Cars vs. Transit
Outline
 Current Access
and Proposed Parking
 Alternatives
 The
Beeline Bus: Fast, Frequent, Free
 Travel Time
 Enough Ridership?
 Comparative Costs and Financing
 Summary
Current Access to CSUEB Hayward
 The
campus has many large parking lots.
 At the start of fall and winter quarters parking
spaces are scarce.
 Parking permits cost $130 per quarter.
 AC Transit Bus Route 60 runs every 20 minutes
from Hayward BART, and takes 18 minutes to
get to campus.
 Students can ride a free campus shuttle, also
slow.
Proposed Parking
The CSUEB Hayward Draft Master Plan
Parking Spaces
Proposed Percent
Fall 2008
Fall 2017 increase
4,456
5,560
(CSUEB Hayward Master Plan, 2008)
24.8%
What’s behind these numbers?
 Planners
propose reducing demand for parking
using various policies called Transportation
Demand Management (TDM).
 Even so, planners project a need for more parking
before and after 2017.
 Academic buildings would be built on some
current parking lots, reducing needed spaces.
 Planners propose a parking structure for 1,100 cars
to meet parking needs projected for 2017.
Alternatives
Stanford University
 Stanford began
the Cash for Clean Air program in 1994, paying students NOT to park on
campus – now $180/year per student.
 Rather than spending millions on parking
garages, Stanford chose to invest in bike and
transit programs to maintain campus
aesthetics and promote clean air.
UC Santa Cruz
 The
University invests in transit
& bike paths.
 Parking spaces are limited.
 1 space per 3 students.
 Cars
on campus are not allowed
for Freshmen & Sophomores.
 Parking fees are extremely high.
 $684/year
Other Campus Programs
Chico...
Cal Poly...
the whole U.C. system has
increasing enrollment and
award-winning transit.
Access policies also include:
 Ample, safe, protected bicycle parking
 Pedestrian-friendly walkways
 Car pooling and car sharing
 Quick, reliable public transportation
 Planned reduction of traffic and parking
Alternatives to a Parking Structure
 Alternative
land use: Student Housing
A residence hall here would be closer to
campus than the proposed housing on the
west low terrace, where students would have
to walk up past the parking structure to reach
the campus. Then, the terrace could be used
for low-cost surface parking or recreation.
 Alternative access using fast, frequent, free
buses: “The Beeline Bus”
The Beeline Bus –
fast, frequent, free
Fast in traffic

Mid-size, 30 foot, buses keep up with traffic
 Less obtrusive than the usual 40 foot bus or
articulated bus
 Faster and more nimble in traffic
 Mid-size bus seats 30 passengers

Diesel – electric dual mode motor or all electric
 Faster hill climbing with electrical torque
 Regenerative braking downhill recovers energy
 Can run on sustainable biodiesel, e.g., waste
cooking or motor oil
Fast On-Off Boarding
The bus has wide doors on floor level, no steps.
 Bus stops have raised platforms
for no-step on-off boarding.


Docking parks buses very close
to platform.

Prepaid fares are checked at
random by inspectors (“proof of
purchase”).

Driver does not collect fares, for
faster on-off boarding.
Las Vegas MAX
Frequent
The bus is frequent, every 10 minutes.
Travel time BART to campus is 8 minutes.
It runs all day; it starts before 8:00 am classes
and ends after 10:00 pm.
The bus keeps on schedule, using signal
changing equipment to change red lights.
 The bus may use “right-lane preference” to use
right turn lanes to cut past cars at intersections.
Free
 All
students would ride for free
 Parking charges would pay for the bus
 Parking charges would increase less than
for a parking structure
 Students using the free bus benefit the
most
 All students benefit from lower parking
charges and less traffic
The Beeline Route
Distance = 2.25 miles
Convenient Stops, BART to Campus
Campus
Hayward BART Station
Stops on campus
Campus stops make sense
Faster, more efficient route than Loop Road for
transit-walk trips
 Safer than driving around the Loop Road: Crosses

three walkways on campus; crosses too many
walkways and cars to count on Loop Road
More visibility & advertising for the service
 Other campuses have transit stops on campus:

Stanford’s Marguerite, Berkeley’s Bear Transit

Visibility and sustainability would help promote
the campus
Travel Time
Total travel time is important
 “In-vehicle” time
is only part of total trip time
 Total time needs to include all stages:
 parking and walking to bus stop
 average waiting time for a bus
 the in-vehicle time (bus or car)
 parking on campus (car)
 walking from bus or car to building entry
Time from BART to campus
 Driving: In-vehicle time to Lot C using Hayward Blvd.
and proposed new entry road, park, walk to center of
library: about 16 minutes
 AC Transit: In-vehicle time to downtown, park, walk
to bus, wait, in-vehicle time to campus, walk to center of
library: about 35 minutes
 Beeline
Bus: In-vehicle time to downtown, park, walk
to bus, wait, in-vehicle time to campus, walk to center of
library: about 20 minutes
Why not AC Transit?
 AC Transit Route
60 is slow:
 Slow, under-powered articulated bus
 Round-about route using 2nd St.
 18 minutes run time (8 minutes for the Beeline)
 Travel time 35 minutes (20 minutes for the Beeline)
 AC Transit is expensive: $148 per bus operating
hour ($68 for MV Transportation in Union City)
 Many
campuses run their own bus systems for
control, efficiency, and cost savings
Why not the CSUEB Shuttle?
 A 20
minute run time; it should be 8 minutes
 A 20 minute headway; it should be 10 minutes
 No service Friday evening or weekends
 It is limited in whom it serves
 It supports no corridor development
 It has a circuitous route
Driving vs. BART

BART is expensive, but the average cost per mile for a
car is even higher.

However, the marginal cost of driving (the cost of
gasoline) is low. Gasoline is about 18% of the average
cost. Cars are expensive to own, but cheap to drive.
 BART, round trip, Oakland - Hayward

$5.60
 Average driving cost, 30 miles, $.55/mile
$16.27
 Marginal cost of gas, 25 mpg, $3/ gallon
$3.58
The Beeline Bus supports a car free lifestyle, saving a
large amount of money—no car costs, no parking fees
Enough Ridership?
The Goal for a Rapid Bus:
Equal the Parking Structure
CSUEB estimates 18,755 students, faculty, and
staff need access to the campus in 2017.
 The master plan projects about 2,695 students will
live on-campus, leaving 16,096 people needing
access from off-campus.
 With no structure, there would be about 4,460
surface spaces, 1,100 spaces short of need.
 Transit would need to serve the equivalent of 1,100
parking spaces, or about 1,300 people, to meet the
goal of the proposed structure.

Data bases for analyzing transit
Data sources:
 Zip
codes of student residential location
 Traffic
model data of origin zones of 2005
 Days
of the week that classes meet
 Time
of day when students attend class
 City
of Hayward traffic counts by half hour
 Bus
capacity
CSUH Student Access To Campus, Fall 2008 by Zip Code
Residential Location
By Zip code
BART
Availability?
Berkeley Albany Kensington
yes
Union City Fremont Newark
yes
Hayward Castro Valley
no
Oakland Alameda Emeryville
Piedmont
yes
Pleasanton Dublin Livermore
no
San Leandro, San Lorenzo
yes
West Contra Costa
yes
The rest of Contra Costa
no
San Francisco, Northwest Cal
yes
San Mateo Co., Palo Alto
no
Solano, San Joaquin
no
Santa Clara, South
yes
Local
Mission,
Harder
Probable gateway route from home to campus
I-880 from SR 92 or I-880 from
I-580 from I-580 from
south,
SR 84
north, A or
north,
east, Second
Harder
Harder
Winton
downtown
Total
2008
percent
2001
percent*
272
2.1%
2.4%
1,752
13.5%
9.1%
2,772
21.4%
20.0%
1,888
14.6%
12.2%
839
6.5%
3.8%
458
915
7.1%
7.3%
531
531
4.1%
4.9%
1,935
15.0%
4.0%
446
3.4%
2.1%
425
3.3%
3.3%
434
3.4%
0.5%
730
5.6%
5.3%
100.0%
100.0%
272
1,204
845
548
620
271
322
883
714
1,005
839
458
1,935
446
425
434
730
Total
845
1,824
1,278
696
1,340
3,034
3,922
12,939
Percent
6.5%
14.1%
9.9%
5.4%
10.4%
23.4%
30.3%
100.0%
About one third of students come through, or could come through, downtown Hayward on their way to campus.
Sample size in Fall 2001 was 13,078.
Students residing on campus were not listed. Listings from out of state and Southern California have been excluded.
There is no data on transit access. The table indicates probable vehicle routes.
The data from Colin Ormsby has many misspellings, wrong zip codes, and improbable residency locations.
This table is simplified from C:\Users\Sherman\Documents\CSUEB Hayward Access\CSUH_transit_access_20081104.xlsx
Where Are Students Coming From?
How many students use the “downtown corridor”
from Hayward BART to campus?
 Zip code data on student residential location
 About 23.4 % come via I-580 from the North via Foothill
or live in the downtown Hayward area
 About 10.4 % come via I-880 from the North, and could
use A St. or Winton Ave.
 County
traffic model data on origin zones to
campus
 About 18.6 % come via I-880 from the North
 About 14.7 % come via I-580 from the North
 Both
sources show about 33 % using this corridor
Most classes meet on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday
Percent meeting by day of week
Monday
708
23.3%
Tuesday
703
23.1%
Wednesday
682
22.4%
Thursday
678
22.3%
Friday
229
7.5%
Saturday
35
1.1%
Sunday
9
0.3%
Total classes with known days
3,044
100%
Monday classes mostly 9:00 am to 7:30 pm
Students in classes by time of day, Monday, Fall 2008
4,000
Number of students
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
7:30 AM
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
11:30 AM
12:00 PM
12:30 PM
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:30 PM
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
5:00 PM
5:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
9:00 PM
9:30 PM
10:00 PM
Tuesday classes mostly 10:00 am to 7:30 pm
Students in classes by time of day, Tuesday, Fall 2008
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Traffic Counts in Hayward
City counts were adjusted
using the County traffic model
to show campus only.
 They show a pattern similar to
class meeting times.
 Both traffic counts and class
schedules show travel spread
evenly across the day with no
strong peak concentrations.

 Even
flow is ideal for
transit.
Time
Bee up
Bee down
6am - 7am
313
82
7am - 8am
522
278
8am - 9am
489
464
9am - 10 am
355
443
10am -11am
330
399
11am - 12am
315
390
12am - 1pm
394
372
1-2
533
333
2-3
523
333
3-4
400
414
4-5
432
445
5-6
444
512
6-7
397
558
7-8
422
416
8-9
294
320
9-10
354
304
10-11
173
173
6am to 11pm
6,689
6,235
Rider capacity of a two-bus system





Each bus can carry 30 passengers, and goes one way
3 times per hour: 90 riders one way per hour.
Each bus operates 14.5 hours to serve morning and
evening classes.
If buses on average are half full, they would carry
1,305 round trip riders per day.
In practice, some runs will have few riders and others
have standing room only.
Even if only half full, rapid buses could meet the
same need as the parking structure.
Would enough students ride?
About 33% of students come through downtown Hayward
 They would walk, take a bus or BART, or use parking
along the route to reach the bus
 Only 36% of students using this downtown corridor would
need to ride the bus to make it feasible

They would save about $200 per quarter with little
loss of time on average
 For some times of day and some campus destinations
they would save time.
 Some students could then live car free and afford to
attend CSUEB Hayward

Comparative Costs
and
Financing
Estimated Cost of Parking Structure
 Per
space construction cost: about $29,200
 Amortization
over 25 years at 5% interest:
about $2,050 per year
 Operating costs:
about $500 per year
 Total
costs per space: about $2,550 per year
 Total
cost for 1,100 spaces: $2,800,000 per
year
Estimating the Fee to Pay
for A Parking Structure
 Parking
permits must pay for parking costs,
including the parking structure.
 Permits
are sold fall, winter, and spring.
Total quarterly permits sold
2007-08
(students, faculty, staff )
Parking spaces
2007-08
Permits sold per
space per year
24,053
4,860
4.95
 About 4.95
quarterly permits are sold per
space per year.
Two ways to estimate the parking fee

1) Unsubsidized parking fee: those who park in
the structure pay the cost of the structure.

2) Subsidized parking fee: those who use surface
parking are over-charged to help cover the cost of
the parking structure.
Unsubsidized Parking Fee


The cost of a parking structure space divided by the
number of permits sold per space per year equals
the cost per quarter of a student parking fee.
Permits sold per
space per year
Cost of structure
space per year
Quarterly fee
4.95
$ 2,600
$515
The unsubsidized parking permit for the structure
would cost about $515 per quarter.
Subsidized Parking Fee
Students can be over-charged for surface parking
to pay for the parking structure.
 In 2017 the plan calls for 1,100 structure spaces
and 4,460 surface spaces, totaling 5,560.

Number of
all spaces
Number of quarter
permits / year
Cost of
structure per
year
Fee increase to
subsidize structure
5,560
27,522
$ 2,806,000
$102

The quarterly parking fee overcharge for the
structure would be about $102.
One more way to look at the cost
of a parking structure
Suppose we build surface parking on the same spot
as the structure.
 Then, the structure only adds parking on the upper
levels.
 We can subtract the surface costs from the structure
costs and the surface spaces from the total structure
spaces.
 The result is the cost per space for the upper spaces.

 The
structure diagram shows that at least 223
spaces could be built on the same footprint.
 A surface lot would cost about $790 per space
per year for amortization and operations, far
less than the $2,600 per space for the
structure.
 The unsubsidized surface parking permit
would cost about $160 per quarter, far less
than $515 permit cost per quarter for the
structure.
Net cost of upper levels
 The
parking structure gains about 877 spaces
above the surface.
 The
cost of the structure minus the cost of
surface parking equals the net cost of the
upper levels.
 The
unsubsidized permit cost for the upper
level spaces would be about $606 per quarter.
 Any
parking fee based on the cost of the
structure is uneconomic; it won’t work.
Cost of A Two-bus System

Capital costs are about $4.3 million:
 High-tech buses are expensive, about $550,000 each
 Signal changing equipment
 Raised platform stops with shelters
 Guided docking at platforms
 Garage for office, parts, and servicing
 Ramp to PE Building and Loop Rd. intersection realignment




Amortized at 5% over 25 years = $300,000 per year
Operating costs would be about $70 per bus operating hour
Operating costs for a full schedule all year = $741,000
Yearly capital and operating = $1,040,000
Paying for the Beeline Bus

Parking fine revenue: About $150,000 per year

Parking permit fee revenue from about 4,460 surface
spaces in 2017 pays for surface parking and the bus

At 4.95 permits sold per space per year, 22,073
permits would be sold

Only $40 per permit above the cost of surface
parking covers all of the cost of transit to campus
And…

Class Pass - All students get a free pass.
Summary of Cost Estimates
 A 1,100 space
parking structure would cost:
 $102 parking fee/quarter, subsidized (added
to base permit cost, currently $95 per quarter)
 $515 parking fee/quarter, unsubsidized
 $606 parking fee/quarter, upper levels alone
 New
surface parking on structure footprint
would cost $160/quarter
 Frequent, rapid
bus would cost $40/quarter
Summary
More Parking?
 Expensive for
the student
 Has to be subsidized by surface parking
 Expensive for the environment
 Increases traffic and congestion
 Increases fossil fuel use and pollution
 Increases health and safety problems
from accidents and a sedentary life style
 Continues dependency on cars and
foreign sources of energy
The Beeline Bus
 Provides
access equal to or better than a
parking structure; no need for a structure
 Improves use of scarce land capacity: student
housing instead of a parking structure
 Costs student less than a parking structure
 Serves all students, not just those with cars
 Supports living on campus without a car
 Helps enrollment growth based on
increasingly convenient, fast transit access
The Beeline Bus
More sustainable, less environmental damage:
 Reduces greenhouse gases and other air
pollutants
 Reduces fossil fuel use, reduces oil dependency
 Reduces dependency on foreign oil suppliers,
helps economic productivity
 Reduces traffic accidents and deaths
 Supports walking and biking, so improves
personal health
The Beeline Bus
 Reduces
congestion as it grows: buses can go
to South Hayward BART, Castro Valley BART,
and I-880 exits at Winton and Harder.
 Supports car-free development and affordable
housing along the Mission corridor and oncampus, which then increases bus frequency
 Improves access between campus and
downtown businesses and BART
 Supports revitalization of downtown Hayward
and BART ridership