Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 8-2010 EVALUATING TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN A UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT THE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CASE STUDY Katerina Bartman Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the Civil Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Bartman, Katerina, "EVALUATING TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN A UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT THE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CASE STUDY" (2010). All Theses. 936. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/936 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATING TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN A UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT THE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CASE STUDY A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Civil Engineering by Katerina Valentine Bartman August 2010 Accepted by: Dr. Mashrur Chowdhury, Co-Committee Chair Dr. Jennifer Ogle, Co-Committee Chair Dr. Anne Dunning i ABSTRACT With the economy in a slow recovery, enrollment in higher education is increasing. This means that universities across the country must accommodate these new students, their vehicles, and local transportation needs. Campus setting and ambiance is a treasured quality on a university campus resulting in the approval of additional surface lots and parking garages being difficult or restricted. To combat the increased number of single occupancy vehicles, universities are developing and encouraging the use of multi- modal transportation by providing pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation facilities along with providing users with the information necessary to make the optimal modal choice (Boyles, 2006). This research developed a framework to evaluate transit in the context of mobility currently on a university campus. The framework includes a process that any university can utilize to evaluate its current and future transit efficiency levels and identify solutions through an integrated process of planning, operations, and performance monitoring. Clemson University’s campus in Clemson, South Carolina serves as a case study for the test application of this process. This study evaluates Clemson University’s performance in providing adequate transportation options to the university community in comparison with similar universities. Customer satisfaction surveys are used to determine deficiencies from the user’s perspective. Traffic simulations and a matrix alternative analysis have evaluated several alternatives developed through integrating the results of transit capacity surveys, user surveys, and considerations for pedestrian and bicycle ii traffic to create seamless operations and optimal function of all transportation modes available. The case study presented in this thesis can serve as a guide to university campuses beginning to have significant mobility problems. It also provides an insight into the institutional or organizational structures that facilitate efficient, high-quality transportation services, which can guide universities to pursue structural or policy changes to improve mobility. Although the process is tailored for small- or medium- sized universities outside of urban areas, the evaluation framework can be customized for use at any university regardless of its size or location. iii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my mom and tato for supporting me and pushing me to always strive for the best. It is also dedicated to my fiancé for his patience and willingness to read anything I write. Thanks for everything. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to Dr. Jennifer Ogle and Dr. Ronnie Chowdhury for their continual support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my education at Clemson University. Many thanks also go to Dr. Anne Dunning for her enthusiasm and alternative perspective to transportation issues. I would also like to thank Dr. George Smith and Pete Knudsen for their time, patience, and unyielding belief that we can make transportation better. A sincere appreciation goes out to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Graduate Transportation Fellowship Program for their financial assistance in my education and Dr. Ryan Fries for the opportunity to utilize and expand on his work. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATIONS .............................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 4 Unique Characteristics of a University Campus ...................................... 4 Parking Dependencies at Universities ..................................................... 5 Necessity of Transit and Innovation ........................................................ 7 Potential Partnerships............................................................................... 8 An Effective Transit System .................................................................. 10 Evaluating a Transit System .................................................................. 12 Decision Making .................................................................................... 21 Summary ................................................................................................ 24 III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 26 Transit System Evaluation Process ........................................................ 26 Clemson University Case Study ............................................................ 29 IV. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 45 Transit Evaluation Process ..................................................................... 45 Clemson University Case Study ............................................................ 51 Summary .............................................................................................. 101 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 110 vi Table of Contents (Continued) Page APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 115 A: Sample Ride Check Survey Form .............................................................. 116 B: Peer Institution Summary Comparison Sheet ............................................ 117 C: Peer Institution Follow Up Survey ............................................................ 121 D. Clemson University Parking Principles ..................................................... 123 E. Tiger Route Alignment .............................................................................. 129 F. Split Route Alignment ............................................................................... 130 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 131 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Elements of Published Frameworks............................................................. 28 2 Survey Times Not Captured in Fall 2010 Semester ..................................... 34 3 Potential Transportation Peers ..................................................................... 36 4 Transportation Peer Institution Selection Matrix ......................................... 38 5 Top Ten Boarding Locations for Summer Survey Week ............................ 54 6 Top Ten Alighting Locations for Summer Survey Week ............................ 54 7 Ridership Count Comparison for Fall Survey Week ................................... 61 8 Top Ten Boarding Locations for Fall Survey Week .................................... 63 9 Top Ten Alighting Locations for Fall Survey Week ................................... 63 10 Ride Check Summary .................................................................................. 70 11 Parking Structure for Residential Students .................................................. 74 12 Parking Structure for Commuter Students ................................................... 75 13 Parking Structure for Faculty & Staff .......................................................... 75 14 Parking Availability ..................................................................................... 77 15 Parking Permits Purchased .......................................................................... 77 16 Initial Walking Time Study Results ............................................................. 89 17 Walking Time Study Results Excluding Outliers ........................................ 89 18 Transit