saint mary’s college parking management plan

SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN MORAGA, CA Prepared for: SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA 33�1721.00 SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE

PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 33�1721.00

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Saint Mary’s College Background 1 Existing Parking System 3 Current Parking Policies 3 Parking Challenges 5

PARKING MANAGEMENT 6 Pricing Parking 6 Transportation Demand Management 6

Improved Public Transit 7 Parking Cash Out 8 Free Transit and Eco Passes 9 Ride Sharing: Carpools and Vanpools 10 Telecommuting and Alternate Work Schedules 11 Car Sharing 12 Biking 12

Increased Enforcement 13 Parking Ambassador Program 14 Technology to Assist with Enforcement 15

Improving Access to/from Canyon Area Residence Halls 15 Freshman Resident Parking Restriction 16 Parking Supply Improvements 16

MONITORING AND MEASURING PLAN EFFECTIVENESS 17



1

INTRODUCTION In order to maintain a high academic standard and to compete with other academic institutions, Saint Mary’s College must constantly upgrade its facilities. The development of new facilities has triggered environmental reviews required by the Town of Moraga. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was issued for a Recreation Center that the College intends to build on campus. In response to one of the mitigation measures stated in the MND, Walker developed this Parking Management Plan to guide the College as it endeavors to make more efficient use of campus parking resources. The College has commenced updating its Campus Master Plan, which will outline new development and future parking supply. This Plan would apply to parking supply, both current and future. SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE BACKGROUND Saint Mary’s 420�acre campus is located in the hills overlooking the Town of Moraga; approximately 14 miles east of Oakland and 23 miles east of San Francisco if traveling by car.

Figure 1: Location of Saint Mary’s College of California

Source: Saint Mary’s College In academic year 2011�2012, the College had approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 800 graduate students attending full�time and approximately 4,100 students total. In addition, the College employs approximately 500 faculty (200 full�time) and approximately 500 staff (350 full�time) members. The campus is comprised of four schools: Economics and Business Administration, Education, Liberal Arts



2

and Science. The schools serve two separate student populations – undergraduate and graduate students. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of campus buildings and activity centers.

Figure 2: Saint Mary’s College Campus Map

Source: Saint Mary’s College



3

In addition to the main campus, the Rheem Campus also serves the College. This campus is located in Moraga about two�miles northwest of the main campus. EXISTING PARKING SYSTEM The main campus contains approximately 2,100 spaces with an additional 130 spaces located on the Rheem Campus. The Filippi Lot (240 spaces), is the largest, while the majority of the other lots that serve the campus contain fewer than 50 spaces. The lots are designated for use by one or more of the following user groups: Commuter, Faculty, Staff, Resident and Visitor. Commuters are defined as any student not residing on the main campus, while the other user groups are self�explanatory. CURRENT PARKING POLICIES Parking is currently free to all users, except for those driving to campus and parking for men’s basketball games, who must pay $5. All parkers must have a valid permit visible and are required to park in a lot designated for their user group. Commuter, Faculty, Staff and Resident permits are each a unique color and letter and must be displayed on the car’s front windshield. Visitor permits are paper permits that are obtained upon entry to campus and must be displayed on the car’s dashboard. Information obtained from the College’s website1 with regard to parking permits and other parking related policies are as follows: POLICY

The College requires that all vehicles operated on college property observe all college parking and traffic

regulations and all applicable provisions of the California Vehicle Code. All vehicles must have a valid

license plate and properly display a valid campus parking permit.

PERMITS

1. Parking permits are required for all vehicles on campus 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

2. All vehicles (including motorcycles, mopeds and motor scooters) must display a current campus permit.

3. Permits are only issued by the Public Safety Department and are property of Saint Mary's College.

Permits may be revoked at any time and must be surrendered upon request.

4. Parking permits must be displayed according to instructions given with the permit.

5. Permits are only valid for the vehicle they are issued to and are not transferable to another person or

vehicle.

6. Issuance of a permit does not guarantee availability of a parking space.

7. Spaces are on a first come, first served basis in lots that are valid for specific permits.

RESPONSIBILITY

The responsibility for finding a legal parking space rests with the vehicle operator. Lack of space in lots

designated for your permit is not a valid reason for violating parking regulations. Improperly parked vehicles

are subject to campus citation, immobilization and/or towing at the owners expense. The College assumes

1 http://www.stmarys�ca.edu/public�safety/parking�permits�policies



4

NO LIABILITY for loss or damage to any vehicle or its contents nor liability for damage to persons or

property for any parked or moving vehicle on campus.

GUEST/VISITOR PARKING

Guests and visitors may park in designated visitor lots where directed by Public Safety personnel. Guests

and visitors are issued temporary permits at the entrance gate. Special event parking and permit

requirements are determined on a case�by�case basis.

REGULATIONS

Parking must be in full accordance with posted signs and campus regulations. Regulations are enforced 24

hours a day, seven days a week by the Public Safety Department.

All cars, trucks, motorcycles and mopeds are required to be registered with Public Safety and display a

current Saint Mary's College parking permit.

• Parking permits are to be placed on the outside of the windshield, on the driver's side, lower corner of

the windshield. Only 1 parking permit per vehicle. Using your parking permit on another vehicle is

prohibited. Permits are non�transferable.

• The parking permit numbers must be visible at all times.

• The parking lots on campus are enforced Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. After 3 p.m., you

may park in any parking lot.

• Red curbs, fire lanes, handicapped stalls, blocking traffic, blocking a walkway, not in a marked stall, no

current parking permit, stop signs, and speeding are enforced 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days

a year.

• If you are uncertain as to where you can park, refer to your map of the campus. The map with show you

where you can and cannot park from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Friday. Not all parking lots

have signs. If you are uncertain where to park, refer to your map, your map is your sign.

• If you are driving a different vehicle and/or expecting a guest, it is your responsibility to obtain a

temporary and/or visitor's parking permit with the map showing you and/or your visitor where to park.

• If you have a vehicle and it does not have license plates yet, you are still required to register the vehicle

with Public Safety and obtain a current SMC parking permit. Once you get your license plates, inform

Public Safety.

• Violation from any of the above laws and policies while on campus, can result in citation, immobilization

or the towing of the vehicle at your expense.

• Moving violations (speeding, stop sign, etc) will not be tolerated. Moving violations cannot be appealed.

Moving violations will be handled through the Director of Public Safety.

Faculty, Staff, Commuter, Visitor and Temporary parking permits, maps of the campus, and parking policies

can be obtained at the Public Safety Gatehouse at the entrance of the College, 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week. Resident parking permits are ONLY issued from the Public Safety Administration Office located in

Assumption Hall West. For questions or general information please call Public Safety at (925) 631�4282.



5

All policies and procedures are approved through Saint Mary's College Public Safety.

• The campus speed limit is 15 mph.

• Pedestrians will be given the right of way at all times on campus.

• Passing another vehicle on campus is prohibited.

• Parking is permitted only in lots designated for your permit and only in marked parking stalls.

• All provisions of the California Vehicle Code must be obeyed on campus including the helmet law and

restrictions against passengers in the rear of uncovered pickup trucks.

• Removal or tampering with any item placed for parking or traffic control is prohibited.

• Parking is prohibited in the following areas:

• Any roadway, driveway, walkway, landscaped or dirt area.

• In any fire lane, red zone, or within 15 feet of any fire hydrant.

• In any area prohibited by signs or markings.

• In any pedestrian crosswalk or area that impedes vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

• In any reserved space or lot without the appropriate permit.

• In any handicapped space without the proper license plate or placard. PARKING CHALLENGES Based on the Permanent Parking Plan developed by Walker (November 23, 2011), approximately 1,900 or 90% of the total spaces were occupied during the peak weekday hour (Noon to 1:00 PM). While this on its own is a high occupancy rate, many of the non�residential lots adjacent to the academic halls were at or above 100% occupancy. Depending on the user group(s) utilizing the lot, 90% occupancy may be representative of maximum occupancy, as empty spaces are required to facilitate circulation, and other spaces may be unavailable due to mis�parking, routine maintenance, broken glass, etc. User groups less familiar with a parking lot (e.g. Visitors) typically require a greater cushion. Therefore, a lot operating at 100% or higher occupancy with vehicles parking illegally or along an unmarked curb could result in severe congestion within the lot, as well as at the entrance and exit access points of the lot. While the off�campus parking demand must be addressed, a large issue also exists with students living in the Canyon Area that drive from the residential lots to the non�residential lots located on the main campus adjacent to academic halls. This may in part be due to perceived time savings, as students intend to get out of bed, drive, park and walk from a close�in parking lot to their class. Additionally, another part of the problem may be due to challenges associated with non�motorized mobility between the Canyon Area and the rest of campus.



6

PARKING MANAGEMENT Walker’s definition of parking management entails incorporating policies and practices that make the most efficient use of parking. As land on the Saint Mary’s campus becomes scarce, due to new construction and/or capital improvements, the cost to construct additional parking increases since above or below�grade parking options are significantly higher than surface parking. As a result, it is critical to better manage the existing parking supply. In the sections that follow, we outline several practices and ideas that could be incorporated to reduce driving, and hence the demand for parking, or could render the existing system more efficient by better balancing supply and demand spatially across the campus. These practices could be implemented in any number of combinations, which could improve the overall efficiency of the parking system. We find that a “carrot and stick” approach is often the most effective as carrots (things perceived as positive such as incentives to not drive a single�occupant vehicle) need to be counterbalanced by sticks (things perceived as negative such as increased enforcement and charging for parking). PRICING PARKING The College’s current policy is to offer free parking on campus for all parkers. The only exception is a $5 charge for those who drive on to campus to attend men’s basketball games. Our own experience suggests that when drivers are required to pay for parking, behavior shifts occur. When parking is provided for free, there is a tendency to maximize its use. When paying to park, the user may think about how important that trip is and whether to take it and whether to use other modes. For example, students who use their car infrequently may opt to leave it at home as the additional cost to park may be too much to bear. Faculty and staff who can readily utilize other modes or carpool/vanpool may decide to do so if the cost is lower than the cost to park. Cost in this case covers economic costs (such as any vehicle payments, gasoline and parking) as well as time cost (which considers actual time spent commuting and also productive time, which can be maximized if another is driving). Of course other factors play into this decision such as convenience and comfort. In concert with parking pricing changes (a stick), viable alternatives to single�occupant vehicles need to be available (carrots) and will be discussed in the section on Transportation Demand Management. We recommend the College consider charging all user groups who park on campus. Faculty, Staff, Commuters and Residents could be charged on a monthly, quarterly, or semester basis, while Visitors could be charged a flat rate upon entry to campus. The College may maintain a guest list at the guard booth for Visitors that should receive complimentary parking. In order to determine a rate, we would recommend benchmarking against local colleges and universities with a similar suburban setting. While this may be an unpopular option to pursue, it would have an impact on parking demand. Based on our experience, we would expect a reduction in parking demand of at least 10% on impacted user group(s) assuming parking is no longer free. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT When academic institutions face financial and spatial constraints, it can be far more efficient to manage parking demand than develop new parking supply. The marginal cost of providing the last 10% of the needed parking supply can be significantly more expensive than reducing the first 10% of the demand. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan may provide a viable option to reduce the overall parking demand.



7

Generally, a TDM plan is an array of programs that help an institution reduce demand by encouraging a more efficient use of transportation resources or by reducing the presence of single�occupancy vehicles on campus. These programs include but are not limited to parking cash out, ride sharing (carpools and vanpools), telecommuting, and car sharing services. When motorists do not recognize the true cost of providing parking, there is little incentive to use less of the parking resource or cease from demanding more. A successful TDM plan is one that is acceptable, available and useable by the community it serves. As part of this plan, it may be helpful to inform parking users about the challenges of providing parking and why the College should have a TDM plan. Parking is an expensive resource. A successful TDM plan would likely include a transfer of a portion of those financial resources that would otherwise go to increasing the parking supply, to encourage individuals to find non�automotive or shared modes of commuting to school every day. As a benchmark, successful TDM plans reduce parking demand by 4% on average. IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSIT

The Northern California Bay Area has a well�deserved reputation for having one of the better regional mass transit systems in the western United States. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system provides efficient rail service throughout the region, including a line nearest to the College that runs from Pittsburg to Millbrae. Several municipalities link their bus services to the arrivals of BART trains in the numerous cities served by those trains. While many commuters throughout the Bay Area benefit from its mass transit systems, those travelling to Saint Mary’s College face particular obstacles that reduce the benefits of using mass transit to reach the school. They also present a challenge to the College’s effort to encourage its students, faculty, and staff to use mass transit. The chief obstacle that potential commuters face when using mass transit to reach Saint Mary’s College is the College’s location. The College is geographically separated from the Town of Moraga, the BART rail line and major roadway and highway networks. Because of this separation and the lack of high transit demand, only one bus line (Route 6) serves campus year�round. The line which is operated by the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), also known as the County Connection, runs intermittently between the Orinda and Lafayette BART stations. The trip between a BART station and the campus can take 25 minutes on a CCCTA bus. Consequently, taking mass transit to Saint Mary’s College presents a challenge. If a commuter wants to take a County Connection bus from a BART station to the College, he/she must time her arrival at the BART station so as not to miss the bus, which runs on 40 minute headways during peak hours and two hour headways during off�peak hours. Route 6 is currently free for passengers who present a valid Saint Mary’s student identification card. Route 6 service terminates at 9:00 PM on weekdays and 6:00 PM on weekends. The college and CCCTA have collaborated to make transit more convenient to/from the Saint Mary’s campus. The Gael Rail Shuttle (Route 250), launched in March 2008, addresses the needs of Saint Mary’s College students using BART on evenings from Thursday to Sunday. The shuttle operates between the Lafayette BART station and the College from 9:30 PM to 1:25 AM on Thursday and Friday and from 6:30 PM to 1:25 AM on Saturday and Sunday. The shuttle service is free to passengers who present a valid Saint Mary’s student identification card. All others must pay a $2.00 fee. The shuttle makes scheduled stops at CCCTA stops along the route between the Lafayette BART station and the Saint Mary’s campus. The 15�person shuttle will also make “flag stops” along the route at the request of a



8

current passenger on the shuttle or a waiting rider standing along the route. The most convenient feature of the program is that the shuttle’s last scheduled departure from the Lafayette BART station occurs shortly after passengers on the last train arrive at the station at 1:25 AM. The route has been expanded over time to include residential areas with high concentrations of condos that house Saint Mary’s students. While actual ridership figures are not available, the service has been heavily used and has generally seen an upward trend in ridership. PARKING CASH OUT

Where parking is in high demand, employers pay a monthly stipend to employees, which they can use to purchase parking. In most instances, employees will see no net gain or loss as they opt for the parking; in most instances, it is therefore a “wash” for the employer as well. However, employees understand that the true cost of parking could benefit them financially if they opt out of parking and receive cash in lieu of parking their personal vehicle. They have the option of not paying for parking, and some employees do indeed choose to take the cash and find other modes for commuting to work. Particularly in the case of employers that need to build structured parking for employees, the monthly payment offered to an employee in lieu of a parking space can be significantly less than the debt service on the cost of constructing additional spaces. In California, the law requires a significant number of employers that provide free parking to offer the cash�out option to their employees as well. A study of eight employers who implemented parking cash�out programs in Southern California found an average reduction of 10% � 15% in the employee parking demand. A major challenge to making parking cash out effective is that there are at least a few days every month when employees need to drive to work, often because of a need for their automobile during the day or after work. As a result, there is little incentive to give up a monthly parking permit when paying for parking on a daily basis, several days a month. This daily fee could be a significant percentage of the cost of a monthly pass. Once the monthly pass is purchased it represents a significant sunk cost, and therefore little financial incentive for the employee not to park in a space for which he or she has already paid. One corporate campus in Britain came up with a slightly different take on parking cash out. Instead of employees receiving a monthly lump sum payment in place of a monthly parking pass, employees would receive a lump sum at the end of the month based on how few days they had swiped their parking entry cards. For example, someone who never parked in the company lot would receive the equivalent of $66 at the end of the month. However, every day that an employee swiped their key card, $3 would be deducted from the lump sum they would receive. An employee who drove to work all twenty two work days of the month would receive nothing, but an employee who chose to drive to work on just five separate days during the month would receive their lump sum, minus the $15 they had “paid” for parking just a few days during the month. With less money sunk into the cost of parking, employees had more flexibility about their mode of travel to work. For a large pool of employees, the reduction in the number of spaces provided can represent significant land and construction savings. The concept of parking cash�out is typically used for employees and examples of effective employee cash�out programs are available from across the country. Cash�out programs for university students, to our knowledge, have never been undertaken. However, though implementation would likely prove more complex, a cash�out program for students offers a similar potential for a reduction in parking demand.



9

Numerous studies have been undertaken regarding the extent to which parking cash�out reduces parking demand. While the answers vary, the results of studies reviewed by Walker suggest reductions of 10% to 12% as being the most common. FREE TRANSIT AND ECO PASSES

Free transit for students, faculty, and staff is increasingly used at universities around the country to reduce the demand for parking on campuses. Buying a monthly transit pass is usually cheaper than paying the cost of a monthly parking permit. For a developer, it makes financial sense to agree with the city or transit agency to outlay a small monthly fee for a transit pass (typically $50 to $60) for an employee instead of a much larger amount for the monthly�amortized price of a parking space (which, including operating expenses can start at more than $150). In San Jose, for example, compliance with such agreements can be assured through annual reports filed by a building’s transportation coordinator, a position that buildings are required to have in order to prove compliance and enjoy the benefits of participating in traffic and parking reduction plans. Eco Passes are offered to employees by transit agencies in just a few cities, including San Jose, Salt Lake City, and Denver. Eco Passes allow all the employees of the firm that purchases the passes to ride transit free, whether every day, a few times a month, or just for unusual circumstances, such as when the employee’s car is being repaired. Because only a small percentage of employees will ride transit on a regular basis, transit agencies charge employers a fraction of what they would if they were providing every employee with a monthly transit permit. However, the option of traveling to work at no cost results in an increase in the number of employees who do not drive to work on any given day and has been shown to reduce parking demand when they are purchased for employees. As a result, cities such as San Jose offer reductions in parking requirements to employers who agree to provide passes to employees. In some sense, an Eco Pass program operates in an opposite fashion from the typical employer�provided transit plans, in which an employer purchases a transit�pass for any employee who requests it. In an Eco Pass program, the employer must purchase a transit pass for all its employees. According to the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) website, “the deeply�discounted prices were structured to offer employers a cost�effective way to provide transit passes as an employee benefit.” Rather than reward those who already may take transit, the purpose of an Eco Pass is to encourage employees who do not use public transit to change their commute patterns, if even on an occasional basis, by making the opportunity to take transit free and readily available. According to VTA, “Eco Pass encourages employees who don't use public transit to change their commute patterns.” In this way, they are a unique policy tool and different from a transit pass purchased for each individual employee. Academic institutions that offer an Eco Pass program include San Jose State University, Stanford University, the University of Colorado, the University of Denver, and Northern Arizona University. While not free transit, the Internal Revenue Service provides a program known as Section 132 that allows employees to purchase transit passes (and also parking) using pre�tax dollars. Offering such a program could be an intermediary step to incorporating a free transit or Eco Pass program. It would provide a gauge of interest while providing the College time to setup complementary policies, such as pricing parking.



10

RIDE SHARING: CARPOOLS AND VANPOOLS

A carpool consists of a group of commuters who arrange to ride together to work or school in a privately�owned vehicle. A vanpool differs from a carpool in that the vehicle is a van that is generally leased from a third party or that is owned by the school itself. RIDE SHARING INCENTIVES Americans in general and Californians in particular, rely on their automobiles to an extent unparalleled in the industrialized world. For a TDM plan to succeed, an institution such as Saint Mary’s College needs to provide multiple incentives that motivates individuals to participate in ride sharing programs and allays concerns participants may have in those instances when they may need the use of a vehicle. Guaranteed or Emergency Ride Home programs are essential elements of a ride share program. Guaranteed and emergency rides home mitigate a potential participant’s fear that by ride sharing they will no longer be able to get home if ill, if a child is sick, or if unexpected overtime is necessary at work. While the specific programs may vary, it will be crucial to convince potential and active participants in ride share programs that, in a pinch, they can get where they need to go in case of an emergency off campus. A key to success for this element is a close partnership with a reliable and affordable transportation provider. Preferential parking spaces for ride share vehicles would allow participants in ride sharing programs to park closer to core areas of campus. These spaces would be reserved for carpools and vanpools and, potentially, could provide a heightened level of service. For example, preferential parking spaces could also be covered or have wider parking spaces to facilitate ingress and egress from vehicles. Price incentives are another common mechanism to promote ride sharing. The cost to ride share participants can be reduced in a number of ways. For example, a carpool permit can be offered at the same price as a regular permit, while allowing carpool members to share the cost, thus reducing their individual obligation toward parking expenses. A carpool permit might also be available at low or no cost, with the stipulation that participants cannot purchase any other type of permit. Finally, a few programs at universities with excessive parking costs, high parking demand, and little parking availability offer discounts, credits, and/or rebates based on the number of people in a carpool, the number of days per week a carpool or vanpool arrives intact, or the length of time an individual has been ride sharing. This last approach is most relevant for Saint Mary’s College. Ride matching services would allow the College to provide some degree of administrative or information technological support to participants in the ride share programs. For example, the College would host on its servers URLs that provide basic information about ride share routes as well as contact information, rideshare partners and other pertinent information. Many transit agencies offer this service as well. Users would need to opt in to such a program to allow shared information to be disseminated. Occasional use permits allow participants of a ride sharing program to park on campus as a single occupancy vehicle (SOV) for a certain number of days per year, most commonly one per month or twelve per year. Some programs give participants twelve occasional use permits up front and then allow them to purchase up to a certain number more through the course of a year. Other potential incentives allow an institution to tailor additional incentives to encourage participation in ride share programs. While preferential parking, occasional use permits, ride matching, and guaranteed



11

or emergency ride home programs are the most common incentives offered as part of ride share programs today, some universities offer additional incentives to promote ride sharing such as prize drawings and commuter rewards for each day an individual arrives by carpool. These incentives can also be developed at the department level to encourage bottom up participation and offer a competitive environment where awards for participation are provided. CARPOOLS A carpool is a group of riders who use a private vehicle to share a ride to campus. Generally, a TDM plan that includes carpools as a ride share option will enter a covenant with the members of each carpool. This agreement may offer the primary driver of the carpool a reduced permit rate if charging for parking or some other financial incentive, in addition to preferential parking spaces. Concurrently, other members of the carpool might be rendered ineligible to obtain parking permits. Typically, the covenant does allow a carpool to share a limited number of parking permits that would be valid only for one day, it could also provide an additional incentive if a percentage of these single�use permits are not used during the life of the covenant. The administration and operation of carpools should be the responsibility of the participants of each carpool. The parent institution should intervene in the day�to�day business of a carpool in only the rarest of circumstances. Otherwise, members of the College staff could be distracted from their everyday responsibilities and the lost productivity would soon translate into a significant hidden cost. VANPOOLS A vanpool is a group of riders who gather at one or more pre�determined rally points, such as park and ride lots adjacent to transit hubs, and then commute to work in a van. The members of a vanpool share the fees for leasing the van and the responsibility for establishing membership policies. A single member of the vanpool frequently serves as both the driver and the coordinator. In exchange for these services, the driver may not have to pay rider�ship dues or may have use of the van on nights and weekends. While most effective as a component of a wider TDM plan, vanpools may serve as an effective stand�alone tactic for reducing on�campus parking demand among an institution’s staff and faculty. However, due to its upfront costs for riders and the need for a schedule centered on a traditional work day, vanpools may be a less viable solution for students who may have less cash on hand and have more variable schedules. Indeed, some vanpool programs, such as Emory University’s, restrict membership to school employees. Shared ride programs would need to be offered in conjunction with ride sharing incentives. While carpools and vanpools may operate successfully the majority of the time, there will be occasions where one or more participants must deviate from the carpool/vanpool schedule. Rideshare participants need to have this flexibility in order to ensure their continued participation in the program. TELECOMMUTING AND ALTERNATE WORK SCHEDULES

Through advances in communications technology, telecommuting allows employees to remotely work at home in a more effective manner than ever before. This may be an option to offer to faculty and staff who do not always require face�to�face interaction with others in performing their job duties. Alternate



12

work schedules provide employees with the ability to shift their start and end times, which may help better balance parking demand throughout the day. Various universities have telecommuting and alternate work schedule programs for faculty and staff including University of California�Berkeley, San Jose State, UCLA, University of Washington and the University of Virginia. The direct impact of telecommuting on parking is not determined, but even marginal decreases are beneficial. CAR SHARING

A car sharing service provides users with the convenience of having a car conveniently available for short trips, without having to bear the full expense of car ownership. More importantly, this may reduce demand for parking on campus as students who only need a vehicle for short trips locally may be satisfied by this alternative. In addition, faculty and staff who could use public transit to commute but may periodically need a vehicle for short trips during the day may take advantage of this, thereby eliminating the need to drive and park their vehicle on campus every day. Beginning in the 2009�2010 academic year, Saint Mary’s College partnered with WeCar to provide this service on campus. There were initially two cars on campus which was reduced to just one vehicle, as the service struggled to attract users. While several students, faculty and staff members were signed up, there were only three or four active users. Most of the usage was during evenings and weekends. The College administration believes that the struggle to attract users was at least partially due to a lack of service and support from WeCar. Beginning in the 2012�2013 academic year, the College will be working with Hertz to provide car sharing on campus. The Hertz program will be available to members of the general public in addition to the college community. BIKING

Promoting the use of bicycles is an increasingly attractive way to reduce parking demand on college and university campuses. Bicycles are a convenient way for students who live on campus or adjacent to campus to travel between school and their residence, as well as quick trips to town. At a time when people are increasingly concerned with America’s dependence on foreign petroleum, the environment, and the overall fitness of Americans, bicycles appear to be a solution that offers benefits beyond lowering the on�campus parking demand. Saint Mary’s College could encourage the use of cycling to/from and on campus by providing infrastructure to support bicyclists. Lockable bike racks and/or lockable bicycle lockers immediately adjacent to residence halls and academic halls are required. Living space in student housing may not be enough for students to store bicycles indoors and parking bicycles inside academic halls may not be an option due to safety (e.g. blocking exit aisles and doors). Students would likely feel uncomfortable leaving their bicycles unlocked outdoors, given the risk of loss due to theft. In order to make students feel more comfortable riding their bicycles on campus, the College may investigate creating bike lanes on roadways, space permitting. Signage and pavement markings indicating bicycle routes on campus should be created as well as campus maps that illustrate bicycle routes to/from and on campus. The College may also encourage the use of bicycles on campus by offering assistance on the purchase of equipment such as helmets and providing training on how to safely ride and maintain bicycles. The College may consider setting up a free bike sharing program that would allow students to pick up and drop off bikes throughout campus. This may help reduce the number of students driving from the residence halls to the campus core, thereby improving campus�wide parking operations.



13

While increased bicycle use would likely lead to some reduction in on�campus parking demand, the location, geography, and sensibilities of the College may be challenging. First, as the College is relatively distant from the nearest BART stations, it is unlikely that many members of the College community who presently drive will find the bike ride to and from campus reasonable. Second, the lay�out of the campus may also limit the effectiveness of bicycles. Although the campus itself is relatively small, the fact remains that the College is situated on hilly terrain. This terrain will not discourage serious cyclists but it may deter more casual bike riders. Nonetheless, with the appropriate bicycle infrastructure in place, some students who currently drive from the Canyon Area residence halls may be encouraged to ride a bike to and from class as opposed to driving. It may be just as fast door�to�door, if not faster, than driving, provides an opportunity to get some exercise and does not pollute the environment. Given that the baseline conditions result in a parking deficit, the college needs to identify ways in which this deficit may be mitigated. Two solutions that would potentially have the largest impact on parking demand are pricing and increased enforcement of parking in valid designated lots. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT Based on our fieldwork results and from discussions with college staff, it’s clear that students drive from their residential lots to the campus core to attend classes, among other things. Even though most of these lots are not designated for those with residential (R) permits, students are aware that enforcement has been lax and therefore do not face severe consequences for violating parking policies. While the campus as a whole may have adequate parking to accommodate demand during peak periods, students who drive down from the Canyon Area residence halls on the southeast portion of campus to the campus core exacerbate the parking situation in the core area. Data from the College suggests that citations have experienced a declining trend over the past five academic years, with citations for “Inappropriate Lot” declining by nearly 50%. Also “Inappropriate Lot” citations as a percentage of the total have declined from 55% to 42%, while citations for “No Visible Current SMC Permit” have declined by approximately 25% over the same period and their share of the total citations written has increased slightly from 30% to 34%.

Table 1: Saint Mary’s College Parking Citations – Academic Years 2007/2008 through 2011/2012

Citation Violations 2007#08 2008#09 2009#10 2010#11 2011#12

Prohibited by Signs or Markings (Loading Zones � Yellow) 103 224 100 38 89

Red Zone/Fire Lane 73 104 132 100 85

Fire Hydrant (within 15 feet) 3 5 1 3 4

Blocking Traffic or Walkway 59 40 46 36 31

Out of Marked Stall 73 36 41 60 82

Hall Counselor or Reserved Space 33 54 36 8 32

Inappropriate Lot 1,439 1,093 521 780 730

Handicapped Stall, Ramp or Hash Marks 53 98 16 32 37

No Visible Current SMC Permit 782 654 584 689 600

Speed 12 24 20 73 44

Stop Sign 2 10 8 12 6

TOTALS 2,632 2,342 1,505 1,831 1,740

Inappropriate Lot as Percentage of Total 55% 47% 35% 43% 42%

No Visible Current SMC Permit as Percentage of Total 30% 28% 39% 38% 34%



14

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2012 Increased enforcement of parking permit designations would discourage students with residential permits from driving down to the core area of campus. For first�time “Inappropriate Lot” violators, we recommend issuing a warning. For subsequent violations, we recommend a graduated fee structure that starts with a nominal fee for the second offense and escalates to reach the maximum by the fourth offense. For example, a warning and no fine for the first offense, $25 for the second offense, $50 for the third offense and $75 for the fourth and subsequent offenses. We recommend a similar approach for “No Visible Current SMC Permit” violators. In regard to actual fine amounts, we recommend benchmarking the College’s fine structure against other local colleges and universities. In order to provide adequate enforcement on college campuses, we recommend one full�time equivalent (FTE) Enforcement Officer per 1,000 parking spaces. We recommend two full�time Officers for parking policy enforcement given the supply of parking at Saint Mary’s College. A byproduct of enforcement may be recognition that parking lot user group assignments be reviewed and adjusted. For example, if Faculty and Staff permit�holders are found parking in Residential lots, perhaps some of the Residential lots closer to the core need to be re�designated for Faculty and Staff. The College should feel free to make adjustments to existing policies and practices based on the results of what is implemented. This is discussed further in the section on Monitoring and Measurement. It is difficult to quantify the parking reduction impact attributable to increased enforcement. However, enforcement is necessary in order to ensure the parking system functions efficiently. PARKING AMBASSADOR PROGRAM

To establish goodwill with drivers, we suggest the College consider adopting an “Ambassador” program approach to parking enforcement. This program is based on positive customer and visitor interaction, which is counter to the often negative perception of parking enforcement. The mission of a Parking Ambassador Program would be to provide hospitality, information and public safety services to students, faculty/staff and visitors, in addition to enforcing campus parking regulations. Ambassadors are required to complete a multi�faceted training in hospitality and customer service, emergency response and first aid, wayfinding, transportation and campus services. They work directly with internal and external clients of the College. This model emphasizes some significant differences between police activities and parking enforcement. The primary goals of an Ambassador program are to promote the goals of the College, resolve concerns, provide information, deter criminal activity and help make the campus a better, safer and friendlier place to live, work and visit. Ambassadors initiate personal contacts with the parking system users (known as “touches”), issue warnings when appropriate, and interact with students, faculty/staff and visitors in a positive manner. The vision of the program is to help promote a more constructive, dynamic experience by extending this service beyond parking lot enforcement. Ambassadors may accomplish these goals while providing parking management by monitoring public safety, extending a helping hand in emergency situations, and calling on stakeholders on a regular basis. Beyond enforcing parking regulations, examples of appropriate behaviors of Ambassadors would be:



15

• Greet visitors and offer customer service; • Provide information and explain local traffic and parking regulations to seek voluntary

compliance; • Offer a positive face to many people’s first contact with the University; • Provide accurate directions to visitors and direct visitors to local destinations and attractions; • Distribute brochures and maps; • Offer an emergency response and first aid; and • Deter criminal activity by their presence.

Ambassadors would be assigned to patrol areas as defined within the College campus. Ideally, the program should be self�funded through citation fee revenue. TECHNOLOGY TO ASSIST WITH ENFORCEMENT

Currently, campus parking enforcement officers manually check car windshields for permit stickers that are valid based on the parking designation(s) for each lot. If they find a vehicle in violation, they either issue a warning or handwrite a ticket. To increase parking enforcement efficiency, we recommend the College consider, at some point in the future, the acquisition of license plate recognition (LPR) technology. If procured, LPR can be on the parking enforcement vehicles and/or with the Parking Ambassador’s hand�held units, if that approach is adopted. While a parking enforcement officer is driving, this technology automatically checks against a database of valid permits to determine several things including: whether a vehicle has a campus parking permit, whether the vehicle is permitted to park in a given lot, to identify vehicles with delinquent parking fines and for security purposes to identify vehicles that may be black�listed. Over 1,000 license plates per hour can be read utilizing this technology; moreover, LPR can also be used to determine occupancy of a given lot. Another tool to consider in the future is electronic hand�held citation�writers. Hand�held units are capable of automatic downloading of data directly into a citation system, which eliminates data entry and transcription errors from illegible handwritten citations. IMPROVING ACCESS TO/FROM CANYON AREA RESIDENCE HALLS For students who reside in the Canyon Area residence halls, walking to and from the central core of campus where the academic halls are located can be a challenge. The terrain is hilly but perhaps more importantly, there is not adequate pedestrian infrastructure to safely walk up and down Mission Road. The sidewalks are discontinuous and appear to be in place to facilitate movement from residence halls to their accompanying parking lots. Students who walk along Mission Road must spend at least a portion of the walk, if not the entire walk, on the roadway itself. As a result, students with cars are inclined to drive to the core of campus, which exacerbates the parking situation in the core of campus. We recommend developing a continuous walkway along or near Mission Road from the top of the hill (Edward Ageno Hall East) all the way to De La Salle Drive. The sidewalk should be separated from the roadway, just as portions of the sidewalk are today, and must be adequately lit to provide a safe walking environment. By providing improved accessibility between the Canyon Area residence halls and the core area of campus, we would anticipate a reduction in the number of students that would drive to the core area of campus.



16

An alternative would be to offer a frequent shuttle, which at a minimum would travel up and down Mission Road or even continue to do a loop around campus along De La Salle Drive. Over time, we expect this represents a much costlier solution and therefore, recommend improving the pedestrian infrastructure instead. Not only is this a less expensive option, it would provide students with the freedom to come and go as they please in a safer manner than currently available. FRESHMAN RESIDENT PARKING RESTRICTION One approach to reduce residential parking demand is to restrict freshman students that live on campus from having a vehicle. Several colleges will not issue parking permits to freshman including Notre Dame University, Santa Clara University, Seton Hall University and Stanford University. Exceptions are typically allowed for students who hold a verifiable job off�campus or who demonstrate other valid transportation requirements. The primary objection cited by most university and college administrators is the impact of restricted parking on the enrollment decision in a very competitive marketplace. These administrators do not view the restriction as a detractor, as high school seniors’ focus more on other factors in the college selection process. The number of residential (R) permits issued by class from 2007 to 2012 is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2: Residential Permit Issuance by Class – 2007 to 2012

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2012 From 2007/2008 through 2011/2012, the average number of permits issued to freshman totaled 322. Based on the average from recent academic years, and assuming that each permit equates to one vehicle on campus, this suggests that restricting freshman from having cars on campus could reduce parking demand by over 300 spaces. A 300 vehicle reduction would amount to a 16% reduction in the peak hour parking demand, assuming all 300 vehicles are on campus on a typical weekday early afternoon. PARKING SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS It is an accepted principle in the parking industry that a parking facility or system cannot operate efficiently when it is filled to capacity. Some empty spaces should be available at all times to provide for more efficient circulation, and to ensure that motorists do not spend excessive time looking for the one or two remaining spaces in a large facility or area. It is also recognized that if a parking system is planned to meet demand exactly, there will inevitably be parking shortages due to mis�parked vehicles, repairs and other obstructions such as broken glass and minor construction. Therefore, in evaluating the ability of a parking supply to meet demand, and in planning the size of future parking facilities, “effective” supply is often used rather than the full supply. The effective supply is the supply that is realistically usable by patrons or employees, usually 5% to 10% smaller than the actual “full” supply depending on the space type and for whom those spaces are

Class 07#08 08#09 09#10 10#11 11#12 Average

Freshmen 337 317 277 344 335 322

Sophomores 336 301 337 316 360 330

Juniors 267 190 222 195 157 206

Seniors 174 173 132 133 107 144

Total 1,114 981 968 988 959 1,002



17

designed to serve. For example in facilities dominated by employees, the effective supply factor is lower as drivers are familiar with the facility by virtue of parking in it most or all weekdays, whereas a facility at a retail center would have a higher effective supply factor due to a higher proportion of drivers who may not be familiar with the facility. Incorporation of a Parking Guidance System (PGS) can help to minimize the gap between “effective” and “full” supply. At the most basic level, a PGS can indicate whether a lot has any open spaces based on manual observation by a College staff person. When all spaces are occupied, a sign at the lot entrance be changed from “Open” to “Full.” A more sophisticated PGS can direct drivers to open spaces, whose occupancies are tracked in real�time using sensors mounted at each space. For the College, a simpler PGS approach would likely add the most value. Visitor and Commuter parkers should receive the most attention as they would be least familiar with the parking system. For example, a sign at the entrance to campus indicating which lots permitting Visitor and Commuter parking are open may be most beneficial. There is a potential to increase parking supply without constructing new spaces through stack parking. Under this method, cars may be parked in aisles and/or lots may be restriped with tandem stalls. A driver whose vehicle blocks another would leave his/her keys with a parking attendant. In case a blocked vehicle needs to exit, the parking attendant would move any blocking vehicles. The pros of this approach are that additional parking spaces can be added as needed and with no capital investment. The cons of this approach are that drivers may not be willing to leave their keys with an attendant and additional staffing costs are required. In addition, the College would need to expend more resources managing their parking lots. The potential increase in supply would need to be assessed, as not all lots would be candidates for a stack parking operation, due to geometry and the user groups parking in the lot. MONITORING AND MEASURING PLAN EFFECTIVENESS Practices need to be implemented to monitor and measure the Plan’s effectiveness to ensure the Parking Management Plan is mitigating parking demand and maximizing parking efficiency. Without proper monitoring and measurement it is difficult to know whether the Plan is succeeding. Monitoring and measurement can help direct where the College invests its time and resources to better manage campus parking. From a monitoring standpoint, we recommend the following steps be taken:

• Perform vehicle counts every six months campus�wide weekday mid�day (Noon to 2:00 PM) in every parking lot in the system. We recommend one count early in the academic year (September/October) with the other then following in six months (March/April);

• Identify number of occupants per vehicle annually for vehicles exiting campus during the evening peak period. We would recommend performing this in the middle of an academic year during non�holiday periods as travel behaviors will have stabilized;

• Track quarterly parking citations for “Inappropriate Lot” and “No Visible Current SMC Permit”; • Track the number of permits issued each academic year by type of permit; • Track changes made to TDM program or pricing during each academic year; and • Track period�to�period changes in enforcement effort/policies, any permit issuance changes

(e.g. freshman restrictions) and changes to parking lot user group assignments. Based on the data monitored, we recommend measuring the following:



18

• Period�to�period occupancy changes by lot; noting those with 95% or higher occupancy, and track performance in subsequent periods;

• Period�to�period changes in occupants per vehicle, noting any periods that experience a decline from the prior period. The goal is to maintain or increase this over time;

• Period�to�period occupancy change across the entire campus parking system; noting whether entire system’s occupancy rate is increasing or decreasing versus prior period;

• Period�to�period changes in citation issuance; noting whether increasing or decreasing compared to the prior period; and

• Period�to�period changes in permit issuance; noting whether increasing or decreasing compared to the prior period.

Based on the results, the College will have insight into the effectiveness of its TDM program and any changes to pricing. The effectiveness of changes in enforcement, permit issuance policies (e.g. freshman restrictions) and accessibility for Canyon Area residents may be tracked through the measurement program. Future parking management changes can be piloted and made permanent pending a successful outcome, verified through monitoring and measurement.

saint mary’s college parking management plan

Documents