Complete and Integrated Campuses:
How Do We Get There?
FEFPA Annual Conference
Presented by
Rohan Sadhai, AICP
Nat Grier, PE, ENV SP
July 14, 2016
Complete and Integrated Campuses:
How Do We Get There?





Introduction
Presentation Overview
Learning Objectives
Case Studies
Discussion/Q&A
Presentation Overview
Transportation planning is:
 Crucial in the campus master planning process
 Creates multi-modal environments for students, faculty, staff, and
visitors
 Addresses local and regional access as well as internal campus
circulation
 Combines with context sensitive strategies:
– Incorporating parking, transit, walking, and bicycling
– Along with strategies for encouraging sustainable choices for managing the system
as a whole
Although the need has been identified for complete and integrated
campuses, the question arises, “how do we get there?”
Presentation Overview
 This presentation will focus on successful strategies employed at
major institutions nationally that integrate parking and other
transportation modes into their respective master plan elements,
including:
– Long-term comprehensive framework plan for all modes of
transportation,
– What useful outreach to all stakeholders entails, and
– How site specific transportation improvements are linked to the overall
campus.
Learning Objectives
 Develop an understanding of the role of transportation in a campus
planning process
 Understand typical outreach and engagement methods for campus
transportation planning and how these complement the physical
planning process
 Learn about typical type and scale of transportation-related
improvements for a campus plan
 Learn about how campus transportation planning complements other
elements of a campus plan such as landscape, wayfinding, and urban
design
Campus Transportation Planning
Master Plan and Framework Plan
Transportation Master Plan
Precinct Plans
System Plans
“Hot Spot”
improvements
Site plans
Transportation as Framework
Cooper Robertson
Transportation as Framework
Cooper Robertson
Google
Transportation and Wayfinding
Campus Transportation Planning Process
 Integrated or standalone depending on scope
 Transportation often studied in greater detail in separate planning
process
 Typically heavy stakeholder involvement
 Often includes municipalities and local transit agencies (if
applicable)
– May include state DOT outreach
Campus Plan Organization
Stakeholder Outreach
“The three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students,
athletics for the alumni, and parking for the faculty”
Clark Kerr, UC Berkeley Chancellor, 1958
 Transportation is personal
 …and everyone is an expert
 How and how much must adapt to the campus
– Working groups
– Tabling
– Social media
– Website
– Student body/
faculty senate
– Survey
– Intercept interview
Benchmark Analysis





Pricing
Supply and Demand
Efficiency
Costs
Technology
Benchmarking – Permit Price vs Demand
$4,000
$3,500
Typical annual employee permit price
$3,000
$2,500
Large Urban
Area
$2,000
Penn
Harvard
$1,500
MIT
$1,000
Small/Medium
City
$500
$0
0
0.1
0.2
Suburban
Yale
Chicago
Duke
Brown
Dartmouth
0.3
UNC Chapel Hill
Cornell
Stanford
UVA
0.4
Occupied spaces per commuter
0.5
Princeton
0.6
0.7
0.8
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Transportation and Parking Plan
Columbus, Ohio
Framework Plan
Transportation Vision
Parking Displacement is the Catalyst
Resident Locations
 39,593 total OSU parking permits
 30% within five miles of campus
 Significant population to north and
west
MindMixer Participant Summary




528 participants
Majority staff / faculty
Average age: 42
70% female
MindMixer Comment Overview
 Largest percentage of comments relate to parking and pedestrian conflicts /
safety
 Written comments provide detailed understanding of participants concerns
and ideas
 Over 200 people provided comments on the mapping question
Summary of Mapping Input
60.0
153 (52.8%)
50.0
40.0
30.0
74 (25.5%)
20.0
33 (11.4%)
10.0
.0
19 (6.6%)
2 (0.7%)
9 (3.1%)
Event Parking
Transit as the Enabler
Campus Core Modifications
Transit in the Core
Bicycles as Transport and Recreation
Augment and Improve Safety of Pedestrian Network
Transportation and
Parking Master Plan
Virginia Tech | Blacksburg,
VA
Project Purpose and Process
Define a transportation strategy and
implementation recommendations to enhance
mobility for Virginia Tech employees, students,
and visitors
STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF
GATHER INFORMATION
ANALYZE INFORMATION
IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS
EVALUATE SOLUTIONS
PRIORITIZE AND PROGRAM
DOCUMENT
IMPLEMENT AND UPDATE
University Outreach
 Stakeholder Meetings
–
–
–
–
–
–
Students, faculty, staff
Parking, transportation, PD
Student Affairs, Corps of Cadets
Facility Operations, UDC, Athletics
P&T and CD Committees
CRC, airport, town, BT, MPO, VDOT
LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND
ACKNOWLEDGE ISSUES AND CONCERNS
ANALYZE ISSUE
IDENTIFY SOLUTION AND TIMEFRAME
RESPOND
University Outreach






Active transportation event
Open house
Other organizations
Interactive website
Media outreach
Social media
“Virginia Tech Moves” Application
Vehicle Level of Service
A-B
Assumes 10 years of
population growth with
parking reallocation
Vehicle Level of Service
A-B
Traffic –
E-F
Future (2025)
Conditions
C-D
C-D
E-F
 Conditions reflect:
– Population projections on
campus
– Anticipated shifts in
parking
– Scheduled building,
roadway and transit
projects
– Background growth
Current Intersection
Operations
2025 Intersection
Operations
35
West Campus Drive – Design Option 2
Multi-Use Path
Bike Path
Two-Way Road
Roundabout
Duck Pond Path
 Upgrade existing path along Duck Pond to a
multi-use path accommodating pedestrians and
bicyclists
37
Parking Connector Option 4 with Future Routes
Stanger Street Improvements
 Significant pedestrian crossing near Surge Building, particularly across Perry Street
and Prices Fork Road
 Accommodation of MMTF circulation patterns
VT Moves Pedestrian Movements
Stanger Street Improvements
Town Crosswalk
Enhancements
Convert to
One-Way Pair
Roundabout
40
3
Crosswalk Suggestions for
West Campus Drive
1
1
1
Improve path
thru parking lot
1
2
1) Standard Crosswalk
2) High Volume Crosswalk
3) Raised Crosswalk
1
1
1
41
Consolidate
Crosswalks
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Strategies
Future demand reduced by 870 spaces through continued
emphasis on Alternative Transportation Strategies:
 Management and Communication Programs
– Ride-matching services
– Financial incentives/disincentives
– Alternative Transportation Marketing
 Alternative Mode Support
– Walking and bicycle amenities and facilities
– Bike share programs
– Transit and shuttle program support
– Emergency Ride Home programs
 Parking Programs
– Occasional parking programs
– Parking supply allocation and management
– Parking pricing and billing techniques
Rutgers University Physical Master Plan
New Brunswick, Newark and Camden, New Jersey
Planning Context: New Brunswick
 More than 20 million square feet over
2,677 acres of land
 All major classroom hubs are located
within 0.25 miles of the most heavily
utilized shuttle stops.
 Of the trips required by class schedule,
65% of trips are generated by SAS
Cook /
Douglass
Busch
Allison Road
Classroom
Livingston
Student Center
Student Activities
Center
Scott Hall
Classroom Distribution
College Hall
Red Oak Lane
Biel Road
Legend
Classroom Hubs
1/4 Mile Zone
Livingston
College Ave
12 - 100 seats
101 - 250 seats
251 - 500 seats
501 - 1000 seats
1001 - 2000 seats
SOURCE: RUTGERS SPACE MANAGEMENT
Planning Context: New Brunswick
 Student life and the Rutgers bus system are
intertwined; students make non-class trips to
other locations:
–
–
–
–
To visit friends: 17.4%
To study (libraries, group study, etc.): 13.2%
To eat at other dining halls: 11.1%
To go to Livingston: 10.2%
Planning Context: New Brunswick
 Student travel between campuses both
academically and socially
 Each campus is connected within itself but it is
difficult to walk between campuses
 More than 20 million square feet over 2,677 acres
of land
Planning Context: New Brunswick
 Rutgers buses, supplemented by bicycle
connections, make it possible to move between
campuses
 The bus system is used by both residential and
commuter students
 Some locations – both academic and student
services – are difficult to reach
3
Life at Rutgers: Campus Hubs
 Define hubs and augment campus centers
 Create graduate commons at Busch
 Improve access to campus centers for commuter
students
2
1
3
1
1
LIVINGSTON
BUSCH
1
3
COLLEGE
AVENUE
COOK/DOUGLASS
3
1
Navigating Rutgers
 Define transit hubs as gateways into each
campus
 Provide direct and express bus route between
hubs
 Supplement express with local bus
 Improve bicycle access within and between
campuses
 Establish consistent streetscape
 Focus investment in proximity to campus hubs
to improve walkability
 Use landscape to improve wayfinding
 Concentrate academic and residential core with
parking at periphery
LIVINGSTO
N
BUSCH
COLLEGE
AVENUE
COOK/DOUGLAS
S
CAMPUS HUB
LOCAL BUS STOP
EXPRESS BUS
ROUTE
LOCAL BUS
ROUTE
BICYCLE
NETWORK
Busch Arc Hub: Existing
View looking west to Allison Road classroom building
Busch Arc Hub: Proposed
View looking west from pavilion to ARC
College Avenue Hub: Existing
View looking north on College Avenue
College Avenue Hub: Proposed
View looking north on College Avenue
Phase 2: 2020-2024 Highlights
 Learning at Rutgers
–
–
–
–
–
–
School of Engineering Phase 2
Renovation of Existing Space: Physics, Life Sciences, Chemistry
Mason Gross School of the Arts Phase 2
Cook/Douglass Academic Building: Nichol Avenue
Hotel and Conference Center
Research Park
 Life at Rutgers
–
–
–
–
Graduate Housing: Busch
Undergraduate Housing: Nichol Avenue
Intermural Playing Fields
College Avenue Gymnasium Expansion
 Personalizing Rutgers
– Athletics Improvements
 Navigating Rutgers
– Busch Campus Center Hub and Gateway
– Downtown New Brunswick Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
– Parking/College Avenue Gateway North
 Stewardship at Rutgers
– Busch Power Plant
– Rutgers Gardens
NEW
CONSTRUCTION
RENOVATION
EXISTING
BUILDING
Rutgers University New Brunswick: Proposed
Aerial view of College Avenue looking west
University of Central Florida - Master Plan Update and Garage Expansion
Orlando, Florida
University of Central Florida (UCF)
 Campus Overview
 Master Plan Update
 NE Quad Expansion
 New Garage/Garage C Expansion
 Downtown Campus
UCF – Campus Overview
 Orlando, Florida
 13 colleges and 63,000 students
 Main campus
–
–
–
–
1,415 acres
800 acres of natural ecosystems
10,000-seat arena
45,000-seat on-campus football stadium
 Second-largest university with 210 degree
program
 Ranked as one of the “Most Innovative”
universities by U.S. News & World Report
UCF – Master Plan Update






1013.30 FS
Ten year planning horizon
17 elements
Goals, objectives and policies
Data and analysis
Maps
UCF – Master Plan Update
UCF – NE Quad Expansion







Existing buildings/programs
Traffic circulation
Parking/access
Pedestrian connections
Open space
Utilities
Environmental constraints
UCF – Parking Garage
Downtown UCF
 Located on 68 acres in downtown
Orlando’s Creative Village
 Parramore Neighborhood
 Valencia College
 Funding
 Includes housing, parking, and
dedicated transportation to and from
UCF’s main campus
Florida Gulf Coast University - Master Plan Update
Fort Myers, Florida
FGCU – Campus Overview
 Ft. Myers, Florida
 800 acres
 400 acres are restored and preserved wetlands
and uplands
 15-acre solar field
 39 residential buildings with 4,748 beds
 Total number of students enrolled: 14,846
 Total number of faculty: 512
 Total number of staff: 741
FGCU – Campus Overview
FGCU – Campus Overview
 Growth – Future
Development
 Issues
– Parking
– Traffic Operations
– Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety &
Access
 TDM
 Coordination
FGCU - Parking
FGCU – Loop Road Entrance
FGCU – Pedestrian/Bicycle Network
FGCU – TDM
Rohan Sadhai, AICP | rsadhai@vhb.com | 407.965.0514
www.vhb.com
Nat Grier, PE, ENV SP | ngrier@vhb.com | 571.389.8105
Offices located throughout the east coast