CAMPUS MASTER PLANU

NCW

2017

G I V I N G F L I G H T T O I M A G I N AT I O N

APPENDIX C - Circulation, Parking Analysis, & Recommendations

APPENDIX C - Circulation, Parking Analysis, & Recommendations

CAMPUS MASTER PLANU

NCW

2017

Analysis Conducted by:

In Association with:

1. Existing conditions (model run A) 2. Existing roads + new buildings (model run B) 3. BH inputs 4. New roads + new buildings (model run C) 5. Microsimulations 6. Appendix

Contents

1. Existing Conditions Model run A Circulation Parking and Transportation Demand Management

Existing conditions: traffic volumes

• Number of pedestrians on Chancellor’s Walk equal to number of autos on most roads

• Fewest pedestrians toward College and southwest corner of campus

• Bicycles most prominent on Chancellor’s Walk, Price and Cahill

• Skateboards most prominent on Chancellor’s Walk

• Auto traffic highest on north side of campus (Randall)

Vehicles

Pedestrians

Bikes

Skateboards

Legend – traffic per day

Based on Davenport Traffic data collected April 2017

15,000 per day

8,000 per day

550 per day

Existing conditions: pedestrian flow (model run A)

Car park users

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Skateboarders

Shuttle bus users

Staff

Trace line Legend

Video

Existing conditions: roadway capacity

See p39 of Multi-modal 13-221 Report 20140411.pdf

Existing conditions: traffic times

• Pedestrian traffic is heaviest all morning

• Bicycle traffic is highest at 9 AM • Skateboard traffic peaks at 10 AM • Auto traffic grows throughout day to a

peak at 5 PM • All traffic dips at 2 PM

Existing conditions: parking utilization

• Limited data suggest: • Commuter student lots 87% utilized • Residential student lots 79% utilized

• No data on faculty or staff lots • General agreement that UNCW would

be well served by more data

• Limited observations suggest: • Lots near Rec Center, Library and

Student Center most utilized • Lots most utilized on Mondays and

Tuesday, with more than expected usage on Sundays

• People who LIKED their commute: • cyclists and skateboards – 32% • pedestrians and transit riders – 21% • drivers and carpoolers – 16%

• All commuters • 2/3 had issues with commute TO campus • 1/3 had issues with commute FROM campus

• Drivers and carpoolers • 2/3 had issues with traffic • 1/3 had issues with parking and walking

Existing conditions: commute survey results

Survey conducted spring 2017.

• Pedestrian • Journey times moderate (~10 min.), but can be longer (30 min.) to distant parts of campus • Security concerns due to poor visibility in some areas • Prefer shorter walk times from distant parts of campus • Fear of conflicts with cyclists and skateboarders on Chancellor’s Walk, and with drivers on

Walton, Price, Racine, and Riegel • Bicycle

• Journey times relatively short (~4 min.) • Need more/better bicycle facilities on streets with heavier auto traffic • Need less stressful route parallel to Chancellor’s Walk

• Skateboard • Need less stressful route parallel to Chancellor’s Walk

• Auto • Congestion on Randall, Cahill, and Riegel/Hamilton

Existing conditions: issues

Multi-model transportation study, Davenport 2014; WRT Survey results - Parking and mobility.pdf

• Freshmen parking • University prohibits automobiles for freshmen students living within one mile of campus

while at the same time requiring on-campus parking spaces for freshmen living on-campus. Prohibiting automobiles for freshmen students living on-campus will equalize this situation.

• Visitor parking • Paid visitor parking set aside throughout the campus. Free visitor parking in Lot M. • Most visitors park at or near the building of their destination at the rate of $2/hour.

Departmental guests can obtain parking passes from the hosting department and long-term visitor parking is available for $5/day or $10/week.

• Event parking • A concern as spaces fill quickly. University has some opportunities to use the remote lots

with shuttles to accommodate parking spillover and additional demand during special events.

• Travel Demand Management • Existing program only covers students living within 1 mile of campus.

Existing conditions: issues

2. Existing Roads + New Buildings Model run B

Existing Roads + New Buildings: pedestrian flow (model run B)

Master plan as of 2017-07-19; increase in student population

Car park users

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Skateboarders

Shuttle bus users

Staff

Existing buildings

New buildings

Legend

Video

Existing Roads + New Buildings: results of model run B

• Pedestrian • Higher volumes at Cahill, so safety in

numbers • Higher volumes at Price • Higher volumes at Student Center and

Library area • Lower volumes along Chancellor’s Walk

• Bicycle • Increased bikes along Cahill & Price

• Auto • Higher volume of pedestrians at Cahill,

so less throughput

Footfall analysis

Low High

-27% % change in pedestrian

footfall compared to

existing

3. BH Inputs Circulation Parking and Transportation Demand Management

Circulation: governing principles

1. Respect the integrity of the campus core, including the proposed armatures

2. Minimize intra-campus driving 3. Increase access points to campus 4. Increase safety via traffic calming 5. Increase and improve bicycle

facilities 6. Make all streets complete

Circulation: proposed new streets

1. Allow left turn onto and out of College Acres

2. Extend MacMillan to Fountain 3. New road from Hurst to south 4. New road from MacMillan to Riegel 5. Extend Hurst to Riegel 6. New road through Lot EE 7. Upgrade Walton 8. New road from Reynolds to Walton 9. Extend Cahill to Randall

Circulation: proposed streets & parking to be removed

1. Hamilton and Lot E 2. Price east of Lots R1 and R2 3. Walton crossing Chancellor’s Walk

Circulation: existing vehicle flows

See p8 of Circulation_20170309.pdf

• Generally one route on north side of campus (Randall) and one on south side (Riegel)

Circulation: proposed vehicle flows

• Provides at least two routes on north side of campus (Randall, Cahill) and south side (Riegel, new roads)

• Provides additional access points to campus from College and elsewhere

Circulation: proposed roundabouts

• Roundabouts at locations identified with safety or congestion issues. Roundabouts process vehicles more efficiently and slower (safer).

Circulation: existing bicycle desire line

• Campus lies on route between town and beach.

Existing area bicycle routes (NCDOT)

Circulation: proposed bicycle routes

1. Extend from Randall towards beach 2. Library to Price 3. Library to Cahill

program car trips car parking roads

Traditional approach (mono-modal, not optimized, inequitable)

program origins

& destinations

mode split options

trips

travel demand &

parking management

roads walkways bikeways skateways

Progressive approach (multi-modal, optimized, equitable)

Parking and TDM: traditional v. progressive transportation planning

Parking and TDM: proposed strategy

1. Respect the integrity of the campus core 2. Restrict intra-campus driving (park once) 3. Redistribute parking demand 4. Reduce demand for private motor vehicle use 5. Disassociated parking from programming 6. Bank land/locations to provide future parking (as needed)

Parking and TDM recommendations: 1: Respect the integrity of the campus core • Organize roads and parking so that

vehicles do not penetrate the pedestrian-oriented heart of the campus.

• Roads proposed to be removed: • Walton Dr at Chancellor’s Walk • Price Dr

• Lots proposed to be removed: • Lots S & T (future Allied Health and Human

Sciences Building) • Lots R1 & R2 (future STEM buildings) • Lots E and the visitor parking fronting the

Fisher Student Center (future quadrangle)

• Precedents: • Florida State University • Indiana University Bloomington • State University of New York Binghamton

Parking and TDM recommendations: 2: Restrict intra-campus driving • Allow parking essentially only in zone

for which the permit is held or in paid visitor spaces.

• Continue and reinforce existing “park once” policy.

• Precedents: • Georgia Southern University • Ohio State University Columbus • State University of New York Buffalo

Parking and TDM recommendations: 3: Redistribute Parking Demand • Ensure availability in all lots to reduce

“search” traffic (driving around looking for a place to park).

• Tools: • Charging more for the lots most in demand

(Rec Center, Library). • Offering discounted parking at the lots

least in demand (Reynolds Deck, Lot K Extension).

• Offering premium spaces at subsidized prices to faculty, staff, and students with off-campus obligations (field work, internships).

• Publicize lot occupancy dynamically.

• Precedents: • Georgia Tech University • Kansas State University

Parking and TDM recommendations: 4: Reduce demand for private motor vehicle use • Travel Demand Management Program

• Restrictions: • Restrict autos for freshmen • Limit parking in prime campus locations • Continue to limit commuter permits to students

outside 1-mile radius; consider expanding the radius

• Incentives: • Create high priced “premium” parking in Lots S

and D. • Provide prime spots for carpoolers • Prioritize access by walk, bike, skate • Continue to provide campus shuttle and consider

service upgrades • Consider discounted parking at park+ride lots

(MacMillan and College) • Support for not bringing a car to campus:

• Ride matching • Bike/car share

• Guaranteed ride home • Flexible work hours

• Performance pricing: • Set prices to distribute demand across existing

facilities • Set prices to distribute demand to preferred

modes

• Establish a TDM Task Force and designate a campus transportation coordinator.

• Monitor and adjust annually or per semester.

• Precedents: • Indiana University • Kansas State University • Stanford University

Parking and TDM recommendations: 5: Disassociated parking from programming • Historically, parking needs have been estimated as a ratio expressed as spaces

needed per gross square feet (GSF). Increasingly, city and campus planners recognize that parking demand is also a function of density. Where there is more activity per GSF there are more opportunities for walking trips and less demand for driving and parking. For campuses, more so than other development types, this holds. For example, new lab space, new recreational space, or larger dining facilities may generate additional on-campus trips but they do not necessarily generate additional driving trips. In fact, in the latter case, improved dining facilities could translate to fewer off-campus trips as students will more easily meet their needs on-campus; the same could be true for improved athletic and recreational facilities. In short, some of the new facilities may not generate new off-campus trips and some may even reduce off-campus trips. Therefore, additional parking spaces may be unwarranted.

Parking and TDM recommendations: 6: Bank land/locations to provide future parking • Locations identified for potential

parking decks: • Randall-Cahill • Hamilton-Hurst or Lot M

• Assess parking needs at same time housing needs are re-assessed (2021).

• Consider a “parking self-funding” policy, i.e., all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and operation of parking lots would be paid for by parking fees.

• Consider a policy to freeze or reduce parking supply along with growth plans.

• Precedents: • Kansas State University • Stanford University • University of Arkansas • University of California Berkeley

4. New Roads + New Buildings Model run C

New Roads + New Buildings: pedestrian flow (model run C)

Master plan as of 2017-07-19; increase in student population

Car park users

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Skateboarders

Shuttle bus users

Staff

Existing buildings

New buildings

Legend

Video

New Roads + New Buildings: results of model run C

Footfall analysis

Low High

-27% % change in pedestrian

footfall compared to

existing

• Pedestrian • Routes more direct

• Bicycle • Routes more aligned with proposed

bicycle facilities

• Auto • Fewer conflict points with other users

Dashboard (model runs A, B & C)

• Building and parking capacities • Visibility and distance analysis • Traffic counts and dynamic travel

patterns

http://smart-space.io/UNCW_SmartViz/

Assessment: existing pedestrian network

• Chancellor’s Walk dominates - strong linear movements.

• Lack of clear structure / hierarchy to remaining pedestrian network.

Assessment: proposed pedestrian network

• Reinforced horizontal routes create a more distributed network for pedestrian flow.

Assessment: visibility for pedestrians Visible from

Existing path

New path

What can be seen from

Images shows visibility from select points on campus. Existing visibility is limited and indiscriminate (surveys revealed a perception of insecurity). Structure of proposed walks (Village Walk, Cultural Arts Boulevard, Historic Campus Walk, Racine Gateway) allows for increase visibility via broad corridors aligned with destinations.

Assessment: pedestrian journey times

Charts show journey times per trip profile during midday class changeover. In the proposed condition, the average journey time to parking lots drops significantly. Others rise or fall, but never more than by one minute.

Existing Phase I Phase II Phase III

Phas

e I • Adding lots at Hurst+Hamilton, MacMillan+College, & Walton+Price

• Altering Lot FF • Removing Lots IB, O Extension, S, & T +402

Phas

e II • Altering Lot P

• Removing Lots O, R1, & R2 -417

Phas

e III

• Adding decks at Randall+Cahill and Hurst+Hamilton (or at Lot M) • Altering Lot Q +1,783

Approximate Total 8,375 8,777 8,360 10,143

Parking supply per Master Plan phases

Master plan as of 2017-07-19

5. Microsimulations Chancellor’s Walk, Cahill & Price Drives Library Expansion Village Walk Hurst Drive Extension Hamilton Drive

Library

A

B

Chan

cello

r’s w

alk

Chancellor’s Walk, Cahill and Price Drives 1 • Given amount of volume and

competing modes on Chancellor’s Walk, idea is to encourage cycling on parallel routes. We recommend:

• Protected 2-way bike lanes on both Cahill Drive and Price Drive (on the Chancellor’s Walk side of each street)

• Bike racks directly adjacent to the bike lanes

• Traffic calming for bikes along Chancellor’s Walk (rumble strips, obstacles)

0 minutes

Travel time

2.5 minutes

Chancellor’s Walk, Cahill and Price Drives 2 • Diverting ~30% of cyclists and

skateboarders to Cahill and Price Drives reduces levels of interactions on Chancellor’s Walk by 46%.

Video

Video Low

Conflict potential analysis

High

Cyclist Pedestrian

Legend

existing

proposed

Library expansion

• Currently, library can only be accessed from side facing Chancellor’s Walk.

• Expanding the library toward South College Road:

• Ties into Historic Campus Walk • Brings foot traffic to this side of library

which will serve to enliven this area • Facilitates future connections to

potential developments in this segment of campus

Video

Video

Towards S. College Road

Towards Chancellor’s Walk

Towards S. College Road

Towards Chancellor’s Walk

existing

proposed

• Currently, it is a ~9 minute, indirect walk from Chancellor’s Walk to the University Apartments.

• The proposed Village Walk creates a more direct and wider route which:

• Increases visibility (and security)

• Provides more room for people to walk, cycle, and skateboard

• Facilitates repeat non-motorized trips (as opposed to opting to drive)

• Increases access to proposed facilities, i.e.: the new dining facilities within Housing Village

Village Walk Existing route to University Apartments

New Village Walk towards Housing Village

Video

Video

Density analysis

Low High

Hurst Drive Extension

• Reduces drive time from South College Road to the Admin Hub / Walton Drive from 2.6 minutes to 1.8 minutes.

• Keeps autos farther from pedestrian-oriented center of campus.

0 mins

Driving time analysis

2.5 mins

Without Hurst Drive Extension With Hurst Drive Extension

South College Road South College Road

Admin Hub

Admin Hub

Walton Dr. Walton Dr.

Hamilton Drive

• Proposed parking lot and potential deck at Hamilton-Hurst is at the far corner of campus. It is ideally located near the athletics fields and sports facilities.

• To facilitate use by those with destinations elsewhere on campus, we recommend:

• Locate entrance at Hamilton-Hurst corner

• Upgrade sidewalks, crosswalks, and shading along Hamilton Drive

0 mins

Walking time analysis

10mins

Appendix

Existing conditions: all modes

Existing conditions: auto volumes

From Lot A From Lot C From Lot D

From Lot K

From Lot P From Lot TS

Existing conditions: walk time from select parking lots

0 mins

Walking time analysis

20-25mins

Existing conditions: walk time from all parking lots Parking Lot

Building A

AA

B BB

C CC

D

E Eato

n Pl

aza

F FF

G

H

I IB

K K ex

t.

M

Q

U

NEW

Par

king

D

eck

NEW

Par

king

D

eck

Nor

th

NEW

Par

king

D

eck

spor

t

PK V

isit

or

Park

ing

Alderman Hall 3 18 1 18 6 20 6 4 3 1 18 8 11 13 16 6 8 8 12 14 11 17 10 16 Bear Hall 8 19 7 19 4 21 1 6 9 6 14 1 5 7 22 12 13 8 6 9 5 14 16 11 Cameron Hall 11 14 11 13 10 15 8 9 12 10 8 7 6 6 25 15 16 9 5 4 5 8 19 6 Computer Information System 8 15 8 15 8 16 6 5 9 7 11 4 6 8 22 11 12 5 7 7 5 9 15 9 Cultural Arts B 14 16 14 16 10 18 8 12 16 13 9 6 3 2 28 18 19 12 1 5 3 10 22 6 Deloach Hall 7 20 4 21 1 22 1 7 7 4 16 3 7 8 20 10 11 10 8 11 8 15 14 13 DePaolo Hall 3 16 3 17 5 19 5 3 5 1 16 6 9 11 18 7 9 7 10 12 9 15 12 14 Dobo Hall 13 13 12 12 11 14 9 11 14 11 7 8 6 6 27 17 18 10 5 3 5 7 21 5 Education building 14 15 14 14 11 16 9 12 16 13 7 7 4 4 28 18 19 12 3 3 3 9 22 5 Friday Hall 11 18 10 18 7 20 5 8 12 9 11 3 3 5 24 15 15 8 5 7 3 12 18 9 Hanover Hall 2 16 6 17 10 19 9 5 3 5 20 10 14 16 13 3 4 7 16 16 14 18 6 18 Kenan Auditorium 8 21 4 22 2 24 4 8 8 5 19 6 9 11 19 10 12 11 10 14 10 17 15 16 Kenan Hall 4 18 2 18 5 20 5 4 4 1 17 7 10 12 18 7 9 8 12 13 11 16 11 15 Kresge Greenhouse 11 16 10 16 8 18 6 9 12 9 9 4 2 4 25 15 16 9 4 5 2 10 19 7 Leutze Hall 8 17 8 16 6 18 4 6 9 7 12 3 5 7 21 12 13 6 6 8 5 11 15 10 McNeil 15 11 14 11 13 13 11 12 16 13 5 9 7 7 29 18 19 12 6 1 7 5 20 2 Morton Hall 7 17 6 18 5 20 2 5 8 5 13 2 5 7 21 11 11 7 7 9 5 12 15 11 Natural Sciences 16 10 15 10 15 12 13 14 17 14 4 11 9 9 30 19 21 13 8 2 8 4 21 3 NEW Natural Science 16 8 15 8 15 10 13 14 17 14 4 12 10 10 29 19 21 13 9 4 9 2 20 5 NEW STEM 1 13 12 12 12 12 14 9 10 14 11 7 8 7 7 27 16 17 10 6 3 6 6 20 5 NEW STEM 2 11 14 10 14 10 15 8 9 12 10 8 7 6 8 25 15 16 8 7 5 6 8 19 6 Osprey Hall 9 15 9 14 9 16 6 7 10 8 9 5 5 7 23 13 14 6 7 6 4 9 17 8 Teaching Lab 14 10 14 10 14 12 12 12 16 13 5 11 9 9 27 18 19 11 8 2 8 4 18 4 Trask Coliseum 2 17 5 18 10 20 9 6 2 5 21 11 14 16 12 2 3 8 16 17 14 19 6 19 Almkuist-Nixon Sports Medicine 4 17 8 18 12 22 12 7 5 7 22 13 17 19 11 2 2 9 19 19 16 21 5 20 Burney Center 4 14 7 14 10 16 8 3 5 6 18 9 13 14 18 7 8 4 14 14 12 17 11 16 Fisher Union 4 15 5 16 7 18 5 2 5 4 14 6 9 11 18 8 9 6 10 11 8 13 12 13 Food service 18 10 17 9 17 11 15 15 19 16 1 14 12 12 30 21 23 15 11 5 11 3 22 6 Hoggard Hall 2 15 3 16 7 18 7 2 2 2 17 7 11 13 16 5 7 6 12 14 11 16 9 15 King Hall 5 17 4 17 5 19 3 3 6 3 14 4 7 9 18 9 9 7 9 11 8 13 12 12 Natatorium 2 18 7 18 10 20 10 5 3 5 20 11 15 17 13 3 4 8 17 17 14 19 6 18 NEW Academic Buildings 12 16 12 16 9 18 7 10 14 11 9 5 2 3 26 16 17 10 2 5 1 11 20 7 NEW Athletics Complex near Trask 4 16 8 17 12 20 12 7 5 7 21 12 16 18 11 2 2 9 18 18 15 20 5 20 NEW BAsketball Excellence Center 3 18 6 18 10 20 10 6 2 5 21 12 15 17 11 1 3 8 16 18 15 20 6 19 NEW Modular Facility 12 20 14 21 18 23 20 15 11 15 29 21 24 26 4 9 8 16 26 26 24 26 7 28 Randall Library 6 19 4 19 3 21 3 5 7 4 15 4 7 9 20 9 11 8 9 11 8 14 14 13 Sport Center 16 9 16 8 16 10 14 13 17 15 5 12 11 11 29 19 21 13 10 5 10 2 20 6 Teal Terminal 6 15 6 16 7 18 5 4 7 5 13 5 8 10 20 10 11 5 10 10 7 12 14 12 Warwick Center 2 14 4 15 8 17 7 1 4 3 16 7 11 13 16 6 7 5 12 13 10 15 10 15

Circulation: College Road detail (future consideration)

At present, College Road is an obstacle to integrating the campus into the surrounding community. To make it more “complete” and safer, we have applied the principles of short block lengths (150-300’), multiple crossing points, and street connectivity. In the diagram above, there would be additional paths (blue) connecting the campus to the road, and streets (orange) on the other side of the road. The intention is to create a network which embraces College Road part of the community, not a high-speed dividing line.

Parking: university policies reviewed

• Boston University • Cornell University • Florida State University • Georgia Southern University • Georgia Tech University • Harvard University • Indiana University • Kansas State University • Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Ohio State University, Columbus • Pennsylvania State University • Princeton University

• Stanford University • State University of New York Binghamton • State University of New York Buffalo • University of California, Los Angeles • University of Arkansas, Fayetteville • University of California, Berkeley • University of California, Los Angeles • University of Colorado, Boulder • University of Houston • University of Iowa • University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill