 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Concept:
Gayley Road north of Memorial Stadium is realigned and redesigned to accommodate wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and continuation of the historic Piedmont Avenue medians. Landscaping is rustic and informal, to reinforce the role of Gayley as the seam linking the campus to the hills. |
|
Convenient access to campus is crucial to the life and culture of the university: faculty and students depend not only on the library and other resources of the campus, but also on the community of peers and mentors it provides. However, as our residential patterns have become more dispersed, and the roads more congested, the difficulty of travel to and from campus has become a disincentive to on-campus presence. This trend is destructive both to individual scholarship and intellectual community, and the campus must strive to reverse it.
|
|
Download & Print
|
|
Strategic Goals 
Capital investment shall improve both the convenience and the experience of access to campus by:
- ensuring housing and access strategies are integrated and synergetic.
- collaborating with the city and transit providers to improve transit service to campus.
- completing and implementing a campus bicycle plan to encourage bike use.
- achieving drive-alone rates under 50% for faculty/staff and under 10% for students.
- achieving a balance of parking permit holders and permit spaces through trip reduction and limited parking construction.
- replacing and consolidating existing parking displaced by new construction.
Because UC Berkeley is located in a large and intensively developed city which largely predates widespread auto use, access to the campus will always be a challenge. However, while for some the automobile is the only feasible option, the university must continue to encourage and enable alternative modes of access: both to provide our students, faculty, staff and visitors with a full range of options, and to preserve the livability of the campus environs.
|
|
|
|
Walking
Over 50% of students walk to campus, as do nearly 10% of faculty and staff. However, due partly to the increasingly dispersed pattern of residence among both groups, surveys indicate walking as a primary mode of access is in decline. This is unfortunate, since walking is the mode with the least impact on the campus environs: in fact, the presence of people on the streets is beneficial to city life. But although walking itself has no cost, it does require a residence within a safe and comfortable walk of campus.
Policy 9.1
Ensure campus housing and access programs are integrated and synergetic.
Strategic goal 8 outlines a program of initiatives to significantly increase the supply of affordable student housing within a mile or a 20 minute bus ride of campus: surveys indicate for most students a mile is a reasonable walking distance. These housing initiatives must be linked to the campus access strategy, to ensure the resources we commit to new housing also serve to reduce the demand for drive-alone trips: for example, by prohibiting campus parking permits for residents of university housing, and by marketing new housing to the 25% of graduates and 10% of undergraduates who now live more than 5 miles from campus, and are therefore most likely to commute by car.
|
|
|
|
Transit
While cost and dependent care are often cited as reasons why people drive to work, in our 2001 faculty/staff survey only 9% and 10%, respectively, selected these reasons. Convenience at 37%, and travel time at 30% ,were by far the most oft-cited reasons why faculty and staff drive rather than use transit or other alternate modes.
These findings suggest that, while the campus must ensure reasonably priced transit options exist, cost-based incentives are unlikely to yield substantial further reductions in drive-alone trips. In fact, survey data suggest two thirds of the growth in student transit ridership over the past five years represents commuters who formerly walked or biked to campus.
The campus shuttle system is a key element in any program to encourage transit use. BART riders in particular depend on the shuttles to get them from the downtown BART station to campus destinations. However, shuttle service - for both campus and LBNL - and transit service are challenged by the congestion and traffic conflicts on the streets around campus.
Initiative 9.2
Collaborate with the city and transit providers on strategies to improve transit service to campus.
If significant numbers of drivers are to be shifted to transit, convenience and travel time must be improved. However, while minor improvements might be achieved through operational measures, significant improvements require major long-term capital programs.
AC Transit is presently studying major capital investments in transit service from the south to the campus and downtown Berkeley. As a major transit destination, the campus is a key participant in this process. While several design options are presently under consideration, the eventual solution may involve realignments of traffic flow on southside streets and/or the introduction of dedicated transit lanes. The campus shall continue to collaborate with the city and AC Transit on transit improvements to optimize their benefit to the campus.
|
|
|
|
Bicycles
Bikes are a very low-impact mode of access to campus, particularly for those who live beyond walking distance, and should be strongly encouraged by both campus and city. However, a serious program requires investment in secure, well-located bike parking, well-designed and well-connected routes, and on-site amenities to support and promote bike commuting.
Policy 9.3
Complete the comprehensive Campus Bicycle Plan, including a strategy for implementation.
The Campus Transportation Committee is now preparing a plan to encourage bike use as a primary mode of access to campus. A draft set of policies and initiatives, now under campus review, includes:
- bike-friendly design guidelines for new and renovated facilities,
- a campus bike circulation plan to ensure both bike and pedestrian safety,
- secure and adequate bike parking convenient to all buildings,
- campus amenities to encourage bike use, such as lockers and showers,
- outreach programs to encourage bike use and promote bike safety, and
- special policies to protect natural areas from bike-related impacts.
|
|
|
|
Parking
The demand for commuter and visitor parking on and around campus is far greater than the current supply, and this demand could increase if enrollment grows. While the campus must continue to encourage alternatives to the drive-alone commute, an adequate supply of parking is critical to the mission of the university.
By California standards, the Berkeley campus has an exemplary record of promoting alternatives to the automobile. The 2001 survey indicated only 51% of faculty and staff, and only 11% of students, drive alone to campus: these percentages compare to the estimate of 46% for all commuters to campus and downtown Berkeley presented in the 2001 city/university TDM study.
However, Berkeley is a densely developed city, with roadways largely designed around the eastbay's once-extensive light rail network rather than the private auto. Even these numbers of drive-alone commuters, therefore, place a severe strain on city roadways, as well as campus and other public and private parking resources.
Policy 9.4
Invest in new commuter and visitor parking only as part of a comprehensive program of transportation demand management.
Given the expense of structured parking, the limited capacity of city streets to accommodate more vehicles, and the environmental and resource consequences of increased automobile use, the campus must pursue a balanced, responsible strategy of transportation management. Investments to increase parking supply should be balanced with trip reduction incentives and improved parking management.
Policy 9.5
Achieve and maintain drive-alone rates of under 50% for faculty/staff and under 10% for students.
These percentages are slightly lower than those indicated by our most recent surveys, and represent reasonable targets given our already high levels of participation in alternate modes, and the increase in demand that could be generated if enrollment grows. Our strategy to achieve these percentages should focus on the most likely alternate modes for each submarket, based on residential location. As described in policy 9.1, the integration of this strategy with housing initiatives is critical.
Initiative 9.6
Achieve and maintain a balance of commuter and visitor permits with commuter and visitor spaces.
Presently, the campus does not limit the number of parking permits it issues to commuters and visitors. As a consequence, the number of permit holders exceeds the number of parking spaces available to them. In general, it is necessary to come to campus very early in the day to obtain a space, and it is not possible to leave during the day and expect a space to be available upon one's return.
While this is not a serious constraint for those who work regular hours and spend those hours entirely on campus, it is for those, including many faculty and staff, whose work entails flexible schedules and/or multiple worksites. Moreover, those permit holders who drive alone and are unable to find a campus parking space must park elsewhere, either in a public or private facility or on the street.
While the campus can not prevent commuters from driving alone, we should at least bring the demand generated by permit holders and the campus supply of permit holder spaces into balance, through a comprehensive strategy of trip reduction incentives and new parking construction.
Policy 9.7
Replace and consolidate existing campus parking displaced by new construction.
Initiative 9.6 can not be realized if existing campus parking is displaced without replacement. The framework for growth described in strategic goal 1 includes, and in fact depends upon, existing surface lots being replaced by new buildings and open spaces. In order to maintain the campus parking supply, these displaced spaces must be replaced on site or elsewhere, and the scope and budget for each such project shall include those replacement spaces. The strategy to replace this parking should also be designed to consolidate it, not only to improve operations but also to reduce congestion caused by multiple-lot searches for available space.
|
|
|
|
Near-Term Objectives
While the actual pace of implementation must be responsive to the dynamics of both transportation demand and financial resources, the campus has endorsed in principle a set of objectives to be pursued within the timeframe of the 2020 Long Range Development Plan:
- By the end of 2012, achieve a net increase of 1100 campus commuter and visitor spaces, including attendant spaces, over the 2002 totals.
- By the end of 2012, achieve 5% reductions in the percentages of student and faculty/staff drive-alone commuters from 2001 survey data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
