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

1. 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

2. Outline • The Right Time for Mobility at Clemson (Motivation and Research Questions) • Methodologies • Overview of Results • Venues for Dissemination • Concurrent Research

3. Motivation and Research Questions

4. Motivation at Clemson • Trustee mandate: no new surface parking lots • Increasing demand for parking • Ten years 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. The Clemson UniversityTransportation 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

9. 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

10. Methodology

11. 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?

12. 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

13. Human Subjects Research • Stringent requirements for review of research procedures, instruments, risks, and ethics • Nazi medical experiments • Addictive drug research • Special consideration of minors (freshmen?) What kind of risks could the campus surveys pose?

14. 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 Internet Survey

17. Internet Survey

18. 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 12th, 2006 • 147 diaries distributed • 49 diaries returned What about statistical significance?

19. Diaries… not state of the practice • Activity diaries • Vehicle instrumentation • GPS packs Expense? Equipment reliability? Modal bias? Privacy?

20. 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 Football Survey

21. Visibility important with signs/uniforms Catchy phrases on signs Football Survey

22. Football Survey Results

23. What biases should you expect for each? Survey Method Comparison

24. Overview of Modal Results

25. Mode Split for Clemson University Internet Survey Respondents

26. Do You Have Reasonable Access to Places Within Clemson University?

28. What Type of Parking Pricing Would You Prefer On Campus (Off-Campus Students)

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

30. 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

31. Reasons People Do Not Walk

32. Walk Commute Times to Campus

33. Who is Riding Transit?

34. 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”

35. 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

37. Football Survey Results

38. Parking: Not just a car issue • Strollers get designated parking, so why don’t bikes?

39. Alternative Transportation Options

40. 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.

41. Would You Support a County Wide Sales Tax To Support Commuter Rail for Clemson?

42. 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?

43. "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." Faculty On-campus Students 33.2% of the campus community sees golf carts as a likely viable transportation option. Off-campus Students Staff

44. Which of the following trips would you use a golf cart for if designated lanes existed for golf carts?"

45. "Lanes and paths designated for bicycles, golf carts, and mopeds should exist in the Clemson community." • 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.

46. Venues for Dissemination Who cares? How relevant is a study of Clemson?

47. Contribution to the Clemson Campus • 2006 consultant study of campus transportation needs • Parking & Transportation Management Plan

48. Classes • 2005 City and Regional Planning Graduate Studio • 2006 Undergraduate Creative Inquiry • Future potential for landscape architecture and engineering studio work

49. 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

50. 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…