Sustainable Transportation Policy at Cal Poly Pomona: An

advertisement
Sustainable Transportation Policy at Cal Poly
Pomona: An Alternative Outlook
Policy Analysis
By Michelle McFadden, April Marshburn, and Roxana Vera
California Polytechnic University, Pomona
Prof. Richard Willson and Prof. Kyle Brown, RS 599
March 20, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
3
Introduction
4
Student Transportation Behavior
5
Challenges in Existing Programs at CPP
5
Transportation Emissions at CPP
6
The Problem
6
Geography – Statistics and GIS Data
7
Policy Alternatives
24
Expansion of Transit
19
Bicycle/Walk
21
Parking Price Restructuring
24
Rideshare Incentives
28
Networking Program
30
Evaluation of Alternatives
Case Study Analysis Matrix
8
8
Policy Alternative Scenarios
28
Policy Recommendation
30
Policy Implementation and Outcome Evaluation
31
2
Executive Summary
This report documents an initiative to create a sustainable transportation policy
that would reduce the amounts of students who travel to campus alone by private vehicle
at California Polytechnic University, Pomona (CPP) in order to cost effectively reduce
greenhouse gas emissions on campus. While adopting a transportation demand
management (TDM) approach, research was conducted to understand travel behavior and
the challenges that existing programs face at CPP. Various alternatives were identified
through a case study analysis of other universities that are using TDM strategies. TDM
strategies were designated to 5 categories in a case study analysis that researched 9
universities. The 5 categories are transit expansion, bicycle/walk, Parking Policy
Restructuring, Rideshare Incentives, and Networking Programs such as internet
ridematching. One finding was that although expanded transit and bike/walk are highly
effective at other universities, they respectively have limited potential in the short term
and are not a higher priority at CPP for the year 2010. Hence, the analysis turned to
creating two scenarios that offered a combination of the two remaining higher priority
strategies: Parking Price Restructuring and Rideshare Incentives. Calculations to
determine cost effectiveness determined that the Discount Carpool Parking Plan would be
most cost effective for implementation in the year 2010. Another finding was that one of
the more popular strategies in looking at all the universities in a case study matrix was
that of setting up a ridematching tool via the internet. Therefore, this report concludes
that CPP should implement a Discount Carpool Parking Plan and an Internet Rideshare
Program in the year 2010. This report is intended to be a tool in the proposal of this
policy to decision makers at CPP including but not limited to the Transportation
Committee and the President of CPP.
3
Introduction
This report documents an initiative to create a sustainable transportation policy
that would reduce the amounts of students who travel to campus alone by private vehicle
at California Polytechnic University, Pomona (CPP) in order to cost effectively reduce
greenhouse gas emissions on campus. Universities that aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in an effort to become more sustainable are changing their views on
transportation to a vision that goes under the general rubric of transportation demand
management (TDM). While adopting a TDM approach, research was conducted to
understand travel behavior and the challenges that existing programs face at CPP. The
research included an interview with Transportation Services and data analysis of CPP’s
student population using GIS maps. Various alternatives were identified through a case
study analysis of various universities that are using TDM strategies. TDM strategies
focus on reducing cars per person traveling versus building more parking facilities in
order to respond to increased demand. TDM strategies at universities include but, are not
limited to, expanding access to transit, having better bicycles and pedestrian facilities,
financial incentives, and parking policies. TDM strategies were designated for 5
categories in a case study analysis, while researching 9 universities relevant to the context
of CPP’s campus transportation. The 5 categories are transit expansion, bicycle/walk,
Parking Policy Restructuring, Rideshare Incentives, and Networking Programs such as
internet ridematching. One finding was that although expanded transit and bike/walk are
highly effective at other universities, they respectively have limited potential in the short
term at CPP and are not a higher priority for the year 2010. Hence, the analysis turned to
creating two scenarios that offered a combination of the two remaining higher priority
strategies: Parking Price Restructuring and Rideshare Incentives. Studies have shown
that offering rideshare incentives along with parking price increases using a ‘carrot and
stick’ approach have much potential in lowering the number of solo drivers, therefore this
was implemented in the two scenarios; Free Carpool Parking Plan and Discount Carpool
Parking Plan. (Toor, 2003) Calculations to determine cost effectiveness determined that
the Discount Carpool Parking Plan would be most cost effective for implementation in
the year 2010. Another finding was that one of the more popular strategies in looking at
4
all the universities in a case study matrix was that of setting up a ridematching tool via
the internet. Therefore, a recommendation is made that CPP should implement a
Discount Carpool Parking Plan and an Internet Rideshare Program in the year 2010. This
report is intended to be a tool in the proposal of this recommendation in the form of a
policy to decision makers at CPP including but not limited to the Transportation
Committee, and the President of CPP.
Student Transportation Behavior
Exploration of student travel at Cal Poly Pomona revealed that students are
limited by the infrastructure surrounding the region therefore having to travel long
distances and long bus rides if they take transit. Also, they live further away to live with
family, to pay less rent, or to purchase affordable homes. Students have tight schedules
which limit their ability to take time consuming public transit. Finally, the commuting
patterns themselves are varied going from home, to work, to school, and perhaps other
points of interest that are more or less dispersed in an urban or suburban condition.
Challenges in Existing Programs at CPP
CPP’s Existing Programs, present a challenge reducing student single occupancy
vehicles (SOV) at CPP. Cal Poly Pomona’s vanpool rideshare incentive is limited to
staff and faculty due to liability concerns and the school has experienced a reduction in
carpooling after the latest parking structure was built. Students are also finding ways to
cheat the system to obtain a carpool pass.
Transportation Emissions at CPP
An inventory of greenhouse
gas emissions from 1995 to 2000
done by Regenerative Studies 599
graduate students in the Fall of 2007
showed that 70.5% of transportation
emissions at CPP are produced by
students. Reference Figure #1. The high percentages of student
Figure 1
transportation emissions and students driving alone present a problem at CPP in terms of
greenhouse gas reduction. Hence, in order to address the problem of increasing
5
transportation greenhouse gases at CPP, this report analyzes alternatives (means) that
address the goal (ends) of reducing transportation emissions emitted by students driving
alone and ultimately makes a most cost effective recommendation.
Geography – Statistics and GIS Data
To further understand the transportation scenario at Cal Poly Pomona it is
necessary to analyze the geographic context in which the campus is positioned. The
campus covers approximately 1385 acres at the Temple Avenue location (California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona Facilities and Planning & Robbins Jorgensen
Christopher, 2000). Figure #2 provides a graphic image depicting the geographic context
of campus.
Figure 2
Access from the north of campus:
Pedestrian and bicycle access to the campus from the communities north of the location are
restricted by local topography and regional infrastructure. The ridge of hills lying north of
the campus rise approximately 250’ in elevation above the campus floor and the slope is
greater than 20% at specific points along the ridge (Facilities and Planning et al., 2000). In
addition to the restrictive topography, the northern border of the campus is bound by the ten
lane San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). No vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle passages exist
through I-10. As a result pedestrian or bicycle access from the neighborhoods immediately
north of campus is completely restricted
.
6
Access from west of campus:
The western side of the campus is restricted by hills rising approximately 200’ in elevation
above campus. Temple Avenue is an arterial road providing access from City of Walnut
west of campus. The road is four lanes with a varying speed limit of 45-50 mph. Sidewalks
are available along sections of Temple Avenue but the street lacks bicycle lanes.
Access from the south of campus:
From the south, campus can be accessed via Temple Avenue. The southern approach
descends from the hills along the Orange Freeway (Hwy 57) through a flat valley floor to
campus. Though the topography is not dramatic the speed limits along Temple Avenue, the
congested traffic, and discontinuous sidewalks prohibit pedestrian or bicycle access to
campus from the south.
Access from the east of campus:
The neighborhood east of campus is relatively bicycle and pedestrian friendly in terms of
existing sidewalk and the amount of shoulder available to bicycles, the speed limit of the
streets, and the flat topography. However, the eight lane Orange Freeway (Hwy 57) runs
between this neighborhood and campus. Two overpasses provide vehicular access beneath
the highway to campus at Valley Boulevard and South Campus Drive. These arterial roads
have speed limits of 50 mph and do not have sidewalks or bike lanes. Though bicyclists and
pedestrians use South Campus Drive to access campus from the east, this narrow passage is
potentially unsafe. Furthermore, South Campus drive is in need of resurfacing increasing
the hazard to bicyclists using this access point.
In summary, the physical topography and existing infrastructure surrounding Cal
Poly Pomona create challenging barriers for accessing campus by bicycling or walking.
A northern bicycle or pedestrian route to campus does not exist. Temple Avenue does not
provide appropriate bicycle or pedestrian access from the west or south. Access from the
east is possible but is restricted by the surface quality of Valley Boulevard and South
Campus Drive and lack of appropriate speed limits and bike route/sidewalk
infrastructure.
7
Evaluation of Alternatives - Case Study Matrix
TDM strategies at universities include but are not limited to expanding access to
transit, having better bicycles and pedestrian facilities, financial incentives, and parking
policies. TDM strategies were designated using 5 categories in a case study analysis,
while researching 9 universities found relevant to the context of CPP’s campus
transportation. The 5 categories are: Transit Expansion, Bicycle/Walk, Parking Policy
Restructuring, Rideshare Incentives, and Networking Programs such as internet
ridematching. The case study matrix indicated there was a need to research the potential
for expanded transit at CPP. In addition, more bicycle and pedestrian trail ways and
services were effective at a number of universities. These could be effective long-term
strategies for CPP, but as stated previously in this paper, there is limited potential for the
short-term.
Figure 3
The case study matrix in Figure #3 shows that 4 out of 9 universities were
increasing parking permit prices by 15% per quarter/semester. It was therefore
determined that a strategy at CPP could be to raise single occupancy vehicle quarterly
8
permits. Furthermore, lowering SOV daily permits would make this price increase more
effective. Several of the universities in the case matrix were discounting carpool passes,
however the number was not conclusive so it was necessary to analyze whether charging
or not charging would be most effective at Cal Poly Pomona. Another finding was that
one of the more popular strategies in looking at all the universities in a case study matrix
was that of setting up a ridematching tool via the internet. This strategy would therefore
be recommended as part of the policy recommendation.
9
Policy Alternatives:
1.) Expansion of Transit
The first TDM strategy we explored is the expansion of transit. CSULA, was
used as a case study, it has an on-site Metrolink station and sells 25% off discounted
transit passes on its campus. However, with both of these incentives in place, they
averaged 2% student ridership in the year 2007. (Cervantes, 2008) Hence, expanding
transit or offering discounted passes has limited potential at Cal Poly Pomona in the short
term.
Figure 4
An Evaluation of Metrolink for Cal Poly Pomona
As indicated by the campus population distribution GIS map generated for this report, a
portion of CPP’s students live along the east-west axis parallel to the Metrolink
commuter train lines. An analysis of Metrolink service was conducted to determine if Cal
Poly Pomona should promote commuting to campus via the Metrolink train lines as a
viable method for reducing emissions by the year 2010. The following is a summary of
the findings.
The Metrolink agency operates two train lines with stations in the vicinity of Cal
Poly Pomona; the San Bernardino Line north of campus and the Riverside line south of
campus. See Figure #5. CPP does not currently provide a shuttle to or from either
Metrolink station to campus.
10
Figure 5
San Bernardino Line:
The San Bernardino Line has two stations to potentially serve the campus: North Pomona
Station and the Claremont Station. The North Pomona Station is six miles from campus.
Commuters from this station will need to take Foothill Transit Bus #291 and transfer at the
Pomona Transit Center to Bus #195, #480, or #482 to arrive at campus. This will add an
additional 50 minutes on average to commute time (Flores, 2008). The Claremont Station is
approximately 8 miles from campus. From the Claremont Station commuters may take one
bus: Foothill Bus #480 to arrive at campus. This will also add an additional 50 minute on
average to commute time but could be more convenient as the need to make an additional
transfer is eliminated (Flores, 2008).
Riverside Line:
The Riverside line has one station to serve the campus: Downtown Pomona Station. This
station serves as the Pomona Transit Center and is 4.2 miles from campus. A commuter has
a choice of taking Foothill Transit Bus #195, #480, or #482 to arrive at campus. This will
add an additional 30-60 minutes on average to commute time (Flores, 2008).
Campus Provided Metrolink Shuttle Service:
CPP could reinstate the shuttle service between campus and the Metrolink stations
as a means of accommodating commuters and eliminating the need to take multiple
buses; however, a shuttle service would be costly for the campus to provide. As a method
11
for maximizing shuttle ridership, and thereby effectiveness, the shuttle would need to be
timed to coincide with the arrival of the inbound and outbound Metrolink trains within a
15 minute window (Flores, 2008). However, since Metrolink is a regional commuter train
agency, trains tend to run primarily in one direction during a commute window. In the
case of the San Bernardino Line morning commute there is only one time an eastbound
and westbound train would arrive within the given window at the North Pomona Station:
6:53 AM (Southern California Regional Rail Authority, 2008). In the afternoon, three
opportunities are available: 4:38 PM, 5:30 PM, and & 7:46 PM (Southern California
Regional Rail Authority, 2008). The Riverside Line does not have the simultaneous
arrival of an eastbound and westbound train within a 60 minute window during the
morning or afternoon commute.
In Summary, the regional Metrolink commuter train agency operates two rail lines
with 3 stations near the CPP campus that could potentially serve commuting students. All
three stations are too far to walk to campus from and CPP does not operate a private
shuttle service from any of the stations. Commuters must transfer to Foothill transit buses
and this will add on average 30-60 minutes to commute time. Providing a shuttle is costly
for CPP and maximizing shuttle ridership would be difficult given the lack of
corresponding arrivals between eastbound and westbound trains. As demonstrated by the
CSULA case study, Metrolink provides limited potential as a short-term strategy. Hence,
expanding transit or offering discounted passes has limited potential at Cal Poly Pomona
in the short term.
Foothill Transit Service to CPP
An analysis of Foothill Transit service was conducted to determine if Cal Poly
Pomona should promote commuting to campus via Foothill bus lines as a viable method
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010. Reference Figure #6
Foothill Transit operates five bus routes that connect directly to the Cal Poly
Pomona campus: #195, #289, #480, #482, and #486. Foothill Transit offers discounted
monthly student bus passes ranging in price from $30 - $65 depending on pass selection
($30 savings over full fare monthly pass options) (Foothill Transit Agency, 2005).
Foothill Transit service compared to the campus population distribution GIS map
generated for this report demonstrates limited service in the communities with larger CPP
12
student populations. Reference Figure #6. The following communities have relatively
high CPP student populations and are serviced by a direct bus route to campus: Diamond
Bar (zip-code 91765) via the #482 bus, and Phillips Ranch (zip-code 91767) via the #195
bus. Chino Hills (zip-code 91709) has the highest density of CPP students; however,
commuting to campus from Chino Hills requires riding at least 2 buses and transferring at
the Pomona Transit Center increasing total commute time.
Figure 6
Foothill Transit offers more extensive service to the communities located north of
campus. However, only two buses cross beneath I-10 to directly connect to campus. Most
students commuting by bus from locations north of the campus will need to transfer at
one of the major transfer centers in order to connect with campus.
Existing Transit Stops
Currently, Foothill Transit and Metro service the CPP population with 5 available
stops. Two are located on either side of West Temple at University Drive. Another two
are located on either side of West Temple at South Campus Drive. The fifth transit stop
is located in the east side of South Campus Drive at Temple. A map of campus with
pictures of the existing transit stops can be seen in Figure #7. As highlighted by the map,
these stops are situated on busy streets on the outskirts of campus, making it dangerous
and out of the way for most students.
Furthermore, after studying the five locations, we feel the existing transit stops
pose a safety issue at times. They do not provide proper shelter, some transit stops do not
even have seating and riders are forced to stand around and wait. An example can be
13
seen in the afternoon; the westbound transit lines on West Temple at University Drive has
students standing in the bike lane because there is no room to stand on the curb.
On-Campus Transit Stops
Figure 7
Prior to the Parking Structure, Foothill Transit and Metro had transit serviced the
campus with stops located on Oak Lane. This location was ideal for students wishing to
take transit because if its central location. However, they were temporarily relocated
while construction was taking place in order to avoid the congestion and possible damage
to the busses. As of this report, the Parking Structure is open, but Foothill and Metro
have not reinstated their on-campus routes.
After speaking with David Flores from Parking and Transportation, we learned
there are no immediate plans for transit to come back on campus. However, he hopes the
new Master Plan will address this problem. We feel with increased cooperation between
the Transit Authorities and University Administration, this problem can be resolved.
Accessibility to transit is a low-cost strategy that CPP can use to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions and making public transportation more accessible to students will give
them the incentive to ride the bus and not drive to campus.
In summary, Foothill Transit offers a discounted service to commute by bus to
campus; however, service is limited. Most commuting scenarios require transferring to at
least one additional bus adding to commute time. The limited service offers minimal
14
potential to reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions by attempting to increase
Foothill Transit ridership by the year 2010. For the long term, it is recommended Cal
Poly Pomona partner with Foothill Transit to increase service routes to campus
particularly targeting communities with high student populations as opportunities for
increasing direct bus routes to campus.
2.) Bicycling/Walking
As stated previously in this report, due to the geographic context of campus the
potential to increase students bicycling and walking to campus has limited short term
potential. However, opportunities for increasing students biking and walking to campus
should be considered as long term solutions to reduce campus greenhouse gas emissions.
15
Mission
The initial mission for this analysis project was “to increase alternative modes of
travel for commuting students, thus reducing associate emissions”. The short-term
prospects for alternative biking/pedestrian and transit strategies are not a top priority, and
because these strategies are contingent upon variables outside of the Cal Poly Pomona
community will not be addressed further. By using the university case study matrix, it is
apparent there is more potential in other areas. Eliminating these strategies further
refines the initial mission for this project to “To lower carbon emissions at Cal Poly
Pomona via alternative transportation methods that increase the number of students per
vehicle”. When evaluating the topography and current transit routes, as well as
recognizing Cal Poly Pomona is a commuter school, this new mission better represents
the most practical short-term ways Cal Poly Pomona can reduce their carbon emissions
and keep on track with the President’s Climate Commitment.
3) Parking Price Restructuring
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies specific to universities
involve adapting parking policy and creating financial incentives to encourage specific
parking behavior on campus. Moreover, the case study demonstrated that 6 of the 9
universities researched implement a multiple parking permit plan with various permit
options to curtail parking demand and/or change transportation behavior. Cal Poly
Pomona has a basic parking permit plan for students offering either a quarterly permit
pass or a daily permit pass. It was determined CPP’s parking program would benefit by
analyzing two separate restructured plans comprising a variety of permit options at
varying permit fees.
Multiple Parking Permit Options:
The case study matrix demonstrated that 6 of 9 universities reviewed utilize a
parking price program with multiple permit options to encourage specific parking
behavior on campus. Multiple parking price programs varied by university but typically
comprised a mix of quarterly and daily permit options for single occupancy vehicles
(SOV) and quarterly and daily permit options for student carpools. Comparing the
findings of the case study to CPP’s permit plan it was determined carpool permitting
16
options should be introduced to campus. University of California, Irvine’s employee
quarterly carpool permit was used as a model for proposed student quarterly carpool
permit at CPP for its low-tech application. University of Washington’s daily carpool
permit was used as a model for a proposed daily student carpool permit at CPP for its
ease of facility. The result was to propose and analyze plans comprised of four student
permit options: the existing SOV quarterly permit, the existing SOV daily permit, the
proposed carpool quarterly permit, and the proposed carpool daily permit plan.
Pricing SOV Permit Options:
The next step in developing proposed plans to analyze for restructuring
recommendations was to price the various permit options. Review of the case study
determined 4 of the 9 universities increase SOV quarterly parking permit prices by at
least 15%. Hence, it was determined to analyze packages that raised single occupancy
vehicle quarterly permits to $104, a 15% increase.
CPP’s current daily parking permit plan is priced to encourage commuters to buy
a quarterly permit eliminating a financial incentive to carpool. To explain, the average
CPP student travels to school 3.6 days a week (Student Affairs Information and
Technology Services, 2008). Buying a daily pass per visit versus a quarterly pass would
cost a student traveling to school a $108 a quarter more than buying a quarterly permit
pass. This pricing structure encourages a student to buy a quarterly pass which
encourages students to maximize use of the pass by driving to campus as much as
possible, typically alone. By offering SOV daily passes that are not priced to steer
students towards quarterly pass purchases the program can offer students flexibility of
combining pass options and encourage student carpooling. The analysis demonstrated
that by pricing the SOV daily permit price at $2.50, a student who travels to campus 3.6
days a week per quarter will pay $99 a quarter (if not participating in carpool permit
programs). Since this total is only $5 less than the proposed quarterly permit plan CPP
does not stand to lose parking revenue for students who buy SOV daily passes for the
quarter (and do not participate in carpooling). Pricing the daily SOV permit at $2.50
eliminates the penalty for commuters who may carpool intermittently to campus during
the quarter but cannot commit to a quarterly carpool relationship. This analysis
determined an SOV daily pass of $2.50 should be introduced.
17
Pricing the Carpool Parking Permits:
Two plans were compiled to determine carpool parking permit prices based upon
the cost-effectiveness of the pricing options. To create comparable scenarios for
greenhouse gas emissions analysis, each plan is to have the same SOV permit pricing
options: an SOV quarterly permit and a SOV daily permit. As stated above, the SOV
quarterly price is $104 (15% increase) and the SOV daily price is $2.50 (approximately
the daily rate of $104 based on 3.6 trips per week). Furthermore, each plan will offer a
quarterly carpool permit and a daily carpool permit. However, the two plans differ by the
actual price of the carpool permits. Plan A is to analyze student participation based upon
free carpool permits (Free Carpool Parking Plan) and Plan B is to analyze student
participation based upon a discount carpool permit (Discount Carpool Parking Plan). The
discount for the plan is set at charging half the SOV permit price: quarterly carpool
permit of $52 and a daily carpool permit of $1.25.
Eligibility and Use of Plans:
SOV quarterly permit passes will be available to all registered students who have
not purchased a carpool quarterly pass. Permits may be purchased online at time of
registration or through cashier’s office and Bronco ID number must be provided.
SOV daily permit passes will be available to any student and can be purchased at
parking kiosk or automated permit pay stations.
Carpool quarterly permit is available to any student living in zip-code other than
91768 and can be purchased/ requested at time of registration or through cashier’s office.
Bronco ID number/s of carpool teammate/s must be provided at time of purchase and
only 1 pass will be issued to each carpool team. By participating in carpool quarterly
permit plan students are not eligible to purchase an SOV quarterly permit. Team must
include at least two student participants to be eligible for permit.
Carpool daily permit is available on a daily basis at parking kiosks. Bronco ID
cards must be provided to parking attendant for each carpool teammate in car. Attendant
will swipe cards to verify eligibility and will provide permit receipt for display on dash.
Students living in 91768 zip-code are not eligible to participate in carpool daily permit.
Team must include at least two student participants to be eligible for permit.
18
Projection of Student Participation:
To analyze the two parking permit plans, the participation projections were
determined and entered into the 2010 baseline. Both plans were compared to the Business
as Usual baseline to compare tons CO2 equivalent reduced and cost effectiveness of plan.
It was projected that student carpool participation would increase 4% in response to the
pricing structure of the Free Carpool Parking Plan. Applied to the Clean Air Cool Planet
2010 projected baseline, the Free Carpool Parking Plan will reduce 540 tons of CO2
equivalent more than the Business as Usual baseline.
Figure 8
It was projected that carpool participation would increase 2% in response to the
Discount Carpool Parking Plan. Applied to the Clean Air Cool Planet 2010 baseline, the
Discount Carpool Parking Plan will reduce 285 tons of CO2 equivalent more than the
Business as Usual baseline.
4) Rideshare Incentives:
To properly accommodate for the projected increase in student carpooling it is
recommended that student priority rideshare parking spaces be increased by 20%,
reference Figure #9. This increase will account for the additional participation in the
carpool program. In addition to the increase in quantity, priority rideshare parking spaces
need to be repositioned to the most preferential placement designating the first few rows
as well as under shade trees for rideshare parking.
The priority rideshare parking space placards are an opportunity for the
University to convey its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Redesigning
the placards to display the University’s climate commitment logo reinforces the
commitment to the campus community. Furthermore, by increasing the quantity of
parking spaces and realigning to first row priority placement the University demonstrates
19
its willingness to actively reward those who participate in the movement to reduce
campus greenhouse gas emissions.
Figure 9
The yellow on map indicates the
proposed rideshare parking
spaces.
5) Networking Program – Ridematch
An internet ridematch program would match students that have similar commute
patterns in order to carpool to and from school together. Students would enter their
information through a database that would either be provided through the school or could
be independently linked to the school.
By utilizing online resources the CPP community can find partners for quarterly
or daily carpooling outside of the CPP rideshare program. Another option would be to
accomplish this alternative through networking internet sites such as Facebook and
MySpace. Internet sites such as these are popular and therefore would reach a larger
demographic that might otherwise not know about the potential to carpool.
Modifications to Permit Purchasing Interface
In order to increase the amount of students participating in the Carpool Program,
it is important to make it more visible to the student when they purchasing their permit.
20
Along with having the choice to purchase an SOV permit, students will have a chance to
purchase a carpool permit. If a student does not have a carpool partner at the time when
he or she is purchasing a permit, a student can choose to enroll in the CPP Rideshare
database that allows students to find a carpool partner within the CPP student community
by simply clicking on the box.
Figure 10
Implementation Features
Kiosks
Daily carpool parking pass users will be required to check in at a parking kiosk to
receive pass for each day of use. In order to facilitate ease of use and accommodate
participants of this plan, it is recommended two additional parking kiosks be constructed
on campus. These kiosks should be placed according to the primary vehicular routes to
campus as published in Campus Master Plan (Facilities and Planning et al., 2000) at the
north side of campus where University Drive meets Kellogg Drive and on the south side
of campus where University Drive meets Temple Avenue, see Figure #11.
In addition to convenience for participants, positioning two additional kiosks will
help minimize parking pass fraud. The two proposed locations away from parking lots
and residence halls makes it inconvenient for students to pick-up another student who
drove alone to campus or lives on campus (*students who live on campus are not eligible
to receive permit). Furthermore, by having daily carpool permit users register at kiosk,
21
CPP will be able to more accurately calculate the percentage of students carpooling on a
daily basis. These booths can also be used as a possible way to publicize the Presidents
Climate Commitment with a possible placard. An estimated cost of these kiosks would
be around $50,000 each according to Building Maintenance and Construction Services.
Figure 11
22
Policy Alternative Scenarios
The bottom of Figure #12 indicates the cost effectiveness of each scenario arrived
at by dividing the cost or revenue of each package into the CO2 tons projected to be
reduced. We used the Clean Air Cool Planet university projection model to arrive at CO2
tons reduced. The Discount Carpool Plan showed to be more cost-effective generating
$32 per CO2 ton reduced.
Determining the Cost Effectiveness of Each Plan:
Figure 12
After quantifying the amount of CO2 reduced as a result of the program, the total
was then used to determine the revenue that would be generated by each plan. By using
the annual number of permits sold, a spreadsheet was generated that calculated the total
cost or revenue generated from each plan. Even with the 15% increase in the SOV
permit price, the University would assume a cost when compared to the Business as
Usual Model. The total cost of the Free Carpool Permit Plan would be $344,858. The
cost of the program divided by the amount of CO2 tons reduced produced the cost
effectiveness of the plan that would cost the University $605/CO2 tons reduced. The
Discount Carpool Permit Plan generates revenue compared to the Business as Usual
Model. The total revenue for the Discount Carpool Permit Plan is $30,100. After
23
dividing the revenue by the amount of CO2 tons reduced, the cost effectiveness would
generate $106/CO2 tons reduced. Using the cost effectiveness chart, it was decided that
the Discount Carpool Plan would be a better choice for Cal Poly Pomona.
What does this Mean for CO2?
Using the amount of CO2 tons reduced generated by the Clean Air Cool Planet
model a graph was created to show the reduction in Student Transportation (green section
of graph), and overall Transportation Emissions (green and yellow section combined).
Figure 13
24
Discount Carpool Parking Plan
•
Raise SOV Quarterly Permits to $104
•
Lower SOV Daily Permits to $2.50
•
Charge Quarterly Carpool Pass to $52
•
Charge Daily Carpool Pass to $1.25
Incentives & Implementation Features:
•
Increase priority rideshare parking by 20%
•
Construct 2 additional Kiosks
•
Implement Internet Ride Matching Service
Figure 14
Central Decision Criteria—Policy Recommendation
The central decision criteria used to evaluate the two proposed parking alternative
scenarios for making a policy recommendation was the cost effectiveness of the scenario.
As stated previously, the Free Carpool Parking Plan would cost the University $605 per
ton of CO2 reduced. The Discount Carpool Parking Plan would generate $102 per ton of
CO2 reduced. Based upon the application of the cost effectiveness criteria the Discount
Carpool Parking Plan was identified as the recommended policy.
25
References
Brown, et al. (2007). California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory Report.
Brown, J., D. Hess, and D. Shoup. (2001). Unlimited Access. Transportation. 28(3): 233–
67.
Cervantes, Batina. Commuter Services, Dept of Public Safety, CSULA, Personal
Communication, 2008.
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Facilities and Planning, & Robbins
Jorgensen Christopher. (2000). California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Campus Master Plan.
Flores, David, personal communication, February 7, 2008.
Foothill Transit Agency. (2/25/05). Foothill Transit. Retrieved
2/7/08http://www.foothilltransit.org/
Shoup, Donald. (2007). “Solar Powered Parking Lots.” SFGate. Viewed on February 15,
2008. http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/14/EDIOSO3NR.DTL&type=printable
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. (2008). Metrolink schedules. Retrieved
2/7/08http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/
Student Affairs Information and Technology Services. (2008). California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona Attendance Patterns
Toor, Will. (2003). The Road Less Traveled: Sustainable Transportation for Campuses.
Planning for Higher Education. Viewed on February 15, 2008.
http://www.secondnature.org/pdf/snwritings/articles/ToorRoad_Less_Traveled.pdf
Toor et al.(2004). Transportation & Sustainable Campus Communities. Washington
D.C.: Island Press
26
Download
Related flashcards
E-commerce

29 Cards

Packaging

27 Cards

Containers

36 Cards

Create flashcards