Planning and Operational Recommendations

Planning and Operational Recommendations

Parking and Transportation Committee

Dartmouth College

21-Jun-06

Committee Membership

Provost’s Charge to the Committee

As part of the planning at Dartmouth College, we need to assess the options for parking and transportation to campus over the next five years. I would like this committee to recommend principles to guide our planning for parking on campus and transportation to and around campus.  Once the principles have been decided, I would like the committee to develop policies/guidelines to support these principles. On the basis of these principles and policies/guidelines, the Committee will review the various parking and transportation options and assess their benefits and drawbacks.  The analysis should include consideration of parking options on-campus, on the periphery of campus, and off campus as well as any transportation support that is required. The committee should look forward and assume the construction of the projects in planning ~ the Life Sciences Building, the Visual Arts Center and the Dining Centers. 

As a final product, the committee will provide me with a set of principles and guidelines as well as a menu of alternative parking and transportation options. I encourage the group to consider as well all opportunities to reduce the demand for parking.

Background

In January, 2006 the Provost appointed and charged the Committee to assess options for parking and transportation to the campus over the next five years.  The Committee was asked to provide recommendations to the Provost by the conclusion of the Spring term.

The Committee met monthly during this period to review current data, define the core issues, frame planning and operational principles and develop recommendations.  During this process, draft work products of the Committee were presented to the Facilities Working Group, the Committee on Priorities , the Committee of the Faculty and staff groups  to seek comments.

Parking and transportation issues are regarded by these faculty groups as critical supportive elements of the teaching and research mission of the College.  Staff also considers these issues important, as summarized in the April, 2006 employee survey conducted by RSG:

The lack of sufficient on-campus parking is a major detractor for many employees.  Despite paying for parking permits, many employees are not able to find parking spaces.  Employees avoid leaving campus during the day for fear of losing their parking spot.  The administration’s actions regarding parking issues are perceived to reflect how the college values the employees

Parking availability is a function of its location.  The most recent lot survey shows that an average of 400 empty spaces is available daily in outlying peripheral lots.  Approximately 100 of these empty spaces are found within ‘A-lot’, currently used for student parking.  The empty spaces are principally found within the Dewey and Thompson lots, which feature shuttle bus service on a ten minute frequency.  Core campus lots fill earliest due to their close adjacency to faculty and staff workplaces.  Those that arrive late are left to park in more distant lots.  The lack of available proximate parking for those that arrive later in the day is the principal reason for the perception that campus parking is unavailable.  Available parking does in fact exist, but not in locations directly adjacent to each commuter’s workplace.

Core Issues

To capture these concerns and provide a framework for discussion, the Committee defined a set of core parking and transportation issues.

1.      The difficulty of the faculty commute from home to the Hanover campus, and from DHMC / Centerra  to the Hanover campus, contributes to:

1. Reduced access to faculty for students
2. Loss of faculty productivity (less time at work due to increased commute time)
3. Decreased availability of faculty to attend meetings
4. Challenges to collaborative research across campuses
5. Increased time faculty spend working from home (internet availability also a contributing factor)

2.      The inability of commuters to find a proximate parking space after 9 a.m. contributes to:

1. Earlier arrival of staff on campus to claim close available parking spaces
2. Difficulty in finding proximate parking space later in the day
3. Reduced ability to meet personal obligations (e.g. childcare, doctor appointment)
4. Less belief in the stated location of empty spaces on campus

3.      There is a perception of limited availability of convenient public transportation in the Upper Valley region.  All of the region’s public transit providers are operating    at or near capacity during peaks periods and are handling a record number of boardings.  Moreover, ridership figures for 2005 suggest a “break out” from  recent patterns of single-digit annual ridership growth.  Expansion of service is hampered by a lack of federal and state grant funding, as most programs are tapped out.  Even if local match funding is raised for new services, federal grants are not readily available.  As a result, new service starts will require local subsidy.

4.      There are limited flex-work alternatives to enable staff to stagger work schedules or work from home.

5.      The location and capacity of campus parking lots does not equal parking demand in many areas of campus.  Much of the available parking is not aligned with where many work and this is why many say they can’t find parking.

6.      There is a perception that the College does not place a high priority on parking issues.

7.      Currently, permit fees and fines fund 56% of the parking program operations budget.  The central budget supplies remaining funds.   Improved parking and transportation solutions will require increased funding from each of these sources.  The current rate structure (i.e. magnitude of rates and the price difference between permit types) is not designed to push demand for alternatives to core campus parking.   

Principles

To guide definition of recommendations the Committee defined a set of planning and operational principles:

Planning (in order of priority)

1. Maximize support of the College mission (i.e. education, research) through the allocation and location of parking

2. Preserve and enhance the campus landscape
3. 1. Reinforce open space through the placement and design of landscaping, parking lots, roadways and walks

3. The location and assignment of parking should respond to the different needs of faculty, staff, students and visitors to Dartmouth.

4. Promote pedestrian and bicyclist safety
5. 1. Delineate well-lit roadway crosswalks with clear sightlines
   2. Minimize the potential for pedestrian/vehicular conflict at intersections and along roadways

5. Provide parking locations appropriate to the type of use
6. 1. Proximate lots – faculty, staff, disabled,
   2. Peripheral lots – faculty, staff, visitors, service vehicles, construction workers, Hanover Inn guests, special event
   3. Satellite lots – faculty, staff, students

6. Reinforce the pedestrian character of the campus
7. 1. Facilitate walking, bicycling, use of public transportation
   2. Strengthen  and improve the network of pedestrian walks and bike lanes

7. Minimize traffic congestion within the central Town of Hanover through the geographic placement of satellite lots along the major faculty and staff commuter routes.

Operational (not in order of priority)

1. Maintain convenience and timeliness of the College/ Hanover shuttle system serving remote parking lots, the campus, and downtown Hanover. Work with transit providers to maintain timely local fixed route service between the campus, DHMC, and Centerra.  (The current shuttle operates on a 10-minute frequency.  Fixed Route service between the College and DHMC provides a 15-minute frequency during the business day.)

2. To the extent possible, encourage faculty and staff to utilize parking lot locations and transit operations best aligned with their home origin and entry route

3. Market and effectively communicate regional and inter-campus transportation alternatives.

4. Provide financial incentives to decrease the demand for Proximate zone parking spaces.

5. Implement physical restrictions (e.g. gates, card-access) to limit use of high-demand parking lots.

Current Program

The current parking program considers each person’s classification (i.e. faculty, staff or student), length of service and workplace location as the basis for the assignment of parking.  Faculty are not restricted to where they may park and are given a green permit to allow access to all lots.  Staff are generally given the same access to parking as faculty, although newly hired staff (i.e. less than 5 years service) may be restricted to peripheral lots dependent upon their place of work.  The Medical, Tuck and Thayer schools’ staff are exempt from this restriction.  A hire-date cutoff is used to qualify new staff for core green permit parking as a means to reduce demand within these lots. The current staff cut-off date is 3/1/2001 to qualify for green permit parking. 

The current tiered price structure is characterized by low fees with little differentiation between the price of each tier.  The first tier for core parking is defined as Green permit lots ($120 per year for Faculty and Exempt staff, $72 per year for nonexempt and service staff).  The second tier for peripheral parking is designated as Tan permit lots ($90 or $54 per year).  The Thompson lot is provided as a third tier (free).  Green permits are allowed in all lots without restriction.  Parking within all designated lots is on a ‘first come first serve’ basis.  Second-shift staff (i.e. 4 p.m.–midnight, although they may arrive as early as 2:30p.m.) receive Silver stickers and represent approximately 160 permits.  Third-shift staff (i.e. midnight-8 a.m.) don’t receive permits and represent approximately 50 parkers.

The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) option is open to all permit holders that elect to turn in their permit and receive a “buy-out” payment to not park on campus.  The payment is $360 or $180 dollars per year, with the amount based upon the distance one travels to campus.  This program began in 2002 and now has 260 participants that find alternatives to commuting in Single Occupant Vehicles.

Student parking is limited.  The ‘A-lot’ satellite parking facility is utilized for resident undergraduates.  Graduate students are limited to the Dewey lots (H, J and Dewey lots) or the Ledyard parking lot.  Fees are the same for all students ($20 per term). Car pools are offered and the members split the permit rate.  First year undergraduate students are not permitted to have cars on campus for their first two terms and parking is granted on a space available basis for spring term.

The current shuttle bus system serves the College and the Town and connects the peripheral lots at Thompson Arena and Dewey Field with service along Tuck Mall.  The buses run on a 10-minute frequency,  7 a.m. - 7 p.m.  During the academic year service is extended from 7 a.m. – 9 p.m. serving the Dewey lots, the campus and the Hanover Inn.

Free transit service has been offered to faculty, staff, and students since 2001.  Advance Transit (AT) fixed routes are currently free to all riders.  The College subsidizes AT so that those choosing not to drive have a no-cost alternate means to get to campus.  These subsidies are also extended to riders of the Connecticut River Transit and the Stagecoach bus systems.  Both of these regional commuter bus lines are subsidized and College faculty and staff are reimbursed at 100% of their fares. 

Recommended Options

Drawn from the parking and operational principles, the Committee proposed that the recommended options should have the following characteristics:

Demand-driven: Consistent with the Committee’s charge, potential solutions should identify physical and operational means to diminish vehicular volume and reduce traffic intensity in order to lessen the on-campus demand for parking.

Diverse:  The variety of commuting origins, on-campus hours and terms of parking across faculty, staff and student groups suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ approach’ would be less effective than a portfolio of parking and transportation options.

Practical:  The options outlined by the Committee should be readily achievable solutions that best utilize the limited financial and land resources of the College.

Option A: Three-tier Rate Structure

A three-tier rate structure is proposed for campus parking that keys the cost of parking to its location.  The tiers relate to three types of parking facility locations.  The proposed rate structure seeks to provide greater availability of parking within the Proximate lots by encouraging greater utilization of Peripheral and Satellite lots through the use of financial incentives.

§         Proximate lots: Located close to faculty and staff workplaces, these lots are grouped into four zones – Core campus (within a five minute walking distance from the center of campus), Tuck/Thayer Schools, Medical School and Athletics.  Together these lots represent 1,266 spaces, or 38% of total parking capacity.  A pricing strategy is proposed that puts a premium on permits to allow access to these designated lots.  A permit fee of $480 per year is proposed to provide price differentiation between tiers and to serve as an incentive for many to seek options beyond core campus parking.

§         Peripheral lots:  Located along the edge of the proximate zone, these lots represent 2,050 spaces, or 62% of total parking capacity.  A permit fee of $120 per year is proposed.

§         Satellite lots: Located in outlying areas served by shuttle bus.  Currently the College lacks Satellite lots, but several potential sites are cited as recommendations.  To encourage election of this option, no permit fee would be assessed.  In addition, a TDM payment to each parker is proposed.  To ensure that this is a practical alternative these lots will be served by a reliable and timely (i.e. 10-minute pickup frequency) shuttle service. 

(Please click the image to see a full-size version of this map.)

Decant non-critical uses from the Proximate lots.  These uses include VOX vehicles and Hanover Inn guest parking which would be reassigned to use Peripheral lots.

Limit the number of permits offered within Proximate lots to ensure parking availability given the current capacity of spaces within the four Proximate zones.  To provide operational flexibility and act as a ‘bellows’ for localized demand, enable Proximate lot permit holders equal access to each of the four proximate zones.

To use the core campus zone as an example, based upon operational experience the current capacity of 790 spaces within the core campus can be oversubscribed by up to 20% and still ensure available spaces.  This yields 948 permits issued, less handicapped, visitor and reserved spaces.  As a reference, the current faculty population in this zone is approximately 350 (exclusive of Tuck, Thayer, and DMS).  This suggests that the current parking capacity of core campus Proximate lots is more than sufficient to accommodate faculty parkers plus other key constituents.

Remaining Proximate spaces could be allocated to staff by various methods, including qualification by a threshold of hire-date or pay grade, or alternately through an annual lottery.  Those that don’t qualify for Proximate parking would be offered parking within Peripheral and Satellite lots or TDM participation.

Recognize the unique condition of the Medical School Zone (with substantial adjacent Peripheral parking in the Dewey lots) by designating a more remote Peripheral lot location (e.g. Thompson lot) for those Medical School Zone occupants who elect a Peripheral lot permit.  Occupants parking within the Medical School Zone would be subject to the full Proximate rate.

Phased implementation of the permit rate structure over 2-3 years is suggested to bridge the magnitude of the proposed permit fees relative to the current rate levels.  An alternate method is provision of a one-time parking ‘chit’ (i.e. subsidy) to offset the first-year impact of the proposed higher permit fees.  Another method is continuation of the current practice of dual permit rate levels (established by pay grade) within each permit tier.  The Committee noted that a single price-point for each rate tier most directly achieves a meaningful price differentiation between tiers to encourage greater utilization of Peripheral and Satellite lots.

Consider re-tasking the use of a current student lot (i.e. Ledyard) as a combined student/staff lot to provide additional Peripheral faculty and staff parking capacity near a zone of high occupancy (i.e. Tuck & Thayer Schools Zone).

The proposed reduction of the parking space oversell factor within the Proximate zones from the current average of 138% to 120% will result in a greater availability of parking within the Proximate lots.   A corollary effect will be the creation of additional demand of approximately 200 permits to be satisfied within Peripheral lots, Satellite lots and increased participation in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.

Option B: Add Capacity

Small Wins: Create small pockets of additional parking within Proximate and Peripheral lot zones through re-striping, development of parallel spaces along drives or other incremental means.

New Satellite Lots: Develop and extend shuttle service to the following satellite parking facilities:

▪ 56 Etna Road – existing capacity of 100 spaces currently zoned and developed for satellite parking / shuttle bus usage

▪ Sand Hill - proposed capacity of 450 spaces on a College-owned undeveloped site

▪ Rt. 5 Norwich - proposed capacity of 200 spaces on a privately-owned site to be negotiated

DHMC Lot Expansion: Leverage the existing infrastructure (signal, queuing lane, lighting, shelters) and AT transit service to the DHMC and Hanover campuses by constructing a double-deck parking structure at the current ‘Lot 9’ surface parking lot located east of Route 120 near Jesse’s restaurant.  The sloped topography allows ramp access from the upper level of the surface lot, enabling an efficient, economical structure without internal ramps.  The two decks would provide 400 new spaces above the 330 existing spaces of surface parking.

Hanover Campus Expansion: Include an expanded surface lot with a single-deck parking structure as part of the Thayer replacement building project to yield a proposed capacity of 200 spaces.

Option C: Short-term Lot

Designate a lot or a portion of a lot within the Proximate zone as a short-term lot.  Install a card-access control gate to serve selected visitors and faculty with short-term parking needs.   The choice of a lot (e.g. New Hamp, portion of Mass, others) for short-term use will require further study of the relative adjacency, competing demands and capacity of each potential lot location.

Option D: Reduce Demand

Dartmouth Properties: Extend shuttle bus service to serve the Grasse Road development.    Offer only Satellite lot permits to occupants of College rental properties along S. Park Street and the Rivercrest development.

Student Vehicles: Limit allocation of student permits to only Satellite lots. Consider banning all first and second year resident undergraduate students from parking a car on campus lots.  Increase campus parking fees for resident student parking.

Expand Advanced Transit: Support expansion of the capacity, hours of service and routes of AT’s Fixed-Route transit service to better serve Dartmouth commuters.  Review capacity problems with AT to determine where more buses are needed, and determine what areas of the Upper Valley are underserved and would benefit the College to add service or increase frequency to current or expanded routes.  Continue to be a partner in advancing AT’s mission and keeping it ‘free fare’. 

Promote Regional Commuter Bus Services.  Work with Connecticut River Transit (CRT) and Stagecoach (STSI) to expand transit services into the College from outlying towns and ‘Park and Rides’ along interstates 89 and 91. Local match subsidies to leverage state and federal grants are necessary for capital and operating budgets.

Enhance Dartmouth Shuttle Service:  Adjust as necessary the current College / Town shuttle system to maintain 10-minute frequency during peak demand periods and expand capacity and routes as new peripheral or satellite lots/spaces are added.

Promote the Ride-Share Program:  Continue to offer car pool and ride matching services as part of a portfolio of services offered through the Parking and Transportation office.  Continue to coordinate with the Upper Valley Rideshare program to pool interested candidates, find matches, and market the program for promoting the benefits of this commuting alternative.

Promote Transportation Demand Management:  Continue to offer the TDM buy-out option to encourage commuting alternatives to single occupant vehicles (SOVs).  Adjust the qualifying policies and buy-out payment as needed to promote participation. Review the possibility of extending a similar permit discount program to commuting students for car pool formation.

Provide a Guaranteed Ride Service:  Expand the guaranteed ride home program by offering rides to Satellite lots after the buses have stopped running.  Build upon AT’s emergency ride home program for transit riders and car poolers. This service will provide an alternative means to get home for transit riders who have missed their bus or have an emergency.

Create a ‘Zipcar®’-like Program:  Investigate the provision of vehicles available at several campus locations for short-term online reservation and use.

Support Park & Ride:  Work with the Upper Valley Transportation Management Association (UVTMA) to identify new Park & Ride lots for potential acquisition and development by the College, either acting alone or in partnership with other employers, stakeholders and/or the States of Vermont and New Hampshire.

Planning, Design & Construction

• Meet the Staff
• Current Projects
• Planning
• Requesting a Project
• Project Update Form
• Design & Construction Project Guidelines

 

• Committees:
  • ECFS
  • Parking & Transportation Committee
  • Energy Task Force

 

• Project Delivery Process
• Other Links
• Password-protected areas:
  • PDC Contract Documents
  • Permit Application Schedule

Top of page | Copyright © 2008 Trustees of Dartmouth College

Contact Us