Citation
Draft final report market study of Auraria automated guideway transit system, December 5, 1983

Material Information

Title:
Draft final report market study of Auraria automated guideway transit system, December 5, 1983
Creator:
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
Auraria Higher Education Center
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
Auraria Library
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Auraria Membership

Aggregations:
Auraria Library
Auraria History Collections

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Hpeat
MARWICK
Draft Final Report Market Study Of Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System December 5, 1983 Prepared For
Auraria Higher Education Center
ARCHIVES
LD
271
.A6665
A655
1983
AURARIA LIBRARY
U1A7D2 06^2053


^PEAT
MARWICK
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co
1990 K Street, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 202-223-9525
December 5, 1983
Dr. Jerome F. Wartgow Executive Director Auraria Higher Education Center Historic Ninth street Park 1027 Ninth Street Denver, CO 80204
Dear Dr. Wartgow:
Peat Marwick is pleased to submit this draft final report to the Auraria Higher Education Center, Regional Transportation District (RTD), and City of Denver concerning the market potential for an automated guideway transit (AGT) system to link the Sports Complex parking facility with the Auraria Campus and possibly the Denver central business district (CBD) . This report consists of six sections which address the following areas:
. introduction;
. current parking characteristics;
. projected parking system supply and demand;
. automated guideway transit system route alternatives and markets;
. automated guideway transit system market assessment; and
. market assessment results.
The final section of the study contains the major findings of the market assessment, including:
. projected levels of AGT system ridership and revenues for the years 1985 , 1995, and 2005 for each of six route alternatives and seven market segments;


Dr. Jerome F. Wartgow Auraria Higher Education Center December 5, 1983 2
. projected levels of Sports Complex parking and
parking revenues resulting from AGT system users for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for each of six route alternatives and seven market segments;
. projected levels of Auraria Campus parking and
parking revenues for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005; and
. projected peak-hour ridership levels on the AGT
system and peak parking demand at the Sports Complex parking facility for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for each of the six route alternatives.
These findings provide a detailed assessment of the potential demand which the proposed AGT system could generate, as well as the capacity of the proposed AGT system and Sports Complex parking facility to handle these projected levels of demand.
Projected levels of AGT ridership and Sports Complex parking are largely predicated on the rapid recovery of the Denver economy, followed by sustained growth of about 2.5 percent per year. Under current conditions, little demand for these facilities could be expected due to the adequacy of Auraria Campus parking facilities and the convenient accessibility of ample, low-cost parking facilities throughout the Denver CBD. When the Denver economy recovers, predictions are that downtown parking will once again be in short supply, parking rates will increase, and commuters will have to walk farther to find available off-street parking. These assumptions, coupled with the increasing loss of on-campus Auraria parking during the next seven years, form the basis for our projections of AGT system and Sports Complex parking lot usage.
Estimates of demand for the proposed AGT system are based on the allocation of projected parking demand to projected parking supply for each of seven market segments. The allocation process favors parking facilities which are near the final destination of the parkers. As the distance to available parking facilities increases with the filling of more convenient


Dr. Jerome F. Wartgow Auraria Higher Education Center December 5, 1983 3
parking facilities, the probability of choosing the Sports Complex parking facility and riding the AGT system increases. Therefore, projected AGT system usage results primarily from projected shortfall in local parking capacity at the Auraria Campus and the Denver CBD.
These results are generally well below the level of AGT system usage implied by (1) the parking surveys Peat Marwick conducted during October on the Auraria Campus and in the Denver CBD (described in Appendix A), and (2) the transportation survey Ms. Paula Sakofs conducted during the spring semester on the Auraria Campus. The results are consistent with our expectations; respondents typically exaggerate their willingness to use such a system. The difference confirms the appropriateness of the parker allocation model used in this study (described in Appendix B).
Projected ridership and parking levels associated with each route alternative reveal that the largest demand would be served by the route which connects the Sports Complex to the intersection of 16th and California streets, via the Auraria Campus and Performing Arts Center. If the route terminated at the Performing Arts Center, a significant portion of this demand would still be served. By the year 2005 , these routes are expected to generate sufficient AGT system ridership to approach the capacity of the system currently being considered for implementation. Route alternatives which terminate at the Auraria Campus or the end of the 16th Street Mall are expected to generate significantly less demand for the AGT system.
The results in this report are preliminary and reflect projections based on a variety of assumptions and information. The achievement of these projections may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and depends on the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


Dr. Jerome F. Wartgow Auraria Higher Education Center December 5, 1983 4
Because the AGT system's capital and operating costs have not yet been produced, the results of this study only serve as an indicator of the financial or economic feasibility of such a system. The results should not be used as the sole basis for evaluating the feasibility of the project, and they should be used only if the assumptions upon which they are based are maintained. Altering the assumptions, such as the fare schedule, will probably alter the relative attractiveness of the parking alternatives considered in this study and therefore change the demand projections.
*****
It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff on this challenging study, and we look forward to discussing this draft final report with you and your staff. Following receipt of your comments and suggestions and those of the RTD, the City of Denver, and other interested parties, we will revise the report and issue a final version. Please contact Daniel Dornan or me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,


TABLE OF CONTENTS
S ection Page
I INTRODUCTION 1.1
Purpose of Study 1.1
Scope of Study 1.1
II CURRENT PARKING CHARACTERISTICS II.1
Auraria Campus Parking Facilities Central Business District Parking II .1
Facilities II.5
Sports Complex II .5
Performing Arts Center II .8
III PROJECTED PARKING SYSTEM SUPPLY AND DEMAND III .1
Projected Auraria Campus Parking Supply Projected Auraria Campus Parking III .1
Demand Projected Central Business District III .3
Parking Supply III.5
Projected Central Business District Parking Demand Projected Sports Complex Parking III .7
Supply and Demand III.9
Projected Performing Arts Center Parking Supply and Demand Projected Tivoli Specialty Shopping III .9
Center Parking Supply and Demand III.10
IV AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND MARKETS IV.1
AGT System Description IV.1
AGT System Route Alternatives IV. 5
AGT System Markets IV. 5
1055M
i


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
V AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET
ASSESSMENT V.l
Auraria Campus and Denver Central Business
District Markets V.l
Auraria Campus/Downtown Market V.13
Tivoli Market V.15
Performing Arts Center Market V.15
Mile High Stadium Market V.15
McNichols Arena Market V.15
General Market Assumptions V.16
VI MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTS VI.1
Automated Guideway Transit System Market
Projections VI.1
Sports Complex Parking Market Projections VI.4
Auraria Campus Parking System Market
Projections VI.13
Peak Loading Characteristics for the Automated Guideway Transit System and Sports Complex Parking Facility VI.13
Conclusions VI.16
Appendices
A Auraria Campus and Downtown Denver Parking
Surveys A.l
B Parker Allocation Model B.l
ii


LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
II-l Current Auraria Campus Parking Lots II .2
11-2 Current Parking Lot Characteristics on Auraria Campus II .3
11-3 Current Daily Parking Cost by Lot on Auraria Campus II .4
11-4 Denver Central Business District II.6
11-5 Denver Central Business District Parking Supply - 1983 II .7
II-6 Sports Complex and Performing Arts Center Entertainment and Parking Facilities Capacity and Use II .9
III-l Auraria Campus Projected Parking Lot Capacities by Year III .1
III-2 Current Parking Lots Deactivated by 1985 on Auraria Campus III .2
III-3 Current Parking Lots Deactivated by 1995 on Auraria Campus III .3
111-4 Auraria Campus Parking Supply Projections III .4
III-5 Auraria Campus Parking Demand Projections III .5
III-6 Central Business District Parking Supply Projections III. 6
III-7 Central Business District Parking Demand Projections III. 8
IV-1 Operating Speed Related to Patronage Density by Transit Mode IV. 3
IV-2 Selected Automated Guideway Transit System Annual Operating Characteristics IV. 4
IV-3 Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System Route Alternatives - System Characteristics IV. 6
iii


LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
Exhibit Page
IV-4 Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System Route Alternatives - Station Locations IV. 7
IV-5 Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System Markets by Route Alternative IV.9
V-l Auraria Campus Parking Lot Zones V. 3
V-2 16th and Market Streets Station Parking Zones V. 4
V-3 16th and California Streets Station Parking Zones V. 5
V-4 Performing Arts Center Station Parking Zones V. 6
V-5 16th and Broadway Streets Station Parking Zones V. 7
V-6 Projected Daily Demand for Off-Street Parking by Station Area V. 8
V-7 Downtown Denver Parking Demand Projection Factors by Station Location V.10
V-8 Projected Off-Street Parking Capacities by Station Location V.ll
V-9 Parking Choice Allocation Factors by Station Location V. 12
V-10 Parking Choice Allocation Results by Station Area V. 14
V-ll General Automated Guideway Transit System Market Assumptions V.17
V-12 Rate Schedule for Automated Guideway Transit System, Auraria Campus Parking, Sports Complex Parking, and Downtown Parking V. 18
iv


LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
Exhibit Page
VI-1 Projected AGT Ridership Summary by Route
Alternative VI.2
VI-2 Annual AGT Ridership Summary by Route
Alternative VI.3
VI-3 Projected AGT Ridership by Market and
Route Alternative (1985) VI.5
VI-4 Projected AGT Ridership by Market and
Route Alternative (1995) VI.5
VI-5 Projected AGT Ridership by Market and
Route Alternative (2005) VI.7
VI-6 Projected Sports Complex Parking Summary
by Route Alternative VI.8
VI-7 Annual Sports Complex Parking Usage by AGT
Riders by Route Alternative VI.9
VI-8 Projected Sports Complex Parking by Market
and Route Alternative (1985) VI.10
VI-9 Projected Sports Complex Parking by Market
and Route Alternative (1995) VI.11
VI-10 Projected Sports Complex Parking by Market
and Route Alternative (2005) VI.12
VI-11 Projected Auraria Campus Parking System
Usage and Revenues by Year VI.14
VI-12 Peak Demands on AGT System and Sports
Complex Parking Facility VI.15
v


I. INTRODUCTION
The Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC), located adjacent to the Denver Central Business District (CBD), has over
30,000 full- and part-time students and over 3,000 full- and part-time employees. The campus has no residences for students and therefore all Auraria students and employees commute to and from campus. Parking consists of 5,099 off-street spaces on the Auraria Campus.
Within the next ten years, the AHEC may face a severe parking shortage as campus development is expected to consume more than one-third the current supply of on-campus parking. Existing lots are already full most of the day. The campus is surrounded by highways and urban development and therefore adjacent property cannot be acquired for parking lots. Future growth in campus enrollment will further exacerbate the shortage of on-campus parking.
Off-street parking in downtown Denver meets current demands. However, if Denver's economy rebounds and proceeds to expand, the availability of parking which is convenient to the downtown core will probably decrease as downtown employees are forced to park farther from their places of employment.
At this time, several major recreational facilities located near the Auraria Campus experience occasional parking shortages. These facilities, which include the Performing Arts Center, Mile High Stadium, and McNichols Arena, have parking capabilities which are well below their total seating capacities. In the future, as these facilities are used more fully, the frequency of parking shortages will increase.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
In response to these potential parking problems, the Auraria Higher Education Center, the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD), and the City of Denver jointly sponsored this study of the market potential for an automated guideway transit (AGT) system which would connect the large, 5,000-space parking facility at the Sports Complex with the Auraria Campus and possibly the CBD.
This study assesses the potential parking shortfall on the Auraria Campus, surrounding recreational facilities, and the CBD. The study then estimates the portion of this parking shortfall that might be diverted to Sports Complex parking lots if they were served by an AGT system. The results are provided in terms of potential AGT system ridership and revenues, Sports Complex parking volumes and revenues, and Auraria Campus parking volumes and revenues.
1.1


SCOPE OF STUDY
This study deals primarily with the parking supply and demand characteristics of the Auraria Campus, Denver CBD, Performing Arts Center, Sports Complex, and the soon-to-be-opened Tivoli specialty shopping center. The study also identifies other nonparking related markets for the proposed AGT system.
Six route alternatives and seven market segments are considered in this study. On the basis of assumptions described in later sections, study results for each of these routes and markets are projected to three future years: 1985, 1995, and 2005. The achievement of these projections may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
1.2


II. CURRENT PARKING CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes the current nature and capacity of parking facilities on the Auraria Campus, in downtown Denver,
and associated with the Performing Arts Center and Sports
Complex. Information is provided on the current number of
parking spaces by facility type, parking rates, and parking
utilization.
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING FACILITIES
The Auraria Campus currently has 5,099 off-street parking spaces which serve an average of 9,000 vehicles per weekday during the fall and spring semesters, and 4,000 vehicles per weekday during the summer term.l These spaces are located in 21 individual lots which serve AHEC students, faculty, administration, and staff.
Exhibit II-l illustrates the Auraria Campus parking system. Exhibit II-2 lists the capacity, effective daily parking rate, permit type, and projected year of deactivation for each lot.
All but one parking lot (Lot G) requires an Auraria Campus parking permit. Of the approximately 18,500 persons currently registered to park on the Auraria Campus, 941 have monthly parking permits. The remainder have daily parking permits.
Parking rates vary according to the proximity of the lot to the center of the campus. Daily rates range from $0.50 for outer lots, to $0.75 for middle lots, to $1.00 for inner lots (Exhibit II-3). Lot G, which is the only unrestricted parking lot on campus, costs $0.50 per hour.
As campus enrollment has grown, parking volumes have increased; current parking facilities are almost fully utilized. During the day, parking facility use varies, but generally exceeds 90 percent between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.1 2
1 These figures are based on a review of parking count data collected during the summer session and fall semester of 1983 and supplied by the Auraria Higher Education Center, expanded to include monthly parkers.
2 This information is based on Auraria Higher Education Center parking lot utilization data for the spring and fall semesters of 1983.
II. 1


EXHIBIT II-l
CURRENT AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING LOTS
II.2


EXHIBIT I1-2
CURRENT PARKING LOT CHARACTERISTICS ON AURARIA CAMPUS 1
LOt Lot Capacity Type of Permit Effective Daily Rate Year of Deactivation
A 251 Daily $0.50
B 176/100 Daily/Monthly $0.75 1984
C 340 Daily $0 .50 -
D 340 Daily $0.75 -
E 340 Daily $1.00 1984
F 340 Daily $0.75 -
G 340 Hourly $0 .50/Hour -
H 340 Daily $1.00 -
I 180 Monthly $1.00 1990
J 154 Daily $0 .75 -
K 141 Daily $1.00 -
L 64 Monthly $1.00 -
M 20 Monthly $1.00 -
N 42 Monthly $1.00 -
P 425 Daily $1.00 1985
Q 308 Daily $1.00 1988
R 330 Daily $1.00 -
S 158 Monthly $0 .75 -
T 300 Daily $0 .75 1990
U 250 Daily $0.50 -
V 110/50 Daily/Monthly $1.00 —
TOTAL 5,099 _
1 This represents the approximate number of parking spaces lost in the year of deactivation, though certain lots may be reconfigured without the loss of capacity. Based on data provided by the Auraria Higher Education Center.
II. 3


EXHIBIT II-3
CURRENT DAILY PARKING COST BY LOT ON AURARIA CAMPUS
V.
II. 4


CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING FACILITIES
Denver's Central Business District consists of a 152-block area bounded by 20th Street, Logan Street, Colfax Avenue, Broadway, 12th Avenue, Speer Boulevard, and Wynkoop Street (Exhibit II-4).
Currently within the area are 263 off-street parking facilities with 37,358 total parking spaces (Exhibit II—5).1 Within the CBD is the Downtown Core, a 59-block area generally within two blocks of the 16th Street Mall.
The Downtown Core contains 96 off-street parking facilities (37 percent of the CBD total) with 16,891 parking spaces (45 percent of the CBD total). Of the parking spaces in both the CBD and the Downtown Core areas, two-thirds is paid for by the day, one-third by the month. About 90 percent of the parking spaces is available to the general public. Surrounding the Downtown Core are the remaining 93 blocks of the CBD area, which has 167 off-street parking facilities with 20,476 parking spaces. This area is called the Downtown Periphery.
Parking in the Denver CBD costs from $0.40 to $10.00 per day, with an average of $3.36 per day. Downtown Core parking costs from $1.00 to $10.00 per day, with an average of $4.52 per day. Downtown Periphery parking rates are about half the Downtown Core rates, ranging from $0.40 to $8.00 per day, with an average of $2.60 per day (Exhibit II-5).
Current information is not available on the use of off-street parking facilities in the Denver CBD. However, in 1981, these facilities were 86 percent filled between 10:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.2
SPORTS COMPLEX
The Sports Complex, one mile west of the Auraria Campus, is composed of:
. the Denver Mile High Stadium with 75,123 seats;
1 Frazer Consulting, Downtown Denver Parking Supply, prepared for Denver Civic Ventures, Inc.; Denver, Colorado, June 2, 1983, page 2.
2 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office; Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, page 12.
II. 5


EXHIBIT II-4
DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
« 1
\ \ ? 11
. 1 'i i
a
IS
II. 6


EXHIBIT I1-5
DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING SUPPLY - 19831
Number of Lots Number of Number of Total Number Peak Hourly Peak Daily Monthly
Parking Category and Garages Daily Spaces Monthly Spaces of Spaces Rate Rate Rate
> Total Central Business
District 263 24,946 12,412 37,358 $1.44 $3.36 $66.16
- Public Lots and
Garages 188 21,092 11,564 32,656 ($0.25 - $3.00) ($0.40 - $10.00) ($10.00 - $140.00)
- Private Lots and
Garages 75 3,854 848 4,702
Total Downtown Core 96 10,814 6,077 16,891 $1.66 $4.52 $77.24
- Public Lots and
Garages 78 9,823 5,724 15,547 ($0.50 - $3.00) ($1.00 - $10.00) ($45.00 - $125.00)
- private Lots and
Garages 18 991 353 1,344
Total Downtown Periphery 167 14,132 6,355 20,467 $1.23 $2.60 $56.72
- Public Lots and
Garages 110 11,269 5,840 17,109 ($0.25 - $2.25) ($0.40 - $8.00) ($10.00 - $140.00)
- Private Lots and
Garages 57 2,863 495 3,358
1
Frazer Consulting, Downtown Denver Parking Supply, prepared for Denver Civic Ventures, Inc.; Denver, Colorado, June 2
1983, page 2


. the McNichols Arena with 19,000 seats; and . a parking facility with 4,925 spaces.
Denver Mile High Stadium
The Mile High Stadium is used for Denver Broncos and Denver Gold football games, Denver Bears baseball games, and several special events.
As shown in Exhibit II-6, the stadium is used almost 100 times a year, with the average attendance ranging from 7,000 to
75,000 per event. Parking rates range from $1.00 to $3.00 per vehicle, depending on the event.
The available parking capacity of the lots surrounding the stadium is fully utilized for all football games and special events, and for 40 percent of the baseball games. This amounts to 57 percent of the stadium events or 55 days each year.
McNichols Arena
The McNichols Arena is used for the Denver Nuggets basketball, Colorado Flames hockey, and numerous special events. According to Exhibit II-6, 165 events occur at the arena during the year, with an average attendance of 8,500 per event. Parking costs $2.00 per vehicle.
Parking Lots Surrounding the Arena
Parking lots surrounding the arena are fully utilized 15 to 75 percent of the 150 days in which the arena is used during the year, depending on the success of the sports teams playing at the arena and the strength of the Denver economy.1 This percentage averages to 45 percent, which is the percentage used for this study.
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
The Performing Arts Center, located just east of the Auraria Campus across Speer Boulevard, consists of four entertainment facilities:
. Helen Bonfils Theater Complex includes two major theatres and an experimental theatre, with a 1
1 Based on discussions with Mr. Fred Luetzen, Entertainment Manager of McNichols Arena, November 14, 1983.
II. 8


EXHIBIT I1-6
SPORTS CENTER AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ENTERTAINMENT AND PARKING FACILITIES CAPACITY AND USE 1963
Faci1ity/use Seating- Capacity Yearly Events Average Attendance Per Event Parking Facility Capacity Days Per Year with Parking Lot Filled Percent of Event Days with Parking Lot Filled Parking Rates
Mile High Stadium^
Denver Broncos (NFL Football) - 11 75,000 - 11 100% $3.00
Denver Gold (USFL Football) - 10 42,000 - 10 100% $3.00
Denver Bears (AAA Baseball) - 70 7,000 - 26 40% $1.00
Other Events _6 34,000 - _6 100% $2.00
Subtotal 75,123 97 20,000 2,075 55 57% -
McNtchols Arena2
Denver Nuggets (NBA Basketball) - 46 8,500 - N/A N/A $2.00
Colorado Flames (CHL Hockey) - 46 3,400 - N/A N/A $2.00
Other Events 73 11,700 N/A N/A $2.00
Subtotal 19,000 165 8,500 2,850 68 4 5% $2.00
Performing Arts Center^
Helen Bonfils Theatre Complex 1,275 336 420 - N/A N/A $2.00
Denver Center Cinema 255 676 60 - N/A N/A $2.00
Boettcher Concert Hall 2,650 176 1,400 - N/A N/A $2.00
Denver Auditorium Theatre 2,400 208 2,400 “ N/A N/A $2.00
Subtotal 6,580 1,396 700 1,750 120 40% $2.00
1 Based on data provided by Mr. 1983.
Patrick Gallavan, Parks Director, City and County of Denver Department of Parks-Recreation, October 19,
2
Based on data provided by Mr. Wes Martin, Manager, City and County of Denver Department of General Services, October 20, discussions with Mr. Fred Luetzen, Entertainment Manager of McNichols Arena, November 14, 1983.
1983, and
3
Based on data provided by Ms. Sally Williams and Ms. Carol Wilson, The Denver Center for the Performing Arts, October 24, 1983


combined seating capacity of 1,530 (Exhibit II-6).
The theatre season extends 210 days per year, with average attendance of 700.
. Denver Center Cinema is a 255-seat commercial theater, which provides 13 showings a week throughout the year. The average attendance is 60 per show.
. Boettcher Concert Hall seats 2,650. It is open 176 days a year for the Denver Symphony Orchestra with an average attendance of 1,400.
. Denver Auditorium Theatre seats 2,400. It is open 167 days a year for a variety of theatrical bookings, most of which nearly fill the theatre.
A multi-level parking garage, which has 1,750 spaces, serves the Performing Arts Center. This facility is used by daily commuters, shoppers, and visitors to downtown Denver. The facility also serves the parking needs of patrons, exhibitors, and performers associated with events taking place at the various facilities making up the Performing Arts Center. Parking costs up to $4.00 per vehicle for all-day parkers and $2.00 per vehicle for special events taking place at the Performing Arts Center.
During the year, the parking garage is filled approximately 120 times, or for 40 percent of the special events taking place at the Performing Arts Center. The parking lot is filled primarily when multiple events are scheduled simultaneously at the Performing Arts Center.
II. 10


III. PROJECTED PARKING SYSTEM SUPPLY AND DEMAND
This section presents projections to year 2005 of parking supply and demand at the Auraria Campus, Denver Central Business District, and the entertainment facilities surrounding the Auraria Campus. Included in the presentation is a description of the methodologies and assumptions used to develop these projections. Parking deficiency projections are subsequently used to establish the potential market for an AGT system which will connect the Sports Complex parking lot with the Auraria Campus and possibly the Central Business District.
PROJECTED AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SUPPLY
During the next 10 years, off-street parking on the Auraria Campus is projected to decrease by about 36 percent, as existing parking lots give way to campus development. Exhibit III-1 shows projected parking capacities by year for the Auraria Campus.
EXHIBIT III-l
AURARIA CAMPUS PROJECTED PARKING LOT CAPACITIES BY YEAR1 Year_____________Parking Spaces________Percent of 1983 Spaces
1983 5 ,099 100%
1984 4,483 88
1985-1987 4 ,058 80
1988-1989 3,750 74
1990-2005 3 ,270 64
1 Information supplied by Auraria Higher Education Center.
Projections of available off-street parking on the Auraria Campus indicate that:
. By 1985, off-street parking spaces will decrease to 4,058, as three lots are deactivated (Exhibit III-2).
. By 1990, off-street parking spaces will decrease to 3,270, as a further three lots are deactivated.
. Between the years 1990 and 2005 no further parking lots are expected to be deactivated (Exhibit 111—3) .
Ill .1


EXHIBIT III-2
CURRENT PARKING LOTS DEACTIVATED BY 1985 ON AURARIA CAMPUS
III .2


EXHIBIT III-3
CURRENT PARKING LOTS DEACTIVATED BY 1995 ON AURARIA CAMPUS
III.3


The maximum number of vehicles per day which could be accommodated by these projections can be estimated by multiplying the number of parking spaces by an average turnover rate. At present, approximately 9,000 vehicles park on the Auraria Campus each day, using 90 percent of the 5,099 off-street parking spaces. These figures imply an average turnover rate of 1.96 vehicles per parking space per day.l
Exhibit III-4 lists the projected daily vehicle capacities of parking lots on the Auraria Campus by year and lot type (distinguished by parking rate, as shown in Exhibit II-3).
EXHIBIT III-4
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SUPPLY PROJECTIONS (Vehicles per day, percent of total)
Year Total Lots Inner Lots Middle Lots Outer Lots
1985 7,958 (100%) 3,775 (47%) 2,534 (32%) 1,649 (21%)
1995 6,413 (100%) 2,818 (44%) 1,946 (30%) 1,649 (26%)
2005 6,413 (100%) 2,818 (44%) 1,946 (30%) 1,649 (26%)
PROJECTED AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING DEMAND
The demand for off-street parking by Auraria students and employees relates to the number of students enrolled by the three schools making up the Auraria Higher Education Center. Between 1975 and 1982, the number of students attending the fall semester grew from 24,010 to 31,987 ,1 2 a 4.14 percent average annual increase. However, projections of campus enrollment through the year 2005 indicate an average 2.15 percent growth
1 Current Auraria
Campus Parking = 9 ,000 Vehicles -r (5,099 Spaces x 90%) =
Space Turnover Day
= 1.96 Vehicles Space-Day
2 Auraria Higher Education Center enrollment data, August 1982.
Ill .4


rate per year from 1982 to 1986, followed by an average
1.00 percent growth rate per year from 1986 to 2000 , at which time total campus enrollment levels off at 40,000 students.1
When the number of current parkers is increased by the foregoing percentages, the daily parking demand projections for the Auraria Campus become as listed in Exhibit III-5.
EXHIBIT II1-5
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS (Vehicles per day)
Year________Fall and Spring Semesters______Summer Sessions
1985 9,390 4,170 1995 10,490 4,660 2000 11,030 4,900
Comparing Auraria Campus parking supply and demand projections (Exhibits III-4 and III-5) reveals a projected shortage of on-campus parking during the fall and spring semesters for the rest of this century and into the next. The shortage is predicated on the assumed loss of significant portions of the parking system currently serving the Auraria Campus, in addition to assumed student enrollment increases. The location of the Auraria Campus severely limits the opportunity to find replacement parking lots or available parking capacity without using downtown Denver parking facilities, which are typically higher in cost and less accessible than current on-campus parking lots.
PROJECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING SUPPLY
Between 1970 and 1981, growth rates per year for the supply of parking in downtown Denver averaged:
. 2.29 percent for the Denver CBD;
. 0.41 percent for the Downtown Core; 1
1 Based on discussions with Dr. Jerry Wartgow, Executive
Director, Auraria Higher Education Center, November 14, 1983.
Ill .5


. 4.88 percent for the Downtown Periphery; and
. 2.29 percent for the areas surrounding the CBD.l
These differing growth rates reveal that the supply of parking spaces in the core of the CBD has been increasing at a much slower rate than areas on the periphery of this core. This slower rate has been caused by the high cost of property in the center of downtown, as compared with peripheral areas which have experienced much higher growth in parking supply, particularly in areas adjacent to the Downtown Core.
For this study, the parking supply in the Downtown Core is assumed to continue to grow at a 0.41 percent average annual rate through 2005. The parking supply in areas outside the Downtown Core is assumed to grow at a composite rate of 3.33 percent per year, which reflects the average annual growth rate for both the Downtown Periphery and surrounding areas. This lower rate, when applied to the Downtown Periphery, reflects the diminishing opportunities to build additional parking lots and garages caused by continuing development of the CBD.
Exhibit III-6 shows projections of the supply of off-street parking in the Denver CBD based on these average annual growth rates, as applied to the current level of parking illustrated in Exhibit II-5.
EXHIBIT III-6
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING SUPPLY PROJECTIONS (Off-Street Parking Spaces, Percent of CBD Total)
Central Business Year District
Downtown
Core
Downtown Per iphery
1985 38,880 (100%) 1995 48,060 (100%) 2005 60,560 (100%)
17,030 (44%) 17,740 (37%) 18,480 (31%) 1
21,850 (56%) 30,320 (63%) 42,080 (69%)
1 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office; Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, p. 6.
Ill. 6


PROJECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
PARKING DEMAND
The demand for parking in the Denver CBD depends on several demographic and travel characteristics, including employment, auto occupancy, percentage of downtown trips taken by automobile, percentage of parking which is long-term, and average number of vehicles that occupy parking spaces in the CBD area (turnover). We estimated parking demand in the Denver CBD using the following equation:
Parking = _________Employment x Percent Automobile Trips_________
Demand Auto Occupancy x Percent Long-Term Parking x Turnover
Using 1980 data, we determined the following values for most of the terms of this equation:
. Percent Automobile Trips = 72 percent (this per-
centage incorporates a 16 percent transit share of all person-trips in the Denver CBD by vehicle);1
. Auto Occupancy = 1.3 persons per vehicle;1 2 * 4
. Percent Long-Term Parking = 55 percent;3 and
. Turnover =2.4 vehicles per parking space per day.4
Using these values, the following more simplified equation results:
Parking Demand = Employment x [0.42]
Projections of employment growth for downtown Denver indicate:
. Denver CBD: from 92,330 in the year 1980 to 153,810 in the year 2000 (2.58 percent average annual growth over the 20-year period);
1 Denver Regional Council of Governments, A Typical Day of Travel in Denver; Denver, Colorado, August 1982, p. 2.
2 Colorado Department of Highways, Denver and Boulder Annual Auto Occupancy Study; Denver, Colorado, August 1983, p. 2.
2 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office, September 24, 1981,
p. 25.
4 Ibid, p. 12.
Ill .7


. Downtown Core; from 60,540 in the year 1980 to
97,240 in the year 2000 (2.40 percent average annual growth over the 20-year period); and
. Downtown Periphery; from 31,790 in the year 1980 to 56,570 in the year 2000 (2.92 percent average annual growth over the 20-year period).1
For this study, 1985, 1995, and 2005 projected employment levels for the Denver CBD and its component areas reflect the above annual growth rates relative to the base 1980 employment levels. Assuming a continuation of the downtown Denver travel characteristics listed above, and assuming that the current
3,300 on-street parking spaces in the CBD remain through the
year 2005, the demand for off-street parking spaces can be
estimated by:
. applying the projected CBD and subarea employment levels to the equation described above; and
. subtracting 3,300 parking spaces from the CBD total (1,485 parking spaces for the Downtown Core and 1,815 parking spaces for the Downtown Periphery).
The results of this process are shown in Exhibit III-7, which lists the projections of off-street parking demand for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for the CBD and its component subareas.
EXHIBIT III-7
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS (Off-Street Parking Spaces, Percent of CBD Total)
Central Business Downtown Downtown
Year________District_____________Core___________Per iphery
1985 40,700 (100%) 27,110 (67%) 13,590 (33%)
1995 53,500 (100%) 34,770 (65%) 18,730 (35%)
2005 70,050 (100%) 44,470 (63%) 25,580 (37%)
1 Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver Area TF 1980 and TG 2000 Zone Data; Denver, Colorado, August 12, 1983. The Denver CBD includes Traffic Analysis Zones 61 to 77, 85, 98, and 99; the Downtown Core includes Traffic Analysis Zones 62-65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, and 76; and the Downtown Periphery includes Traffic Analysis Zones 61, 66 , 67, 70 , 71, 74 , 77 ,
85, 98, and 99.
Ill .8


These parking demand estimates are predicated on the Denver economy recovering rapidly from its current recession and continuing to grow. These estimates will be influenced by such factors as auto occupancy, transit usage, and parking lot turnover. Even though all these factors could change in the future, little information is available concerning the amount of change that might occur or the direction such change might take. Therefore, projections are based on current values for each of these factors. If occupancy of autos or percentage of urban trips using mass transit increases significantly, then parking demand will decrease significantly. However, recent evidence indicates a decreasing auto occupancy and transit dependency among persons travelling to and from the Denver CBD.
These parking supply and demand projections for the Denver CBD indicate that during the next 20 years, the Downtown Core will generate about two-thirds of the demand for off-street parking in the CBD, but will generate only around one-third of the supply of off-street parking. Additional parking capacity will probably be available beyond the CBD to satisfy projected shortfalls in off-street parking supply. However, a significant walk will often be required between the parking facility and the place of employment.
As employment grows, parking facilities in the Downtown Core will quickly become filled. As a result, many commuters who drive will have to park in facilities located outside the Downtown Core and walk a number of blocks to reach their places of employment. The longer the walk, the more attractive other forms of commuter transportation will become.
PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
For this study, current levels of parking supply and demand associated with the Mile High Stadium and McNichols Arena are assumed to remain constant throughout the study time frame. (Exhibit II-6 shows details).
PROJECTED PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
For this study, current levels of parking supply and demand associated with the Performing Arts Center are assumed to remain constant throughout the study time frame. (Exhibit II-6 shows details).
Ill .9


PROJECTED TIVOLI SPECIALTY SHOPPING
CENTER PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The Tivoli Brewery, adjacent to the Student Center on the Auraria Campus (Exhibit 11 — 1) , is currently being redeveloped and expanded into a 224,000 square foot specialty shopping center, containing restaurants, theatres, and shops. Scheduled for opening in October 1984 , the Tivoli will have 2 blocks of parking to accommodate up to 700 vehicles at a time.l Assuming an average daily turnover of 6.29 vehicles per parking space, this implies a daily parking capacity of 4,403 vehicles.2
Parking demand by Tivoli customers and staff can be estimated by using established trip generation rates for facilities of this type. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a shopping center comparable in size to the Tivoli should generate an average of 27.7 vehicles a day per 1,000 square feet of retail space,3 which implies 6,200 vehicles a day. Since 12.6 percent of Tivoli customers are expected to come directly from the Auraria Campus, the above projection would be reduced to 5,420 vehicles per day.
Using the above capacity figure, this projection results in an average daily parking shortfall of 1,017 vehicles, assuming all remaining patrons arrive by automobile. This parking shortfall represents about 16 percent of the projected daily parking demand for the Tivoli. To the extent that patrons from the downtown area arrive by another means of transportation (bus, walking, or AGT system), this parking shortfall could be eliminated. 1 2 3
1 Information supplied by Mr. Morris Bleviss of Tivoli Development, Ltd., October 17, 1983.
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Handbook, Prentice Hall Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 701. Daily turnover and parking capacity are based on an average parking requirement of 4.4 spaces per
1,000 square feet of specialty shopping center space.
3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation;
Washington, D.C., 1979. Trip generation rates are based on
retail shopping centers of 200,000 to 299,999 square feet, assuming Monday through Saturday operation.
Ill.10


IV. AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTE
ALTERNATIVES AND MARKETS
During the next two decades, the growth of enrollment on the Auraria Campus and employment in the Denver Central Business District are expected to cause the demand for off-street parking to increase significantly. However, as the previous section indicates, the availability of convenient off-street parking to the Auraria Campus and to the Downtown Core is expected to decline, as nearby parking capacity fails to keep up with the growth in parking demand.
Currently, RTD operates shuttle-bus service between the Mile High Stadium parking lot, the Auraria Campus, and downtown Denver (to the Denver Bus Center at 19th and Curtis Streets). The Mile High Shuttle operates 13 round-trips in the morning and afternoon peak periods, Monday through Friday. The shuttle-bus service entails a 30-minute round-trip time, and as of July 1983, carried 148 daily two-way trips.1
One alternative to the Mile High Shuttle is the installation of an automated guideway transit system between the 5,000-space parking facility at the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus, with a possible connection to downtown Denver. Such a system might be able to relieve some of the projected parking shortages described in the previous chapter by attracting a more significant ridership than the Mile High Shuttle due to its higher level of service. This section describes the nature of this AGT alternative to on-campus and CBD parking, defines the various route configurations studied, and identifies the potential markets which could be served.
AGT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
According to Pushkarev,2 AGT systems:
move passengers in small groups abroad small vehicles operating singly or in short trains over a fully grade-separated right-of-way in a fully 1 2
1 Based on data provided by Mr. Richard C. Thomas, Director, Department of Transit Development, Regional Transportation District, October 17, 1983.
2 Pushkarev, Boris S., Urban Rail in America--An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed-Guideway Transit, Regional Plan Association, Indiana University Press; Bloomington, Indiana, 1982, p. xiii.
IV. 1


automatic mode, with no attendants on board. Station platforms are high-level and the stations may be arranged so as to allow non-stop service on demand. In current practice, the systems are typically short (often in a shuttle or loop configuration), and the vehicles tend to be rubber-tired, though other designs are possible. Used in a downtown setting, the systems are [also] referred to as downtown peoplemovers.
For AGT systems in a downtown setting, the minimum existing patronage threshold at which the minimum capital investment is justified ranges from 5,000 passengers per weekday for a low-capital AGT system with a single beam, to 12,000 to 20,000 passengers per weekday for heavier AGT systems of the currently prevalent rubber-tired technology.1 2 * Lightweight AGT systems under development will be possible only in downtowns of 10 to 20 million square feet of non-residential floor space. Currently available, heavier AGT systems will require downtowns with 40 to 70 million square feet of non-residential floor space, provided they are used for internal downtown trips only. 2 By 1985 , Denver's downtown floor area is expected to total about 44 million square feet.3
Typical AGT systems operating in the United States today have average operating speeds of between seven and ten miles per hour, including layover time.4 Exhibit IV-1 illustrates the relationship between annual patronage density and operating speed for AGT systems, as well as other types of mass transit modes operating in the United States. As shown, AGT systems currently serve passenger densities similar to those of light rail systems, but often at significantly lower speeds.
AGT systems are a recent phenomenon in urban mass transit in the United States. In 1966, the prototype was tested in South Park in Pittsburgh. Track-miles of AGT systems (including airport and urban systems, but excluding amusement and intramural systems) have grown from 1.4 miles in 1971 to 25.8 miles in 1980.
Exhibit IV-2 reproduces a table compiled by Pushkarev which shows annual operating data from five existing AGT systems.
1 Pushkarev, op.cit., p. xxi.
2 Ibid, p. xxiv.
2 Denver Planning Office.
4 Pushkarev, op.cit., p. 581.
IV. 2


40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
EXHIBIT IV-1
OPERATING SPEED RELATED TO PATRONAGE DENSITY BY TRANSIT MODE*
/
V
\
COMMUTER RAIL
\
N.Y. Region ave. A
Philadelphia

/
/
/ \
/ \
I RAPID TRANSIT \
/
\
/
/
a
a
\
K-------5-
6
A
Cx

&
\
X
8US
V
V
X
\
\
X
LIGHT RAIL
<
H
cc
u
a
O
/
/ <
\N
\t
v
\
\<
\VP
â–¡5
X
V
\
z
0
x-—2
w NV "HI
< —z
I I II I I I I I I
1.5 2.0
1-1 I I TTT
3 4 5 6 7 8 10
/
I ft&s

/
>
X
IS
5
PEOPLEMOVER
5'
\
\
\
\
\
\
<
5
2
\
K
<
U
3
5
•
>
Z
X
/


T-] I I I I l 1 I . < • > 11'.111
15 20 30 40 =0 60 80 100 150 200
1.0
Annual service volume density, place-miles per line-mile, ml" :ns
' Pushkarev, Boris S., Urban Rail in America - An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed Guideway Tranist, Regional Plan Association, Indiana University; Bloomington, Indiana, 1982, Exhibit 2.3, page 58.
IV.3


EXHIBIT IV-2
SELECTED AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ANNUAL OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS'
Delias See-Tac Tamoa Morgantown Pantanc
A.rtreml (Wests ngnouac) (Wesnngnome) l Boeing) (For* ACT)
1 Year ending 3-77 12-76 12-76 9-77 2-77
PASSENGER USE
2. Annual wurvjtn <000) 6.126 10.100 14000 1.909 250
3 Tno lengtn (mil**) 1.4e 038 0.17 1.82 0.47
4. Annual passenger-miles (000) 8.576 3,636 2.465 3092 118
SERVICE
5. Annual vetisde-niiles (000) 3.746.4 4100 4050 579.5 603
6 Place* per venide
(O 5 38 *o. ft. or 0.5m2) 29.7 64 0 620 195 30.6
7. Annual place-mile* (000) 111.238 26578 25.434 11.128 1.845
8. Passenger-mile* per place mile;
load factor 7.7% 130% 9.7% 27 8% 8.4%
Venide-miles or ven»de-nour:
9. Soetd including layover lOOmpn 8 5mpn SOmpft 9A5mon 9.7m«sA
10. (excluding layover) (95) (80) (160) (1701
11. Wee*day can/tram 1-2 1-2 1 1 1
12. Venide* m service 51 12 3 29 2
13. Annual venide-mile* oer v etude 73.439 34517 50.625 190*3 30.150
14. Numoer of stations (passenger! 28 6 3 3 2
15. Oistance between stoot (mi.) na. (onemrey) 054 0.17 1.1 0.47
TRAFFIC DENSITY
16. line-mile* (equivalent) 6.4 005 0.7 2.1 OO
16a. Trac* miles 123 1.7 1.4 53 0.6
17. Place mil as/line mile (000) 173*1 30015 36334 55** 3090
1340 457* 3321 1,472 23*
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
(tnd. contract services)
19. Veftide operation 10 7.5 2 12 nj.
20. Venide maintenance 75 130 6 ♦ 5e I 29 n4.
21. Way & Power 23 - - 1 ha
22. Station 35* ♦ 4e** 2t** 2* ** le** "4.
23. Administrative 13 1 1 9 14
24. TOTAL 160 24 16 51 10
EMPLOYEE RATIOS
29. TOTAL emolovees/venide 3.1 20 20 10 so
EMPLOYEE OUTPUT
30. Place-miici/emeloyee (000) 696 1.096 1090. 216 1*4
31. Passenger mile*./employee (000) 54 152 154 61 12
EMPLOYEES NEEDED
Per million place-miiaa o1 temos
32. Vetude ooeration 0090 1 079
33. Venide maintenance 0374 } 2.606
34 Way & Power 0507
35. Station 0350 0.090
36. Administration 0.117 0.809
37 TOTAL 1 438 0013 0.629 4 584 5 420
per million oiace-na. of service:
38. VetMde ooeration 050 10.41
39. Venide mamtenance 6.74
40 Way & Power 207 | 25.99
41. Station 3.50
42. Administrative 1.17 7 80
43. TOTAL 143* 749 45* 4450 S20
ENERGY USE kwh/piacevnite
44. Venide ooeration only 00529 0.0457 n.a. n.a. n.a.
45 Venide and wayside 0.0945 00818 0.1014 0.2606 0.1951
46. Snowmelting 4.952 8tu gas 0 4336 l
TOTAL 0 * M cost m 1976 S 2.957.6 7515 478.5 1.365.9 395.0
0 ♦ M/oiace-miie 0.0265 0.0285 0.0188 0.1228 0.214
• Station oenonnet on Amrans consists ot
1 Pushkarev, Boris S. Urban Rail in America â–  An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed Guideway Transit,
Regional Plan Association, Indiana University Press; Bloomington, Indiana, 1982, Table A-6, Park IV, page 262.
IV. 4


AGT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
The AGT system proposed by the Auraria Higher Education Center is a single line, automated shuttle operation using small vehicles of 10- to 20-seat capacity. The service would run on minimum five-minute headways, at an operating speed of 15 to 20 miles per hour. Four basic route alternatives are considered in this study, plus two variations of one alternative.
Exhibit IV-3 lists the six route alternatives considered in this study, along with their system characteristics.
Exhibit IV-4 shows the location of the various stations associated with the six route alternatives.
Each route alternative connects the Sports Complex with the Auraria Campus, including the first alternative which serves only these two areas. Four route alternatives include an additional link which connects the Auraria Campus to the Denver CBD, with the downtown station positioned at various locations along the 16th Street Transit Mall. One route alternative ends at the Performing Arts Center, on the periphery of the CBD.
AGT SYSTEM MARKETS
Given the route alternatives listed in Exhibit IV-3, the proposed AGT System would have seven primary markets. These markets include:
. Auraria Campus students and employees who require parking facilities on or near campus.
. Auraria Campus students and employees who wish to travel between the campus and the Denver CBD.
. Downtown Denver employees who require parking facilities in the vicinity of the following downtown locations:
. 16th and Market Streets;
. 16th and California Streets;
. 16th and Broadway Streets; or
. 14th and Curtis Streets (Performing Arts Center).
. Tivoli patrons who require nearby parking facilities, when adjacent customer parking lots are full.
IV. 5


EXHIBIT IV-3
AURARIA AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES—SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Route Terminals Stations Route Length (Feet) Travel Time (Including Dwell Time-Minutes)
Sports Complex-Auraria Campus Sports Complex
Auraria Campus 6,000 6,000 4.00 4.00
Sports Complex-16th & Market — Sports Complex — —
Streets - Auraria Campus 6,000 4.00
16th & Market Streets 3.000 9.000 2.00 6.00
Sports Complex-16th & — Sport Complex — —
California Streets Via - Auraria Campus 6,000 4.00
Performing Arts Center - Performing Arts Center 2,000 1.40
16th & California Streets 3,000 11,000 2.00 7.40
Sports Complex-16th & — Sports Complex — —
California Streets - Auraria Campus 6,000 4.00
16th & California Streets 5,000 11,000 3.15 7.15
Sports Complex-Performing — Sports Complex — —
Arts Center - Auraria Campus 6,000 4.00
Performing Arts Center 2,000 8,000 1.40 5.40
Sports Complex-16th & — Sports Complex — —
Broadway Streets - Auraria Campus 6,000 4.00
16th & Broadway Streets 6,000 12,000 3.75 7.75


EXHIBIT IV-4
AURARIA
AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES STATION LOCATIONS
IV. 7


. Performing Arts Center patrons who require nearby parking facilities, particularly in the evening when multiple events are scheduled and the resulting parking demand exceeds the capacity of adjacent parking facilities.
. Mile High Stadium patrons who require nearby parking facilities when the Sports Complex parking lots are full.
. NcNichols Arena patrons who require nearby parking facilities when the Sports Complex parking lots are full.
As shown in Exhibit IV-5, each route alternative being considered in this study is expected to serve a somewhat different group of markets, and therefore each is expected to attract a somewhat different level of patronage for the AGT system.
IV. 8


EXHIBIT IV-5
AURARIA AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKETS BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE
Potential Markets AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Sports Complex to Sports Complex sports Complex to Performing Arts Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports complex to to Auraria 16th 6 Market Center to 16th 6 16th & California Performing Arts 16th 6 Broadway Campus streets California Streets Streets Center streets
Auraria Campus Students and Employees X • X X X X X
Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver Downtown Denver Commuting Employees: X X X X X
. 16th 6 Market Streets X
. 16th 6 California Streets X X
. Performing Arts Center X X
. 16th 6 Broadway Streets X
Tivoli Patrons XXX XX X
Performing Arts Center Pa trons X X
Mile High Stadium Patrons XXX XX X
McNichols Arena patrons X X


V. AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET ASSESSMENT
The previous sections of this report identify the nature of the overall parking problems facing both the Auraria Campus, the Denver CBD, and other nearby major traffic generators, and describe the proposed AGT system which could link areas of parking surplus with those areas expected to experience parking shortages in the near future.
This section describes in more detail specific assumptions and methodologies used to estimate the potential usage and revenues of the proposed AGT system, as well as the Sports Complex parking facility.
Appendix A contains additional information regarding the characteristics and attitudes of area parkers based on an extensive parking survey conducted in October 1983 on the Auraria Campus and in six downtown parking facilities.
Appendix B describes in detail the Peat Marwick parker allocation model used to determine the proportion of parkers who might park at the Sports Complex parking facility and use the AGT system.
AURARIA CAMPUS AND DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MARKETS
Projections of a decline in the supply of off-street
parking on the Auraria Campus, coupled with a growth in campus enrollment, are expected to result in a net parking shortfall by the year 2005 of over 4,600 vehicles per day. Likewise, the projected growth of the Denver CBD is expected to result in
increasing shortages of convenient parking for persons
travelling to the core of the Denver CBD. How much of this projected parking shortfall might be met by the proposed AGT is estimated by applying a parker allocation model, developed by Peat Marwick and previously applied in the Los Angeles CBD. The model determines parking demand for a particular parking
facility, based on such factors as:
. walking distance between the parking facility and
the final destination;
. walking time between the parking facility and the
final destination;
. parking cost; and
. accessibility of the parking facility.
V. 1


If one or more of the available parking facilities in the area is accessible via a direct transit link, such as an automated guideway transit system, then the following additional factors are incorporated in the model:
. vehicle travel time between the parking facility station and the destination station;
. wait time for boarding a vehicle at the parking facility station; and
. transit system fare.
For each parking facility alternative, the appropriate values of each of these travel characteristics is estimated and input to the parker allocation model, which then establishes a value of travel utility for each alternative. The relative utilities of the alternatives form the basis for estimating the proportion of vehicles which will likely use each parking facility.
For this study, the area immediately surrounding each possible station location associated with various AGT system route alternatives under consideration (with the exception of the Sports Complex station) represents the primary market for the AGT system. Each area is divided into several concentric zones, as shown in Exhibit V-l for the Auraria Campus and Exhibits V-2 through V-5 for each downtown AGT system station location:
. The inner zone contains the target market and those parking facilities closest to the target market, typically within two to two and a half blocks from the station.
. The second zone surrounds the inner zone and contains parking facilities within an average of four to five blocks from the station.
. Where applicable, parking facilities beyond the second zone are contained in a third zone.
The parker allocation model, which is applied to each of these zones for each station location, provides an estimate of the
percentage of parkers who would use the AGT system and park at
the Sports Complex parking facility or would park in each of the
various zones.
The estimated parking demand associated with each AGT system station is shown in Exhibit V-6. The Auraria Campus
estimates are based on data contained in Exhibit III-5 and described in Section III. The Denver CBD estimates reflect the
V. 2


EXHIBIT V-l
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING LOT ZONES
V. 3


EXHIBIT V-2
16th & MARKET STREETS STATION
PARKING ZONES


EXHIBIT V-3
16th & CALIFORNIA STREETS STATION
PARKING ZONES


EXHIBIT V-4
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER STATION
PARKING ZONES


EXHIBIT V-5
16th & BROADWAY STREETS STATION
PARKING ZONES


EXHIBIT V-6
PROJECTED DAILY DEMAND FOR OFF-STREET PARKING BY STATION AREA1
Station Area 1985 1995 2005
Auraria Campus (Fall/Spring)2 9,390 10,490 11,030
Auraria Campus (Summer)2 4,170 4,660 4,900
16th & Market Streets2 1,880 3,080 5,060
16th Sc California Streets2 15,100 19,290 24,650
Performing Arts Center (Excluding area accounted for by 16th Sc California Streets station area)2 980 2 ,840 8,180
Performing Arts Center (If the AGT system ends at the Performing Arts Center)2 9,130 12,880 18,170
16th Sc Broadway Streets2 11,180 12,710 14,450
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
2 Based upon an estimated average daily parking rate of 9,000 vehicles in 1983 during the fall and spring, 4,000 vehicles in 1983 during the summer, and a 2.14 percent average annual growth rate in parking demand between 1983 and 1986, and
1.00 percent average annual growth rate in parking demand between 1987 and 2000, and no growth thereafter.
2 Based on projected employment, and assumed auto modal split proportion of 72 percent, auto occupancy rate of 1.3, and parking turnover rate of 1.7 for long-term parking in downtown Denver lots and garages; whereby;
Daily Parking Demand = (Projected Employment) x (Auto Use Proportion)
(Auto Occupancy) x (Parking Turnover)
V. 8


projected employment base and travel characteristics of persons located within two blocks of each station location. Only 80 percent of estimated demand by downtown parkers is considered for application to the AGT system, since 20 percent of these parkers originate their trips east of the downtown area and probably would not use the Sports Complex parking facility because extra travel is required.1
Exhibit V-7 lists the various source data upon which the above estimates of Denver CBD parking demand are based for each station location.
The parking spaces associated with each station area zone are listed in Exhibit V-8. These capacities are based on the inventory of off-street parking facilities contained in the 1981 Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. for the Denver Planning Office, and expanded using the growth factors described in Section III.
A comparison of Exhibits V-6 and V-8 reveals that ample total parking capacity is expected to be available for the four downtown station locations. However, much of the projected parking capacity is expected to occur in the less convenient outer zones. Projections show that, as early as 1985, the Auraria Campus parking supply will be insufficient to meet the parking needs of fall and spring semester students and campus employees.
The parker allocation model, when applied to the various parking lot zones described above, shows that parking facilities located closest to the destination of the parker are expected to be preferred to more distant facilities, including the AGT system (Exhibit V-9). It is therefore assumed that these facilities would probably be filled by the parking demand. As the innermost parking facilities are filled, parkers will be required to walk farther to find available parking space, and the longer the distance, the more attractive alternative parking arrangements become. Therefore, projections are that subsequent parking allocations increasingly favor the use of the AGT system alternative.
When applied to parking supply and demand data for each AGT system station area shown in Exhibits V-6 and V-8, the overall allocation of parking demand to each station zone is as shown in
1 Denver Regional Council of Governments, 20BC Highway Data
Set Jl; Denver, Colorado, June 25, 1983 (including Denver
metropolitan .area travel by origin and destination zone). This data was confirmed by the parking survey detailed in Appendix A.
V. 9


EXHIBIT V-7
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING DEMAND PROJECTION FACTORS BX STATION LOCATION
Station Location 1980 Employment* 2000 Employment* Average Annual Growth Rate DRCOG Traffic Analysis zones Percent Urban Auto Trips1 2 Auto Occupancy Parking Spa< Turnover’
16th 6 Market Streets 4,492 12,111 5.0844 62,63,64,65 72% 1.3 1.7
16th k California Streets 40,996 62,928 2.481% 68,69,72,73 72% 1.3 1.7
Performing Arts Center (Excluding area accounted for by 16th 6 California Streets station area) 1,785 14,796 11.154% 70,71 72% 1.3 1.7
Performing Arts Center (If the AGT system ends at the Performing Arts Center) 23,607 46,960 3.499% 69,70,71,72 72% 1.3 1.7
16th & Broadway Streets 32,172 41,595 1.293% 75,76,98,99 72% 1.3 1.7
<
h-* O
1 Denver Regional Council of Governments, TF 1980 and TG 2000 Zonal Data Sets; Denver, Colorado, August 12, 1983.
2 Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver Central Business District Travel Characteristics; Denver, Colorado, August 1982.
2 Colorado Department of Highways, Denver and Boulder Annual Auto Occupancy Studyi Denver, Colorado, August 1983, page 2.
Leigh, Scott 6 Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office; Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, page 12 (off-street parking lots and garages only).
4


EXHIBIT V-8
PROJECTED OFF-STREET STATION PARKING LOCATION CAPACITIES BY
Station Location 1985 1995 2005
Auraria Campus* 2 Inner Lots Middle Lots Outer Lots Subtotal 3,780 2,530 1,650 7,960 2,820 1,950 1,650 6,420 2,820 1,950 1,650 6,420
16th & Market Streets3 Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Subtotal 3,960 8,000 TT75TU 4,120 11,090 15,210 4,290 15,390 19,680
16th & California Streets3 Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Subtotal 5,380 15,720 21,100 5,600 21,820 27,420 5,840 30,270 36,110
Performing Arts Center3 Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Subtotal 3,310 10,670 13,980 3,450 14,810 18,260 3,600 20,550 24,150
16th & Broadway Streets3 Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages 4,410 9,620 4,590 13,350 4,780 18,520
Subtotal 14,030 17,940 23,300
^ The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or.usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
2 Based on no new parking facilities being built on the Auraria Campus and the projected loss of certain existing lots, according to the Auraria Higher Education Center. Assume a turnover rate of 1.96 vehicles per space for Auraria campus parking facilities.
3 Based on 1980 supply of off-street parking in downtown Denver, according to Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. for the Denver Planning Office, Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, Figure 3. Inner lots and garages are assumed to be within two and one-half blocks of the listed station area, while outer lots and garages are between two and one-half and five blocks of the listed station area. Parking supply is projected to future years using average annual growth factors of 1.0041 for inner lots and garages and 1.0333 for outer lots and garages. These projection factors are based on the relative growth rates for central CBD and general downtown parking facilities, respectively, during the period 1970 to 1981, according to information contained in Table 2 of the study referenced above.
V. 11


EXHIBIT V-9
PARKING CHOICE ALLOCATION FACTORS BY STATION LOCATION1
Station Location
First Second Third
Iteration Iteration Iteration
Auraria Campus Inner Lots Middle Lots Outer Lots Sports Complex/AGT Downtown Lots
16th & Market Streets
Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT
16th & California Streets and Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT
16th & California Streets Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT
Performing Arts Center
Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT
16th & Broadway Streets
Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT
100.0% - -
- 84.1% -
- 1.1% 6.9%
- 10.3% 65.0%
- 4 .5% 28.1%
100.0% - -
- 62.5% —
- 37.5% -
100.0% - -
- 62.0% —
- 38.0% -
100 .0% - -
- 61.5% -
- 38.5% -
100 .0% - -
- 59.8% -
- 40.2% -
100 .0% - -
- 60.3% -
- 39.7% -
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
V. 12


Exhibit V—10. These results indicate significant AGT system usage by Auraria Campus students and employees, particularly during the peak fall and spring semesters. The allocation of Auraria Campus student parking demand to the AGT system is believed to be conservative since it is based on the behavior of downtown commuters, who typically are willing to pay more for parking to reduce their walking distance. Students usually are sensitive to parking costs and willing to walk to find a low-cost parking arrangement. Rather than modify the existing parker allocation model, this study applied the model in its current form for both Auraria Campus and downtown Denver parkers.
Most downtown station areas have a 25- to 32-percent allocation of parking demand to the AGT system. Only the 16th & Market Streets station location indicates a low AGT system usage rate. This low usage rate is caused by the higher availability of convenient off-street parking and the lower level of development in this area of the Denver CBD, as compared to the areas surrounding the intersections of 16th and California Streets and 16th and Broadway.
The results of this allocation of Auraria Campus and Denver CBD parking demand to the AGT system are presented in Section VI.
AURARIA CAMPUS/DOWNTOWN MARKET
Additional Auraria Campus demand for the proposed AGT system would be possible if the system extends into the Denver CBD. This additional market would consist of downtown employees who take Auraria classes part-time, and campus students or employees who would use the system to travel between campus and the Denver CBD for shopping, business, or recreation purposes. These AGT riders would not need to park at the Sports Complex parking facility, since they would already have parked their cars on campus or downtown, or arrived by transit.
The extent of this potential market is estimated by assuming 5 percent of the Auraria Campus students and employees make a trip between the campus and downtown each day, and that half of these use the AGT system, assuming it is available. Estimates in the report assume that, currently, about 12,000 students and 1,200 employees are on campus each day during the fall and spring semesters and 5,000 students and 500 employees are on campus each day during the summer session. The part-time student market is estimated on the basis of 20 percent of the current campus parkers originating their trips at work, with half coming from the downtown CBD and half of these using the AGT system.
V. 13


EXHIBIT V-10
PARKING CHOICE ALLOCATION BY STATION AREA1 RESULTS
Station Area 1985 1995 2005
Auraria Campus (Fall & Spring) Inner Lots Middle Lots Outer Lots Sports Complex/AGT Downtown Lots 40.2% 27.0% 2.3% 21.2% 9.3% 26.9% 18.5% 3.8% 35.4% 15.4% 25.6% 17.6% 3.9% 36.9% 16.0%
Auraria Campus (Summer) Inner Lots Middle Lots Outer Lots Sports Complex/AGT Downtown Lots 90.5% 8.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.5% 60.5% 33.2% 0.4% 4.1% 1.8% 57.5% 35.7% 0.5% 4.4% 1.9%
16th & Market Streets Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 100.0% 100.0% 84.9% 9.4% 5.7%
16th & California Streets and Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 39.6% 37.5% 22.9% 38.1% 38.4% 23.5% 28.7% 43.9% 27.4%
16th & California Streets Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 35.6% 39.6% 24.8% 29.0% 43.7% 27.3% 23.7% 46.9% 29.4%
Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 36.3% 38.1% 25.6% 26.8% 43.8% 29.4% 19.8% 48.0% 32.2%
16th & Broadway Streets Inner Lots and Garages Outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 39.4% 36.5% 24.1% 36.1% 38.5% 25.4% 33.1% 40.3% 26.6%
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
V. 14


TIVOLI MARKET
Projected parking capacity shortfall at the Tivoli, described in Section III, is assumed to use the AGT system, with half the 1,017 vehicles per day parking at the Sports Complex and the other half parking near a downtown AGT station. The resulting projection of Tivoli patrons using the AGT system is equivalent to the number of Tivoli patrons expected to originate among the downtown Denver work force.
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PATRONS
The seating capacity of the Performing Arts Center is 6,580. If an auto occupancy rate of 2 persons per vehicle is
assumed, the maximum parking requirement is 3,290. The Performing Arts Center is served by a 1,750-space parking
garage, plus a 750-space parking facility nearby. Thus, a parking shortfall of 765 spaces results whenever the Performing Arts Center is full. The estimates of AGT system usage by Performing Arts Center patrons assume an overflow parking
situation 120 days a year (as indicated in Exhibit II-6) and assume 45 percent of the overflow parks at the Sports Complex and rides the AGT system (as indicated by the recent parking survey described in Appendix A).
MILE HIGH STADIUM MARKET
The Sports Complex often faces a parking shortage when events take place at the Mile High Stadium, particularly football games and special events. For this study, it is assumed that: (1) 1,000 vehicles per event park at the Auraria Campus, (2) another 1,000 vehicles per event park at the Performing Arts Center garage (if served by the AGT system), with the occupants completing their trips by means of the AGT system, and (3) 55 events per year require additional parking, as indicated in Exhibit II-6.
MCNICHOLS ARENA MARKET
The McNichols Arena sponsors events which require additional parking approximately 68 times a year (as indicated in Exhibit II-6). For this study, it is assumed that 1,000 vehicles per event park at the Performing Arts Center garage, if served by the AGT system, with the occupants completing their trips by means of the AGT system. Parking at the Auraria Campus is not contemplated since most arena events occur at the same time that the campus is operating, and it has already been shown that inadequate on-campus parking will exist while the various colleges are in session.
V. 15


GENERAL MARKET ASSUMPTIONS
The market projections for the AGT system and Sports Complex parking facility are converted into annualized estimates of patronage using the market assumptions in Exhibit V-ll. Projected revenues for the AGT system, Sports Complex parking facility, and Auraria Campus parking lots are based on the rate schedule shown in Exhibit V-12. These rates are in 1983 dollars. Revenue projections for 1985, 1995, and 2005 are based on an assumed inflation rate of 6.1 percent per year, which represents the average annual change in downtown Denver parking rates between 1970 and 1981.1
The Auraria Campus parking rates listed in Exhibit V-12 reflect fees which would have been in effect in 1983 if additional parking capacity had been developed on campus or the AGT system had been installed. 1
1 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office, Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, p. 9.
V. 16


EXHIBIT V-lI
GENERAL AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET ASSUMPTIONS
Market AGT System Use Sports Complex Parking Use Auto Occupancy Days Per Yea
Auraria Campus Students and Employees . Fall and Spring Semesters X X 1.05 150
. Summer Session X X 1.05 50
Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver . Fall and Spring Semesters X N/A 150
. Summer Session X N/A 50
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees . 16th & Market Streets X X 1.3 240
. 16th & California Streets X X 1.3 240
. Performing Arts Center X X 1.3 240
. 16th & Broadway Streets X X 1.3 240
Tivoli Patrons X X 1.3 300
Performing Arts Center Patrons X X 2.0 120
Mile High Stadium Patrons X 3.0 55
McNichols Arena Patrons X 2.5 68


EXHIBIT V-12
RATE SCHEDULE FOR AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM, AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING, SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING, AND DOWNTOWN PARKING1 (1983 Dollars)
Auraria Campus2 . AGT Fare (one-way) . Parking Rate Per Day - Sports Complex - Inner Lots - Middle Lots - Outer Lots - Downtown2 * 1983 $0.25 $0.25 $3.00 $2.00 $1.50 $3.60
All Others
. AGT Fare (one-way)1 $0.50
. Parking Rate Per Day-5
. Sports Complex - Parking Lots $1.00
. 16th & Market - Inner Area $3.30
- Outer Area $1.65
. 16th & California - Inner Area $5.10
- Outer Area $2.55
. Performing Arts - Inner Area $3.60
Center - Outer Area $1.80
. 16th & Broadway - Inner Area $6.00
- Outer Area $3.00
1 AGT system fares and parking rate projections to the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 are based on an annual inflation rate of
6.1 percent.
2 Auraria students and employees receive a lower rate of $0.75
per person, round-trip, for using the AGT System and Sports Center parking lots. These rates are based on estimates supplied by Auraria Higher Education Center, assuming the addition of parking capacity through the construction of on-campus parking facilities or the AGT system.
2 These rates are based on current average parking rates for off-street parking facilities within two blocks of each station location, according to data contained in Downtown
Denver Parking Study, prepared for Denver Civic Ventures, Inc., by Frazer Consulting, June 2, 1983.
v. 18


VI. MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTS
This section presents the results of the market assessment for the proposed Auraria automated guideway transit system. Projections of total AGT system ridership and revenues are presented for each of the six route alternatives described in Section IV, for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005. These projections are also disaggregated by market segment. Projections are presented for use of the Sports Complex parking facility by AGT system riders for each route alternative by year. These projections of parking usage and revenues are also disaggregated by market segment. Finally, the usage and revenues derived from Auraria Campus parkers are presented by year.
These projections are based on the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of such projections may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrences of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET PROJECTIONS
The projections of annual AGT system ridership and revenues by route alternative and year are presented in Exhibit VI-1 and displayed graphically in Exhibit VI-2. Highlights from this exhibit are:
. The highest volume route alternative extends from the Sports Complex to the intersection of 16th and California Streets, via the Auraria Campus and the Performing Arts Center.
. The next two most frequently used route alternatives are the Sports Complex to the intersection of 16th and California Streets, without a station at the Performing Arts Center; and the Sports Complex to the Performing Arts Center. The latter captures almost 80 percent of the ridership associated with the highest volume route, but without the need to enter the core of the downtown CBD.
. Two other route alternatives, ending at the intersections of 16th and Market Streets and 16th and Broadway, are expected to generate significantly less ridership for the AGT system than the California Street location, particularly in later years. This lack of ridership is caused by the higher density of employment in the vicinity of
vi. i


EXHIBIT VI-1
PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP SUMMARY BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(Thousands)
Annual AGT Ridership Annual AGT Revenues
Route Alternative 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005
Sports Complex to Auraria Campus 1,359 1,917 2,030 $589 $1,322 $2,648
Sports Complex to 16th St Market Streets 2,035 2,626 2,898 $891 $1,875 $3,974
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th & California Streets 4,714 6,058 8,078 $2,365 $5,307 $13,558
Sports Complex to 16th St California Streets 3,903 5,257 6,370 $1,919 $4,505 $10,398
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center 3,759 5,041 6,186 $1,909 $4,446 $10,336
Sports Complex to 16th St Broadway Streets 3,377 4,235 4,671 $1,629 $3,484 $7,254
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


EXHIBIT VI-2
<
H
U>
1985
1995
2005
ANNUAL AGT RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE
10 r

cc
tu
Q
CC
t—
o
<
V)
z
o
10
—- — CQ
CQ C
X x a> X "3 x o X
0) a> -x ® E
a CL (0 CL O CL
E E 5 E o £ E o E
O (0 o „ O <0 o o
° '£ CO o 08 o < o o o <
<0 2 3 « £ CO ■4* w o- «8 <0 co £ CO r = V. CO a> t ° r- ® r £ CD t o
o < E O T“ CD o Q £ s O r- a> o o
m2 <0 O w 2 (O CL _ CD (/) 2 r- 55 co 2 09 w 2
- 2
The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the Information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of
Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets


California Street coupled with the greater relative abundance of parking at the periphery of the 16th Street Mall, particularly in the vicinity of Market Street.
. The least prolific route alternative is the more limited connection between the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus. This lack of ridership is caused by the absence of downtown commuters coupled with the slowdown in campus growth in later years of the projections.
Exhibits VI-3, VI-4, and VI-5 list the volume of AGT system ridership by market segment for each route alternative for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005, respectively. These exhibits indicate the relative contribution of each market to the ridership projections shown in Exhibit VI-1. The significance
of commuters from downtown who use the AGT system is
demonstrated by the large number of riders listed under the
routes ending at the 16th Street Mall.
Overall, about two-thirds of the projected AGT ridership is derived from Auraria Campus students and employees and downtown commuter employees. The remaining one-third derives from the
various entertainment facilities which surround the Auraria Campus.
SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING MARKET PROJECTIONS
Projections for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 of annual parking usage and revenues resulting from AGT system riders parking at the Sports Complex parking facility are presented in Exhibit VI-6 and displayed graphically in Exhibit VI-7. These projections are for each route alternative under study.
As with the AGT system ridership figures described earlier, the largest volume of Sports Complex parkers is projected for the route ending at 16th and California Streets, with a station at the Performing Arts Center. The remaining route alternatives reflect relative parking usage and revenue levels similar to the usage levels indicated for the AGT system in Exhibit VI-1.
Exhibits VI-8, VI-9, and VI-10 list the volume of Sports Complex parking facility usage by market segment for each route alternative, for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005, respectively. These exhibits indicate the predominant use of the facility by downtown Denver employees for those route alternatives which end at the intersection of 16th and California Streets or the Performing Arts Center. Auraria Campus students and employees are the predominate users of the facility for those route alternatives which end at the Auraria Campus or the intersection of 16th and Market Streets.
VI. 4


EXHIBIT VI-3
PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(1985—Thousands)
Potential Markets
Sports Complex to Auraria Campus_________
Sports Complex to 16th A Market _____Streets______
___________AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES___________________________________________________
Sports Complex to Performing
Arts Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to
16th A California 16th A California Performing Arts 16th A Broadway
Streets________________Streets______________Center_________________Streets______
Auraria Campus Students
and Employees 632 (46.5%) 632 (31.1%) 632 (13.4%) 632 (16.2%) 632 (16.8%) 632 (18.7%)
Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver — — 280 (13.7%) 280 (6.0%) 280 (7.2%) — — 280 (8.3%)
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees: . 16th A Market Streets
. 16th A California Streets — — -- — 1,844 (39.1%) 1,868 (47.9%) — — —
. Performing Arts Center — — — — — — — — 1,169 (31.1%) — —
. 16th A Broadway Streets — — — — — — — — — — 1,342 (39.7%)
Tivoli Patrons 397 (29.2%) 793 (39.0%) 793 (16.8%) 793 (20.3%) 793 (21.1%) 793 (23.5%)
Performing Arts Center Patrons — — — — 165 (3.5%) — — 165 (4.4%) — —
Mile High Stadium Patrons 330 (24.3%) 330 (16.2%) 660 (14.0%) 330 (8.4%) 660 (17.6%) 330 (9.8%)
McNichols Arena Patrons — — — — 340 (7.2%) — — 340 (9.0%) — —
Total Annual Ridershlp 1,359 (100.0%) 2,035 (100.0%) 4,714 (100.0%) 3,903 (100.0%) 3,759 (100.0%) 3,377 (100.0%
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any
economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events
which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


EXHIBIT VI-4
PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(1995—Thousands)
____________________________________________________AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES_________________________________________________
Sports Complex to Performing Arts
Sports Complex Sports Complex to Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to
to Auraria 16th & Market 16th & California 16th 6 California Performing Arts 16th 6 Broadway
Potential Markets_____________Campus_______________Streets_______________Streets________________Streets_______________Center Streets _____
Auraria Campus students
and Employees 1,191 (62.1») 1,191 (45.3%) 1,191 (19.7%) 1,191 (22.7%) 1,191 (23.6%) 1,191 (28.1%)
Auraria Campus Travel
to/from Downtown Denver — — 312 (11.9%) 312 (5.1%) 312 (5.9%) — — 312 (7.4%)
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees:
. 16th 6 Market Streets —
. 16th 6 California Streets — -- — — 2,597 (42.9%) 2,631 <»* o o m — — — —
. Performing Arts Center — — — — — — — — 1,892 (37.5%) — —
. 16th & Broadway Streets — — — — — — -- — 1,609 (38.0%)
Tivoli Patrons 396 (20.7%) 793 (30.2%) 793 (13.1%) 793 (15.1%) 793 (15.7%) 793 (18.7%)
Performing Arts Center
Patrons — — — — 165 (2.7%) — — 165 (3.3%) — —
Mile High Stadium Patrons 330 (17.2%) 330 (12.6%) 660 (10.9%) 330 (6.3%) . 660 (13.1%) 330 (7.8%)
McNichols Arena Patrons — — — 340 (5.6%) — — 340 (6.8%) — —
Total Annual Vehicles 1,917 (100.Ot) 2,626 (100.0%) 6,058 (100.0%) 5,257 (100.0%) 5,041 (100.0%) 4,235 (100.0%)
The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the infcreation and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any
economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events
which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary fjrom the projections, and such variations could be material.


EXHIBIT VI-5
PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(2005—Thousands)
AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
Potential Markets Sports Complex to Auraria Campus Sports complex to 16th 6 Market Streets Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th 6 California Streets Sports Complex to 16th 6 California Streets Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center Sports Complex to 16th <> Broadway Streets
Auraria Campus Students and Employees 1,304 (64.2%) 1,304 (45.0%) 1,304 (16.1%) 1,304 (20.5%) 1,304 (21.1%) 1,304 (27.9%)
Auraria Campus Travel to/frou Downtown Denver — — 328 (11.3%) 328 (4.1%) 328 (5.1%) — — 328 (7.0%)
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees:
. 16th 6 Market Streets . 16th 6 California Streets . Performing Arts Center . 16th 6 Broadway Streets — — 143 (4.9%) 3,568 920 (44.2%) (11.4%) 3,615 (56.8%) 2,924 (47.3%) 1,916 (41.0%)
Tivoli Patrons 396 (19.5%) 793 (27.4%) 791 (9.8%) 793 (12.4%) 793 (12.8%) 793 (17.0%)
Performing Arts Center Patrons — — — — 165 (2.0%) — — 165 (2.6%) — —
Mile High Stadium Patrons 330 (16.3%) 330 (11.4%) 660 (8.2%) 330 (5.2%) 660 (10.7%) 330 (7.1%)
McNlchols Arena Patrons — — — — 340 (4.2%) — — 340 (5.5%) — —
Total Annual Vehicles 2,0 30 (100.0%) 2,898 (100.0%) 8,078 (100.0%) 6,370 (100.0%) 6,186 (100.0%) 4,671 (100.0%)
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any
economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events
which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


EXHIBIT VI-6
PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING SUMMARY BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(Thousands)
Annual Vehicles Parked Annual Parking Revenues
Route Alternative 1985 1995 2005" 1585 1995 2005
Sports Complex to Auraria Campus 454 720 774 $258 $589 $1,185
Sports Complex to 16th & Market Streets 454 720 829 $258 $589 $1,389
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th & California Streets 1,204 1,760 2,541 $1,084 $2,669 $7,725
Sports Complex to 16th & California Streets 1,172 1,732 2,164 $1,049 $2,612 $6,330
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center 945 1,489 1,940 $798 $2,127 $5,499
Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets 970 1,339 1,511 $826 $1,826 $3,912
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis ot the information and assumptions set forth In this report. The achievement of anv
ro -A
o CO CO
o CO 00
U1 cn cn
Sports Complex To Auraria Campus
6 ' IA
MILLIONS OF VEHICLES PARKED
CO
"I
Sports Complex to 16th & Market Streets
Sports Complex to DCPA to 16th & California Streets
I
Sports Complex to 16th & California Streets
Sports Complex to DCPA
Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets
1
J
CO
o
to
ANNUAL SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING USAGE BY AGT RIDERS BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE


VI. 10
EXHIBIT VI-8
PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(1985—Thousands)
Potential Markets
Sports Complex to Aurarla Campus________
AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
Sports complex to 16th & Market _____Streets______
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th 6 California Streets__________â– 
Sports Complex to 16th 6 California Streets___________
Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Performing Arts 16th & Broadway
_____Center______________Streets______
Aurarla Campus students
and Employees 301 (66.3%)
Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees:
. 16th 6 Market Streets . 16th % California Streets . Performing Arts Center . 16th i Broadway Streets
Tivoli Patrons 153 (33.7%)
Performing Arts Center Patrons
Mile High Stadium Patrons McNichols Arena Patrons
Total Annual Vehicles 454 (100.0%)
301 (66.3%) 301 (25.0%) 301
— -- 709 (58.9%) 719
153 (33.7%) 153 (12.7%) 153
— — 41 (3.4%) —
454 (100.0%) 1,204 (100.0%) 1,172
(25.7%) 301 (31.9%) 301 (31.0%)
(61.3%) 450 (47.6%) 516 (53.2%)
(13.0%) 153 (16.2%) 153 (15.8%)
41 (4.3%)
(100.0%) 945 (100.0%) 970 (100.0%)
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any
economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events
which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


VI. 11
EXHIBIT. VI-9
PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(1995—Thousands)
Sports Complex Sports Complex to
to Auraria 16th 6 Market
Potential Markets Campus_______________Streets
Auraria Campus Students
and Employees 567 (78.8%) 567 (78.8%)
Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees:
. 16th 6 Market streets . 16th & California Streets . Performing Arts Center . 16th & Broadway Streets
Tivoli Patrons 153 (21.2%) 153 (21.2%)
Performing Arts Center Patrons
Mile High Stadium Patrons McNichols Arena Patrons
Total Annual Vehicles
720 (100.0%) 720 (100.0%)
___________AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES_______
Sports Complex to Performing Arts
Center to Sports Complex to
16th & California 16th 6 California
Streets_______________streets
567 (32.2%) 567 (32.8%)
999 (56.8%) 1,012 (58.4%)
153 (8.7%) 153 (8.8%)
41 (2.3%) — —
1,760 (100.0%) 1,732 (100.0%)
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center Sports Complex to 16th 6 Broadway Streets
567 (38.1%) 567 (42.4%)
728 (48.9%) 619 (46.2%)
153 (10.3%) 153 (11.4%)
41 (2.7%) — —
L, 4 89 (100.0%) 1,339 (100.0%)
The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any
economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events
which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
1


VI. 12
EXHIBIT VI-10
PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE1
(2005—Thousands)
Potential Markets
Sports Complex to Aurarla Campus________
Sports Complex to 16th 6 Market _____Streets______
___________AGT ROUTE
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th i California ____Streets__________
ALTERNATIVES
Sports Complex to 16th t California Streets___________
Sports Complex to Performing Arts _____Center_______
Sports Complex to 16th t Broadway ____Streets_______
Aurarla Campus Students
and Employees 621 (80.2%) 621 (74.9%)
Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver
Downtown Denver Commuting Employees:
. 16th 6 Market Streets — — 55 (6.6%)
. 16th & California streets . Performing Arts Center . 16th i Broadway Streets
Tivoli Patrons 153 (19.8%) 153 (18.5%)
Performing Arts Center Pattons
Mile High Stadium Patrons McNichols Arena Patrons
Total Annual Vehicles 774 (100.0%) 829 (100.0%) 1
621 (24.5%) 621 (28.7%) 621 (32.0%) 621 (41.1%)
1,372 (54.0%) 1,390 (64.2%) — — —
354 (13.9%) — — 1,125 (58.0%) — —
— — — — — — 737 (48.8%)
153 (6.0%) 153 (7.1%) 153 (7.9%) 153 (10.1%)
41 (1.6%) — — 41 (2.1%) — —
2,541 (100.0%) 2,164 (100.0%) 1,940 (100.0%) 1,511 (100.0%
1
The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the Information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any
economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events
which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SYSTEM MARKET PROJECTIONS
The projections for the years 1985, 1995 , and 2005 of the volume of parkers and revenues resulting from the projected use of the Auraria Campus parking lots is listed in Exhibit VI-11. The decline in these figures reflects the expected loss of on-campus parking facilities between now and the year 1990. The growth in parking revenues results primarily from the effects of inflation, assumed to be at a rate of 6.1 percent per year.
PEAK LOADING CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM AND SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING FACILITY
The annual volume projections for the proposed AGT system can be converted into peak hourly usage levels by dividing annual volumes for daytime market segments by their annual frequency of use (as listed in Exhibit V-ll) and multiplying this figure by 10 percent.1 Annual volume projections for AGT system user parking at the Sports Complex parking facility can be converted into peak accumulation levels by dividing annual volumes for daytime market segments by their annual frequency of use.
The resulting estimates of peak-hour usage of the AGT system and peak daily parking accumulation at the Sports Complex parking facility are shown in Exhibit VI-12. These estimates are shown for each route alternative and year.
By the year 2005, the route alternative which ends at the intersection of 16th and California Streets and includes a station at the Performing Arts Center has a projected peak-hour volume which slightly exceeds the assumed design capacity of the AGT system (tentatively set at 3 ,000 persons per hour).2 However, in 1985, the peak hourly volume for even this route alternative is projected to be less than 55 percent of the design capacity. 1 2
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Prentice-Hall, Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976 , page 163.
2 Lea, Elliott, McGean & Company, Request for Qualifications
and Technical Proposals for Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) Systems—Review Draft, prepared for the Auraria Higher Education Center; Denver, Colorado, October 1983, page 3.
VI. 13


EXHIBIT VI-11
PROJECTED AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SYSTEM USAGE AND REVENUES BY YEAR1
(Thousands)
1985 1995 2005
Auraria Campus Parkers 1,184 993 1,009
Auraria Campus Revenue Parking $3,166 $4,674 $8,550
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.
VI. 14


VI. 15
EXHIBIT VI-12
PEAK DEMANDS ON AGT SYSTEM AND SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING FACILITIES1
Route Alternative Maximum AGT System Ridership Per Hour Maximum Parking Sports Spaces Complex Required
1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005
Sports Complex to Auraria Campus 550 910 990 1,100 1,960 2,140
Sports Complex to 16th & Market Streets 850 1,230 1,370 1,100 1,960 2,270
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th & California Streets 1,610 2,310 3,180 2,840 4,410 6,370
Sports Complex to 16th & California Streets 1,620 2,320 2,820 2,860 4,440 5,540
Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center 1,170 1,830 2,340 2,200 3,750 4,890
Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets 1,410 1,900 2,110 2,370 3,480 3,940
1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.


For the route alternatives ending at the intersection of 16th and California Streets, projections indicate that by the year 2005 peak parking usage of the Sports Complex parking facility exceeds its current 4,925-space capacity. By the year 1985, these route alternatives generate sufficient parking demand to fill 58 percent of the Sports Complex parking facility.
CONCLUSIONS
Projections of demand for the proposed AGT system presented in this report indicate a significant market potential provided the system reaches at least the Performing Arts Center and possibly the intersection of 16th and California Streets. Other route alternatives have significantly lower market potentials, which would tend to reduce their feasibility. These projections depend largely on the Denver economy recovering rapidly from the current recession, and its downtown area having a compounded annual growth rate of 2.46 percent in economic activity. Under current economic conditions, little justification for the proposed AGT system can be made.
The demand estimates for Auraria Campus students and employees depend largely on the schedule of on-campus parking facility deactivations. The loss of these parking lots is more certain than the projections of Denver CBD economic activity. Therefore, the demand estimates based on the Auraria Campus student and employee market are the most plausible of the estimates in this report.
While variations in the volume of AGT system usage are possible with the changes in the economic assumptions used in this study, the relative differences between the six route alternatives should remain about the same. The area surrounding the intersection of 16th and California Streets contains the highest density of economic activity among the four downtown station locations considered in this study. This area therefore represents the greatest potential market for the proposed AGT system.
The Performing Arts Center station location is the next most significant downtown market for the proposed AGT system since its service area overlaps a portion of the 16th and California Streets' economic area and also contains blocks with significant future development growth potential. Even today, the Performing Arts Center garage serves a fairly dispersed market area which extends to the 16th Street Mall and beyond. This station location, as a possible terminus for the proposed AGT system, offers the added advantage of avoiding the need to extend the guideway system into the heart of the Denver CBD.
VI. 16


Because the AGT system's capital and operating costs have not yet been produced, the results of this study serve only as an indicator of the financial or economic feasibility of such a system. The results should not be used as the sole basis for evaluating the feasibility of the project, and they should be used only if the assumptions upon which they are based are maintained. Altering the assumptions, such as the fare schedule, will probably alter the relative attractiveness of the parking alternatives considered in this study and therefore change the demand projections.
This study has focused on those areas surrounding the proposed station locations of the AGT system. Study results project that the entire downtown area will face severe parking and traffic circulation problems if future development proceeds as expected. The construction and operation of a one- or two-mile AGT system, between the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus and possibly the Denver CBD, should help to relieve projected parking shortages associated with certain specific markets. However, because such a system would not serve other important urban transportation markets, we recommend that the proposed AGT system be considered in the context of an integrated network of various transportation facilities which individually serve specific urban transportation markets and collectively interact to facilitate efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Denver urban area.
No one transportation mode or facility should be relied on exclusively to satisfy all the many accessibility needs of the residents of Denver and its immediate surrounding urban communities. Instead, a variety of strategies should be considered and evaluated with the objective of developing a coordinated transportation program composed of a well-balanced mixture of transportation services and facilities.
VI. 17


APPENDIX A
AURARIA CAMPUS AND DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEYS
A. 1


AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY
This section of Appendix A describes the procedures used to design, conduct, and process the results of the Auraria Campus Survey (ACS), which was conducted on October 11 and 12, 1983.
The initial step in designing the survey was to specify the desired results for the survey. The data requirements were as follows:
. parker status: student, faculty, staff, full-time, part-time, etc.;
. arrival and departure time to/from campus;
. walk times to campus destination from parking lot; and
. attitudes toward the Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) System and other on-campus parking arrangements.
SAMPLING PLAN
Of the average 9,000 parkers on campus each day, a sample of 25 percent or 2,250 surveys was calculated to produce the number of valid responses required for analysis.
Approximately 30 percent of all parkers in each of the 21 campus lots were surveyed, excluding motorcyclists and handicapped parkers.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
The campus survey was designed to be self-administered and returned at no cost to the respondent. See Exhibit A-l for a copy of the two-page survey form.
QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION
Questionnaires were distributed by placing a questionnaire on the windshield of all cars parked in selected rows in each lot. Surveyors circulated the lots on an hourly basis starting at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m. The hours from 12:00-1:00 and 5:00-6:00 were considered meal times and therefore surveys were not distributed during these periods.
A. 2


EXHIBIT A-l
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE--■»! I 1 I T~
1 2 3 4 5
DAY:________________ â–¡ I I I
LOT NUMBER:_________________
AURARIA PARKING SURVEY
Dear Parker:
In the interest of improving parking and traffic conditions on campus and of alleviating the congestion and parking limitations that are anticipated with the opening of TIVOLI and future new campus construction, several alternatives are being explored. The first is an Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) System connecting the Auraria campus to the nearly 6,000 parking spaces at the Denver Mile-High Sports Complex, with a possible connection into downtown Denver. AGT Systems are successfully being operated at a number of major airports, universities, shopping centers, and parks. The second alternative is the construction of on-campus parking garages to replace the 1,300 spaces that may be lost within the next two years. Auraria is conducting studies to assess the feasibility of each of these alternatives, in cooperation with the City of Denver and the Regional Transportation District. As part of these studies, Auraria is conducting this survey of a sample of campus parkers. When you have completed this form, please fold it and drop it in any mailbox. (NO POSTAGE IS NECESSARY) This questionnaire refers only to your-current trip. If you receive another questionnnaire during a subsequent trip to campus, please complete that as well. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
1. Please indicate your current status (please check only one):
_______Student (full-time)
_______Student (part-time)
_______Faculty (full-time)
_______Faculty (part-time)
_______Staff
_______Visitor
2. Please indicate your arrival and departure times at/from campus for this trip:
9
10 11 12 13
Arrival Time:
a.m.
p.m. Departure Time:
a.m.
p.m.
14 15 16 17
3. How long did it take you to walk from your parking place to your first destination on campus?
______minutes
4. What is the Zip Code of your residence?
m
18 19
20 21 22 23 24
5. Where did you begin this trip to campus? (check one)
______residence
______work (please provide Zip Code_________________)
______other (please provide Zip Code________________)
6. Is public transportation conveniently available from your residence to campus? (check one)
______yes __________no ___________don’t know
â–¡
25
26 27 28 29 30
â–¡
31
A. 3


I
EXHIBIT A-l (Continued)
7. If on-campus parking facilities were to become severely limited and significantly
more costly in the next few years because of campus growth, which of the
following options would you choose (please check only one):
______Park at the Mile-High Sports Complex and ride a comfortable Automated
Transit Vehicle operating on its own exclusive guideway to a convenient location on the Auraria Campus, at a cost, including parking of about 75 cents per day, or one-half the probable cost of outlying on-campus lots. Vehicles would depart each station every 4 to 5 minutes throughout the school day and take 3 to 4 minutes to travel between the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus. The Sports Complex parking lot and the AGT System would be operated in a convenient, safe, and secure fashion.
______Park in outlying on-campus lots at a cost of $1.50 to $2.00 per day or $30 to
$40 per month.
______Park in middle-distance on-campus lots at a cost of $Z00 to $3.00 per day or
$40-$50 per month.
______Park in a campus garage, if constructed, or in the nearest on-campus lots at
a cost of $3.00 to $5.00 per day or $50 to $60 per month.
______Park elsewhere, and walk or take a bus to campus. Where would you
park?_________________________________________
______Join a carpool or vanpool.
______Take public transit for the entire trip.
______Walk or ride a bike to campus.
______Other, please specify_________________________________________
NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IE MAILED IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 815 DENVER CO USA
POSTAGE WILL BE PAIO BY AOORESSEE PARKING SURVEY
AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER P.O. BOX 4615-M DENVER, COLORADO 80204
A. 4


Questionnaires were distributed on two different days during the survey, namely a Tuesday and a Wednesday. This was done to account for possible variations in parking demand caused by differences inherent in the Monday-Wednesday-Friday and Tuesday-Thursday pattern of class scheduling used on the Auraria Campus.
Exhibit A-2 summarizes the number of questionnaires distributed by lot and the response rate by lot.
The overall response rate of 16.6 percent is a bit low for this type of survey. This may be attributable to the somewhat inclement weather conditions experienced on the first survey day. However, the higher percentage of parkers receiving a survey helped to produce an acceptable number of completed surveys.
CODING AND EDITING
All returned questionnaires were coded for computer keypunching, using a standardized set of procedures.
Following the keypunching, an extensive computer editing process was conducted to ensure correctness of all entries in the data file.
SURVEY EXPANSION
The survey responses were factored to represent all on-campus parking in the two-day survey period. The factors were based on the total number of parkers in each lot, according to data provided by the Auraria Higher Education Center and expanded to include monthly parkers. The total number of parkers was divided by the total surveyed population. As a result, the analysis represents a total of 17,804 parkers in the two-day period.
Exhibits A-3 to A-8 present the* major findings of the Auraria Campus parking survey.
A. 5


EXHIBIT A-2
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RATES BY LOT
Day 1_______________ ___________________ Day 2________________ __________________Both Days
Lot Total Distributed Total Returned Response Rate Total Distributed Total Returned Response Rate Total Distributed Total Returned Response Rate
A 176 28 15.9% 136 35 25.7% 312 63 20.2%
B 152 18 11.8 133 20 15.0 285 38 13.3
C 165 30 18.2 175 32 18.3 340 62 18.2
D 123 18 14.6 125 14 11.2 248 32 12.9
E 176 20 11.4 17 4 16 9.2 350 36 10.3
F 112 17 15.2 102 19 18.6 214 36 16.8
G 211 24 11.4 198 18 9.1 409 42 10.3
H 137 18 13.1 145 19 13.1 282 37 13.1
I 144 30 20.8 123 30 24.4 267 60 22.5
J 150 22 14.7 90 23 25.6 240 45 18.8
K 122 14 11.5 100 18 18.0 222 32 14.4
L 62 16 25.8 59 19 32.2 121 35 28.9
M 73 17 23.3 71 10 14.1 144 27 18.8
N 116 10 8.6 57 10 17.5 173 20 11.6
P 258 38 14.7 96 41 42.7 354 79 22.3
Q 198 29 14.6 181 20 11.0 379 49 12.9
R 172 28 16.3 153 22 14.4 325 50 15.4
S 93 20 21.5 38 13 34.2 131 33 25.2
T 99 24 24.2 134 32 23.9 233 56 24.0
U 98 15 15.3 53 21 39.6 151 36 23.4
V 110 26 23.6 79 13 16.5 189 39 25.8
TOTAL 3,047 462 15.2% 2,422 445 18.4% 5,469 907 16.6%
>
CT>


EXHIBIT A-3
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS
Option Percent
AGT System 56.2%
Outlying Campus Lots 7.8
Mid-Distance Campus Lots 3 .8
Campus Garage 4.7
Park Elsewhere 4 .0
Carpool/Vanpool 1.4
Public Transportation 9.5
Walk/Ride Bike 2.0
Other 10.6 100.0%
A. 7


EXHIBIT A-4
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS BY LOT
Lot AGT Outlying Campus Lots Middle- Distance Lots Campus Garage Park Elsewhere Carpool/ Vanpool Public Transit Walk/ Ride Bike Other
A 66.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 11.8% 2.9% 10.3%
B 52.4 12.4 2.4 0.0 2.9 2.9 5.3 5.9 15.9
C 44.6 8.8 0.0 1.8 10.1 10.5 12.2 0.0 12.0
D 54.7 9.1 2.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 15.4 0.0 8.0
E 71.0 5.3 2.6 6.3 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 9.0
F 60.9 8.1 6.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 5.0
G 44.0 10.4 4.8 10.4 2.4 2.8 12.4 0.0 12.8
H 59.6 4.8 3.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 18.7
I 57.9 5.3 0.0 11.8 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 20.4
J 64.0 6.8 0.0 2.2 4.5 2.3 8.9 0.0 11.2
K 53.7 13.4 0.0 3.0 6.7 0.0 9.7 0.0 13.4
L 50.8 2.6 14.1 17.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 12.0
M 34.1 20.0 2.7 8.6 2.7 0.0 5.9 2.7 23.2
N 35.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 5.0 30.0
P 66.0 7.5 1.2 4.9 2.5 0.0 7.9 3.6 6.4
Q 55.4 4.5 6.3 3.6 11.5 1.8 3.6 1.8 11.5
R 61.9 9.6 11.9 2.4 2.4 0.0 8.3 1.8 1.8
S 62.4 0.0 6.3 9.4 6.3 0.0 3.1 3.1 9.4
T 49.6 7.3 3.7 1.5 6.7 0.0 15.6 7.3 8.3
U 47.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 25.2 8.1 11.0
V 30.8 21.3 7.7 3.9 7.7 1.9 1.9 5.8 19.1
TOTAL 56.2% 7.8% 3.8% 4.7% 4.0% 1.4% 9.5% 2.0% 10.6%
>
oo


EXHIBIT A-5
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY
ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS BY STATUS OF RESPONDENT
AGT Outlying Campus Lots Middle- Distance Lots Campus Garage
Full-Time Student 58.6% 6.7% 2.5% 3.2%
Part-Time Student 54.5 10.9 6.3 5.6
Full-Time Faculty 54.7 4.3 0.9 4.5
Part-Time Faculty 51.5 5.1 7.5 3.7
Staff 58.3 7.1 3.4 6.4
Visitor 25.9 0.0 0.0 33.2
TOTAL 56.2% 7.8% 3.8% 4.7%
VO
Park Elsewhere Carpool/ Vanpool Public Transit Walk/ Ride Bike Other
4.2% 2.0% 10.4% 2.2% 10.2%
4.4 0.3 8.8 1.2 8.0
2.3 0.0 6.2 5.5 21.5
0.0 1.9 9.3 0.0 21.0
1.3 3.2 11.7 2.7 5.8
0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2
4.0% 1.4% 9.5% 2.0% 10.6%


EXHIBIT A-6
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING STATUS BY LOT SURVEY
Full-Time Part-Time Full-Time Part-Time
Lot Student Student Faculty Faculty Staff Visitor
A 67.1% 29.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0%
B 65.9 28.8 2.9 0.0 2.4 0.0
C 61.4 12.8 3.2 1.5 21.1 0.0
D 80.9 9.1 2.7 0.0 7.4 0.0
E 56.1 37.7 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.0
F 52.8 33.5 5.6 0.0 8.1 0.0
G 39.2 42.6 2.2 4.4 0.0 11.5
H 51.8 24.7 5.4 10.2 5.4 2.4
I 21.6 21.8 38.4 1.6 13.5 3.1
J 53.4 28.9 6.6 4.4 6.6 0.0
K 40.1 47.9 0.0 9.2 2.8 0.0
L 3.1 16.8 20.4 3.1 50.8 5.8
M 5.6 24.6 34.9 5.6 29.3 0.0
N 10.0 30.0 5.0 10.0 30.0 15.0
P 45.5 36.9 3.9 2.5 11.2 0.0
Q 53.1 40.0 2.6 2.6 1.8 0.0
R 51.1 40.7 1.7 6.4 0.0 0.0
S 60.5 9.1 12.2 6.1 12.2 0.0
T 60.6 25.9 10.4 3.1 0.0 0.0
U 77.4 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
V 40.4 17.2 13.5 3.9 25.0 0.0


EXHIBIT A-7
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS BY TRIP ORIGIN SECTOR1
West Northwest Southwest Northeast Southeast East Total
AGT System 58.5% 60.6% 58.1% 55.6% 57.6% 42.7% 56.2%
Outlying Campus Lots 5.9 5.3 5.2 2.8 8.0 11.6 7.8
Mid-Distance Campus Lots 3.0 3.0 4.5 2.8 3.6 3.7 3.8
Campus Garage 6.7 3.0 5.8 0.0 4.4 5.5 4.7
Park Elsewhere 3.7 3.0 5.8 5.6 4.0 4.9 4.0
Carpool/Vanpool 0.7 1.5 1.3 0.0 2.4 0.6 1.4
Public Transportation 11.1 8.3 7.7 8.3 6.4 14.0 9.5
Walk/Ride Bike 0.7 0.8 1.3 11.1 3.6 3.0 2.0
Other 9.6 14.4 10.3 13.9 10.0 14.0 10.6
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sectors represent portions of the Denver metropolitan region relative to the Auraria Campus.


EXHIBIT A-8
AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY GENERAL PARKING STATISTICS
Origin Percent
Residence 80.4%
Work 18.2
Other 1.4 100.0%
Average Parking Duration: 5.6
Average Walk Time (parking lot to ultimate campus destination): 7.4
A. 12


DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY
This section of Appendix A describes the procedures used to design, conduct, and process the results of the downtown Denver parking survey. This survey was conducted on October 13.
The data requirements for the downtown Denver parking survey were developed in conjunction with those described in the Auraria Campus parking survey section of this appendix with the addition of data requested concerning:
. parking cost and type;
. auto occupancy;
. trip purpose and destination; and . household income.
SAMPLING PLAN
Five public downtown parking facilities, as well as the Performing Arts Center parking garage, were surveyed. Parking facilities were selected throughout the CBD which were located within several blocks of the 16th Street Mall. A 100 percent sample was taken of all parkers arriving between 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. in the five CBD facilities, and a 50 percent sample was taken during the course of the day at the Performing Arts Center garage. Exhibit A-9 illustrates the location of parking facilities where the downtown Denver parking survey was conducted. The five CBD parking facilities which were surveyed are operated by Allright Parking, while the Performing Arts Center parking garage is operated by Republic Parking. Both of these organizations fully cooperated with the study team and enabled the downtown Denver parking survey to be conducted in a successful fashion.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
The downtown Denver parking survey was designed to be self-administered and returned at no cost to the respondent. See Exhibit A-10 for a copy of the three-page survey form.
DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaires were distributed in the CBD parking facilities by handing a survey and return envelope to all parkers entering the facilities between 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. In the
A. 13


EXHIBIT A-9
LOCATIONS OF DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY PARKING FACILITIES


EXHIBIT A-10
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE I 1 ,1—L
1 2 3
FACILITY:___________________ â–¡
6
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY
Dear Parker:
With the continuing development and growth of Denver there have been numerous concerns expressed about the availability and pricing of parking in the downtown area. One approach for providing a significant parking supply for downtown parkers is to build an Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) System which connects the downtown area to the nearly 6,000 parking spaces at the Denver Mile-High Sports Complex. AGT Systems are successfully being operated at a number of major airports. universities, shopping centers, and parks, and are currently under construction in downtown Miami and Detroit.
The Regional Transportation District, Auraria Higher Education Center, and City of Denver are jointly conducting studies to assess the feasibility of this approach. As part of these studies, this survey of downtown parkers is being conducted. Would you please complete this form, put it in the envelope provided, and drop in any mailbox. (NO POSTAGE IS NECESSARY) Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
1. What is the orimarv purpose of your trip today? (check only one):
______Work
______Shopping
______Personal Business (please specify)_________________________
______Recreation
______School
______Other (please specify)_______________________________
2. When did you arrive at the parking facility where you received this questionnaire?
_________________p.m.
3. When will you leave this parking facility today?
a.m.
_________________p.m.
4. How long does it take you to walk from the parking facility to your final destination downtown?
______minutes
5. What is the location of your final destination downtown?
â–¡
/
j i i i
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
m
16 17
18 19 20
(building name, address, or nearest intersection)
6. How many days per week do you normally park downtown?
______days
7. Besides yourself, how many people rode with you downtown today?
8. How much did it cost for you to park downtown today?
$_______________ _____________per day ____________per month (check one)?
9. Was your parking cost paid in total or in part by your employer or by the business or store you visited?
______yes ___________no
9A. If yes, how much was paid by the employer, business, or store?
$_____________
â–¡
21
â–¡
22
LLL1 L.
23 24 25 26 27
â–¡
28
29 30 31 32
A. 15


EXHIBIT A-10 (Continued)
10. If people rode with you downtown today, did you share the parking cost?
_____yes __________no
11. What is the Zip Code of your residence?
â–¡
33
i i r it i
34 35 36 37 38
12. What was the primary route which you used to travel downtown today?
(check one)
______I-25 (from the North)
______i-25 (from the South)
______6th Avenue (from the West)
______Colfax Avenue (from the West)
______Colfax Avenue (from the East)
______Other (please specify)____________________
13. Is convenient public transportation available from your residence to your final downtown destination? (check one)
______yes __________no ___________don’t know
14. What is your approximate annual household income? (check one)
______under $10,000
______$10,000 to $20,000
______$20,000 to $30,000
______$30,000 to $40,000
______ greater than $40,000
â–¡
39
â–¡
15. Three alternative downtown terminals for the AGT System are under consideration. All of these alternatives include stations at the Mile-High Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus. The three alternative downtown terminals are:
• 16th and Market Streets;
• 16th and California Streets, with an additional downtown station at the
» Denver Center for the Performing Arts (DCPA); and
• 16th Street and Broadway.
Automated transit vehicles would operate on their own exclusive guideway and depart each station at 4 to 5 minute intervals throughout the work day at a cost of about $1 per day for parking at the Sports Complex and about $1 per person to travel roundtrip on the AGT System between the Sports Complex and the 16th Street Mall. The Sports Complex parking lot and the AGT System would be operated in a convenient, safe, and secure fashion.
Would you park at the Sports Complex and use the AGT System for the trip you are making today if:
• the downtown station was located at 16th and Market Streets and the trip took 6 minutes?
______yes __________no
• the downtown station was located at 16th and California Streets and the trip took 7 minutes?
______yes __________no
• a downtown station was located at the DCPA and the trip took 5 minutes?
______yes __________no
• the downtown station was located at 16th Street and Broadway and the trip took 8 minutes?
______yes __________no
â–¡
42
â–¡
43
â–¡
44
â–¡
45
A. 16


EXHIBIT A-10 (Continued)
15A. If you answered no to each of the four alternatives listed above, would you answer yes to any of these alternatives if the price of parking at the Sports Complex was about 50 cents per day and the price of using the AGT System was about 50 cents per person roundtrip?
_______yes ___________no
If the answer to the above question is yes, which downtown station would you use? (please specify)_________________________________.
15B. If you answered yes to any of the four alternatives listed above, would you still answer yes if the price of parking at the Sports Complex was about $1.50 per day and the price of using the AGT System was about $1.50 per person roundtrip?
_______yes ___ no
If the answer to the above questions is yes, which downtown station would
you use? (please specify)___________________________
15C. If downtown stations were located at the DCPA and at 16th and California Streets, would you park at the DCPA garage at the cost of $5.00 per day and use the AGT System at a cost of $1.00 per person roundtrip for the trip you are now making?
_______yes ___________no
a
g
â–¡
48
â–¡
49
g
A. 17


case of the Performing Arts Center garage, surveys and envelopes were handed to a sample of people using the parking facility during the day as well as during the evening.
Exhibit A-11 summarizes the number of questionnaires distributed by parking facility and the response rate by facility.
CODING AND EDITING
All returned questionnaires were coded for computer keypunching, using a standardized set of procedures.
Following the keypunching of all completed questionnaires, an extensive computer editing process was conducted to ensure correctness of all entries in the data file.
SURVEY EXPANSION
Because the downtown Denver parking survey was conducted only between 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m., survey responses were factored to represent only the total number of parkers during that period. The Performing Arts Center parking garage was factored to represent the total number of parkers since that survey was distributed virtually all day. As a result, the analysis represents a total of 3,361 parkers.
Exhibits A-12 to A-17 present the major findings of the downtown Denver parking survey.
A. 18


EXHIBIT A-l1
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RATES BY PARKING FACILITY
Parking Facility Questionnaires Di str ibuted Questionnaires Returned Response Rate
1. Hilton Garage 403 222 55.1%
2. Skaggs Lot 219 95 43.4
3. Harris Lot 66 28 42.4
4. Stout Street Garage 140 70 50.0
5. Market Street Garage 417 161 38.6
6. Performing Arts Center Garage 1,079 324 30.0
TOTAL 2,324 900 38.7%


EXHIBIT A-12
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD AGT SYSTEM BY STATION LOCATION AND TRIP DESTINATION ZONE1
Proposed AGT System Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone ! 8 Total
Station Locations Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
16th fc Market (Zone 2) 16.7» 83.3% 38.4% 61.6% 11.1% 88.9% 31.8% 68.2% 16.6% 83.4% - - 10.8% 89.2% 0.0% 100.0% 17.5% 82.5%
16th k California (Zone 5) 0.0 100.0 11.3 88.7 13.0 87.0 25.9 74.1 39.8 60.2 - - 15.5 84.5 0.0 100.0 19.2 80.8
Performing Arts Center (Day) (Zone 3) 0.0 100.0 21.1 78.9 42.2 57.8 28.1 71.9 15.9 84.1 - - 10.3 89.7 0.0 100.0 26.8 73.2
16th k Broadway (Zone 7) 0.0 100.0 9.5 90.5 1.5 98.5 7.5 92.5 13.9 86.1 - - 30.1 69.9 0.0 100.0 12.1 87.9
Performing Arts Center (Night) . . 44.6 55.4 44.6 55.4
1 Trip destination zones illustrated in Exhibit A-13.
>
to
o


EXHIBIT A-13
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY
DESTINATION ZONES


.22
EXHIBIT A-14
&
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY
AUTO OCCUPANCY OF RESPONDENTS
Auto Occupancy
Dr ive Alone
Drive With 1 Additional
Drive With 2 Additional
Drive With 3 Additional
Drive With 4 Additional
Drive With 5 Additional
Drive With 6 Additional
Dr ive With 7 Additional
Drive With 8 Additional
Daytime CBD Parkers
77.4%
Person 16.5
People 2.7
People 1.1
People -
People 1.4
People 0.1
People -
Nighttime Performing Arts Center Parkers
25.3%
51.1
11.8
9.4
1.8
0.6
100.0%
People
Drive With 9 or more People
0.3
1.5
TOTAL
100.0%


EXHIBIT A-15
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY
TRIP PURPOSE OF RESPONDENTS
Trip Purpose Daytime CBD Parkers Nighttime Performing Arts Center Parkers
Work 96.3% 7.0%
Personal Business 0.8 2.3
Recreation 0.3 68.0
School 0.9 4.7
Other 1.7 18.0
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0
A.23


EXHIBIT A-16
DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY GENERAL PARKING STATISTICS
Daytime
Type of Parking CBD Parkers
Nighttime Performing Arts Center Parkers
Daily 51.2% 100.0%
Monthly 48.8 0.0
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Employer Paid Parking
Yes 39.2% 4.1%
No 60.8 95.9
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Shared Cost Parking
Yes 10.9% 9.9%
No 89.1 90.1
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Availability of Transit
Yes 51.3% 27.8%
NO 38.1 58.0
Don't Know 10.6 14.2
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Average Parking Cost: $3.00 $1.95
Average Parking Cost Paid by Employer: $3.12 $1.17
Averaqe Parkinq Duration: 8.8 hours 4.0
Average Walk Time (parking facility to ultimate destination): 4.7 minutes 3.6
A. 24


Full Text

PAGE 1

Draft Final Report Market Study Of Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System December 5, 1983 Prepared For r;;1 PEAT Auraria Higher Education Center ARCHIVES LD 271 . A6665 A6SS 1983 AURARIA LIBRARY U18702 0892053

PAGE 2

r;J PEAT M ARW ICK Dr. Jerome F. wartgow Executive Director Auraria Higher Education Center Historic Ninth Street Park 1027 Ninth Street Denver, CO 80204 Dear Dr. wartgow: Peat , M arwick , M it che ll & Co. 1990 K Street , N .W. Washington , D . C. 20006 202-223-9 525 December 5, 1983 Peat Marwick is pleased to submit this draft final report to the Auraria Higher Education Center, Regional Transportation District (RTD), and City of Denver concerning the market potential for an automated guideway transit (AGT) system to link the Sports Complex parking facility with the Auraria Campus and possibly the Denver central business district (CBD). This report consists of six sections which address the following areas: • introduction; • current parking characteristics; • projected parking system supply and demand; • automated guideway transit system route alternatives and markets; . automated gui deway transit system market assessment; and . market assessment results. The final section of the study contains the major findings of the market assessment, including: . projected levels of AGT system ridership and revenues for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for each of six route alternatives and seven market segments;

PAGE 3

Dr. Jerome F. wartgow Auraria Higher Education Center December 5, 1983 2 • projected levels of Sports Complex parking and parking revenues resulting from AGT system users for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for each of six route alternatives and seven market segments; . projected levels of Auraria Campus parking and parking revenues for t h e years 1985, 1995, and 2005; and • projected peak-hour ridership levels on the AGT system and peak parking demand at the Sports Complex parking facility for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for each of the six route alternatives. These findings provide a detailed assessment of the potential demand which the proposed AGT system could generate, as well as the capacity of the proposed AGT system and Sports Complex parking facility to handle these projected levels-of demand. Projected levels of AGT ridership and Sports Complex parking are largely predicated on the rapid recovery of the Denver economy, followed by sustained growth of about 2.5 percent per year. Under current conditions, little demand for these facilities could be expected due to the adequacy of Auraria Campus parking facilities and the convenient accessibility of ample, low-cost parking facilities throughout the Denver CBD. When the Denver economy recovers, predictions are that downtown parking will once again be in short supply, parking rates will increase, and commuters will have to walk farther to find available off-street parking. These assumptions, coupled with the increasing loss of on-campus Auraria parking during the next seven years, form the basis for our projections of AGT system and Sports Complex parking lot usage. Estimates of demand for the proposed AGT system are based on the allocation of projected parking demand to projected parking supply for each of seven market segments. The allocation process favors parking facilities which are near the final destination of the parkers. As the distance to available parking facilities increases with the filling of more convenient

PAGE 4

Dr. Jerome F. wartgow Auraria Higher Education Center December 5, 1983 3 parking facilities, the probability of choosing the Sports Complex parking facility and riding the AGT system increases. Therefore, projected AGT system usage results primarily from projected shortfall in local parking capacity at the Auraria Campus and the Denver CBD. These results are generally well below the level of AGT system usage implied by (1) the parking surveys Peat Marwick conducted during October on the Auraria Campus and in the Denver CBD (described in Appendix A), and (2) the transportation survey Ms. Paula Sakofs conducted during the spring semester on the Auraria Campus. The results are consistent with our expectations; respondents typically exaggerate their willingness to use such a system. The difference confirms the appropriateness of the parker allocation model used in this study (described in Appendix B) . Projected ridership and parking levels associated with each route alternative reveal that the largest demand would be served by the route which connects the Sports Complex to the intersection of 16th and California streets, via the Auraria Campus and Performing Arts Center. If the route terminated at the Performing Arts Center, a significant portion of this demand would still be served. By the year 2005, these routes are expected to generate sufficient AGT system ridership to approach the capacity of the system currently being considered for implementation. Route alternatives which terminate at the Auraria Campus or the end of the . 16th Street Mall are expected to generate significantly less demand for the AGT system. The results in this report are preliminary and reflect projections based on a variety of assumptions and information. The achievement of these projections may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and depends on the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 5

Dr. Jerome F. wartgow Auraria Higher Education Center December S, 1983 4 Because the AGT system's capital and operating costs have not yet been produced, the results of this study only serve as an indicator of the financial or economic feasibility of s uch a system. The results should not be used as the sole basis for evaluating the feasibility of the project, and they should be used only if the assumptions upon which they are based are maintained. Altering the assumptions, such as the fare schedule, will probably alter the relative attractiveness of the parking alternatives considered in this study and therefore change the demand projections. * * * * * It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff on this challenging study, and we look forward to discussing this draft final report with you and your staff. Following receipt of your comments and suggestions and those of the RTD, the City of Denver, and other interested parties, we will revise the report and issue a final version. Please contact Daniel Dornan or me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, 12.; -eal Raymond H. Ellis, Principal

PAGE 6

section I II III IV 1055M TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose of study Scope of Study CURRENT PARKING CHARACTERISTICS Auraria Campus Parking Facilities Central Business District Parking Facilities Sports Complex Performing Arts Center PROJECTED PARKING SYSTEM SUPPLY AND DEMAND Projected Auraria Campus Parking supply Projected Auraria Campus Parking Demand Projected Central Business District Parking supply Projected Central Business District Parking Demand Projected Sports Complex Parking supply and Demand Projected Performing Arts Center Parking Supply and Demand Projected Tivoli Specialty Shopping Center Parking supply and Demand AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND MARKETS AGT System Description AGT System Route Alternatives AGT System Markets i I.l I.l I.l II.l II.l II.S II.S II.8 III.l III.l III.3 III.S III.7 III.9 III.9 III.lO IV .1 IV.l IV. 5 IV.S

PAGE 7

Section v VI TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET ASSESSMENT Auraria Campus and Denver Central Business District Markets Auraria Campus/Downtown Market Tivoli Market Performing Arts Center Market Mile High Stadium Market McNichols Arena Market General Market Assumptions MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTS Automated Guideway Transit System Market Projections sports Complex Parking Market Projections Auraria Campus Parking System Market Projections Peak Loading Characteristics for the Automated Guideway Transit System and Sports Complex Parking Facility Conclusions Appendices A B Auraria Campus and Downtown Denver Parking surveys Parker Allocation Model ii v .1 v .1 v .13 V.lS V.lS v .15 v .15 v .16 VI.l VI.l VI.4 VI.l3 VI.l3 VI.l6 A.l B.l

PAGE 8

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit II-1 Current Auraria Campus Parking Lots II-2 Current Parking Lot Characteristics Auraria Campus on II-3 Current Daily Parking Cost by Lot on Auraria Campus II-4 Denver Central Business District II-5 Denver Central Business District Parking Supply 1983 II-6 III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-7 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 Sports Complex and Performing Arts Center Entertainment and Parking Facilities Capacity and use Auraria Campus Projected Parking Lot Capacities by Year Current Parking Lots Deactivated by 1985 on Auraria Campus Current Parking Lots Deactivated by 1995 on Auraria Campus Auraria Campus Parking Supply Projections Auraria Campus Parking Demand Projections Central Business District Parking Supply Projections Central Business District Parking Demand Projections Operating Speed Related to Patronage Density by Transit Mode selected Automated Guideway Transit system Annual Operating Characteristics Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System Route Alternatives -System Characteristics iii Page II.2 II.3 II.4 II.6 II.7 II.9 III.l III.2 III.3 III.4 III.S III.6 III.8 IV. 3 IV. 4 IV. 6

PAGE 9

Exhibit IV-4 IV-5 V-1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System Route Alternatives -Station Locations Auraria Automated Guideway Transit System Markets by Route Alternative Auraria Campus Parking Lot zones v-2 16th and Market Streets station Parking zones v-3 16th and California Streets Station -Parking zones V-4 Performing Arts Center Station Parking zones V-5 16th and Broadway Streets Station Parking zones v-6 Projected Daily Demand for Off-Street Parking by Station Area V-7 Downtown Denver Parking Demand Projection Factors by Station Location V-8 Projected Off-Street Parking Capacities by Station Location V-9 Parking Choice Allocation Factors by Station Location V-10 Parking Choice Allocation Results by Station Area V-11 General Automated Guideway Transit system Market Assumptions V-12 Rate Schedule for Automated Guideway Transit System, Auraria Campus Parking, Sports Complex Parking, and Downtown Parking iv IV. 7 IV.9 v. 3 v. 4 v. 5 v. 6 v. 7 v. 8 v .10 v .11 v .12 v .14 v .17 v .18

PAGE 10

LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) Exhibit VI-1 Projected AGT Ridership summary by Route Alternative VI-2 Annual AGT Ridership summary by Route Alternative VI-3 Projected AGT Ridership by Market and Route Alternative (1985) VI-4 Projected AGT Ridership by Market and Route Alternative (1995) VI-S Projected AGT Ridership by Market and Route Alternative (2005) VI-6 Projected Sports Complex Parking summary by Route Alternative VI-7 Annual Sports Complex Parking usage by AGT Riders by Route Alternative VI-8 Projected Sports Complex Parking by Market and Route Alternative (1985) VI-9 Projected Sports Complex Parking by Market and Route Alternative (1995) VI-10 Projected Sports Complex Parking by Market and Route Alternative (2005) VI-11 Projected Auraria Campus Parking System usage and Revenues by Year VI-12 Peak Demands on AGT System and Sports Complex Parking Facility v VI.2 VI.3 VI.S VI.6 VI.7 VI.8 VI.9 VI.lO VI.ll VI.l2 VI.l4 VI.lS

PAGE 11

I. INTRODUCTION The Aurar ia Higher Education Center ( AHEC) , located ad jacent to the Denver Central Business District ( CBD), has over 30,000 full-and part-time students_ and over 3,000 full-and part-time employees. The campus has no residences for students and therefore all Auraria students and employees commute to and from campus. Parking consists of 5,099 off-street spaces on the Auraria Campus. Within the next ten years,_ the AHEC may face a severe parking shortage as campus development is expected to consume more than one-third the current supply of on-campus parking. Existing lots are already full most of the day. The campus is surrounded by highways and urban development and therefore adjacent property cannot be acquired for parking lots. Future growth in campus enrollment will further exacerbate the shortage of on-campus parking. Off-street parking in downtown Denver meets current demands. However, if Denver's economy rebounds and proceeds to expand, the availability of parking which is convenient to the downtown core will probably decrease as downtown employees are forced to park farther from their places of employment. At this time, several major recreational facilities located near the Auraria Campus experience occasional parking shortages. These facilities, which include the Performing Arts Center, Mile High stadium, and McNichols Arena, have parking capabilities which are well below their total seating capacities. In the future, as these facilities are used more fully, the frequency of parking shortages will increase. PURPOSE OF STUDY In response to these potential parking problems, the Aurar ia Higher Education Center, the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD), and the City of Denver jointly sponsored this study of the market potential for an automated guideway transit (AGT) system which would connect the large, 5,000-space parking facility at the Sports Complex with the Auraria Campus and possibly the CBD. This study assesses the potential parking shortfall on the Auraria Campus, surrounding recreational facilities, and the CBD. The study then estimates the portion of this parking shortfall that might be diverted to Sports Complex parking lots if they were served by an AGT system. The results are provided in terms of potential AGT system ridership and revenues, Sports Complex parking volumes and revenues, and Auraria Campus parking volumes and revenues. I.l

PAGE 12

SCOPE OF STUDY This study deals primarily with the parking supply and demand characteristics of the Auraria Campus, Denver CBD, Performing Arts Center, Sports Complex, and the soon-to-beopened Tivoli specialty shopping center. The study also identifies other nonparking related markets for the proposed AGT system. six route alternatives and seven market segments are considered in this study. On the basis of assumptions described in later sections, study results for each of these routes and markets are projected to three future years: 1985, 1995, and 2005. The achievement of these projections may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material. I.2

PAGE 13

II. CURRENT PARKING CHARACTERISTICS This section describes the current nature and capacity of parking facilities on the Auraria Campus, and associated with the Performing Arts Complex. Information is provided on the parking spaces by facility type, parking utilization. AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING FACILITIES in downtown Denver, Center and Sports current number of rates, and parking The Auraria Campus currently has 5,099 off-street parking spaces which serve an average of 9,000 vehicles per weekday during the fall and spring semesters, and 4,000 vehicles per weekday during the summer term .1 These spaces are located in 21 individual lots which serve AHEC students, faculty, administration, and staff. Exhibit II-1 illustrates the Auraria Campus parking sys tern. Exhibit II-2 1 ists the capacity, effective daily parking rate, permit type, and projected year of deactivation for each lot. All but one parking lot (Lot G) requires an Auraria Campus parking permit. Of the approximately 18,500 persons currently registered to park on the Auraria Campus, 941 have monthly parking permits. The remainder have daily parking permits. Parking rates vary according to the proximity of the lot to the center of the campus. Daily rates range from $0.50 for outer lots, to $0.75 for middle lots, to $1.00 for inner lots (Exhibit II-3). Lot G, which is the only unrestricted parking lot on campus, costs $0.50 per hour. As campus enrollment has grown, parking volumes have increased; current parking facilities are almost fully utilized. During the day, parking facility use varies, but generally exceeds 90 percent between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.2 1 These figures are based on a review of parking count data collected during the summer session and fall semester of 1983 and supplied by the Auraria Higher Education Center, expanded to include monthly parkers. 2 This information is based on Auraria Higher Education Center parking lot utilization data for the spring and fall semesters of 1983. II. 1

PAGE 14

EXHIBIT D-1 CURRENT AURARIA CAMPUS pARKING LOTS II.2 . AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER

PAGE 15

EXHIBIT II-2 CURRENT PARKING LOT CHARACTERISTICS ON AURARIA CAMPUS Type of Effective Year of Lot Lot Capacity Permit Daily Rate Deactivationl A 251 Daily $0.50 B 176/100 Daily/Monthly $0.75 1984 c 340 Daily $0.50 D 340 Daily $0.75 E 340 Daily $1.00 1984 F 340 Daily $0.75 G 340 Hourly $0.50/Hour H 340 Daily $1.00 I 180 Monthly $1.00 1990 J 154 Daily $0.75 K 141 Daily $1.00 L 64 Monthly $1.00 M 20 Monthly $1.00 N 42 Monthly $1.00 p 425 Daily $1.00 1985 Q 308 Daily $1.00 1988 R 330 Daily $1.00 s 158 Monthly $0.75 T 300 Daily $0.75 1990 u 250 Daily $0.50 v 110/50 Daily/Monthly $1.00 TOTAL 5,099 1 This represents the approximate number of parking spaces lost in the year of deactivation, though certain lots may be reconfigured without the loss of capacity. Based on data provided by the Auraria Higher Education Center. II. 3

PAGE 16

EXHIBIT 11-3 CURRENT DAILY PARKING COST BY LOT ON AURARIA CAMPUS II.4 . AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER

PAGE 17

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING FACILITIES Denver's Central Business District consists area bounded by 20th Street, Logan Street, Broadway, 12th Avenue, Speer Boulevard, and (Exhibit II-4). of a 152-block Colfax Avenue, Wynkoop Street currently within the area are 263 off-street parking facilities with 37,358 total parking spaces (Exhibit II-5) .1 Within the CBD is the Downtown Core, a 59-block area generally within two blocks of the 16th Street Mall. The Downtown Core contains 96 off-street parking facilities (37 percent of the CBD total) with 16,891 parking spaces ( 45 percent of the CBD total). Of the parking spaces in both the CBD and the Downtown Core areas, two-thirds is paid for by the day, one-third by the month. About 90 percent of the parking spaces is available to the general public. surrounding the Downtown Core are the remaining 93 blocks of the CBD area, which has 167 off-street parking facilities with 20,476 parking spaces. This area is called the Downtown Periphery. Parking in the Denver CBD costs from $0.40 to $10.00 per day, with an average of $3.36 per day. Downtown Core parking costs from $1.00 to $10.00 per day, with an average of $4.52 per day. Downtown Periphery parking rates are about half the Downtown Core rates, ranging from $0.40 to $8.00 per day, with an average of $2.60 per day (Exhibit II-5). Current information is not available on the use of offstreet parking facilities in the Denver CBD. However, in 1981, these facilities were 86 percent filled between 10:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.2 SPORTS COMPLEX The Sports Complex, one mile west of the Auraria Campus, is composed of: . the Denver Mile High Stadium with 75,123 seats; 1 Frazer Consulting, Downtown Denver Parking supply, prepared for Denver Civic Ventures, Inc.; Denver, Color ado, June 2, 1983, page 2. 2 Leigh, scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Plann1ng Office; Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, page 12. II. 5

PAGE 18

soo 0 • 1"525 " -EXHffiiT Il-4 DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

PAGE 19

EXHIBIT 11-5 DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS PARKING SUPPLY 1983 Number of Lots Number of Number of Total Number Peak Hourly Peak Daily Honthly and of Rate Rate Rate • Total central Business District 263 24,946 12,412 37,358 $1.44 $3 . 36 $66 . 16 Public Lots and Garages 188 21,092 11,564 32,656 ($0.25 $3.00) ($0.40 $10.00) ($10.00 $140.00) Private Lots and Garages 75 3,854 848 4,702 Total Downtown Core 96 10,814 6,071 16,891 $1.66 $4.52 $77 . 24 Public Lots and Garages 78 9,823 5, 724 15,547 ($0.50 $3 .00) ($1.00 $10.00) ($45. 00 $125.00) Private Lots and Garages 18 991 353 1,344 H H Total Downtown Periphery 167 14,132 6,355 20,467 $1.23 $2 . 60 $56.72 -.1 Public Lots and Gar a yes 110 11,269 5,840 171109 ($0.25 -$2.25) ($0. 40 $8 .00) ($10. 00 $140.00) Private Lots and Garages 57 2,863 495 3,358 1 Frazer Consulting, Downtown Denver Parking supply, prepared for Denver Civic ventures, Inc., Denver, Colorado, June 2, 1983, page 2.

PAGE 20

. the McNichols Arena with 19,000 seats; and . a parking facility with 4,925 spaces. Denver Mile High Stadium The Mile High stadium is used for Denver Broncos and Denver Gold football games, Denver Bears baseball games, and several special events. As shown in Exhibit II-6, the stadium is used almost 100 times a year, with the average attendance ranging from 7,000 to 75,000 per event. Parking rates range from $1.00 to $3.00 per vehicle, depending on the event. The available parking capacity of the lots surrounding the stadium is fully utilized for all football games and special events, and for 40 percent of the baseball games. This amounts to 57 percent of the stadium events or 55 days each year. McNichols Arena The McNichols Arena is used for the Denver Nuggets basketball, Colorado Flames hockey, and numerous special events . . According to Exhibit II-6, 165 events occur at the arena during the year, with an average attendance of 8,500 per event. Parking costs $2.00 per vehicle. Parking Lots surrounding the Arena Parking lots surrounding the arena are fully utilized 15 to 75 percent of the 150 days in which the arena is used during the year, depending on the success of the sports teams playing at the arena and the strength of the Denver economy.r This percentage averages to 45 percent, which is the percentage used for this study. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER The Performing Arts Center, located Aur .ar ia Campus across Speer Boulevard, entertainment facilities: just east of consists of . Helen Bonfils Theater Complex includes two major theatres and an experimental theatre, with a 1 Based on discussions with Mr. Fred Luetzen, Entertainment Manager of McNichols Arena, November 14, 1983. II. 8 the four

PAGE 21

H H \0 EXHIBIT 11-6 SPORTS CENTER AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ENTERTAINMENT AND PARKING FACILITIES CAPACITY AND USE 1983 Days Per Percent of Average Parking Year with Event Days with seating Yearly Attendance Facility Parking Lot. Parking Lot Parking Faci 1 it;t[Use CaEacit;t Events Per Event caEacit;t Filled Fillec:J Rates Mile High Stadiuml Denver Broncos (NFL Football) 11 75,000 11 100\ $3.00 Denver Gold (USFL Football) 10 42,000 10 100\ $3.00 Denver Bears ( AAA Ba seba 11) 70 7,000 28 40\ $1.00 Other Events __! 34,000 6 100\ $2.00 Subtotal 75,123 97 20,000 2,075 55 57\ McNichols Arena2 Denver Nuggets (NBA Basketball) 46 8,500 N/A N/A $2.00 Colorado Flames (CHL Hockey) 46 3,400 N/A N/A $2.00 Other Events _11 11,700 m m $2.00 Subtotal 19,000 165 8,500 2,850 68 45\ $2.00 Performing Arts Center3 Uelen Bonfils Theatre Complex 1,275 336 420 N/A N/A $2.00 Denver Center Cinema 255 676 60 N/A N/A $2.00 Boettcher Concert Hall 2,650 176 1,400 N/A N/A $2.00 Denver Auditorium Theatre 2,400 208 2,400 &! &! $2.00 Sul.Jtotal 6,580 1,396 700 1, 7 50 120 40\ $2 .00 Based on data provided by Mr. Patrick Gallavan, Parks Director, City and County of Denver Department of Parks-Recreation, October 19, 1983. Based on data provided by Mr. wes Hartin, Manager, City and county of Denver Department of General services, October 20, 1983, and discussions with Mr. Fred Luetzen, Entertainment Manager of McNichols Arena, November 14, 1983. 3 Based on data provided by Ms. Sally Williams and Hs. carol Wilson, The Denver Center for the Performing Arts, October 24, 1983.

PAGE 22

combined seating capacity of 1,530 (Exhibit II-6). The theatre season extends 210 days per year, with average attendance of 700. . Denver Center Cinema is theater, which provides throughout the year. The per show . a 255-seat commercial 13 showings a week aver age attendance is 6 0 . Boettcher Concert Hall seats 2,650. It is open 176 days a year for the Denver Symphony Orchestra with an average attendance of 1,400. Denver Auditorium Theatre seats 2,400. It is open 167 days a year for a variety of theatrical bookings, most of which nearly fill the theatre. A multi-level parking garage, which has 1,750 spaces, serves the Performing Arts Center. This facility is used by daily commuters, shoppers, and visitors to downtown Denver. The facility also serves the parking needs of patrons, exhibitors, and performers associated with events taking place at the various facilities making up the Performing Arts Center. Parking costs up to $4.00 per vehicle for all-day parkers and $2.00 per vehicle for special events taking place at the Performing Arts Center. During the year, the parking garage is filled approximately 120 times, or for 40 percent of the special events taking place at the Performing Arts Center. The parking lot is filled primarily when multiple events are scheduled simultaneously at the Performing Arts Center. II. 10

PAGE 23

III. PROJECTED PARKING SYSTEM SUPPLY AND DEMAND This section presents projections to year 2005 of parking supply and demand at the Auraria Campus, Denver Central Business District, and the entertainment facilities surrounding the Aurar ia Campus. Included in the presentation is a description of the methodologies and assumptions used to develop these projections. Parking deficiency projections are subsequently used to establish the potential market for an AGT system which will connect the Sports Complex parking lot with the Aurar ia Campus and possibly the Central Business District. PROJECTED AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SUPPLY During the next 10 years, off-street parking on the Auraria Campus is projected to decrease by about 36 percent, as existing parking lots give way to campus development. Exhibit III-1 shows projected parking capacities by year for the Auraria Campus. EXHIBIT III-1 AURARIA CAMPUS PROJECTED PARKING LOT CAPACITIES BY YEARl Year Parking s:eaces Percent of 1983 s:eaces 1983 5,099 100% 1984 4,483 88 1985-1987 4,058 80 1988-1989 3,750 74 1990-2005 3,270 64 1 Information supplied by Auraria Higher Education Center. Projections of available off-street parking on the Auraria Campus indicate that: . By 1985, off-street parking spaces will decrease to 4,058, as three lots are deactivated (Exhibit III-2) . . By 1990, off-street parking spaces will decrease to 3,270, as a further three lots are deactivated . . Between the years 1990 and 2005 no further parking lots are expected to be deactivated (Exhibit III-3). III.l

PAGE 24

EXHIBIT III-2 CURRENT PARKING LOTS DEACTIVATED BY 1985 ON AURARIA CAMPUS III.2 . AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER C S'TJUTS A PIUIICN3 P•.rtctng loti dMctiYated by 1885

PAGE 25

EXHffiiT III-3 CURRENT PARKING LOTS DEACTIVATED BY 1995 ON AURARIA CAMPUS III.3 AURAR lA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER

PAGE 26

The maximum number of vehicles per day which could be accommodated by these projections can be estimated by multiplying the number of parking spaces by an average turnover rate. At present, approximately 9,000 vehicles park on the Aurar ia Campus each day, using 90 percent of the 5, 0 99 offstreet parking spaces. These figures imply an average turnover rate of 1.96 vehicles per parking space per day.l Exhibit III-4 lists the projected daily vehicle capacities of parking lots on the Auraria Campus by year and lot type (distinguished by parking rate, as shown in Exhibit II-3). EXHIBIT III-4 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SUPPLY PROJECTIONS (Vehicles per day, percent of total) Year Total Lots Inner Lots Middle Lots outer Lots 1985 7,958 ( 10 0%) 3,775 (47%) 2,534 (32%) 1,649 (21%) 1995 6,413 (100%) 2,818 (44%) 1,946 (30%) 1,649 (26%) 2005 6,413 ( 10 0%) 2,818 (44%) 1,946 (30%) 1,649 (26%) PROJECTED AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING DEMAND The demand for off-street parking by Aurar ia students and employees relates to the number of students enrolled by the three schools making up the Aurar ia Higher Education Center. Between 1975 and 1982, the number of students attending the fall semester grew from 24,010 to 31,987,2 a 4.14 percent average annual increase. However, projections of campus enrollment through the year 2005 indicate an average 2.15 percent growth 1 Current Auraria Campus Parking = Space Turnover 9,000 Vehicles Day = 1.96 Vehicles Space-Day (5,099 Spaces x 90%) = 2 Auraria Higher Education Center enrollment data, August 1982. III.4

PAGE 27

rate per year from 1982 to 1986, followed by an average 1.00 percent growth rate per year from 1986 to 2000, at which time total campus enrollment levels off at 40,000 students.l when the number of current parkers is increased by the foregoing percentages, the daily parking demand projections for the Auraria campus become as listed in Exhibit III-5. EXHIBIT III-5 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS (Vehicles per day) Year 1985 1995 2000 Fall and Spring Semesters 9,390 10,490 11,030 summer sessions 4,170 4,660 4,900 Comparing Auraria Campus parking supply and demand projections (Exhibits III-4 and III-5) reveals a projected shortage of on-campus parking during the fall and spring semesters for the rest of this century and into the next. The is predicated on the assumed loss of significant portions of the parking system currently serving the Auraria campus, in addition to assumed student enrollment increases. The location of the Auraria Campus severely limits the opportunity to find replacement parking lots or available parking capacity without using downtown Denver parking facilities, which are typically higher in cost and less accessible than current on-campus parking lots. PROJECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING SUPPLY Between 1970 and 1981, growth rates per year for the supply of parking in downtown Denver averaged: . 2.29 percent for the Denver CBD; . 0.41 percent for the Downtown Core; 1 Based on discussions with Dr. Jerry wartgow, Executive Director, Auraria Higher Education Center, November 14, 1983. III. 5

PAGE 28

. 4.88 percent for the Downtown Periphery; and . 2.29 percent for the areas surrounding the CBD.l These differing growth rates reveal that the supply of parking spaces in the core of the CBD has been increasing at a much slower rate than areas on the periphery of this core. This slower rate has been caused by the high cost of property in the center of downtown, as compared with peripheral areas which have experienced much higher growth in parking supply, particularly in areas adjacent to the Downtown Core. For this study, the parking supply in the Downtown Core is assumed to continue to grow at a 0.41 percent average annual rate through 2005. The parking supply in areas outside the Downtown Core is assumed to grow at a composite rate of 3.33 percent per year, which reflects the average annual growth rate for both the Downtown Periphery and surrounding areas. This lower rate, when applied to the Downtown Periphery, reflects the diminishing opportunities to build additional parking lots and garages caused by continuing development of the CBD. Exhibit III-6 shows projections of the supply of off-street parking in the Denver CBD based on these average annual growth rates, as applied to the current level of parking illustrated in Exhibit II-5. EXHIBIT III-6 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING SUPPLY PROJECTIONS (Off-Street Parking Spaces, Percent of CBD Total) Central Business Downtown Downtown Year District Core PeriEher:t 1985 38,880 ( 10 0%) 17,030 (44%) 21185 0 (56%) 1995 48,060 (100%) 17,740 (37%) 30,320 (63%) 2005 60,560 ( 10 0% ) 18,480 (31%) 42,080 (69%) 1 Leigh, scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Stud:f:, prepared for the Denver Office; Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, p. 6. III.6

PAGE 29

PROJECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING DEMAND The demand for parking in the Denver CBD depends on several demographic and travel characteristics, including employment, auto occupancy, percentage of downtown trips taken by automobile, percentage of parking which is long-term, and average number of vehicles that occupy parking spaces in the CBD area (turnover). we estimated parking demand in the Denver CBD using the following equation: Parking = [ Employment x Percent Automobile Trips ] Demand Auto Occupancy x Percent Long-Term Parking x Turnover using 1980 data, we determined . the following values for most of the terms of this equation: . Percent Automobile Trips = 72 percent (this percentage incorporates a 16 percent transit share of all person-trips in the Denver CBD by vehicle);l Auto Occupancy = 1.3 persons per vehicle;2 . Percent Long-Term Parking= 55 percent;3 and . Turnover = 2.4 vehicles per parking space per day.4 Using these values, the following more simplified equation results: Parking Demand = Employment x [0.42] Projections of employment growth for downtown Denver indicate: . Denver CBD: from 92,330 in the year 1980 to 153,810 in the year 2000 (2.58 percent average annual growth over the 20-year period); 1 Denver Regional Council of Governments, A of Travel in Denver; Denver, Colorado, August 82, p. . 2 Colorado Department of Highways, Denver and Boulder Annual Auto Occupancy Study; Denver, Colorado, August 1983, p. 2. 3 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Off ice, September 2 4, 19 81, p. 25. 4 Ibid, p. 12. III.7

PAGE 30

. Downtown Core: from 60,540 in the year 1980 to 97,240 in the year 2000 (2.40 percent average annual growth over the 20-year period); and . Downtown Periphery: from 31,790 in the year 1980 to 56,570 in the year 2000 (2.92 percent average annual growth over the 20-year period) .1 For this study, 1985, 1995, and 2005 projected employment levels for the Denver CBD and its component areas reflect the above annual growth rates relative to the base 1980 employment levels. Assuming a continuation of the downtown Denver travel characteristics listed above, and assuming that the current 3,300 on-street parking spaces in the CBD remain through the year 2005, the demand for off-street parking spaces can be estimated by: . applying the projected CBD and subarea employment levels to the equation described above; and . subtracting 3,300 parking spaces from the CBD total (1,485 parking spaces for the Downtown Core and 1,815 parking spaces for the Downtown Periphery). The results of this process are shown in Exhibit III...,7, which lists the projections of off-street parking demand for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 for the CBD and its component subareas. EXHIBIT III-7 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS (Off-Street Parking Spaces, Percent of CBD Total) Central Business Downtown Downtown Year District Core Periphery 1985 40,700 ( 10 0% ) 27,110 (67%) 13,590 (33%) 1995 53,500 (100%) 34,770 (65%) 18,730 (35%) 2005 70,050 (100%) 44,470 (63%) 25,580 (37%) 1 Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver Area TF 1980 and TG 2000 zone Data; Denver, Colorado, August 12, 1983. The Denver CBD 1ncludes Traffic Analysis zones 61 to 77, 85, 98, and 99; the Downtown Core includes Traffic Analysis zones 62-65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, and 76; and the Downtown Periphery includes Traffic Analysis zones 61, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, 8 5, 9 8, and 9 9 . I 8

PAGE 31

These parking demand estimates are predicated on the Denver economy recovering rapidly from its current recession and continuing to grow. These estimates will be influenced by such factors as auto occupancy, transit usage, and parking lot turnover. Even though all these factors could change in the future, little information is available concerning the amount of change that might occur or the direction such change might take. Therefore, projections are based on current values for each of these factors. If occupancy of autos or percentage of urban trips using mass transit increases significantly, then parking demand will decrease significantly. However, recent evidence indicates a decreasing auto occupancy and transit dependency among persons travelling to and from the Denver CBD. These parking supply and demand projections for the Denver CBD indicate that during the next 20 years, the Downtown Core will generate about two-thirds of the demand for off-street parking in the CBD, but will generate only around one-third of the supply of off-street parking. Additional parking capacity will probably be available beyond the CBD to satisfy projected shortfalls in off-street parking supply. However, a significant walk will often be required between the parking facility and the place of employment. As employment grows, parking facilities in the Downtown Core will quickly become filled. As a result, many commuters who drive will have to park in facilities located outside the Downtown Core and walk a number of blocks to reach their places of employment. The longer the walk, the more attractive other forms of commuter transportation will become. PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND For this study, current levels of parking supply and demand associated with the Mile High Stadium and McNichols Arena are assumed to remain constant throughout the study time frame. (Exhibit II-6 shows details). PROJECTED PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND For this study, current levels of parking supply and demand associated with the Performing Arts Center are assumed to remain constant throughout the study time frame. (Exhibit II-6 shows details). III.9

PAGE 32

PROJECTED TIVOLI SPECIALTY SHOPPING CENTER PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND The Tivoli Brewery, adjacent to the student Center on the Auraria Campus (Exhibit II-1), is currently being redeveloped and expanded into a 224,000 square foot specialty shopping center, containing restaurants, theatres, and shops. Scheduled for opening in October 1984, the Tivoli will have 2 blocks of parking to accommodate up to 700 vehicles at a time .1 Assuming an average daily turnover of 6.29 vehicles per parking space, this implies a daily parking capacity of 4,403 vehicles.2 Parking demand by Tivoli customers and staff can be estimated by using established trip generation rates for facilities of this type. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a shopping center comparable in size to the Tivoli should generate an aver age of 2 7. 7 vehicles a day per 1, 00 0 square feet of retail space,3 which implies 6,200 vehicles a day. Since 12.6 percent of Tivoli customers are expected to come directly from the Auraria Campus, the above projection would be reduced to 5,420 vehicles per day. using the above capacity figure, this projection results in an average daily parking shortfall of 1, 017 vehicles, assuming all remaining patrons arrive by automobile. This parking shortfall represents about 16 percent of the projected daily parking demand for the Tivoli. To the extent that patrons from the downtown area arrive by another means of transportation (bus, walking, or AGT system), this parking shortfall could be eliminated. 1 Information supplied by Mr. Morris Bleviss of Tivoli Development, Ltd., October 17, 1983. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Handbook, Prentice Hall Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 701. Daily turnover and parking capacity are based on an average parking requirement of 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of specialty shopping center space. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation; washington, D.c., 197 9. Trip genera t1on rates are based on retail shopping centers of 200,000 to 299,999 square feet, assuming Monday through saturday operation. I II .10

PAGE 33

IV. AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEr1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND MARKETS During the next two decades, the growth of enrollment on the Auraria Campus and employment in the Denver Central Business District are expected to cause the demand for off-street parking to increase significantly. However, as the previous section indicates, the availability of convenient off-street parking to the Aurar ia Campus and to the Downtown Core is expected to decline. as nearby parking capacity fails to keep up with the growth in parking demand. currently, RTD operates shuttle-bus service between the Mile High Stadium parking lot, the Auraria Campus, and downtown Denver (to the Denver Bus Center at 19th and Curtis streets). The Mile High Shuttle operates 13 round-trips in the morning and afternoon peak periods, Monday through Friday. The shuttle-bus service entails a 30-minute round-trip time, and as of July 1983, carried 148 daily two-way trips.l One alternative to the Mile High Shuttle is the installation of an automated guideway transit system between the 5,000-space parking facility at the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus, with a possible connection to downtown Denver. such a system might be able to relieve some of the projected parking shortages described in the previous chapter by attracting a more significant ridership than the Mile High Shuttle due to its higher level of service. This section describes the nature of this AGT alternative to on-campus and CBD parking, defines the various route configurations studied, and identifies the potential markets which could be served. AGT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION According to Pushkarev,2 AGT systems: move passengers in small groups abroad small vehicles operating singly or in short trains over a fully grade-separated right-of-way in a fully 1 Based on data provided by Mr. Richard C. Thomas, Director, Department of Transit Development, Regional Transportation District, October 17, 1983. 2 Pushkarev, Boris s., Urban Rail in America--An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed-Guideway Transit, Regional Plan Association, Indiana University Press; Bloomington, Indiana, 1982, p. xiii. IV.l

PAGE 34

automatic mode, with no attendants on board. station platforms are high-level and the stations may be arranged so as to allow non-stop service on demand. In current practice, the systems are typically short (often in a shuttle or loop configuration), and the vehicles tend to be rubbertired, though other designs are possible. Used in a downtown setting, the systems are [also] referred to as downtown peoplemovers. For AGT systems in a downtown setting, the minimum existing patronage threshold at which the minimum capital investment is justified ranges from 5,000 passengers per weekday for a lowcapital AGT system with a single beam, to 12,000 to 20,000 passengers per weekday for heavier AGT systems of the currently prevalent rubber-tired technology.l Lightweight AGT systems under development will be possible only in downtowns of 10 to 20 million square feet of non-residential floor space. Currently available, heavier AGT systems will require downtowns with 40 to 70 million square feet of non-residential floor space, provided they are used for internal downtown trips only.2 By 1985, Denver's downtown floor area is expected to total about 44 million square feet.3 Typical AGT systems operating in the United st"ates today have average operating speeds of between seven and ten miles per hour, including layover time.4 Exhibit IV-1 illustrates the relationship between annual patronage density and operating speed for AGT systems, as well as other types of mass transit modes operating in the United States. As shown, AGT systems currently serve passenger densities similar to those of light rail systems, but often at significantly lower speeds. AGT systems are a recent phenomenon in urban mass transit in the United States. In 1966, the prototype was tested in south Park in Pittsburgh. Track-miles of AGT systems (including airport and urban systems, but excluding amusement and intramural systems) have grown from 1.4 miles in 1971 to 25.8 miles in 1980. Exhibit IV-2 reproduces a table compiled by Pushkarev which shows annual operating data from five existing AGT systems. 1 Pushkarev, op.cit., p. xxi. 2 Ibid, p. xxiv. 3 Denver Planning Office. 4 Pushkarev, op.cit., p. 581. IV. 2

PAGE 35

40 35 30 E 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 . 6 1 . 0 EXHIBIT IV -1 OPERATING SPEED RELATED TO PATRONAGE DENSITY BY TRANSIT MODE• -.... ....... ,_--' / ' / . \ . / \ N .Y. -Reg•on } / COMMUTER RAIL ave . • I RAPIO TRANSIT\ ', I I \ ' / \ ' """"-Philadelphia / I < \ ....... .__ ave • • / I _....., I \ I \ I c \ ( o ', I \\ . ; c: ' / u\ \ ! ' \ I LIGHT RAIL t' < ;: u < ) ;. Q " • .. (I) u a ; 0 E a ;; a c: :! \ .., \ z ' \ ' BUS ' : ;,J .. . .. -c .. :; < u; ... 1 . 5 2.0 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 20 30 :o 60 80 100 150 200 Annual service volume density, placemiles per line-mile, :.,s ' Pushkarev, Boris S., Urban Rail in America • An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed Guideway Tranist, Regional Plan Association, Indiana University; Bloomington, Indiana, 1982, Exhibit 2.3, page 58. IV. 3

PAGE 36

EXHffiiT IV-2 SELECTED AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ANNUAL OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS1 --s-r. r---,_ "-ACT) 1 3-77 12-71 12-71 9-77 2-77 ,AISINCIEII USI 2 .A--10001 1 , 121 10 , 100 1•.500 1.-250 J Tti o l..,.rft tmdnt ... O.Je 0 .17 1.112 0 . • 7 <&. AnnuM 1 0001 1.571 3,1311 2 , 485 3,0112 111 SIIIVICE 5 . .......... -... 10001 3.7 . • .1 oiOI.O 579.5 50.3 . . O . Sm2l 29 . 7 a..o 12.1 11.2 lo.& 7 . otac:e-mt._ IOCXU 111.231 21.271 11, 121 t_a.5 a . P11Nft911'-mtl• per o4a1:e "'"': load fKtOt 7 . " 1l.ft 9 . " 27.ft ._.,. 9 . s...d t nciUG ..... I
PAGE 37

AGT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES The AGT system proposed by the Auraria Higher Education Center is a single line, automated shuttle operation using small vehicles of 10-to 20-seat capacity. The service would run on minimum five-minute headways, at an operating speed of 15 to 20 miles per hour. Four basic route alternatives are considered in this study, plus two variations of one alternative. Exhibit IV-3 lists the six route alternatives considered in this study, along with their system characteristics. Exhibit IV-4 shows the location of the various stations associated with the six route alternatives. Each route alternative connects the Sports Complex with the Auraria Campus, including the first alternative which serves only these two areas. Four route alternatives include an additional link which connects the Auraria Campus to the Denver CBD, with the downtown station positioned at various locations along the 16th Street Transit Mall. One route alternative ends at the Performing Arts Center, on the periphery of the CBD. AGT SYSTEM MARKETS Given the route alternatives listed in Exhibit IV-3, the propo.sed AGT system would have seven primary markets. These markets include: . Aurar ia Campus students and employees who require parking facilities on or near campus . . Auraria Campus students and employees who wish to travel between the campus and the Denver CBD . . Downtown Denver employees who require parking facilities in the vicinity of the following downtown locations: . 16th and Market streets; . 16th and California Streets; . 16th and Broadway streets; or . 14th and curtis Streets (Performing Arts Center) . . Tivoli patrons who require nearby parking facilities, when adjacent customer parking lots are full. IV. 5

PAGE 38

H
PAGE 39

ci > .... • 31tlt AVe., • . . .. EXHIBIT IV -4 AURARIA AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTE ALTERNATIVES STATION LOCATIONS IV.7 .. • • . -.. to,. AWl. 32nd AVE. •••. ,. .. i ltlt AVE. COt.,A& ICAU-+---.. , .... ----AGTROUTE • AGT STATION

PAGE 40

Performing Arts Center patrons who require nearby parking facilities, particularly in the evening when multiple events are scheduled and the resulting parking demand exceeds the capacity of adjacent parking facilities . . Mile High Stadium patrons who require nearby parking facilities when the Sports Complex parking lots are full . . NcNichols Arena patrons who require nearby parking facilities when the Sports Complex parking lots are full. As shown in Exhibit IV-5, each route alternative being considered in this study is expected to serve a somewhat different group of markets, and therefore each is expected to attract a somewhat different level of patronage for the AGT system. IV. 8

PAGE 41

H
PAGE 42

V. AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET ASSESSMENT The previous sections of this report identify the nature of the overall parking problems facing both the Auraria Campus, the Denver CBD, and other nearby major traffic generators, and describe the proposed AGT system which could link areas of parking surplus with those areas expected to experience parking shortages in the near future. This section describes in more detail and methodologies used to estimate the revenues of the proposed AGT system, as Complex parking facility. specific assumptions potential usage and well as the Sports Appendix A contains additional information regarding the characteristics and attitudes of area parkers based on an extensive parking survey conducted in October 1983 on the Auraria Campus and in six downtown parking facilities. Appendix B describes in detail the Peat Marwick parker allocation model used to determine the proportion of parkers who might park at the Sports Complex parking f ac il i ty and use the AGT system. AURARIA CAMPUS AND DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MARKETS Projections of a decline in the supply of off-street parking on the Aurar ia Campus, coupled with a growth in campus enrollment, are expected to result in a net parking shortfall by the year 2005 of over 4,600 vehicles per day. Likewise, the projected growth of the Denver CBD is expected to result in increasing shortages of convenient parking for persons travelling to the core of the Denver CBD. How much of this projected parking shortfall might.be met by the proposed AGT is estimated by applying a parker allocation model, developed by Peat Marwick and previously applied in the Los Angeles CBD. The model determines parking demand for a particular parking facility, based on such factors as: . walking distance between the parking facility and the final destination; . walking time between the parking facility and the final destination; . parking cost; and . accessibility of the parking facility. V.l

PAGE 43

If one or more of the available parking facilities in the area is accessible via a direct transit link, such as an automated guideway transit system, then the following additional factors are incorporated in the model: . vehicle travel time between the parking facility station and the destination station; . wait time for boarding a vehicle at the parking facility station; and . transit system fare. For each parking facility alternative, the appropriate values of each of these travel characteristics is estimated and input to the parker allocation model, which then establishes a value of travel utility for each alternative. The relative utilities of the alternatives form the basis for estimating the proportion of vehicles which will likely use each parking facility. For this study, the area immediately surrounding each possible station location associated with various AGT system route alternatives under consideration (with the exception of the Sports Complex station) represents the primary market for the AGT system. Each area is divided into several concentric zones, as shown in Exhibit V-1 for the Auraria Campus and Exhibits V-2 through V-5 for each downtown AGT system station location: The inner zone contains the parking facilities closest typically within two to two the station. target market and those to the target market, and a half blocks from The second zone surrounds the inner contains parking facilities within an four to five blocks from the station . zone average and of . Where applicable, parking facilities beyond the second zone are contained in a third zone. The parker allocation model, which is applied to each of these zones for each station location, provides an estimate of the percentage of parkers who would use the AGT system and park at the Sports Complex parking facility or would park in each of the various zones. The estimated parking demand associated with each AGT system station is shown in Exhibit V-6. The Auraria Campus estimates are based on data contained in Exhibit III-5 and .described in section III. The Denver CBD estimates reflect the v. 2

PAGE 44

Du II J IIWOII , , EXHIBIT V-1 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING LOT ZONES v. 3 AURARIA HIGHER EDUCAnON CENTER Outer Lots Middle Lots Inner Lots

PAGE 45

7j_ • AGT Station r ( \ \ \1 Outer Zone • IZ/)IA Inner Zone N RTH 500' 0' I"'"W"'5 . EXHffiiT V-2 16th & MARKET STREETS STATION PARKING ZONES

PAGE 46

7j_ • AGT Station t [ill Outer Zone lf.LL.L.LA Inner Zona . 500' 0' I"""ZS EXHIBIT V-3 16th & CALIFORNIA STREETS STATION PARKING ZONES v. 5

PAGE 47

?j_ • AGT Station r f\ s s I Oute• Zon• .. f'//TJZI Inner Zone N RTH soo o r-;-;; EXHIBIT V-4 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER STATION PARKING ZONES /; I I ' . v. 6

PAGE 48

7j_ • AGT Station r-t\\\1 Outer Zone ...... . WJI'A lnnerZone soo o l""W"""" -EXHffiiT V-5 16th & BROADWAY STREETS STATION PARKING ZONES v. 7

PAGE 49

EXHIBIT V-6 PROJECTED DAILY DEMAND FOR OFF-STREET PARKING BY STATION AREAl Station Area Auraria Campus (Fall/Spring)2 Auraria Campus (Summer)2 16th & Market Streets3 16th & California Streets3 Performing Arts Center (Excluding area accounted for by 16th & California Streets station area)3 Performing Arts Center (If the AGT system ends at the Performing Arts Center)3 16th & Broadway Streets3 1985 9,390 4,170 1,880 15,100 980 9,130 11,180 1995 10,490 4,660 3,080 19,290 2,840 12,880 12,710 2005 11,030 4,900 5,060 24,650 8,180 18,170 14,450 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material. 2 Based upon an estimated average daily parking rate of 9,000 vehicles in 1983 during the fall and spring, 4,000 vehicles in 1983 during the summer, and a 2.14 percent average annual growth rate in parking demand between 1983 and 1986, and 1.00 percent average annual growth rate in parking demand between 1987 and 2000, and no growth thereafter. 3 Based on projected employment, and assumed auto modal split proportion of 72 percent, auto occupancy rate of 1.3, and parking turnover rate of 1.7 for long-term parking in downtown Denver lots and garages; whereby: Daily Parking Demand = x (Auto Use Pro ortion) v.s

PAGE 50

projected employment base and travel character is tics of per sons located within two blocks of each station location. Only 80 percent of estimated demand by downtown parkers is considered for application to the AGT system, s"ince 2 0 percent of these parkers originate their trips east of the downtown area and probably would not use the Sports Complex parking facility because extra travel is required.l Exhibit V-7 lists the various source data upon which the above estimates of Denver CBD parking demand are based for each station location. The parking spaces associated with each station area zone are listed in Exhibit V-8. These capacities are based on the inventory of off-street parking facilities contained in the 1981 Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared by Leigh, scott & Cleary, Inc. for the Denver Planning Office, and expanded using the growth factors described in Section III. A comparison of Exhibits V-6 and V-8 reveals that ample total parking capacity is expected to be available for the four downtown station locations. However, much of the projected parking capacity is expected to occur in the less convenient outer zones. Projections show that, as early as 1985, the Auraria Campus parking supply will be insufficient to meet the parking needs . of fall and spring semester students and campus employees. The parker allocation model, when applied to the various parking lot zones described above, shows that parking facilities located closest to the destination of the parker are expected to be preferred to more distant facilities, including the AGT system (Exhibit V-9). It is therefore assumed that these facilities would probably be filled by the parking demand. As the innermost parking facilities are filled, parkers will be required to walk farther to find available par king space, and the longer the distance, the more attractive alternative parking arrangements become. Therefore, projections are that subsequent parking allocations increasingly favor the use of the AGT system alternative. When applied to parking supply and demand data for each AGT system station area shown in Exhibits V-6 and V-8, the overall allocation of parking demand to each station zone is as shown in Set Jl; Denver, Colorado, June 25, 1983 metropolitan travel by origin and This data was confirmed by the parking Appendix A. v. 9 (including Denver destination zone). survey detailed in

PAGE 51

Station Location 16th & Market Streets 16th ' California Streets Performing Arts Center (Ex cluding area accounted for by 16th & California Streets station area) Performing Arts Center (If the AGT system ends at the Performing Arts Center) 16th & Broadway Streets EXHIBIT V-7 DOWN'l'OWN DENVER PARKING DEMAND PROJECTION FACTORS BY STATION LOCATION 1980 2000 Average Annual DRCOG Traffic Percent Urb2n Employmentl Employment 1 Growth Rate Analysis zones Auto Trips 4 , 492 12,111 5.084\ 62,63,64,65 72\ 40,996 62,928 2.481\ 68,69, 72,73 72\ 11785 14,796 11.154\ 70,71 72\ 231607 46,960 3 .499\ 69, 70,71172 7 2 \ 32,172 41,595 1.293\ 75,76,98,99 72\ Auto Occupancy 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Parking Turnover 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 <: . Denver Regional Council of Governments, TF 1980 and TG 2000 zonal Data Sets, Denver, Colorado, August 12, 1983. 2 Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver Central Business District Travel Characteristics, Denver, Colorado, August 198 2 . 3 Colorado Department of Highways, Denver and Boulder Annual Auto occupancy Studyl Denver, Colorado, August 1983, page 2. L c i y li, Scott & Cleary, Inc. , Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office; Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, page 12 ( off-street parking lots and garages only).

PAGE 52

EXHIBIT V-8 PROJECTED OFF-STREET PARKING CAPACITIES STATION LOCATION! BY Station Location 1985 1995 2005 Auraria campus2 Inner Lots 3,780 2,820 2,820 Middle Lots 2,530 1,950 1,950 Outer Lots 1,650 1,650 1,650 Subtotal 7,960 6,420 6,420 16th & Market Streets3 Inner Lots and Garages 3,960 4,120 4,290 Outer Lots and Garages 8,ooo 11,090 15,390 Subtotal 11,960 15,210 19 16 SQ 16th & California Streets3 Inner Lots and Garages 5,380 5,600 5,840 outer Lots and Garages 15,720 21,820 30,270 Subtotal 21,100 27,420 36,110 Performing Arts Center3 Inner Lots and Garages 3,310 3,450 3,600 outer Lots and Garages 10,670 14,810 20,550 subtotal 13,980 18,260 24,150 16th & Broadway Streets3 Inner Lots and Garages 4,410 4,590 4,780 outer Lots and Garages 9,620 13,350 18,520 Subtotal 14,030 17,940 23,300 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or.usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such could be material. 2 Based on no new parking facilities being built on the Auraria Campus and the projected loss of certain existing lots, according to the Auraria Higher Education Center. Assume a turnover rate of 1.96 vehicles per space for Auraria campus parking facilities. 3 Based on 1980 supply of off-street parking in downtown Denver, according to Downtown Denver Parking study, prepared by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. for the Denver Planning Office, Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, Figure 3. Inner lots and garages are assumed to be within two and one-half blocks of the listed station area, while outer lots and garages are between two and one-half and five blocks of the listed station area. Parking supply is projected to future years using average annual growth factors of 1.0041 for inner lots and garages and 1.0333 for outer lots and garages. These _projection factors are based on the relative growth rates for central CBD and general downtown parking facilities, respectively, during the period 1970 to 1981, according to information contained in Table 2 of the study referenced above. v. 11

PAGE 53

EXHIBIT V-9 PARKING CHOICE ALLOCATION FACTORS BY STATION LOCATIONl First second Third Station Location Iteration Iteration Iteration Auraria Campus Inner Lots 100.0% Middle Lots 84.1% Outer Lots 1.1% 6.9% Sports Complex/AGT 10.3% 65.0% Downtown Lots 4.5% 28.1% 16th & Market Streets Inner Lots and Garages 100.0% Outer Lots and Garages 62.5% Sports Complex/AGT 37.5% 16th & California Streets and Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages 100.0% outer Lots and Garages 62.0% Sports Complex/AGT 38.0% 16th & California Streets Inner Lots and Garages 100.0% outer Lots and Garages 61.5% Sports Complex/AGT 38.5% Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages 100.0% outer Lots and Garages 59.8% Sports Complex/AGT 40.2% 16th & Broadway Streets Inner Lots and Garages 100.0% outer Lots and Garages 60.3% Sports Complex/AGT 39.7% 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material. V.l2

PAGE 54

Exhibit V-10. These results indicate significant AGT system usage by Aurar ia Campus students and employees, particularly during the peak fall and spring semesters. The allocation of Auraria Campus student parking demand to the AGT system is believed to be conservative since it is based on the behavior of downtown commuters, who typically are willing to pay more for parking to reduce their walking distance. students usually are sensitive to parking costs and willing to walk to find a low-cost parking arrangement. Rather than modify the existing parker allocation model, this study applied the model in its current form for both Auraria Campus and downtown Denver parkers. Most downtown station areas have a 25-to 32-percent allocation of parking demand to the AGT system. Only the 16th & Market streets station location indicates a low AGT system usage rate. This low usage rate is caused by the higher availability of convenient off-street parking and the lower level of development in this area of the D .enver CBD, as compared to the areas surrounding the intersections of 16th and California Streets and 16th and Broadway. The results of this allocation of Auraria Campus and Denver CBD parking demand to the AGT system are presented in section VI. AURARIA CAMPUS/DOWNTOWN MARKET Additional Auraria Campus demand for the proposed AGT system would be possible if the system extends into the Denver CBD. This additional market would consist of downtown employees who take Auraria classes part-time, and campus students or employees who would use the system to travel between campus and the Denver CBD for shopping, business, or recreation purposes. These AGT riders would not need to park at the Sports Complex parking facility, since they would already have parked their cars on campus or downtown, or arrived by transit. The extent of this potential market is estimated by assuming 5 percent of the Auraria campus students and employees make a trip between the campus and downtown each day, and that half of these use the AGT system, assuming it is a vail able. Estimates in the report assume that, currently, about 12,000 students and 1,200 employees are on campus each day during the fall and spring semesters and 5,000 students and 500 er.tployees are on campus each day during the summer session. The part-time student market is estimated on the basis of 20 percent of the current campus parkers originating their trips at work, with half coming from the downtown CBD and half of these using the AGT system. V.l3

PAGE 55

EXHIBIT V-10 PARKING CHOICE ALLOCATION RESULTS .BY STATION AREAl Station Area Auraria Campus (Fall & Spring) Inner Lots Middle Lots outer Lots Sports Complex/AGT Downtown Lots Auraria campus (Summer) Inner Lots Middle Lots Outer Lots Sports Complex/AGT Downtown Lots 16th & Market Streets Inner Lots and Garages outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 16th & California Streets and Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/ACT 16th & California Streets Inner Lots and Garages outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT Performing Arts Center Inner Lots and Garages outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 16th & Broadway Streets Inner Lots and Garages outer Lots and Garages Sports Complex/AGT 1985 40.2% 27.0% 2.3% 21.2% 9.3% 90.5% 8.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.5% 100.0% 39.6% 37.5% 22.9% 35.6% 39.6% 24.8% 36.3% 38.1% 25.6% 39.4% 36.5% 24.1% 1995 26.9% 18.5% 3.8% 35.4% 15.4% 60.5% 33.2% 0.4% 4.1% 1. 8% 100.0% 38.1% 38.4% 23.5% 29.0% 43.7% 27.3% 26.8% 43.8% 29.4% 36.1% 38.5% 25.4% 2005 25.6% 17.6% 3.9% 36.9% 16.0% 35.7% 0.5% 4.4% 1. 9% 84.9% 9.4% 5.7% 28.7% 43.9% 27.4% 23.7% 46.9% 29.4% 19.8% 48.0% 32.2% 33.1% 40.3% 26.6% 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material. v .14

PAGE 56

TIVOLI MARKET projected parking capacity shortfall at the Tivoli, described in section III, is assumed to use the AGT system, with half the 1,017 vehicles per day parking at the Sports Complex and the other half parking near a downtown AGT station. The resulting projection of Tivoli patrons using the AGT system is equivalent to the number of Tivoli patrons expected to originate among the downtown Denver work force. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PATRONS The seating capacity of the Performing Arts Center is 6, 5 80. If an auto occupancy rate of 2 per sons per vehicle is assumed, the maximum parking requirement is 3,290. The Performing .Arts Center is served by a 1,750-space parking garage, plus a 750-space parking facility nearby. Thus, a parking shortfall of 765 spaces results whenever the Performing Arts Center is full. The estimates of AGT system usage by Performing Arts Center patrons assume an overflow parking situation 120 days a year (as indicated in Exhibit II-6) and assume 45 percent of the overflow parks at the Sports Complex and rides the AGT system (as indicated by the recent parking survey described in Appendix A). MILE HIGH STADIUM MARKET The Sports Complex often faces a parking shortage when events take place at the Mile High Stadium, particularly football games and special events. For this study, it is assumed that: (1) 1,000 vehicles per event park at the Auraria Campus, (2) another 1,000 vehicles per event park at the Performing Arts Center garage (if served by the AGT system), with the occupants completing their trips by means of the AGT system, and (3) 55 events per year require additional parking, as indicated in Exhibit II-6. MCNICHOLS ARENA MARKET The McNichols Arena sponsors events which require additional parking approximately 68 times a year (as indicated in Exhibit II-6). For this study, it is assumed that 1,000 vehicles per event park at the Performing Arts Center garage, if served by the AGT system, with the occupants completing their trips by means of the AGT system. Parking at the Auraria Campus is not contemplated since most arena events occur at the same time that the campus is operating, and it has already been shown that inadequate on-campus parking will exist while the various colleges are in session. v .15

PAGE 57

GENERAL MARKET ASSUMPTIONS The market projections for the AGT system and Sports Complex parking facility are converted into annualized estimates of patronage using the market assumptions in Exhibit v-11. Projected revenues for the AGT system, Sports Complex parking facility, and Auraria Campus parking lots are based on the rate schedule shown in Exhibit V-12. These rates are in 1983 dollars. Revenue projections for 1985, 1995, and 2005 are based on an assumed inflation rate of 6.1 percent per year, which represents the average annual change in downtown Denver parking rates between 1970 and 1981.1 The Auraria Campus parking rates listed in Exhibit V-12 reflect fees which would have been in effect in 1983 if additional parking capacity had been developed on campus or the AGT system had been installed. 1 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for the Denver Planning Office, Denver, Colorado, September 24, 1981, p. 9. V.l6

PAGE 58

Market Auraria Campus Students and Employees . Fall and Spring Semesters . summer session Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver . Fall and Spring Semesters • summer Session EXHIBIT V-11 GENERAL AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET ASSUMPTIONS AGT System Use X X X X Sports Complex Parking Use X X Downtown Denver Commuting Employees . 16th & Market Streets . 16th & California Streets . Performing Arts Center • 16th & Broadway Streets Tivoli Patrons Performing Arts Center Patrons Mile High Stadium Patrons McNichols Arena Patrons X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Auto Occupancy 1.05 1.05 N/A N/A 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 3.0 2.5 Days Per Year 150 50 150 50 240 240 240 240 300 120 55 68

PAGE 59

EXHIBIT V-12 RATE SCHEDULE FOR AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM, AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING, SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING, AND DOvWTOWN PARKINGl (1983 Dollars) Auraria Campus2 1983 $0.25 $0.25 $3.00 $2.00 $1.50 $3.60 All AGT Fare (one-way) Parking Rate Per Day Sports Complex -Inner Lots, -Middle Lots Outer Lots -Down town 3 . Others AGT Fare (one-way)2 Parking Rate Per Day3 . sports Complex -Parking Lots 16th & Market -Inner Area -outer Area 16th & California -Inner Area -outer Area Performing Arts -Inner Area Center -outer Area 16th & Broadway -Inner Area -outer Area $0.50 $1.0 0 $3.30 $1.65 $5.10 $2.55 $3.60 $1.80 $6.00 $3.00 1 AGT system fares and parking rate projections to the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 are based on an annual inflation rate of 6.1 percent. 2 Auraria students and employees receive a lower rate of $0.75 per person, round-trip, for using the AGT system and Sports Center parking lots. These rates are based on estimates supplied by Auraria Higher Education Center, assuming the addition of parking capacity through the construction of on-campus parking facilities or the system. 3 These rates are based on current average parking rates for off-street parking facilities within two blocks of each station location, according to data contained in Downtown Denver Parking Study, prepared for Denver Civic Ventures, Inc., by Frazer Consulting, June 2, 1983. V.l8

PAGE 60

VI. MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTS This section presents the results of the market assessment for the proposed Auraria automated guideway transit system. Projections of total AGT system ridership and revenues are presented for each of the six route alternatives described in section IV, for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005. These projections are also disaggregated by market segment. Projections are presented for use of the Sports Complex parking facility by AGT system riders for each route by year. These projections of parking usage and revenues are also disaggregated by market segment. Finally, the usage and revenues derived from Auraria Campus pa-rkers are presented by year. These projections are based on the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of such projections may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrences of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material. AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM MARKET PROJECTIONS The projections of annual AGT system ridership and revenues by route alternative and year are presented in Exhibit VI-1 and displayed graphically in Exhibit VI-2. Highlights from this exhibit are: . The highest volume route alternative extends from the Sports Complex to the intersection of 16th and California Streets, via the Auraria Campus and the Performing Arts Center . . The next two most frequently used route alternatives are the Sports Complex to the intersection of 16th and California streets, without a station at the Performing Arts Center; and the Sports Complex to the Performing Arts Center. The latter captures almost 80 percent of the ridership associated with the highest volume route, but without the need to enter the core of the downtown CBD . . Two other route alternatives, ending at the intersections of 16th and Market Streets and 16th and Broadway, are expected to generate significantly less rider ship for the AGT system than the California Street location, particularly in later years. This lack of ridership is caused by the higher density of employment in the vicinity of VI.l

PAGE 61

<: H N EXHIBIT VI-1 PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP SUMMARY BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE! (Thousands) Annual AGT RidershiE Annual AGT Revenues Route Alternative 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 Sports Complex to Auraria Campus 1,359 1,917 2,030 $589 $1,322 $2,648 Sports Complex to 16th & Market Streets 2,035 2,626 2,898 $891 $1,875 $3,974 Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th & California Streets 4,714 6,058 8,078 $2,365 $5,307 $13,558 Sports Complex to 16th & California Streets 3,903 5,257 6,370 $1,919 $4,505 $10,398 Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center 3,759 5,041 6,186 $1,909 $4,446 $10,336 Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets 3,377 4,235 4,671 $1,629 $3,484 $7,254 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 62

(I) a: w 0 t-0 <: H u. l 0 w (I) z 0 ::i ...J :il l 1985. 0 2005-10 8 6 4 2 0 EXHIBI T V l -2 A NNUAL AGT RIDER SHIP B Y ROUTE ALTER NATI V E m ,f-. 1-F-E= 1-rn1 t:::::=: 1=::: f= E g = )( G) Q. E 0 . cnja.. t:O 00 C.o en-m I---I== !=== The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the Information and assumptions set forth In this report . The achievement of any e c onomic , financial , or usage f orecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and Is dependent upon the occurrence of 10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

PAGE 63

California Street coupled with the greater relative abundance of parking at the periphery of the 16th Street Mall, particularly in the vicinity of Market Street . . The least prolific route alternative is the more limited connection between the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus. This lack of ridership is caused by the absence of downtown commuters coupled with the slowdown in campus growth in later years of the projections. Exhibits VI-3, VI-4, and VI-5 list the volume of AGT system ridership by market segment for each route alternative for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005, respectively. These exhibits indicate the relative contribution of each market to the ridership projections shown in Exhibit VI-1. The significance of commuters from downtown who use the AGT system is demonstrated by the large number of riders 1 is ted under the routes ending at the 16th street Mall. overall, about two-thirds of the projected AGT ridership is derived from Auraria Campus students and employees and downtown commuter employees. The remaining one-third derives from the various entertainment facilities which surround the Auraria Campus. SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING MARKET PROJECTIONS Projections for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 of annual parking usage and revenues resulting from AGT system riders parking at the Sports Complex parking facility are presented in Exhibit VI-6 and displayed graphically in Exhibit VI-7. These projections are for each route alternative under study. As with the AGT system ridership figures described earlier, the largest volume of Sports Complex parkers is projected for the route ending at 16th and California Streets, with a station at the Performing Arts Center. The remaining route alternatives reflect relative parking usage and revenue levels similar to the usage levels indicated for the AGT system in Exhibit VI-1. Exhibits VI-8, VI-9, and VI-10 list the volume of Sports Complex parking facility usage by market segment for each route alternative, for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005, respectively. These exhibits indicate the predominant use of the facility by downtown Denver employees for those route alternatives which end at the intersection of 16th and California streets or the Performing Arts Center. Aurar ia Campus students and employees are the predominate users of the facility for those route alternatives which end at the Auraria campus or the intersection of 16th and Market Streets. VI.4

PAGE 64

<: H Vl EXHIBIT VI-3 PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP BY MARKET AND ROUTE AL'l'ERNATIVE 1 (1985--Thousands) ACT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Sports Comf ex to Perform ng Sports Complex Sports complex to Arts Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to to Auraria 16th " Market 16th " California 16th " California Performing Arts 16th " Broadway Potential Markets Streets Streets Streets Center Streets Auraria Campus students and Employees 632 (46.5\) 632 (31.1\) 632 (13.4\) 632 (16.2\) 632 (16.8\) 632 (18,7\) Auraria campus Travel Downtown Denver 280 (13.7\) 280 (6.0\) 280 (7.2\) 280 (8.3\) Downtown Denver Com1outing Employees: 16th " Market Streets 16th " California Streets l ,844 (39.1\) 1,868 (47.9\) Performing Arts Center 1,169 (31.1\l 16th & Broadway Streets 1,342 (39.7\) Tivoli Patrons 397 (29.2\) 793 (39.0\) 793 (16.8\) 793 (20. 3\) 793 (21.1\) 793 (23.5\) Performing Arts Center Patrons 165 (3.5\) 165 (4.4\) Mile High Stadium Patrons 330 (24.3\) 330 (16.2\) 660 (14.0\) 330 (8.4\) 660 (17.6\) 330 (9.8\) i cho Is Arena Patrons 340 (7.2\) 340 (9.0\) Total Annual Ridership 1,359 (100.0\) 2,0 35 (100 .0\) 4, 714 (100.0\) 3,903 (100.0\) 3,759 (100.0\) 3,377 (100.0\) The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any ec?nomic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events wlotch cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 65

< H "' EXHIBIT Vl-4 PROJECTED AGT RIDERSHIP BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE! (1995--Thousands) AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Sports complex to Performing Arts sports Colllplex Sports Complex to Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to to Auraria 16th & Market 16th & California 16th & California Performing Arts 16th ' Broadway Potential Markets Campus Streets Streets Streets Center Streets Auraria Campus students and Employees 1,191 (62.1\) 1,191 (45.3l) 1,191 (19. 7\) 11191 (22. 7l) 1,191 (23.6\) 1,191 (28.1\) Auraria campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver 312 (11.9\) 312 (5.1\) 312 (5. 9\) 312 (7 .4\) Downtown Denver Commuting Employees: 16th & Market streets 16th & California Streets 2,597 (42.9\) 2,631 (50.0\) Performing Arts center 1,892 (37 .5\) 16th & Broadway Streets 1,609 (38.0\) Tivoli Patrons 396 (20. 7\l 793 (30.2\) 793 (13.1\) 793 (15 .1\) 793 (15. 7\) 793 ( 18.7\) Performing Arts Center Patrons 165 (2. 7l) 165 (3.3\) Mile High Stadium Patrons 330 (17.2\) 330 (12.6\) 660 (10.9\) 330 (6.3\) 660 (13.1\) 330 (7 .8\) McNichols Arena Patrons 340 (5.6\) 340 (6.8\) Total Annual vehicles 1,917 (100.0\) 2,626 (100.0\) 6,058 (100.0\) 5,257 (100.0\) 5,041 (100.0\) 4,235 (100.0\) The projections above have been prepared on the basis of the and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary f om the projections, and such variations could be material. \

PAGE 66


PAGE 67

< H 00 EXHIBIT VI-6 PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING SUMMARY BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE! (Thousands) Route Alternative Sports Complex to Auraria Campus Sports Complex to 16th & Market Streets Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th & California Streets Sports Complex to 16th & California Streets Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets Annual Vehicles Parked 1985 1995 2005 454 720 774 454 720 829 1,204 1,760 2,541 1,172 1,732 2,164 945 1,489 1,940 970 1,339 1,511 Annual Parking Revenues 1985 1995 2005 $258 $589 $1,185 $258 $589 $1,389 $1,084 $2,669 $7,725 $1,049 $2,612 $6,330 $798 $2,127 $5,499 $826 $1,826 $3,912 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 68

3 I Q ' w 2 a: c( 0.. (/) < w ...J H 0 \.0 ffi > u. 0 (/) z 0 :::i 1 ...J 0 1985 2005-1-,I)( CD 'ii. Eta 0-o:acn 'tic(E n.ota (J)t-0 EXHIBIT Vl-7 ANNUAL SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING USAGE BY AGT RIDERS BY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1--r--,---r--f--= )( CD 'ii. E 0 Oc( cnO.. t:O 0 Q . n.o (/)The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the Information and assumptions set forth In this rePOrt. The achievement of anv -3 -2 -1 0

PAGE 69

<: H f-' 0 EXHIBIT VI-8 PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING BY AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE} (1985--Thousands) AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Sports Complex to Performing Acts Sports Complex Sports complex to Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to to Auracia 16th io Market 16th ' california 16th ' California Performing Acts 16th ' Broadway Potential Markets Campus Streets Streets streets Center Streets Auraria Campus Students and Employees 301 (66,3\) 301 (66,3\) 301 (25.0\) 301 (25. 7\) 301 (31.9\) 301 (31.0\) Aucaria campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver Downtown Denver commuting Employees: 16th ' Market Streets 16th ' California Streets 709 (58.9\) 719 (61.3\) Performing Acts Center 450 (47 .6\) 16th ' Broadway Streets 516 (53.2\) Tivoli Patrons 153 (33.7\) 153 (33. 7\) 153 (12. 7\l 153 (13.0\) 153 (16.2\) 153 (15.8\) Performing Arts Center Patrons H (3.4\) H (4.3\) Mile lligh Stadium Patrons McNichols Arena Patrons Total Annual Vehicles 454 (100.0\) 454 (100.0\) 1,204 (100.0\) l, 172 (100.0\) 945 (100.0\) 970 (100.0\) 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 70

<: H 1-' 1-' EXHIBIT . VI-9 PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING BY MARKET (1995--Thousands) AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE! AGT" ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Sports complex to Performing Arts Sports Complex Sports complex to Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to to Auraria 16th 6o Market 16th 6o California 16th 6o California Performing Arts 16th 6o Broadway Potential Markets Campus streets streets Streets Center Streets Auraria Campus Students and Employees 567 (78.8\) 567 (78.8\) 567 (32.2\) 567 (32.8\) 567 (38.1\) 567 (42.4\) Auraria Campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver D o w n t own D enver Commuting Er.ll'loyt:es: 16th 6o Market streets 16th ' California Streets 999 (56.8\) 1,012 (58.4\) Performing Arts Center 728 (48.9\) 16th 6o Broadway Streets 619 (46. 2\) Tivoli Patrons 153 (21.2\) 153 (21.2\) 153 (8. 7\) 153 (8.8\) 153 (10.3\) 153 (11.4\) Performing Arts Center Patrons 41 (2.3\) 41 (2. 7\) Mile High Stadium Patrons M c Ni chols Arena Patrons 1 ' o ta 1 Annual Vehicles 720 (100 .0,) 720 (100.0\) 1,760 (100.0\) 1, 7 32 (100.0\) 1,489 (100.0\) 1,339 (100.0\) The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any ec?nomic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events wht c h cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 71

<: H ..... !'-> EXHIBIT VI-10 PROJECTED SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING BY MARKET AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVE! (2005--Thousands) AGT ROUTE ALTERNATIVt::S Sports Complex to Performing Arts Sports complex Sports Complex to Center to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to Sports Complex to to Auraria 16th ' Market 16th ' California 16th ' California Performing Arts 16th 6o Broadway Potential Markets Campus Streets Streets Streets Center Streets Auraria Campus Students and Employees 621 (80.2\) 621 (74.9\ l 621 (24.5\) 621 (28. 7\l 621 (32.0\) 621 (41.1\) Auracia campus Travel to/from Downtown Denver Downtown Denver Commuting Employees: 16th 6o Market Streets 55 (6.6\) 16th 6o California Streets 1,372 (54.0\) 1,390 (64.2\) P erforming Arts Center 354 (13.9\) 1,125 (58.0\) 16 t h & Broadway Streets 737 (48.8l) Tivoli Patrons 153 (19.8\) 153 (18.5\) 153 (6.0\) 153 (7.1\) 153 (7.9\) 153 (10.1\) Performing Acts Center Patrons 41 (1.6\) 41 (2.1\) Mlle High Stadium Patrons McNichols Arena Patrons Total Annual Vehicles 774 (100.0\) 829 (100.0\) 2,541 (100.0\) 2,164 (100.0\) 1,940 (100.0\) 1,511 (100.0\) The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of othe. r future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 72

AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SYSTEM MARKET PROJECTIONS The projections for the years 1985, 1995, and 2005 of the volume of parkers and revenues resulting from the projected use of the Aurar ia Campus parking lots is listed in Exhibit VI-11. The decline in these figures reflects the expected loss of on-campus parking facilities between now and the year 1990. The growth in parking revenues results primarily from the effects of inflation, assumed to be at a rate of 6.1 percent per year. PEAK LOADING CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT SYSTEM AND SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING FACILITY The annual volume projections for the proposed AGT system can be converted into peak hourly usage levels by dividing annual volumes for daytime market segments by their annual frequency of use (as listed in Exhibit V-11) and multiplying this figure by 10 percent .1 Annual volume projections for AGT system user parking at the Sports Complex parking fac.ility can be converted into peak accumulation levels by dividing annual volumes for daytime market segments by their annual frequency of use. The resulting estimates of peak-hour usage of the AGT system and peak daily parking accumulation at the Sports Complex parking facility are shown in Exhibit VI-12. These estimates are shown for each route alternative and year. By the year 2005, the route alternative which ends at the intersection of 16th and California Streets and includes a station at the Performing Arts Center has a projected peak-hour volume which slightly exceeds the assumed design capacity of the AGT system (tentatively set at 3,000 persons per hour) .2 However, in 1985, the peak hourly volume for even this route alternative is projected to be less than 55 percent of the design capacity. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Prentice-Hall, Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976, page 163. 2 Lea, Elliott, McGean & Company, Request for Qualifications and Technical Proposals for Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) Draft I prepared for the Aurar ia Higher E center; Denver, Colorado, October 1983, page 3. VI.l3

PAGE 73

EXHIBIT VI-11 PROJECTED AURARI A CAMPUS PARKING SYSTEM USAGE AND REVENUES BY YEAR l (Thousands) Auraria Campus Parkers Auraria Campus Parking Revenue 1985 1,184 $3,166 1995 993 $4,674 2005 1,009 $8,550 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material. VI.l4

PAGE 74

< H 1--' Ul EXHIBIT VI-12 PEAK DEMANDS ON AGT SYSTEM AND COMPLEX PARKING FACILITIES Maximum AGT System Maximum Sports Complex Route Alternative RidershiJ2 Per Hour Parkins SJ2aces Re9u ired 1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005 Sports Complex to Auraria . Campus 550 910 990 1,100 1,960 2,140 Sports Complex to 16th & Market Streets 850 1,230 1,370 1,100 1,960 2,270 Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center to 16th & California Streets 1,610 2,310 3,180 2,840 4,410 6,370 Sports Complex to 16th & California Streets 1,620 2,320 2,820 2,860 4,440 5,540 Sports Complex to Performing Arts Center 1,170 1,830 2,340 2,200 3,750 4,890 Sports Complex to 16th & Broadway Streets 1,410 1,900 2,110 2,370 3,480 3,940 1 The projections presented above have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in this report. The achievement of any economic, financial, or usage forecast may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and such variations could be material.

PAGE 75

For the route alternatives ending at the intersection of 16th and California Streets, projections indicate that by the year 2005 peak parking usage of the Sports Complex parking facility exceeds its current 4,925-space capacity. By the year 1985, these route alternatives generate sufficient parking demand to fill 58 percent of the Sports Complex parking facility. CONCLUSIONS Projections of demand for the proposed AGT system presented in this report indicate a significant market potential provided the system reaches at least the Performing Arts Center and possibly the intersection of 16th and California Streets. Other route alternatives have significantly lower market potentials, which would tend to reduce their feasibility. These projections depend largely on the Denver economy recovering rapidly from the current recession, and its downtown area having a compounded annual growth rate of 2.46 percent in economic activity. Under current economic conditions, little justification for the proposed AGT system can be made. The demand estimates for Auraria Campus students and employees depend largely on the schedule of on-campus par king facility deactivations. The loss of these parking lots is more certain than the projections of Denver CBD economic activity. Therefore, the demand estimates based on the Auraria Campus student and employee market are the most plausible of the estimates in this report. While variations in the volume of AGT system usage are possible with the changes in the economic assumptions used in this study, the relative differences between the six route alternatives should remain about the same. The area surrounding the inter section of 16th and California streets contains the highest density of economic activity among the four down town station locations considered in this study. This area therefore represents the greatest potential market for the proposed AGT system. The Performing Arts Center station location is the next most significant downtown market for the proposed AGT system since its service area overlaps a portion of the 16th and California Streets' economic area and also contains blocks with significant future development growth potential. Even today, the Performing Arts Center garage serves a fairly dispersed market area which extends to the 16th Street Mall and beyond. This station location, as a possible terminus for the proposed AGT system, offers the added advantage of avoiding the need to extend the guideway system into the heart of the Denver CBD. VI .16

PAGE 76

Because the AGT system's capital and operating costs have not yet been produced, the results of this study serve only as an indicator of the financial or economic feasibility of such a system. The results should not be used as the sole bas is for evaluating the feasibility of the project, and they should be used only if the assumptions upon which they are based are maintained. Altering the assumptions, such as the fare schedule, will probably alter the relative attractiveness of the parking alternatives considered in this study and therefore change the demand projections. This study has focused on those areas surrounding the proposed station locations of the AGT system. study results project that the entire downtown area will face severe parking and traffic circulation problems if future development proceeds as expected. The construction and operation of a one-or two-mile AGT system, between the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus and possibly the Denver CBD, should help to relieve projected parking shortages associated with certain specific markets. However, because such a system would not serve other important urban transportation markets, we recommend that the proposed AGT system be considered in the context of an integrated network of various transportation facilities which individually serve specific urban transportation markets and collectively interact to facilitate efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Denver urban area. No one transportation mode or facility should be relied on exclusively to satisfy all the many accessibility needs of the residents of Denver and its immediate surrounding urban communities. Instead, a variety of strategies should beconsidered and evaluated with the objective of developing a coordinated transportation program composed of a well-balanced mixture of transportation services and facilities. VI.l7

PAGE 77

APPENDIX A AURARIA CAMPUS AND DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEYS .Z\. 1

PAGE 78

AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY . This section of Appendix A describes the procedures used to design, conduct, and process the results of the Auraria Campus survey (ACS), which was conducted on October 11 and 12, 1983. The initial step in designing the survey was to specify the des ired results for the survey. The data requirements were as follows: . parker status: student, faculty, staff, full-time, part-time, etc.; . arrival and departure time to/from campus; . walk times to campus destination from parking lot; and . attitudes toward the (AGT) system and arrangements. SAMPLING PLAN Automated Guideway other on-campus Transit parking Of the average 9,000 parkers on campus each day, a sample of 25 percent or 2,250 surveys was calculated to produce the number of valid responses required for analysis . . ApJ?roximately 30 percent of all parkers in each of the 21 campus lots were surveyed, excluding motorcyclists and handicapped parkers. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN The campus survey was designed to be self-administered and returned at no cost to the respondent. See Exhibit A-1 for a copy of the two-page survey form. QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION Questionnaires were distributed by placing a questionnaire on the windshield of all cars parked in selected rows in each lot. surveyors circulated the lots on an hourly basis starting at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m. The hours from 12:00-1:00 and 5:00-6:00 were considered meal times and therefore surveys were not distributed during these periods. A. 2

PAGE 79

EXHIBIT A-1 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 DAY : __________ __ LOT NUMBER: __________ _ AURARIA PARKING SURVEY Dear Parker : I n the interest of improving parking and traffic conditions on campus and of allevi ating the congestion and parking limitations that are anticipated with the opening of TIVOLI and future new campus construction, several alternatives are being explored . The first is an Automated Guideway Transit ( AGT) System connecting the Auraria campus to the nearly 6 ,000 parking spaces at the Denver Mile -High Sports Complex . with a possible connection into downtown Denver . AGT Systems are suc cessfully being operated at a number of major airports , universities , shopp ing centers , and parks . The second alternative i s the construct i on of on-campus park ing garages to replace the 1,300 spaces that may be lost within the next two years . Auraria is conducting studies to assess the feasibility of each of these alter natives, i n cooperation with the City of Denver and the Regional Transportation District. As part of these studies, Auraria is conducting this survey of a sample of campus parkers . When you have completed this form , please fold it and drop it in any mailbox . (NO POSTAGE IS NECESSARY) This questionnaire refers only to your . current trip . If you receive another questionnnaire during a subsequent trip to cam pus, please complete that as well . Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 1. Please i ndicate your current status (please check only one): ___ Student (full-time) ___ Student (part-time) ____ Faculty (full-time) ___ Faculty (part-time) ___ Staff ___ Visitor 2. Please indicate your arrival and departure times at/from campus for this trip: a . m . a . m . Arrival Time :-----p.m. Departure Time :----p . m. 3. How long did it take you to walk from your parking place to your first destina tion on campus? ___ minutes 4. What is the Zip Code of your residence? 5. Where did you begin this trip to campus? (check one) ___ residence ____ work ( please provide Zip Code ------1 ___ other (please provide Zip Code ------1 6. Is public transportation conveniently available from your residence to campus? (check one) ___ yes ___ no ___ don ' t know A. 3 ODD 6 7 8 0 9 I II II 10 11 12 13 I I I I I 14 15 16 17 DO 18 19 I I I I I I 20 21 22 23 24 0 25 I I II I I 26 27 28 29 3 0 0 31

PAGE 80

EXHmiT A-1 (Continued) 7 . If on-campus parking facilities were to become severely l imited and s i gn i f i cantly more cost l y I n the next few years because of campus growth, which of the following options would you choose (please check only one) : __ Park at the Mile-High Sports Complex and ride a comfortable Automated Transit Vehicle operating on its own exclusive guideway to a convenient location on the Auraria Campus, at a cost, including parking of about 75 cents per day , or one-half the probable cost of outlying on-campus l ots. Vehicles would depart each station every 4 to 5 minutes throughout the school day and take 3 to 4 minutes to travel between the Sports Complex and the Auraria Campus . The Sports Complex parking lot and the AGT System would be operated in a convenient, safe , and secure fashion . __ Park in outlying on-campus lots at a cost of $1.50 to $2.00 per day or $30 to $40 per month. __ Park i n middle-distance on-campus lots at a cost of $2.00 to $3.00 per day or $40-$50 per month . __ Park i n a campus garage, if constructed , or in the nearest on-campus lots at a cost of $3.00 to $5.00 per day or $50 to $60 per month . __ Park elsewhere, and walk or take a bus to campus . Where would you park? ____________________________________________ _ __ Join a carpool or van pool. __ Take public transit for the entire trip. __ Walk or ride a bike to campus. __ Other, please specify ------------------------------------------BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 815 DENVER CO USA POSTAGE WILL liE PAID IIY ADDRESSEE PARKING SURVEY AURARIA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER P . O . BOX 4615M DENVER , COLORADO 80204 A. 4 IIIII I rn 3233 NO POSTAGE NECESSARY I F MAilED I N T HE UNITED STATES

PAGE 81

Questionnaires were distributed on two different days during the survey, namely a Tuesday and a Wednesday. This was done to account for possible variations in parking demand caused by differences inherent in the Monday-Wednesday-Friday and Tuesday-Thursday pattern of class scheduling used on the Auraria Campus. Exhibit A-2 summarizes the number of distributed by lot and the response rate by lot. questionnaires The overall response rate of 16.6 percent is a bit low for this type of survey. This may be at tr ibu table to the somewhat inclement weather conditions experienced on the first survey day. However, the higher percentage of parkers receiving. a survey helped to produce an acceptable number of completed surveys. CODING AND EDITING All returned questionnaires were coded for keypunching, using a standardized set of procedures. computer Following the keypunching, an extensive computer editing process was conducted to ensure correctness of all entries in the data file. SURVEY EXPANSION The survey responses were factored to represent all oncampus parking in the two-day survey period. The factors were based on the total number of parkers in each lot, according to data provided by the Auraria Higher Education Center and expanded to include monthly parkers. The total number of parkers was divided by the total surveyed population. As a result, the analysis represents a total of 17,804 parkers in the two-day period. Exhibits A-3 to A-8 present the major findings of the Auraria Campus parking survey. A. 5

PAGE 82

EXHIBIT A-2 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RATES BY LOT Da:t 1 Da:t 2 Both Da:ts Total Total Response Total Total Response Total Total Response Lot Distributed Returned Rate Distributed Returned Rate Distributed Returned Rate A 176 28 15.9\ 136 35 25.7\ 312 63 20.2\ B 152 18 11.8 133 20 15.0 285 38 13.3 c 165 30 18.2 175 32 18.3 340 62 18.2 D 123 18 14.6 125 14 11.2 248 32 12.9 E 176 20 11.4 174 16 9.2 350 36 10.3 F 112 17 15.2 102 19 18.6 214 36 16.8 G 211 24 11.4 198 18 9.1 409 42 10.3 H 137 18 13.1 145 19 13.1 282 37 13.1 I 144 30 20.8 123 30 24.4 267 60 22.5 J 150 22 14.7 90 23 25.6 240 45 18.8 K 122 14 11.5 100 18 18.0 222 32 14.4 L 62 16 25.8 59 19 32.2 121 35 28.9 M 73 17 23.3 71 10 14.1 144 27 18.8 N 116 10 8.6 57 10 17.5 173 20 11.6 p 258 38 14.7 96 41 42.7 354 79 22.3 0 198 29 14.6 181 20 11.0 379 49 12.9 R 172 28 16.3 153 22 14.4 325 50 15.4 s 93 20 21.5 38 13 34.2 131 33 25.2 T 99 24 24.2 134 32 23.9 233 56 24.0 u 98 15 15.3 53 21 39.6 151 36 23.4 v 110 26 23.6 79 13 16.5 189 39 25.8 TOTAL 3,047 462 15.2\ 2,422 445 18.4\ 5,469 907 16.6\ ;:.:. . 0'\

PAGE 83

EXHIBIT A-3 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS Option AGT System Outlying Campus Lots Mid-Distance Campus Lots Campus Garage Park Elsewhere Carpool/Vanpool Public Transportation Walk/Ride Bike Other A. 7 Percent 56.2% 7.8 3 • 8 4.7 4.0 1.4 9.5 2.0 10.6 100.0%

PAGE 84

EXHIBIT A-4 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS BY LOT outlying Middle-Campus Distance Campus Park Carpool/ Public Walk/ Lot AGT Lots Lots Gara9e Elsewhere vaneool Transit Ride Bike Other A 66.0\ 2.9\ 0.0\ 0.0\ 5.1\ 0.0\ 11.8\ 2.9\ 10.3\ B 52.4 12.4 2.4 0.0 2.9 2.9 5.3 5.9 15.9 c 44.6 8.8 o.o 1.8 10.1 10.5 12.2 0.0 12.0 D 54.7 9.1 2.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 15.4 o.o 8.0 E 71.0 5.3 2.6 6.3 o.o 0.0 5.8 o.o 9.0 F 60.9 8.1 6.2 5.6 0.0 o.o 14.2 o.o 5.0 G 44.0 10.4 4.8 10.4 2.4 2.8 12.4 0.0 12.8 H 59.6 4.8 3.0 5.4 0.0 o.o 8.5 o.o 18.7 I 57.9 5.3 0.0 11.8 1.6 o.o 1.6 1.6 20.4 J 64.0 6.8 o.o 2.2 4.5 2.3 8.9 o.o 11.2 K 53.7 13.4 o.o 3.0 6.7 0.0 9.7 o.o 13.4 L 50.8 2.6 14.1 17.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 12.0 M 34.1 20.0 2.7 8.6 2.7 0.0 5.9 2.7 23.2 N 35.0 0.0 o.o 10.0 5.0 o.o 15.0 5.0 30.0 p 66.0 7.5 1.2 4.9 2.5 0.0 7.9 3.6 6.4 Q 55.4 4.5 6.3 3.6 11.5 1.8 3.6 1.8 11.5 R 61.9 9.6 11.9 2.4 2.4 o.o 8.3 1.8 1.8 s 62.4 o.o 6.3 9.4 6.3 0.0 3.1 3.1 9.4 T 49.6 7.3 3.7 1.5 6.7 o.o 15.6 7.3 8.3 u 47.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.5 o.o 25.2 8.1 11.0 v 30.8 21.3 7.7 3.9 7.7 1.9 1.9 5.8 19.1 TOTAL 56.2\ 7.8\ 3.8\ 4.7\ 4.0\ 1.4\ 9.5\ 2.0\ 10.6\ . (X)

PAGE 85

EXHIBIT A-5 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL PARKING OPTIONS BY STATUS OF RESPONDENT outlying Middle-Campus Distance campus Park Carpool/ PUblic Walk/ AGT Lots Lots Garage Elsewhere vanEool Transit Ride Bike Other Full-Time student 58.6\ 6.7\ 2.5\ 3.2\" 4.2\ 2.0\ 10.4\ 2.2\ 10.2\ Part-Time student 54.5 10.9 6.3 5.6 4.4 0.3 8.8 1.2 8.0 Full-Time Faculty 54.7 4.3 0.9 4.5 2.3 0.0 6.2 5.5 21.5 Part-Time Faculty 51.5 5.1 7.5 3.7 o.o 1.9 9.3 o.o 21.0 Staff 58.3 7.1 3.4 6.4 1.3 3.2 11.7 2.7 5.8 Visitor 25.9 o.o o.o 33. 2 0.7 0.0 o.o 0 . 0 40.2 TOTAL 56.2\ 7.8\ 3.8\ 4. 7\ 4.0\ 1.4\ 9.5\ 2.0\ 10.6\ :,X:. 1.0

PAGE 86

EXHIBIT A-6 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY STATUS BY LOT Full-Time Part-Time Full-'I'ime Part-Time Lot student Student FacultL._ Faculty staff Visitor A 67.1% 29.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% B 65.9 28.8 2.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 c 61.4 12.8 3.2 1.5 21.1 0.0 D 80.9 9.1 2.7 0.0 7.4 0 . 0 E 56.1 37.7 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 F 52.8 33.5 5.6 0.0 8.1 0.0 G 39.2 42.6 2.2 4.4 0.0 11.5 H 51.8 24.7 5.4 10.2 5.4 2.4 I 21.6 21.8 38.4 1.6 13.5 3.1 :t:' J 53.4 28.9 6.6 4.4 6.6 0.0 . I-' K 40.1 47.9 0.0 9.2 2.8 0.0 0 L 3.1 16.8 20.4 3.1 50.8 5.8 M 5.6 24.6 34.9 5.6 29.3 0.0 N 10.0 30.0 5.0 10. 0 . 30.0 15.0 p 45.5 36.9 3.9 2.5 11.2 0.0 Q 53.1 40.0 2.6 2.6 1.8 0.0 R 51.1 40.7 1.7 6 . 4 0.0 0.0 s 60.5 9.1 12.2 6.1 12.2 0.0 T 60.6 25.9 10.4 3 . 1 0.0 0.0 u 77.4 22.6 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 v 40.4 17.2 13.5 3.9 2 5. 0 0.0

PAGE 87

EXHIBIT A-7 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD POTENTIAL OPTIONS BY TRIP ORIGIN SECTOR west Northwest Southwest Northeast Southeast East Total AGT System 58.5% 60.6% 58.1% 55.6% 57.6% 42.7% 56.2% Outlying Campus Lots 5.9 5.3 5.2 2.8 8.0 11.6 7.8 Mid-Distance Campus Lots 3.0 3.0 4.5 2.8 3.6 3.7 3.8 Campus Garage 6.7 3.0 5.8 0.0 4.4 5.5 4.7 Park Elsewhere 3.7 3.0 5.8 5.6 4.0 4.9 4.0 . 1--' 1--' Carpool/Vanpool 0.7 1.5 1.3 0.0 2.4 0.6 1.4 Public Transportation 11.1 8.3 7.7 8.3 6.4 14.0 9.5 Walk/Ride Bike 0.7 0.8 1.3 11.1 3.6 3.0 2.0 Other 9.6 14.4 10.3 13.9 10.0 14.0 10.6 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 10 0. 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 Sectors represent portions of the Denver metropolitan region relative to the Auraria Campus.

PAGE 88

EXHIBIT A-8 AURARIA CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY GENERAL PARKING STATISTICS Origin Residence work Other Average Parking Duration: Walk Time (park1ng lot to ultimate campus destination): A. 12 Percent 80.4% 18.2 1.4 100.0% 5.6 hours 7.4 minutes

PAGE 89

DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY This section of Appendix A describes the procedures used to design, conduct, and process the results of the downtown Denver parking survey. This survey was conducted on October 13. The data requirements for the downtown Denver parking survey were developed in conjunction with those described in the Auraria Campus parking survey section of this appendix with the addition of data requested concerning: . parking cost and type; . auto occupancy; . trip purpose and destination; and . household income. SAMPLING PLAN Five public downtown parking facilities, as well as the Performing Arts Center parking garage, were surveyed. Parking facilities were selected throughout the CBD which were located within several blocks of the 16th Street Mall. A 100 percent sample was taken of all parkers arr1v1ng between 6:00 a.m.9:00 a.m. in the five CBD facilities, and a 50 percent sample was taken during the course of the day at the Performing Arts Center garage. Exhibit A-9 illustrates the location of parking facilities where the downtown Denver parking survey was conducted. The five CBD parking facilities which were surveyed are operated by Allright Parking, while the Performing Arts Center parking garage, is operated by Republic Parking. Both of these organizations fully cooperated with the study team and enabled the downtown Denver parking survey to be conducted in a successful fashion. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN The downtown Denver parking survey was designed to be self-administered and returned at no cost to the respondent. See Exhibit A-10 for a copy of the three-page survey form. DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES Questionnaires were distributed in the CBD parking facilities by handing a survey and return envelope to all parkers entering the facilities between 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. In the A.l3

PAGE 90

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT NtH 500' 0' 1000' IIIIIICl5i . -EXHIBIT A-9 LOCATIONS OF DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY PARKING FACILITIES A. 14 KEY 1 . Hilton Garage

PAGE 91

EXHffiiT A-10 DO NOT WRITE I N T H I S SPACE FACILITY : _____ _ DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY Dear Parker : With the continuing and g r owth of Denver t here have been numerous concerns e x pressed abou t the ava i labil i ty and pric ing of parking i n t he downtown area . One approach f or prov i ding a sign i f i cant park ing supply for down t own parkers i s t o bu il d an Automated Guideway T r ans i t (AGn S y stem which connects the down t own area to the nearly 6 , 000 park i ng spaces at the Denver M ile-Hi gh Sports Comp l e x . AGT Systems are successfu ll y be i ng operated at a number o f major a ir ports . u n i versities , shopp i ng centers , and parks , and are currently unde r c onstrue ti on i n downtown M i am i and Detroit . The Regi onal Transportat i on District , Aurar i a Higher Education Cent er , and C i ty o f Denver are jointly conduc ti ng studies t o assess the f eas i bil i ty of th i s approach . As part of these stud ies, th i s survey of downtown parkers i s being conducted . Would you please complete t his f orm , put i t i n the envelope provided , and drop i n any mailbox . ( NO POSTAGE I S NECESSARY ) Thank you tor your assistance and cooperat i on . 1. What is the Rfimaq purpose of your trip today? ( check only one): __ Work __ Shopping __ Personal Business (please specify)----------Recreation __ School __ Other (please specify)-----------2. When did you arr ive at the parking f acility where you received th i s quest i onnaire? a.m . ______ p . m . 3. When will you leave th i s parking facili ty today? a.m. ______ p . m. 4 . How l ong does i t take you to walk from the park i ng facility to your fi nal dest ; nation downtown? __ minutes 5. What i s the locat i on of your final dest i nation downtown? ( building name , address , or nearest i n t ersec t ion) 6. How many days per week do you normally park downtown? __ days 7. Besides yourself , how many people rode with you downtown today ? 8. How much did i t cost for you to park downtown today? $ per day per month (check one)? 9. Was your parking cost paid i n total or i n part by your employer or by the business or store you visited? __ yes __ no 9A. If yes, how much was paid by the employer , bus i ness , or store ? $ ___ _ A.lS I I II I i 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 ! I I I I 8 9 10 11 I I I I I 12 13 1 4 1 5 DO 16 17 DOD 18 1 9 20 0 21 0 22 UIJ L J 2 3 24 2 5 2t> 27 0 28 I I I I i 29 3 0 31 32

PAGE 92

EXHffiiT A-10 (Continued) 10. If people rode with you downtown today , did you share th e parking cost? __ yes __ no 11. What i s the Z i p Code of your residence? 12. What was the primary route which you used to travel downtown today? ( check one) __ 1 (from the North ) __ 1-25 ( from the South ) __ 6th Avenue (from the West) __ Colfax Avenue (from the West) __ Colfax Avenue (from the East) . __ Other (please specify)-------13. I s convenient public transportation available fro m your residence to your final downtown destination? (ch eck one) __ yes __ no __ don 't know 14. What i s your approximate annual househo ld i ncome? ( check one) __ under $10,000 __ $10,000 t o $20, 000 __ $20, 000 to $30, 000 __ $30,000 t o $40 , 000 __ . greater than $40,000 15. Three alternative downtown terminals for the AGT System are under consid eration. All of these alternat ives include stat i ons at the Mile-High Sports Com plex and the Auraria Campus . The three alternative downtown terminals are : • 16th and Market Streets ; • 16th and California Streets, with an add iti onal downtown station at the • Denver Center for the Performing Arts (DCPA); and • 16th Street and Broadway. Automated transit vehic l es would operate on their own exc lu sive guideway and depart each stat i on at 4 to 5 minute i ntervals throughout the work day at a cost of about $1 per day for parking at the Sports Complex and about $1 per person to travel roundtrip on the AGT System between the Sports Complex and the 16th Street Mall. The Sports Complex parking lot and the AGT System would be operated in a convenient , safe , and secure f ashion. Would you park at the Sports Complex and use the AGT System for the trip are making today if: • the downtown station was located at 16th and Market Streets and th e trip took 6 minutes? __ yes __ no • the downtown station was located at 1 6th and California Streets and the trip took 7 minutes? __ yes __ no • a downtown station was located at the DCPA and th e trip took 5 minutes? __ yes __ no • the downtown station was located at 16th Street and Broadway and the trip took 8 minutes? __ yes __ no A. 16 0 33 I I I I I I 34 35 36 37 38 DO 40 0 41 0 42 0 43 0 44 0 4 5

PAGE 93

EXHIBIT A-10 (Continued) 15A. If you answered no to each of the four alternatives li sted above, would you answer yes to any of these alternatives i f the price of parking at the Sports Complex was about 50 cents per day and the price of using the AGT System was about 50 cents per person roundtrip? __ yes __ no If the answer to the above question is yes, which downtown station would you use? (please specify)-----------158. If you answered yes to any of the four alternatives li sted above, would you still answer yes if the price of parking at the Sports Complex was about $1.50 per day and the price of using the AGT System was about $1.50 per person roundtrip? __ yes __ . _no If the answer to the above questions i s yes, which downtown station would you use? ( please specify)---------15C. If downtown stations were located at the DCPA and at 16th and California Streets, would you park at the DCPA garage at the cost of $5.00 per day and use the AGT System at a cost of $1.00 per person roundtrip for the trip you are now making? __ yes __ no A. 17 Q 0 47 Q 0 49

PAGE 94

case of the Performing Arts Center garage, surveys and envelopes were handed to a sample of people using the parking facility during the day as well as during the evening. Exhibit A-ll summarizes the distributed by parking facility facility. CODING AND EDITING number and the of questionnaires response rate by All returned questionnaires were coded for computer keypunching, using a standardized set of procedures. Following the keypunching of all completed questionnaires, an extensive computer editing process was conducted to ensure correctness of all entries in the data file. SURVEY EXPANSION Because the downtown Denver parking survey was conducted only between 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m., survey responses were factored to represent only the total number of parkers during that period. The Performing Arts Center parking garage was factored to represent the total number of parkers since that survey was distributed virtually all day. As a result, the analysis represents a total of 3,361 parkers. Exhibits A-12 to A-17 present the major findings of the downtown Denver parking survey. A. 18

PAGE 95

EXHIBIT A-ll DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RATES BY PARKING FACILITY Parking Questionnaires Questionnaires Response Facility Distributed Returned Rate 1. Hilton Garage 403 222 55.1% 2 . Skaggs Lot 219 95 43.4 :x:3. Harris Lot 66 28 42.4 . f-' 4. Stout Street Garage 140 70 50.0 1.0 5. Market Street Garaye 417 161 38.6 6. Performing Arts Center Garage 1,079 324 30.0 TOTAL 2,324 900 38.7%

PAGE 96

DOWNTOWN DENVER AGT SYSTEM BY STATION Proposed AGT system zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 Station Locations Yes No Yes No Yes No 16th ' Market 16.7t 83.n 38.4\ 61.6' ll.U 88.9' (zone 2) 16th ' California 0.0 100.0 11.3 88.7 13.0 87.0 (zone 5) Performing Arts Center (Day) 0.0 100.0 21.1 78.9 42.2 57.8 (zone 3) 16th ' Broadway 0.0 100.0 9.5 90.5 1.5 98.5 (Zone 7) Performing Arts Center (Night) 44.6 55.4 1 Trip destination zones illustrated in Exhibit A-13. 1\J 0 EXHIBIT A-12 PARKING SURVEY ATTITUDE TOWARD LOCATION AND TRIP DESTINATION ZONEl zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 Zone 1 zone 8 Total Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 31.8' 68.2\ 16.6\ 83.4\ 10.8' 89.2\ 0.0, 100.0' 17.5' 82.5' 25.9 74.1 39.8 60.2 15.5 84.5 0.0 100.0 19.2 80.8 28.1 71.9 15.9 84.1 10.3 89.7 0.0 100.0 26.8 13.2 7.5 92.5 13.9 86.1 30.1 69.9 0.0 100.0 12.1 87.9 44.6 55.4

PAGE 97

EXHffiiT A-13 DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY DESTINATION ZONES A.21

PAGE 98

EXHIBIT A-14 DOHNTOHN DENVER PARKING SURVEY AUTO OCCUPANCY OF RESPONDENTS Daytime Performing Auto Occupancy CBD Parkers Arts Center Parkers Drive Alone 77.4% 25.3% Drive With 1 Additional Person 16.5 51.1 Drive With 2 Additional People 2 . 7 11.8 Drive With 3 Additional People 1.1 9.4 Drive With 4 Additional People 1.8 . N N Drive With 5 Additional People 1.4 Drive With 6 Additional People 0.1 Drive With 7 Additional People 0.6 Drive With 8 Additional People 0.3 Drive With 9 or more People 1.5 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 99

Tri:e Purpose Work Personal Business Recreation School Other TOTAL EXHIBIT A-15 DOWNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY TRIP PURPOSE OF RESPONDENTS Dayt irne Nighttime Performing CBD Parkers Arts Center Parkers 96.3% 7.0% 0.8 2.3 0.3 68.0 0.9 4.7 1.7 18.0 100.0% 100.0 A.23

PAGE 100

EXHIBIT A-16 DOHNTOWN DENVER PARKING SURVEY GENERAL PARKING STATISTICS Type of Parking Daily Monthly Total Employer Paid Parking Yes No Total Shared cost Parking Yes No Total Availability of Transit Yes No Don't Know Total Average Parking cost: Average Parking Cost Paid by Employer: Daytime CBD Parkers 51.2% 48.8 100.0% 39.2% 60.8 100.0% 10.9% 89.1 100.0% 51.3% 38.1 10.6 100.0% $3.00 $3.12 Average Parking Duration: 8.8 hours Average Walk Time (parking facility to ultimate destination): 4.7 minutes A.24 Nighttime Performing Arts Center Parkers 100.0% 0.0 100.0% 4.1% 95.9 100.0% 9.9% 90.1 100.0% 27.8% 58.0 14.2 100.0% $1.95 $1.17 4.0 hours 3.6 minutes

PAGE 101

EXHIBIT A-17 DOWNTOvlN DENVER PARKING SURVEY HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF RESPONDENTS Daytime Nighttime Performing Household Income CBD Parkers Arts Center Parkers <$10,000 1.6% 1.9% $10,000 $20,000 13.5 14.6 $20,000 $30,000 17.8 14.6 $30,000 $40,000 15.6 20.7 > $4 010 0 0 51.5 48.2 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% A.25

PAGE 102

APPENDIX B PARKER ALLOCATION MODEL The projected demand for the proposed AGT system is developed, in part, on the basis of a parker allocation model, originally developed and applied by Peat Marwick during a study of a proposed downtown peoplemover for the Los Angeles central business district. This appendix describes the general nature of the Peat Marwick parker allocation model, as well as its specific attributes. GENERAL MODEL FORM Peat Marwick 's parker allocation model is a disaggregate behavioral choice model which is in the mathematical form of a logit model. This mathematical form is well suited to modelling behavioral choices such as choosing among several alternative transportation/parking arrangements. The reasons this form is appropriate include: . The logit model directly predicts the share or fraction of travelers who choose each parking alternative. For example, for trips to a specified downtown zone, a logit model can predict the fraction who will choose to drive downtown and park in an off-street parking facility near the traveller's final destination, the fraction who will choose to drive downtown and park in a less accessible off-street parking facility, and the fraction who will choose to park at the Sports Complex parking facility and ride the AGT system to the final destination zone. The logit model always predicts a fraction choosing each alternativ e which is between zero and one, and the sum of these fractions, for all available alternatives, is always exactly equal to one . . The logit model can be extended beyond a single choice, such as what mode to use, to a multiple (or joint) choice situation. An example would be the joint choice of destination and mode for downtown trips. A joint model of these two choices would predict the fractions of trip makers in a given zone who will go to each of the available modes. such a model has the advantage of automatically reflecting the competition which may exist between driving to a downtown destination, or using the AGT system to reach the destination from a peripheral parking facility. This competition between related choices can also be incorporated in single choice models by :9.1

PAGE 103

a process called "chaining." Chaining refers to the use of two or more logit models in sequence to predict the related decisions in a joint decision process. Behavioral choice models involve comparisons of the disutilities or costs of each of the alternatives available to a decision maker. These disutilities are then used in an exponential relationship, the logit equation, to compute the probabilities uf the decision maker choosing each of the alternatives. A disutility, Uc, is the cost to a decisionmaker of choosing alternative c. The disutility of an alternative is assumed to be a linear function of its character is tics. The relative importance or cost of a characteristic (such as travel time) is determined by the estimated parameters or coefficients, bo' b1' bn: Uc 2 bo + btXcl + . b 2xc2 + ••• + bnXcn where X c i is either a characteristic of the dec is ionmaker, i, a character is tic of the choice being made, c, or a combined characteristic of both. Examples of these characteristics include: • characteristics of the decisionmaker: income, age; employment, . characteristics of the alternative: travel modes, these would include and travel cost; and for a choice of the travel time . combined characteristics: the travel cost divided by a tr1p maker's hourly wage. Once the relevant variables ( Xs) have been determined, a statistical estimation technique is used to compute their weights or coefficients. The disutilities, Uc, can then be obtained for each alternative by inserting the values of the variables (Xs) into the disutility equation. The utility expressions represent the systematic portion of the behavior underlying individual decisionmakers' choices. There is also a random element which includes the relevant factors not captured in the utility expression and the differences between individual decisionmakers. The presence of a random element in the behavioral model is demonstrated by the prediction of probabilities rather than certainties of choices. Alternatives with higher utilities (i.e., lower disutilities) B.2

PAGE 104

will have higher probabilities of being chosen. This relationship is captured in the mathematical form of the logit model: where: all available . choices, i Pc is the probability, or fraction of decisionmakers expected to make choice c; and e is the base of natural logarithms, 2.718. SPECIFIC MODEL ATTRIBUTES The Peat Marwick parker allocation model used in this study incorporates up to ten variables, which characterize the nature of the access mode and parking facility associated with each alternative. These variables and their relative dimensions are described in Exhibit B-1. As indicated by the exhibit, each alternative considered utilized a different combination of variables. Since the model was originally calibrated using 1980 data from Los Angeles, the various cost variables are listed in terms of 1980 dollars. The two utility expressions associated with the two alternatives considered by this study for each destination zone (station location) are listed in Exhibit B-2. This exhibit describes the coefficients associated with each var iabl. e included. As applied during the current study, a separate utility express ion was developed for each parking alternative for each destination zone under consideration. Within each destination zone, a separate automobile utility expression was developed for each parking zone included in the destination zone. Appropriate values for each variable were input to the various utility expressions. The resulting utility estimates for those equations associated with each destination zone provided the basis for allocating projected parking demand among the available alternatives, constrained by the projected capacity of parking facilities located within each zone. Pro jections by the model of the fractions of parkers who would choose the various parking alternatives considered in this study are illustrated in Exhibit V-9 in Section v. B.3

PAGE 105

EXHIBIT B-1 PEAT MARWICK PARKER ALLOCATION VARIABLES! variable . Walking Distance. Measured from the downtown parking facility or AGT station to the workplace, including distance to the AGT vehicle from the peripheral parking facility.2,3 • Parking Cost. Half of the daily rate.2,3 . Auto Access Cost. Measured at 12.8 cents per mile t1mes the distance from the corridor of approach to the parking area.2,3 . Vehicle Run Time. Travel time on the AGT vehicle, including dwell time of 15 seconds per station stop.2 . Wait Time. Half of the average headway between AGT vehicles or trains.2 . Fare. Per one-way trip AGT system fare.2 . Station Integration Factor. Calibration term to reflect proximity of Sports Complex parking facility to AGT system station.2 . AGT System Factor. Calibration term to reflect the relative attractiveness of AGT systems to parkers.2 . Walking Time. Measured from the downtown parking facility to the workplace, assuming an average walking speed of 3.9 feet per second.3 . Automobile Factor. Calibration terms to reflect the relative attractiveness of the automobile.3 Dimension Miles 1980 Dollars 1980 Dollars Minutes Minutes 1980 Dollars None None Minutes None 1 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Downtown Circulator Plannint Report, prepared for the Transportat1on Systems Center ofhe u.s. Department of Transportation; Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 1982, pages A-14 to A-19. 2 Model factors which relate to the AGT system alternative. 3 Model factors which relate to the automobile alternative. B.4

PAGE 106

EXHIBIT B-2 PEAT MARWICK PARKER ALLOCATION MODEL UTILITY EXPRESSIONSl Transportation Alternative U (AGT system) where: U(AGT system)l U (automobile) where: U (automobile)l Coefficient = -5.9063 -0.-4508 -0.4508 +1.0000 = -0.4581 -0.5743 -2.7490 +3.1928 +0.9950 = -5.9063 -0.4508 -0.4508 +1.0000 = -0.5087 +5.0414 * * * * * * * * * * * * * variable walking distance parking cost auto access cost eu (AGT system)l vehicle run time wait time fare station integration factor AGT system factor walking distance parking cost auto access cost eu (autornobile)l * walking time * automobile factor 1 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Downtown Circulator Planning Report, prepared for the Transportation systems Center of the u.s. Department of Transportation; Cambridge, Massachusetts, February .1982, pages A-14 to A-19. B.5