Parking Expansion DTF
Parking Expansion DTF
Parking Expansion Disappearing Task Force
- January 19, 2000
- 1:00 - 3:00 p.m.
Attending: Jill Cordner, Thad Curtz, Wendy Freeman, Michel George, Doug Hitch, Steve Huntsberry, Linda Kahan, Trevor Lytle, Sherry Parsons, Darren Shaffer, Bill Zaugg, John Carmichael
1. Cost update
Bill provided more information about costs:
PARKING FINANCIAL NOTES
ANNUAL COST OF BORROWING $100,000
|5 Year||10 Year||15 Year||20 Year|
How much do we need to raise rates to pay for new parking spaces? Actual Revenue 1998-99 for permits and daily use: 260,000
|Option||Cost||Annual Debt Service||Increased Revenue Needed|
What is the effect of inflation and growth?
- Last Price Increase: Fall 1995.
- Changes in costs since 1995-96
- Hourly wages 35% (from under $5/hr to $6.50 minimum wage)
- Classified staff 6% and 17% with another 3% 7/1/00.
- Lot maintenance 6%/yr = 30%.
- Revenue grew 40% between 1995-96 and 1998-99
Expenses grew 72% between 1995-96 and 1998-99
Thad noted, and Bill agreed, that current parking rates are probably not sufficient to maintain the current lots.
2. Additional options
Darren presented a proposal for reconfiguring B and C lots. By eliminating some sidewalks, having one-way traffic lanes, and using angled parking, Darren estimates that B lot could accommodate 1,379 spaces and C lot 1,372 spaces, which would more than enough to meet county requirements. The green space in C lot would be slightly increased. Darren also suggested using metered parking in some areas, replacing the parking booth with a gate that could be automatically opened by permit holders, and charging carpools a sliding fee based on the number of riders.
Michel said that SCA was also considering options for high-density lots. The original instructions to SCA asked them to propose options that conformed to the Campus Master Plan's guidelines for parking lot density. Darren will work with Trevor and Jill to further refine his proposal so that it can be presented to SCA.
3. Environmental impacts
Trevor and Jill reported on their survey of trees in the parking lots. They grouped the trees into three classes: 1) isolated evergreens with no under story; 2) isolated canopy trees with no under story; 3) clusters of trees with an under stories and active leaf litter decomposition. Trevor and Jill displayed a map that identifies trees in the third category, which they recommend be preserved. While preserving these trees would mean that some sections of the lots that could not be completely reconfigured, other sections would still be available for reconfiguring.
4. Commute trip reduction
Thad noted that the college is currently spending approximately $3,000 per year on Commute Trip Reduction. The cost of financing about 400 parking spaces looks like it will be about $200,000 per year. Suppose we spent that $200,000 on reducing parking demand? We could pay 400 people $500 per year not to drive.
The briefly brainstormed about Commute Trip Reduction. Linda said that an effective program would need to have a variety of incentives. Doug said that raising parking fees would be the single most effective way to reduce demand, but we must face the fact that our society and our campus are automobile-based, so compromises will be necessary. Sherry has distributed a report on Commute Trip Reduction which she will present at the next meeting.
5. New construction
Wendy noted that in the previous week's discussion, the group did not generate many ideas for new construction. She invited the group to brainstorm about new construction. Several ideas for possible locations for new parking were generated:
- The space between the CRC/CAB access road and Housing.
- The ball fields and space near the child care center.
- Adjacent to the Longhouse.
- At the site of Driftwood House.
- The "dirt farm."
- A parcel of property somewhere on the bus line.
- An expansion of F-lot.
- The Facilities yard.
- Dogtooth Lane, behind the Longhouse, could be widened to allow parking along the road.
6. Eliminating options
Wendy said that she believed that the group may have reached consensus on a few issues. It seems clear that the group is not considering a parking garage. It also appears that the group is not interested in options for building a big new lot, although there are ideas on the table for several small lots. Return to the Parking Expansion DTF Home Page.
This page last updated on January 26, 2000