bus routes do not serve my needs”
 “Bus schedule does not serve my need”
 “Service frequencies do not fit my needs”
 “I need the flexibility to come and go
  during the day”
 “It takes more time to get to campus when
  I ride transit”

                                          34
Bike Facilities
   915 people regularly bike to and around campus
   52% of all respondents requested more bike lanes, 20% are willing to
    pay higher student fees for them
   48% of all respondents requested covered bike racks, 19% willing to
    pay higher student fees for them




         November 17, 2005                       December 6, 2005
                                                                           35
36
Football Survey Results




                          37
Parking: Not just a car issue
   Strollers get designated parking, so why
    don’t bikes?




                                               38
Alternative
Transportation
Options
How Often Would You Ride Commuter Rail Between
Clemson and Greenville?
                                           31% of the
                                           Clemson
                                           community
                                           would use
                                           commuter
                                           rail every
                                           week.




                                        60% of the Clemson
                                       community would use
                                        commuter rail every
                                             month.
                                                        40
 Would You Support a County Wide Sales Tax To
 Support Commuter Rail for Clemson?

         On-campus   Off-campus
          student      student    Staff   Faculty
Yes        40%          51%       43%      64%
No         22%          20%       26%      17%
Unsure     38%          29%       32%      19%




                                                    41
    Golf Carts??!!!!
   Mobility: Access across campus improves with easy access to low-speed
    transportation.
   Congestion: More golf carts than autos can park in the same space
   Convenience: With smaller vehicles, more vehicles can park in existing lots
    closer to buildings.
   Environment: Address regional air quality issues and non-attainment with
    emphasis on electric or propane golf carts.
   Cost:
      Students can use a $2000 golf cart (or a $200 bicycle on the same infrastructure)
       instead of a $20,000 private vehicle.
      The University assumes little cost for operating this mode.
      The University maximizes existing infrastructure, reducing need for costly garages.
   Character:
      Clemson further establishes its name for automotive technology through practical
       use of alternative fuel vehicles.
      A golf-cart campus will help distinguish Clemson as a unique top-twenty university.


             Golf carts have a place in this community,
                     but will people use them?
                                                                                       42
     "If Clemson provides appropriate parking and right of way, golf carts and
     similar small personal vehicles can serve as a viable transportation
     option for the community."
 On-campus




                                                                                 Faculty
  Students




                              33.2% of the campus
                              community sees golf
                              carts as a likely viable
                              transportation option.
Off-campus
 Students




                                                                                 Staff
                                                                            43
                              Which of the following trips would you use a golf
                              cart for if designated lanes existed for golf carts?"
                                 On-campus    Off-campus
                                  Student      Student      Staff   Faculty   Overall
On Campus                         68.0%         64.8%      73.1% 50.6%        64.3%
Football and Events               49.6%         44.4%      25.2% 11.7%        40.2%
Commuting                         29.7%         39.8%      12.8% 21.0%        32.7%
Grocery Shopping                  36.4%         22.0%      11.0% 15.7%        24.6%
Entertainment and Dining          32.2%         19.0%      14.6% 13.5%        21.7%
Visiting Friends and Family       19.8%         16.4%      6.6%     7.0%      15.5%
Other Shopping                    16.2%         11.1%      9.7%     7.5%      12.0%
Medical Care                      17.1%         7.9%       4.8%     6.4%      10.1%

                                                                                   44
 "Lanes and paths designated for bicycles, golf carts,
 and mopeds should exist in the Clemson community."
                     Strongly                                Strongly   Not
                     Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree    Agree     Sure
On campus student     7.5%       15.7%     29.0%     13.8%   28.5%      5.5%
Off campus student    6.9%       15.0%     29.0%     10.1%   35.0%      3.9%
Staff                 7.0%       11.4%     27.2%     10.1%   38.2%      6.1%
Faculty               6.4%       7.0%      18.6%     8.1%    52.3%      7.6%
Total                 7.0%       13.9%     27.5%     10.9%   35.7%      5.0%

           Only 1/5 of the community
            opposes investing in
            infrastructure for low-speed
            local transportation.
           46.6% of the Clemson
            community agrees that we
            have a need.                                                       45
Venues for
Dissemination
Who cares?
How relevant
is a study of
Clemson?
Contribution to the Clemson Campus

   2006 consultant study of campus
    transportation needs

   Parking & Transportation Management Plan




                                               47
Classes
   2005 City and Regional Planning
    Graduate Studio

   2006 Undergraduate Creative Inquiry

   Future potential for landscape architecture
    and engineering studio work

                                              48
Theses
   Brown, Mark (2006). Commuter Rail for Small
    Metropolitan Areas
   Boyles, Ben (2006). University Campus Mobility:
    Creating a Systems Approach to Transportation
    Planning.
   Miller, Ben (2007). Untitled proposal to
    investigate geographic patterns revealed in the
    diary to determine barriers to active
    transportation.

               An apparent bias toward students named Ben
                                                            49
Presentations / Potential Publications
     Adams, Boyles, Brown, and Comstock. Presentation to the Clemson University
      Administrative Council, January 30, 2006
     Dunning, Anne and Boyles, Ben. Carolinas Parking Association Meeting,
      Clemson, SC, May 2006.
     Boyles, Ben and Dunning, Anne. “Maximizing Mobility in a Rural University
      Community Environment,” presented at the National Rural Bus and Intercity
      Transit Conference (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
      of Science), Skamania, WA, October 2006.
     Boyles, Ben. “Charting a New Path in University Campus Transportation
      Planning,” presented to the American Collegiate Schools of Planning
      Conference, Dallas, TX, November 2006.
     Boyles, Ben and Dunning, Anne. “University Campus Parking: Balancing
      Supply and Demand,” paper #07-3470 submitted for the 86th Transportation
      Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 2007.
     Brown, Mark and Dunning, Anne. “A Demand Analysis Of A Commuter Rail
      System Between Clemson University and Greenville, South Carolina,”
      paper #07-3282 submitted for the 86th Transportation Research Board Annual
      Meeting, Washington, DC, January 2007.
     Three more by the end of the Fall 2006…

                                                                                   50
Concurrent Research
 Parking inventory and demand study
 Clemson Area Transit ridership survey
 Parking infrastructure needs analysis
 Parking management audit




                                          51

								
To top