University Transportation Committee 18 June 2012 | 11:30 a.m. | Gerberding 142 Present: Josh Kavanagh, Transportation Services Michelle Rhoads, Transportation Services Chuck Treser, Faculty Representative Alicia Halberg, Transportation Services Reed Keeney, Transportation Services, Guest David Amiton, Transportation Services, Guest Peter Dewey, TIP Patricia Riley, UWMC Bob Ennes, Health Sciences Academic Services & Facilities Scott Baebler, ICA Celeste Gilman, Commuter Services Colin Morgan‐Cross, GPSS Matt Weatherford, PSO Representative Miles Fernandez, ASUW Representative Austin Bell, ASUW Representative John Schaufelberger, Faculty Representative Evan Smith, ASUW Representative Steve Kennard, Real Estate Office Laura Davenport, SEIU 925 Representative Jean Garber, School of Dentistry Absent: Melanie Mayock, GPSS Representative Luther Martin, WFSE April Millar, WSNA John Vinson, UWPD Miranda Leidich, SLU Mark Stanley, Student Life & HFS Rebecca Barnes, Planning & Budgeting Kristin Francisco, Disability Services Office Charles Kennedy, Facilities Services Daniel Kraus, Labor Relations 1. Meeting called to order at 11:32 a.m. – Josh Kavanagh a. Josh Kavanagh, chairman of the committee, thanks members for continuing to meet over the summer time. Not long ago the UTC used to suspend over the summer. b. He also thanked ASUW and GPSS for making swift appointments to the committee in time for this first summer meeting. c. Each group member introduced themselves and said which constituency he or she represents. 2. Logistics – Josh Kavanagh a. Alicia Halberg is continuing on at Transportation Services and is now the support staff for the UTC.
b. With this, there will be some changes to committee operations. In addition to the new format for agendas, minutes and agendas will be circulated in a timelier manner. A listserv will be used for the distribution of committee‐related materials. Members or their constituencies can contact
[email protected] for more information. This is a Google account, so documents can also be shared via Google Docs. Information will also have a presence on a new online webpage housed on the Transportation Services site. That web address will be circulated to the group when the page is more complete. 3. Previous UTC minutes – Josh Kavanagh a. In the past, the group has kept informal meeting notes which have not been formally adopted as minutes. Rather than trying to remember the finer details of meeting events from the previous two years, Josh Kavanagh would accept a motion to accept, rather than approve, those meeting minutes. b. Laura Davenport moved to accept the backlog of meeting minutes, Chuck Treser seconded. All committee members voted in favor. c. Alicia Halberg will upload the minutes to the new webpage and include a watermark indicating that those minutes have been accepted, rather than approved. 4. Bike Shelters and Enclosures – David Amiton a. This project has hit a milestone with the University’s architectural committee and landscape architecture advisory board approving of the direction the bike shelters are headed in. b. This project will expand the amount of covered and secured bike parking on campus. This has been in response to requests from building coordinators and other members of the campus community. i. Transportation Services would like to expand the campus’ current bicycle parking supply to meet current demand. ii. Then, it will look forward to dramatically increasing the number of people biking to campus. The question related to this is, what sort of bicycle parking supply does campus need to provide in order to induce a greater demand? iii. TS is using the demand model to validate some assumptions going into the project about how much and where it needs to provide greater bicycle parking capacity. 1. This details and extensive modeling effort has been interesting and likely provides more information than is actually needed. 2. The study divided campus into demand zones, similar to how other surveys will divide up cities or regions for traffic studies. 3. Right now the design overlays this survey on top of different physical and design characteristics. The final product will be a mix of campus character and demand. c. There’s been a pretty substantial design effort to create a module that can be easily expanded, sheltered, or cladded as needed. TS has been looking at structures that blend in and complement existing structures on campus; nothing that overcrowds areas or is overly too prominent. i. TS is working together with the two aforementioned committees to make sure the structures are on par with the University’s expectations. These include: 1. Minimal roof profile 2. Transparency
d.
e.
f.
g. h.
i.
3. Two points of entry/exit (for safety reasons) 4. Integrated lighting 5. Easy to use 6. Low profile TS hopes to establish a review or advisory committee for the project so that as it implements infrastructure over time there is a group to assess what has been done. This group would have the potential to tweak signage, locations, and other details so that everything is the best it can be for future stages of implementation. Question (Steve Kennard): Are there plans to remove any of the bike lockers on campus? i. David Amiton said he believed there would be some substitution across campus, particularly as some of the lockers near the end of their useful lifespan. One benefit of enclosure‐type secured parking is that many bicycles can be stored for the same footprint as one locker. Bike enclosures are much less expensive and aren’t as much of a blight on the landscape. 1. There is still a value in bicycle lockers; there is a population that will prefer lockers to enclosures any day of the week. 2. Right now there are no new plans to buy new bicycle lockers. 3. Enclosures may replace some lockers, and those lockers might be moved to other areas on campus. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): Josh wanted to issue a few compliments i. Rebecca Barnes and ACE team challenged TS to articulate a longer term need and vision for bicycle enclosures across campus. 1. This push forced TS to look at its active transportation strategy. In the past, this had been incremental change, unlike the U‐PASS program’s implementation 20 years ago which resulted in a dramatic, disruptive change. 2. TS hopes that this project will result in that more dramatic shift in campus commuting. ii. The architectural commission, which called for bike structures to be a part of the campus community. Sometimes there is an assumption that bike amenities should blend into the background. They wanted to see more pride in these facilities, looking at bolder placements, capacities and finishes, rather than metaphorically or literally hiding these in the bushes. Comment (Steve Kennard): He is a bike commuter and he gets a proud, positive feeling when he sees bike racks full on campus. Question (Bob Ennes): Have there been any problems with bicycle theft and the enclosures? i. David Amiton said not yet in any that TS operates. There have been some door malfunctions. A few enclosures in the newly constructed residence halls had some design issues which resulted in a few thefts, but those have since been resolved. An indoor bike room in the CSE building had one bike stolen. 1. Patty Riley said that there were a few bicycle thefts off of racks outside of UWMC, but that these decreased after cameras were placed near the area. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): There is a strategy that focuses on proliferating bike rooms in new construction or creating it in existing buildings whenever there is an opportunity to do so. This looks toward a future where bike rooms across campus function as a
system, rather than having independently operated rooms everywhere. This could help to cut down on security anomalies, such as the ones seen in the residence halls. j. Comment (Peter Dewey): Currently bike lockers are split 75 percent employees, 25 percent students. Clearly the current model of using bike lockers across campus doesn’t work as well for students. k. Comment (David Amiton): A fair amount of the data collection and surveying shows that students favor cover and weather protection more than they value security. This isn’t to say that security isn’t important, just that there’s a lot of value in simply adding more weather protection. 5. Burke‐Gilman Trail update – David Amiton a. The UTC has received updates about this project a few times over the last year. b. Beginning last summer, there was an analysis report and data collection of existing conditions on the trail. i. This had a modeling effort associated with it. It looked at what traffic currently looks like on the trail, what it will look like with the new residence halls and light rail stations, and what implications on both functionality and safety that might have for the trail as well as those using it. ii. When we completed that surveying, we looked into the master plan phase of this project. Currently, we’re in the design development and planning portion of what the trail will look like. iii. There are a variety of analyses and ways to look at the trail. 1. Historically and regionally, it was a railroad on the back of campus. This means it was sort of built on a shelf, which leaves TS with multiple design constraints. 2. Currently, it’s seen as a boundary of central campus, but it’s still central to transportation to campus. c. TS is working closely with CPO and the ACE team as well as ALTA, a bike and pedestrian planning group, as well as a landscape architecture firm based out of Portland. i. So far, it’s been a really positive and enjoyable experience for most of the people involved. d. Current design plans and features under consideration i. Giving the trail a UW campus context. The Burke‐Gilman is a diverse trail connecting many neighborhoods. ii. Widening the trail to give it more capacity. 1. There is no way to widen it to get the capacity needed for future demand, so other features have been under consideration. These include separating the trail either by direction or by mode. a. The group, at this point in time, has largely decided on a modal split instead of a directional split. iii. Creating consistency; moving along the trail now doesn’t feel very consistent. There are numerous sidepaths and trails that intersect it; there are some intersections that aren’t marked. 1. TS hopes to create a hierarchy of intersections (major, minor and overlooks) a. Major intersections would include 15th, University Way, Pend Oreille, and the Hec –Ed bridge.
b. Minor intersections would include the Wahkiakum and Whatcom bridges. c. Overlooks would be appropriately spaced to take advantage of natural corridors. 2. Reinforcing behavior with physical cues a. Pavement marking and pavement types can help people to slow down, stop or go. e. Next steps include continuing data collection, advancing designs for immediate needs areas, and continuing to refine designs and details. i. Immediate needs areas include areas such as Mercer Hall, which is already an active construction site. It makes sense to do Burke‐Gilman construction at the same time. ii. Design details include things such as paving materials, signage, lighting and retaining wall design. f. Comment (Peter Dewey): There are a few other major projects along this corridor that TS is advancing design together with. i. The Pend Oreille/Burke‐Gilman intersection 1. Current plans look at creating an underpass for the Burke Gilman. A slope would allow the trail to be under the roadway for a fairly short period of time. a. This is an expensive project that has to be done in conjunction with street renovation. ii. Hec‐Ed bridge 1. This very old structure is routinely smacked by trucks going by on Montlake. iii. Question (Patty Riley): Will these be integrated with the Rainier Vista project? 1. The Rainier Vista project is already designed and funded. It will lower the trail by about 10’. 2. There are projects at each end that still need to be worked out, particularly the potential impact of pedestrians and cyclists from the light rail station west of the triangle. g. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): There are many visual components that complement what David Amiton has shared today. TS could look at creating another forum for those who want to interact and provide some feedback with those materials. i. Chuck Treser, Colin Morgan‐Cross, Laura Davenport, Scott Baebler and Bob Ennes all expressed interest in seeing those. ii. Josh asked if the group had any key constituencies in mind that ought to be involved in this forum. 1. Disability Services Office, Alumni Association, UW Advancement, retirement associations, Housing and Food Services (particularly Nordheim Court and Laurel Village). 2. Any other constituency suggestions should be sent to
[email protected]. 6. Faculty/Staff U‐PASS Subcommittee update – Laura Davenport a. The subcommittee is composed of Laura Davenport, Matt Weatherford, Chuck Treser, Celeste Gilman and Stephanie Parkins. b. The first meeting took place just last week. Everyone was very dynamic and involved in ensuring we’re all on the same page with the same goals in mind.
i. The first task was setting a realistic timeline and how the group’s work might bump up against things like UW Human Resources’ benefits packages and the Board of Regents. c. The new model will need to be sustainable, affordable, encouraging faculty and staff to get out of their vehicles and into alternative modes, and worker/union friendly. d. The first step is looking at regulatory authority. Celeste Gilman is helping the group to look at the state’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law and the campus master plan. The group is engaging the Attorney General’s office for statutory authority. i. Chuck Treser said the group ought to look at binding contracts or covenants held by the University. e. The group talked about different scenarios i. A fee paid by faculty/staff ii. A fee paid by departments as a part of employee benefits 1. The group is looking at various models, personnel issues and union negotiations. Anything is on the table except the present system, which is unsustainable. f. The committee hopes to back to the UTC with different models over time that will meet the goals and regulatory aspects of the University. i. The group hopes to look at programs at other universities as well as private entities to see what works and what doesn’t. 1. This way, the group can avoid “reinventing the wheel,” so to speak. g. The group plans to meet monthly during summer quarter. h. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): He commended the group for taking a look at the regulatory environment straight out of the gate. i. He said it would be wise for them to look at the STAR Pass program provided to Capitol Campus employees in Olympia. ii. Pursuing several strategies and winnowing them down over time seemed to work well for the Student Transportation Task Force a few years ago. iii. There may be ways to work in Olympia during the next legislative session that could assist the group’s work. 7. South Campus Transportation Subcommittee update – Bob Ennes a. Bob Ennes met with Josh Kavanagh last week and the South Campus Transportation Committee is now a subcommittee of the UTC. Future agendas will be updated to reflect this. b. The committee talks about any transportation issues related to the health sciences building. c. In the last meeting, members discussed the new additional shuttle serving the medical center. They also discussed the south campus parking allocation, which the group has been working on with Michelle Rhoads’ assistance. i. This is a popular topic as the current allocation process hasn’t worked well for many entities. 1. Multiple concepts have been discussed. The latest is a system based on points, rather than ICTs and parking cards. ii. A smaller task force within the committee is working on a recommendation for the full committee. That task force is meeting later this week, with the full SCTS meeting next week.
8. Universal Student U‐PASS Advisory Board update – Miles Fernandez a. The last meeting was two weeks ago and the big topic of the day was the arbitration between the University and UAW. The arbitration found that there should be a fee refund for academic student employees (ASEs)(largely teaching assistants and research assistants) for the 2011‐12 school year and that going forward the U‐PASS program should be opt‐out for that group. i. Josh Kavanagh says this is a group of about 5,000 students. b. TS and the University are working to understand what the arbitration requires as it is less detailed in some places than it could have been. i. It currently seems that TS and the students hold the same position, saying that the U‐PASS fee is one that is on students by and for students and therefore the University or an individual’s sponsoring department would be responsible for the fees, as students were not party to the contract between ASEs and the University. c. The Advisory Board will meet biweekly over the summer with its first meeting tomorrow afternoon. d. Josh Kavanagh said there was a brief meeting between Advisory Board leadership and TS late last week to update them on arbitration. Those AB members are working to articulate student opinion and will likely make a more official opinion tomorrow. i. This will likely result in an interesting a comprehensive update on the issue at next month’s UTC meeting. 9. U‐PASS Program financial update – Reed Keeney a. The handout gives a plethora of information about all things U‐PASS. i. Columns 1. The left column describes the accounts involved. 2. The first group of three is the consolidated U‐PASS, followed by the student U‐PASS, then faculty/staff U‐PASS, and then active transportation. a. Each group includes three columns: actual, plan, and the variance or difference between the two. ii. Rows (top to bottom) 1. Funding 2. Spending 3. Operating 4. Fund balance b. Consolidated U‐PASS costs for “Other Contract Services” is about $20.5 million, this is largely composed of transit contracts. Consolidated U‐PASS revenue is about $19.5 million. i. Currently, the student program is at a $93,000 loss. Initially TS had projected nearly a $1 million loss. 1. In the last Advisory Board meeting TS predicted that the student program would finish its two years with a surplus due to some forward‐ shifting in the transit contract costs. ii. The faculty/staff program is currently projected with an $825,000 loss. TS initially projected the loss to be just over $400,000. 1. New ridership data splitting the faculty/staff population from the student population will be ready in the next few weeks. Early indications
for ridership at the branch level indicate that there may have been fewer trips taken than were originally modeled. 2. The University has a commitment from KC Metro to maintain the discounted rate that is in place for students, faculty and staff for the next year. Currently TS hopes that the negative trend in the faculty/staff program will reverse, as it is not sustainable. c. Question (Peter Dewey): Does the revenue figure in the student program account for the continued contingent of the UAW refund? i. Josh Kavanagh said that at maximum this would be a $750,000 refund, which would be a significant hit against the students’ rate stabilization fund. 1. The current argument is that students should not have to pay for the refund using the rate stabilization fund because the UAW contract is institutional. The student U‐PASS fee is a fee of students on themselves, not of the institution. It is TS’ and students’ opinion that it is inappropriate to make the refund by tapping into the funds that belong to students. a. Evan Smith agreed that he believes the refund should come from the departments sponsoring these ASEs d. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): This is the sort of information that TS hopes to provide the UTC with more regularly. e. Question (Patty Riley): KC Metro reduced evening and weekend service, which has been a major concern for UWMC as some support staff have shifted to evening and weekend shifts. Is there a formal way we can log in these key bus routes? i. The commute options group within TS, led by Celeste Gilman, now has a staff member dedicated solely to transit options, Stephanie Parkins. 1. TS is in the process of backing up Stephanie’s position while she is out on maternity leave, so Celeste is likely the best person to contact. ii. In addition, Sara Brydges is now dedicated to ridesharing programs which could be a very viable option for these employees to save on costs. She has visited UWMC new employee orientations and will work with existing folks on how to get those with moving shifts into carpools. 10. Agenda for next meeting – Josh Kavanagh a. Josh Kavanagh said that all UTC members are welcome to suggest topics for upcoming UTC meetings. Members are still welcome to email in suggestions, now to the new address
[email protected] b. Josh said that TS is meeting with ICA this week and asked Scott Baebler if he thought this might result in something for either the July or August UTC meetings. Scott said that the August meeting would be ideal for an update. c. Chuck Treser said he would like to see updates on what will happen when WA‐520 is rerouted and what impacts that will have on the University. d. Celeste Gilman and Matt Weatherford expressed interest in having continuous updates about the arbitration between the University and UAW. e. Laura Davenport would like to hear an update about the University LINK project, including scheduling and more about station planning for NE 45th Street and Brooklyn Ave. f. Michelle Rhoads said there will be an update in July about 12 passenger vans in the UW Fleet and credentialing for campus vehicle operators.
Commuter Services U-PASS Financial Report As of May 31, 2012
Consolidated U-PASS Total Total as of 4/30/12
Consolidated U-PASS Business Plan
Consolidated U-PASS Difference
U-PASS: Student Business Plan
U-PASS: Student
U-PASS: Student Difference
U-PASS: Staff/Faculty Business Plan
U-PASS: Staff/Faculty
U-PASS: U-PASS: Active Active U-PASS: Transportation Transportation Active Difference Transportation Business Plan
U-PASS: Staff/Faculty Difference
Funding: State Appropriation Recharge Revenue1 Transfer-In/Out - CIP2 Transfer-In/Out - Other3 Total Funding
1,212 19,552,461 (400,000) 743,589 19,897,262
18,900,583 (587,375) 1,191,667 19,504,874
1,212 651,878 187,375 (448,078) 392,388
14,101,683 339,167 14,440,850
13,196,910 339,167 13,536,076
904,774 904,774
5,410,933 119,167 5,530,099
5,673,740 119,167 5,792,907
(262,808) (262,808)
Expenditure: Classified/Professional Salaries Professional Services Other Contract Services TS Shared Services Fleet Services Vehicle Rentals Travel Supplies/Materials Equipment Staff Benefits Vehicle Depreciation Total Operating Expenses
352,507 4,638 20,552,054 389 5 25,689 115,716 21,050,998
267,325 20,482,570 1,206 64,932 72,933 20,888,967
85,183 4,638 69,484 (818) 5 (39,243) 42,783 162,031
127,615 14,360,510
100,680 14,368,752
163,334 6,133,448
136,961 6,023,195
161 3 5,856 40,296
382 891 25,553
161 3 5,856 52,229
475 1,109 37,558
14,534,440
14,496,258
26,935 (8,242) (221) 3 4,966 14,742 38,183
6,355,030
6,199,297
26,373 110,253 (314) 3 4,748 14,671 155,733
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1,153,736)
(1,384,093)
Non-Operating Expenses University Overhead Interest Principal Total Non-Operating Expenses Surplus/(Defecit) before Adjustments4
-
-
-
-
-
-
230,357
(93,591)
(960,181)
866,591
(824,931)
(406,390)
(418,541)
1,353,517
1,353,517
-
528,586
947,126
(418,541)
6/30/11 Ending Balance5
4,004,487
4,004,487
-
2,650,970
2,650,970
-
Current Balance
2,850,751
2,620,394
230,357
2,557,380
1,690,789
866,591
29,933 (587,375) 733,333 175,891
1,212 9,912 187,375 (448,078) (249,578)
61,559 4,638 58,096
29,684 90,624
67 13,976 23,191
350 62,933 9,822
31,875 4,638 (32,527) (283) (48,957) 13,369 (31,885)
1,212 39,845 (400,000) 285,256 (73,687)
161,527
-
193,412
-
-
(235,214)
(17,521)
(217,693)
(235,214)
(17,521)
(217,693)
-
Notes: 1. Deferred one month of Spring quarter Student U-PASS received in March ($1.2M) and fully recognized Summer quarter U-PASS Students ($1.3M) and Faculty/Staff ($.113M) received in June 2. Active Transportation capital projects: Exterior Bike Parking Enclosures ($200K), Burke Gilman Trail Project Development ($200K) 3. Parking fine revenue, net of Shuttles, is transferred from Parking to U-PASS Active Transportation 4. Transit agencies expenses averaged over four quarters 5. The cumulative 6/30/2011 fund balance for U-PASS is un-audited
History of Business Plan Updates: 4/2012 A portion of S&A's salaries and benefits were included in the operational budget but not in the Business Plan 4/2012 Transit contract of 10/11 to 9/12 was not finalized until late summer 2011 so revised amounts were not in the Business Plan
I:\groups\fac\trans\upass\A New File System\UTC\UTC '12\6 - June\Copy of U-PASS YTD May 2012 for UTC
6/15/2012
