The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About77-18 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Resolution: 77-18 File Number: 2018-0117 DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY PLAN: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR JORDAN TO PROCEED WITH PHASE ONE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY PLAN DEVELOPED BY NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 68-16, which was passed on March 15, 2016, authorized a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. for the development of a Transportation Master Plan; and WHEREAS, a portion of the Transportation Master Plan included the development of a Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Plan (the "Parking Master Plan'); and WHEREAS, the Parking Master Plan was developed with community input through mobile workshops, stakeholder roundtables, and online surveys; and WHEREAS, the Parking Management Division has prepared the Fayetteville Parking Master Plan Implementation Schedule based on the recommendations of the Parking Master Plan and recommends that the City Council approve Phase One which has the goals of customer service through consistent information, enhanced technology, and increased parking supply to lay the foundation for future parking improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to proceed with Phase One of the Implementation Schedule for the Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Plan developed by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., copies of which are attached to this Resolution and made a part hereof. Page 1 Printed on 317118 Resolution: 77-18 EiLc r -Q117 PASSED and APPROVED on 3/6/2018 Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer i e 9 i�YETTi Ua1 LE: � 1 Ile. kA 0 i�,�J1��11ffi13i11ti 1�L;�yh� Page 2 Printed on 317118 City of Fayetteville Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 I ' (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2018-0117 Agenda Date: 3/6/2018 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: C. 7 DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY PLAN: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR JORDAN TO PROCEED WITH PHASE ONE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY PLAN DEVELOPED BY NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 68-16, which was passed on March 15, 2016, authorized a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. for the development of a Transportation Master Plan; and WHEREAS, a portion of the Transportation Master Plan included the development of a Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Plan (the "Parking Master Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Parking Master Plan was developed with community input through mobile workshops, stakeholder roundtables, and online surveys; and WHEREAS, the Parking Management Division has prepared the Fayetteville Parking Master Plan Implementation Schedule based on the recommendations of the Parking Master Plan and recommends that the City Council approve Phase One which has the goals of customer service through consistent information, enhanced technology, and increased parking supply to lay the foundation for future parking improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to proceed with Phase One of the Implementation Schedule for the Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Plan developed by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., copies of which are attached to this Resolution and made a part hereof. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 3/7/2018 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2018-0117 Legistar File ID 3/6/2018 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Justin Clay 2/14/2018 PARKING MANAGEMENT (430) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approve a resolution to implement Phase 1 of the Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Plan developed by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. N/A Account Number N/A Project Number Budgeted Item? NA Budget Impact: N/A Fund N/A Project Title Current Budget $ Funds Obligated $ Current Balance $ Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Comments: 68-16 RFC! #15-08 Remaining Budget $ Approval Date: V20180205 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff CC: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Justin Clay, Parking Manager CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: February 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve a resolution to implement Phase 1 of the Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Plan developed by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving a resolution to move forward with implementing Phase 1 of the Parking Master Plan developed by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Additional recommendations as documented in the Implementation Schedule will be brought back to the City Council for discussion during the timeline indicated in the attached. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 68-16 on March 15, 2016 to award RFQ #15-08 and authorize a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. in the amount of $584,978 for the development of a Transportation Master Plan, $95,000 of which was allocated for the development of a Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility report (Parking Master Plan). As part of developing the Parking Master Plan — which is designed to both stand alone as well as support the Transportation/Mobility Plan — characteristics and utilization of the existing parking system were inventoried, analyzed, and forecasted to develop recommendations for parking system design and system management strategies. Project goals that were developed include: 1) Understand parking in the context of a multimodal system/downtown, 2) Plan for responsible economic development, 3) Establish coordinated parking management, 4) Explore regulations that are customer -friendly and easily understood, and 5) Explore new technologies. Community input and feedback was solicited at various points throughout the project in the form of mobile workshops, stakeholder roundtables, and online surveys. The Downtown and Entertainment Districts were evaluated as separate districts however the strategies developed will either apply to both or be modified appropriately for each context. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 DISCUSSION: The Parking Master Plan has been created and includes ten (10) primary recommendations to improve how the parking system functions and the experience of those who park, with a goal of increasing availability throughout the downtown. Detailed recommendations along with a proposed implementation schedule are attached. The primary recommendations include: 1) Treat parking as a customer service, 2) Streamline signage for user clarity, 3) Make multimodal improvements, 4) Increase publicly accessible parking supply, 5) Implement current parking technology, 6) Improve event parking management, 7) Prepare for future development, 8) Further research demand -responsive pricing, 9) Streamline permit program, and 10) Create a residential parking benefit district. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: Adoption of the plan does not have a budget impact. Action items of the plan will be brought forward in the future as outlined in the implementation schedule attachment (see link below). Budget and staff impacts will be developed and outlined accordingly as items are considered for implementation. Attachments: Parking Master Plan Strategies Parking Master Plan Appendix Parking Master Plan Implementation Schedule Resolution 68-16 C/) W I F- M J m 0 x W J J_ W F- H W 7'� U) cm M co N cm N co O cm N N w ^ N N M MRe- wd- Lo m w n r� _A V bn Cn T = p C� rte+ CD .L .R RE � cD a� U v a) c � m CD tan CD may+ CD a� 72 W e � C E � Cn Cn - ._ bA c � _ • y Y � � tZ L � _ LN _ CU N DA CQ cn y, CD CD CQ = y D O Cl ' CU C� O t U W .�-+ Y -p _ Ca y Cn LAJt L �' Q7 L CC C C w C M � Q C� L y=_. EE C, � CU CDG C, WU C13 ca CD CD Cqu _ E E w CL.�j wj Lj WWWWMLC.QJ Q L Qi L .y ) : L C Ca C E E L = — L H f/) — — — — C/) V c C/) W Cn �� z, � �� ƒ . »' »9/ \ � #. .f© ' �� ^ �� . �� . �� w2 . , :, . �::.»� © «» � :�� .. .w »§ . . . , _ «» �/ .� � \ .. 2: � > � y. �-, � . ® �� `\� ` \� � \\ \ �' �.� � z« = ! ��- ~�.�\ � t . .2. �� <,� � - . . � �� :� &�f w«`d �~�© : � � C 2. w%« �y � g � « � y � » , *2 . �� » � � 2 : 4 r-, - © o w y S j 4- u ® (U -0 O C X U • - }' N v fT3 X Uun M � 0 Ln ® d a) 4.1 419 U 7 Q) r Ln 0 LO Ln ® > o v i Q 4-- kr- a Qj � D U > { 7 � C LL CL n,-- Q v,, - 0 ._ 4 r-, 4 w y irt1 4 bjD _0 I W pn C 3 p } N txo U cn �� (u +' Ln ❑-� L aJ 'bA -0 o U In a V1 -C C � o Ln U G u C C6 o+ Qj C � N czC .C: (10 L m +, L V >� 0 Q � > 4- ra COE Q1 QJ 14— Z) u U O O ca C V) V +1 L- C 'D Ca >- +, 3 m O L E ull yyy�y� L 0 Qu -0 V)W,1 O C U ; N In a) -0 N O 0-0 CL 41 E U" D -0 Q) + E - 4m, ---Y O LV L '- O a) i Ln .c: d > �.� n caLU 0- o �+1 pp�q yg N41 1 �m L crs u m 41 a3 C >- Q m t ZO C r- L U U 0 E °' O o � 4.1 L- E U t I - w {� LLn Q. •� ® In W �-) _Q CQ C (U C Yi -0 0 In C 3: V o M m 4- +-+ O CL C C .L > M CL O OW i U1 L Li D O N v --J } D Qi a .N a) -C m Q) cub 7-5 aJ L N -0 �+ ;t C a -j LL Q3 O Ln IMM Q3 � LL 0- L 0 u a� - m E u rz to bjO (1) . S� p tars > Q� u > t_n � �X 4-J LL to 0 X to c� j` U 4-j c >- V r a) 4- o - L. 0 O V) a V) Ln 41 �Q e � QJ �7, — Q 4-j E ® � L_ � M (U b.0 r - M Ln'3 ,E bD > +, tri — U QJ V) Q) $cz p >:� Q) c: M 41 bA J L N 41 � N Q) (6 O a) v N a) Q) QLO -0 c o_ o a o-0 c a)ti u E� bA �p b0 N QJ 2 Y ca 41 Oo a) C p � u N ui > > _ co U a) _ 0 a; a)Ln N C +� C u +- v a) ° N ate--+ 'O a) a) N (6 L U C ca > c 4-1 O c6 c +� C > L m c6 a) L a) aL N> C o .Q bA p :- (D � 3�U o± _ LL o -C c� � a v o Ln 0 0 o Q coo v L > N v i b�D `� u CL6 v E 3 d0 3 0 .bn 'N t o° v im v o a) °� N C Y a) a) Q O .� icu c� E 'L vU, c o C L m v 4- N +� 'on a) ° o ma °� � u O a) 4- a >..° 3> Qj N a) N cu C N Q) a) _ cz C > a) C 4- cb 4-1 4- 4J > 00CL N N _O c O L E D C to L-- > C> N ca p o N 4- aJ C .- a) Q 3 a) > () L p o+' a) LCZ M N LL C u u u o C m— 'O 0 to -0 'O U V)+ aJ a) a) 0 N � N -O >' >bA -0 O ° a) a) 0 o an o .� +� a) N +N-+ ._ •N M N N 4-1 i N U a) N lin cQ a) .� fN6 u 0> 0 0 O .? a) ' v U u c c 0° �_ i> v p +- a) cB > �O i m° aJ L Q a) M C C_ C a) N L� +' N o O 41 p aU C Q) � a) —QOJ — U .� i .O aO � OL O U a) -0 a) N 3 a) W 0 0 p+ ca N Q bD N N 7 N C E 0 0 0 o N c p 'cB Ln .0) o M o 0 aN� Q a) 0�+° 3 �� c °two > c ° � o a� E aN)� Q- L v p N +� L 0 N' p �' 0 N 0 a) Ou .V) o3 ca a) u N 0 N p N L 0 E N ° co O Q +� - = a) - L- Q) c -0 Q vi U a) a ca ca 0 0 v> ca v Ln Q u-0 o Q) ui m Ln O c}a N o N V)i o v m> Q- W> bD E u a✓ 41 0 by c N L c a) by >, p . _ a) -F-a) a) a) C p 0 a) U U in -0 O Q) Q) 4, 0 t O p u N p 0 -p a� +� d 0 L+, L u N Q i L Y a) +, Y Q .L a) NO L O Q O > + a bA ca N a N 0 0 ca c o s ca E u v ) ca a� �a�� u4J aLu4� cel—�+� MLS ° °LL c� O bA 70 4.i V) T3 C L O Y M Ura ,+.+ Q1 C 4-JRf � C 'II bO O (10 C O 0 M t E 0b.0o C_ cG '� 41 �^ L W C3 a-0 C N 4-1 pro E E =0 3� .S, au -� N- > a o O C L u_ `- -E x C O W ++ C C 3 a uu O'er uo� w bto E vo>' m 4-1 pro E O .S, C N N X a..i i3 N ++ — C 3 m +- O'er uo� C bto E vo>' c� E O 4-1 'Lh A 4 v o u v c - C X cC0 W m Q) a) `0 e> 4-j O CL O •� 4-' cu O 4- E Q� Ln r .0 •O-' kj Q r�o r -J CD V) Lr) 4-1 ..� J V) � O,v C1— 4-1 ur? bD 0 Y O GQ N U Q Q zz � O w o d � Q O � V L m CII) a C a U'5 N�-a �� `, iil�i�(�fi v `0 V) a) -0 C 4-1 � .2LO ® Y L- 4-1 u' o > v -kjbA •,- d O cn U) V) 0 V) � U cr� '[5r u ro CJ ♦.1� r� -� _ L + �3 tn Ln tBu 7 v vi � � C6 i +� E vE E C D i1 C O 0 fi CJ 0 41 -d-j O O b.p a-- 4- v �, IIi G � � W � O � � � 1 i C:I LLJ 1� ,LLJ r.. 0 N M N N 0 n lfl M c 0 V V o V 00 r1i 1-0V 4--1 O V 00 Ql lD n Ln Lll N N N 00 r M 4-O -0 L m co M CLO O O E - 41 C O Q ° VS +' a) O O L+j pb O U M Q4.1 N j 1UUJ 0 0 4' �L U f6 o � O C O C L C) V) = N i In o a � 4� o In N 3 a °on o L. o unL� °O � cU m M Cl. �� CL 4- 00 C)Lv i v v ° Q T � +� Ci rteo a aA ° o `° a \ v Q, X !fl Ln o V) ru L.> CL O 0 .� `D U " .L � O a � � N O Cl. Ill LD d a O O O d d C 0` D 00 - O O _ O 00 - OE 00 E N= :3 E O 7O d O 7 H C E Ln + E Dl _ N N J w =O O C3) v d d O J C =3 M p p (::> s a O O rD + 4J N Ln n D N u O > Lq Ql f0 4,4 = b4 � � LL J if Cl. LL Z .'N -0 4--1 + O Q ® N �bA X U 4-O -0 L O Vt L iQJ CLO O E N 41 Q ° VS +' a) O O L+j pb O U M Q4.1 N j 1UUJ 0 0 4' �L U f6 o � O C O C L (0 N U V) = N i In o a � 4� o In N 3 M °on o L. o unL� °O � cU m �� CL 4- 00 C)Lv i v v ° Q) o c -a � +� Ci rteo a aA ° o `° a -a Q, X Ln o V) ru L.> CL 0 .� `D U " .L fL.. N (B .'N 3AV NOJ'J}IFH.SVI.A w w_ �3 iJ LA l 1 rwr r,w r3Ari!•3 ;1i1'rCh3�r®srwr J x ` i 3AAF l77JV i'H!7rH"r �.• L ti �. 3AV 1532103 _ 3 •`� L 3AV 1 V'3 ['r, r i R a ., R % :74., , 7 JrG IAV ktlVd;C, I V94 A1r1; O G' A $ rAV iRl`]1i RIr5 e 3AV N70W .$ �ryy 40WOMILAM i IAN! L U„ LP Aab'NS i I, rk'd ' 15117c1Ponk T mal #h` F 2'iY1 3A�I F].�r YIY. I I m �� ,• ------------ rr I+� r■l "- t x y r 3AV i „ _ w � 'M � 3Sn tlriry aAr 1 7AYA11543AMftn 3AV4NH4V�Y�— I "3 [I FRJIr:Y' GEY AJII, C! c CL 3 -o o N u OD c O °ca a as c °+' E n E u o cC] N U1 T v w w -i a v v (\37 as a � c v m y �. N - cl a7 — aJ 0 s = ar °o o C�i � c E m c N a d a) f0 3 c Fn N E c C �-�' v v u E u � v '� o'Fa > v v ar Fao a! v Q a v > > v a c 3:-2 C �y IL u`. D Q Q 2 ci U a a : by oui a O I O 0 I ❑■ ■® _� I f h a M f a Q Q P a n I ,C l C lzi G Q Lf) (f) Cid CUO 41 C> _ Ln W vt ro U bA �3 � O O °u eJ OJ O � u -a-' .r � rs da � 1 -a-a of 4-1 cn Umn 1 C C3 a� U 4- Q 3 L1J C % 41 :1 to 0 0>, u } a Q3 Ld7 L3 a Oa yb }' rte > u v I.- y� v 41 m e O 3 Ln n CL p � ca ® �JO ZS + C3 iJ v U � r cu [3 L L rs L! LU G U4 -1v U r q 0 QJ 0 .0 -0 Q u Lr) U:3 O 4- -C o° e • ® e • s I ,C l C lzi G Q W } N V � } V c u N o LL N O i N O 4 4- a N o N m v a a� o O p Z a E a �'o aoo a o s � Q Q o = o o o o V V o O �C] O O in 0 w A O r) O ao o• Q� o° CL P P N _N .:O 6 1 O `c 0 t T e a .2 O a Zj a •N 0 .n o � � L4 m C d c o �a <D c c E S;a 1 o O O O O 4- ; O 10 00 P v O o O O 3 v _ aaa in O to T O OM J] W 0- (� a O CL IK w CD :Ell PI t: 4 _u 0 LEE 4- 4) 0 a 0 C3 0 0 N E > m 0 'o w o, -0 :D Q .2 -0 -0 -0 0 _u a) PQ 0 D c 0 0 0 0 6 ,T) 0 Lu T o co 'o 00 (> cl)e) CDL -CC CL J _j LJ cm, N w o Y. C3 1 1 1 C.2 N } 0 �• P 1 4 rr W M W = o �i N r M Q N d .Q cv � 0 0 �V a v � d N 1 `c ; a 1 o T 4 m to ❑ rY d, a 4ifit] o m e Com, a .7❑.ry7 0, Y i cv � 0 0 co d L L u >01P LOd h a V O A Ln C3 C3 0 C 0. M O L d CO ■ N 4 N O o, -o 0 0 o b of g b b 0 0 0col n N o n � v � 4.., 4- O O m cu O v o L M v 3 N a0 x O O O O S- /) _=^S«3 • •pip v > c �l7`mJ p ro A...L" Ln 0 U --dg algojpo v'p—o Ap149^d IIV - uai4ozw4n f— 4.., 4- O C: ® cu v N x O O O ]]..��/�y Ln S- /) _=^S«3 • •pip �l7`mJ p ro A...L" Ln '.�a/ a U C.7 4- OL pR �1 iaJ c •J V m L �".' m b✓ u J Z CO111 >. -pig 0 if Ln C6 � `.... LI) Ul ry "" � V .-,%nom-j e .Ed ® v � r� r pUy% �ry-1 U.J O _saw C:U V)(� L� �S > • iJ a 41 6✓ . iJsMl Ln �_ () 0 � u E � � u Lnnin u u Ci ,� u^l o lT3 s C W /�� + ou Le --- r:l,,v F- 11w N N O2 V � V Q o 6 LL O 0 o 0 v 0 0 0 } 3 Q o o ao o` — - Q Q O 'a M O O O O 01 r T 3 v a o 0 00 0 o aai n 01 0 '0 co in D LU �, O 0 a � _ a Q 1 1 � N N O2 t "J c^ :21. CD CD C -D U-7 C/> an. ...... ...ror : ,.. .. Y + r + • �r - - r - _ - _ A ' r-__rr__-...__-,.....-r..--ter..._-r.—«.-. 1 MW 1 ! v r MS�f yN,; I V 0 r�J`�,i,S�J - I4 .: w � v � • r (0 q. 3 c iE °+ t N O Q 1 iA r it V'•r { .!� l A `•� L -sr1 � i It AV O C I 4 i 1 Eo�o r E o 04 __--__-----_ A - r w w _ n� 4�� '� �'"•. T- aate�.. 1 W ::::, I > ® ca W �jd-, W � W r� 4 m w t .a a a� O c •,, a` o ani w O N m' ai � 0 0 0 0 o O E r 10 QW a O rn 'U µW l �' Q LLI y, d O -0 co 0, l� m LO v C) ce u cu bb C: �s (1)ca 4-J�C �, :D o -C ca �, u — 7,- cy D4 +jC L O 4W V)m v QJ i + lf1 fii rU �� S 4i v-+ 4-� v W C' O 7D yJ /�] } W— C r tT3 T'Y (.) LL 4-' C)- 0- cuc ' r 4N -C 0 Fll '� 4 L o� o c> � fl _ ® CCS 4 o f9ii QJ CZ - L.L = rs C: 0 u • 00 0 a- .. 4 E Lo• q) U W Q O L d m ._C Ln L fiU �+. u. L �y Q > m U1 a o 5,.. f K .Y� 1 Q -a 9' 711 r: Arm C'II_- Gm LLJ Cl. C) ° a L aepi � -0� a a� 41� — � LLJ o .� ° L -4-1 Q o +' ° °) u to E wan ° v +J v, v +, E ca c V) +; u LLJ "6 �_ N i L O U Oo- C in trwrr u Q 4.1 u Q f0 "a C OL fa N .� Q M + >. Ln E E C + OL Q a �— U Y� bAU E N C _ v � +1 +1 E p m 3 _�d 4- -C Z; i a O V1 V1 a 4_1 0)u � +; � ° v o �n .N � E 3 0 N ca + ca v> N CIr,Z3 4�Ci ++ C C +� N c6 Ln N c6 Q 4 LAJ°(� L j N r N 3 > O > � W O N= >Q >� V)ca L C 1bjO O v O vi X h-- o 4- +� c 4� C opo W u N +j 4-1 V) M c C In ,� s o L> Y C� C N 7 In C cB M L ° N LLQ O o> u D!e cC i ,> a L(10 C13 (90 U ° �' � c6 3- > O co zn Q Z) 4 L C u ++ co ca t..irr > -L Q fl. Q V ° A L ai ( C E ul CA a.��+��ra� oa�v� v v E0Y �u� �. DA -0 O N L L L O L (� f0 u C6 i E �. C u- d -J L -N >` C6 CO L C N C v O o o °N a` t N N +� ai o 0 v o ° c – L a o C L i Q� u N o N U 4.1 C N O YL�1 sa L 1 "U ., 1+ In L — C i « C " r � 3 i4-1 Ln O a, N ai Ln E m Q) `moi ae N L L.L * 7 (6 •in O C +> > O O fII V) C6 41 Ln V1 Ln o Z �'� cB v N Q � -Q c (Ll L (m 0 �n E -0Z; O L 0—C c .°A 1 N i^ fL6 :U L U U L M N c O Q c (v > `� -11N U C •�.L.LZ $i U S-. -0� 0+�+� OU � +, O O 4. ?3 O v Q +L p O /toy�4- d - O O LE L/ MN E4� L Ln bA �C C Ln L o Q C U O; C O� U N O O U.r-~ D N Qi U= by ~1' N °' bA C LLm L 4-� C c -O 75 OL f. c 4O C O O M U 4- C Ui s N z:E C CZ U � Q 6 S tCi sii t C . O 0 M> Mz 73 U 0 :7 O Ln4- M.— 3 cz Ui ,N 0 �'' O + si vii 7 O w O o -Mo , caEo cu >-ai au C Qi u o 0. v a4's ai �u °o— : tt-- �W CL chi CL �Q 'ry E N N a ---0o ro M — to ci +' ]G X O r-+ d L Oi QJ CL M tn 41 CL -"' L. ifT U1 4-. 2+'n L �.' N N r- ' CL) O 0 —O �"� Ncu lu� L x ej O M C — V O 4 C M N Qli c ' Ui a) L �+ �G ' C OO C L L ai -� C L .Y M CL C +� U L1i0 4-0 O z -- 0 ai a N ff} in N [O .� d 4u x ] + 7 w N ny 0 sty Ci M j +a] -O CL C U [64w sp L_ -0 +, O � M {' O OQi C L �. R3�CLL 6 C:> --a ra no iv L bjD � L Q O () 1 > cn &l Q L C 0 N i. :t' C u Eb0 QJ4-1 a) U p bb i QJ U C w ca > L N E •L OL •C •� Q1 0 0 CG b.Q pp cu > D 0 41 CL 0 L R3 (DM U tC 0 C ro O 04� c% �O 4J -4--' QJ to +'' v � a1 m M i 0 U >> 9 Mvl L -C 4 -� �_ '}' U y_ QJ (U L cn 1- t8 v O w 0 + O O N 4- Cr +' C m O Z3 4J Qi 0 ui ® a--' > S �0 , 4-+ C� �, 7) 0 � 4J U > u1 4-1 O 3' Nom_ O > Q7 4- �' ' O C 41 > U > f3 L in . n 0 0 -a bo lz O v 0 U 7 cri cJ V 0) O O +- s O- O U 0 .0 0 U 6J U 0 U -0 N 1 0 F--' +-a LnC3 U 'L > %-- i 4� 'c VI Ln to iii L Qj C3 O C L = L} Ca O v ru L L -O w- 0 bA 4- U "� 0 L 411 ♦ "� � � � � � � � � � is QS o v v � "-, r—O 0 O U w� c U 'Q U) V) 1 * a� a c Q a 41 y u 2 0 v V� 0 0 0 In G= L ,N 4) O O f.. ev (U QJ 0 -c G1 w L Ca O > 4M _ �J bb crS u a L Q7 L -u 0 CT3 iG 0 CL � _ m ( -14 U � Q � "L � •.. ..0 � 01) • CU Qi ru Ek cz co OL 76 'C cu (D a +- a L `J -- 1 > Qi U -M 1 0.0...«. ; m 'L o O L7 by J O CS 4-1 C +J �y 0• L � z 0 L C 0 CCf i� rG — :D In CJ U C� W Q7 l 1 }-- 0 • • ® • ra no iv �AV N(JIDN..,SVM Ajil 4AV Av 95" CIN 3118VHD MY' r 3Ab Nl� 3AH ani }4,7G - y 10 CN CID =A=ZSV S d) d) ✓ U) E 4 LM 4) C-4 a V) a) < > > JC5 0 (D tJ •.2 m C, 0 a' 0 E CL CL CL fT C? 0 .2 a) a) 4) E CL E > > Q CIL 0 0 C w U '= .2 W CL IL G N'11 Ilv c, r M IN4 r 0) to C viti Qj v r L ct v n O + ] > j r rte.. r r n Qa . C O +L , rLS vy v O CO GA N N bA -C •Q) s+ QY tC "--i _ t45•N Ln ^ Cj y '�•"� .��' �` i rte^ OSb un sr, N 0 � U m O rs L Ci. 7^ i J co W s9 CC OL N L .� Z. r Z cVi v'i 4- �' , C > 7CO i Cl '� +� a C O r "g C O }' 0 Gs U `� - C3 Ci v? L � r z O 0 (7 3: CS CQ 'c CL C3 L7. Q CT Cr n N� L pA r ' 0 p n s � �, it Q] ' N :J � w Q -j CrJ > -J w ar dA ,tea Ca;v '4M 0 L E ca tty Q 0ai ro v C ri .L N NLn L vi7.F+ L U = l%1 C +v�,`-� �' _ v Ld o� a ,� Ec aa� i " t0 v .' , d) - O i -- cU ,U 0 t4 © OA 6 UV z u rs as s N OL Q) Cw G.t Q L - .cu Q7 0 GJ 0 v Ems"_ W -= v "G U N o cU _ ?'_ r GAO C3 w u •fl at O i ,_ -a m d, Q d, ncLl r '+•' GA =� a-+ 4 "a O .> uU X . w yC (-Q �. Q" u U t O N C II C• �= y "t: @ C O w 1 Li C r uOL r' 0 � '� n. DED O L `E +j m l.L Q Q B y3 u O O C � ax f6 0=5 u fz � � ti N 4h. C om' r "a. O 5 o f • .a.. U t" V = ;j u E'-- Eit tL.r-+ r 7•• M. - a; , Ll . O taA cn LL E Q �T3 f4 O , a .�..� �a cn r M IN4 ct bO 0 r x� CL CO � Ln N r M IN4 I� 4 i .— ai U') co C _ 4wo bA M -O O CLOW �r V) N "i Q i OO U G 1 U bA O N f_06 N 'U +L, U LL-! p O +, L s U m M O 41 0 41 + � > .n LO 0 uU Ln Z a 0 C CO WA,41 L 1 a -'u 41 f6 v — U •Q QC6 > cB '� L Q Q in bA U t § •� bA ro -O N> Ll {r3 N U a + C 7 t M bD 0 L '� L Vl ca U v t N -Y U + O 3 .7--+ ca N u 0- ( j 0- : O �� QU1 QU O ,s i� f6 V Q 0 L (L6 O L, b E O 0 O cM O -� U a u 41 bobD ° o 1 a a c o°0� � a� LL 'Vn Q ._ _ U Q Q o C) 4- R3 �°� U Q U O CL 4m, 4-- m Ak, AL bLD bn � c L L L j Q € LL Q LL L o to Un } L U L '� � 4� > O bA N N U O U ate- 4--+ y 41 U C O 1 In •Q •� O L.N .L bA O r W > O C y C •�—'� C 3, O c6 L v ' a bD U pp "� bO L +� cQ) ra c cc c N (7 fIE 'O 40 .ir Q to Ln Q m O Q i- C a F- O w__ u C O M O U N '0 QJ L 'b0 ,�^ vi (U E CNNbo 6 •O f6 O O o f4 � -Ccco 4-j m C M 0 00 E .n E 0 Ll Q)Q co C: O in Q1 r mN --+' C I U L -a Co U •C U aj Ln bA tn lJ bb D m 0 L.� N O bA m c6 O � Y C C L C _Y G C O -O to 0- u 0 c6 T E O O +� a u � NY O Q)-0 t L 0 Q- N a-+ VU O E 1 N QJ (A 41 U - U '� n 1- �0-0 300Nc+ c w 4-c E in c o�o+�>, �a � ° -0 -0 E+ �0 u Q c +Cv C L J : L C C •Lro 4.1 Q 3 fJ Qp � u bC0 O Q1 bCD C o p fd L f6 f4 u >CO C QJ Q i Q 0- U co u u> bB Ln C m Q) X m E 4- Q U C L �4 Q' Q) C W Q — O in m Q C AL to e C - cn L � N m 0w UL byLn b0 •w c o in C U V] 4- C: -C C E cz Q) O "c cuco U U E fu Lo _ co L O C d Q) E W aC mi 01 Pit %no wc 2c ca V) Z3 0 > -.c 0 U') V) bi) LLJ GO 0 E 4- V) 0 0 >` --7, V) CJ CL to 0 M E Ob 0- U Co 0 CL 4� L) E 0.— 0 C: U) 41 > > 0 ", m 4., 0 iG u CD 0 L) Z, (D o O bjD m u L- C) OL LI) Lr) bore 0 4 -co 0 Ln bh, 42 E 7:3 ul C C Z3 CO 'co 4-1 CIO O Ln u m vi eo 0- O Ln (n —Y CL L) Q- E 4-1 4- V) Ln 0 4- 0 Ln 0 Mu Q, &- > m vi CL M 0 a vi Q1 C: U Qi O L—n —C 0 4.1 W 00 > LO 4 - QJ O1 0 uL >- ra 7 > m E -Z > Cl u CUU V) 4-1 >1 > E Cc' 4� 4- :3 a) 0 -0 c CO Q) t),O E Q) LL LU 0 A W Cii 0 C6 fj a J t L Q O =) = C C > L > .� n + CD Q 4- E L — L f6 Q) 0= UJ O4-1 Q N v O N U') in Q Q) O > r6 Ln O Q) O in OD I -O v L, " +1 C bD n C C Q) O C Q) C L c6 1 Cz0 0 + � N � s LL (L) L C6 QJ y (6 . ) >. E C A C U - L+ C Q O L4 tom` MI ® 4 - j U >- (Z� � =- C C =3 NOC Q LL O Ou O Q) U) Q N > � bA Q) to Ln +4-1 -4-1 Q 41 . -0 O L 0-0 � bUA u -0 v > E 30 E � � C N 4" >' Q) O L C (6 tB�-0 3 0-0 O L (B U O U u �V j. 0•C y _0 U C 1 73 0 7a > _0 -0 0 cz Q) n to - Q M CC N E Q) -0 L N > c6 Ln N Q) C C -p -E w.- L L O , Q) U (6 p to C L T O L U 41 O U Q) L Ou + -0 > U) U Q cE f6 L. w E m C L Q o4-1 a� V) >' v, c ao °� E a m c m a) -0u _0W.E o� aoE v ou C Cl V1 N U) U) C -W 4- 4-1 Q) (B W D 0 a C L/)o Q) - 2 m Ln a o c Q) � 0 E E�> 'o -C p � V) Ln CU 0 L 41 C: 0-E Q U N Q Q) 0 o O U) a--� a L p C6 U {- 00 vi O Q c�a M O =- 0 +, � p 3 p — UJ m to Q) � _ V C L N O U> O u .N N N Q . N O ca u_ L E LA vi QaQU�v,�am C: u ins n C) L t.._ L l t .l AW .rr.. L4.J LL r� 7 w +, Ln N N L u > > _ L 'L O L V, CC -0v O '— bA L N c C C u O ' - u O 0) O to R O w � Ln0 C En 41 +, 0j) V1 O UO co(B LE Oc, �r u O C a C Lt C Q N.� O Y'M LL r� 7 E,A,� Q) "O fV "O V) N C C 4- L CLO (a O V) 'gin v C O w O C •— CL1�4 CA � O N L ' u L 4� f0 u C% U C 4-J m 1 '> U 4m ? Q� +E 0_ C c Q Q) V) O _Ln Q _0 OL C O OL `a O v V) Q - Q O 'N C 4> L v 1 4F O +' _ Q a v V) VI � v � > u C �' v u Q) .0 u N L -0 V1 C O Q --,e U o .� AL en W C O 4-, _O 0) 4 Lw cu Q) 00 C as C L R3 n J�r w +, Ln m > > Q �-, Ln _ L C N L ' NC .X L C LZ R O O V) u � Ln0 C En 41 VI E,A,� Q) "O fV "O V) N C C 4- L CLO (a O V) 'gin v C O w O C •— CL1�4 CA � O N L ' u L 4� f0 u C% U C 4-J m 1 '> U 4m ? Q� +E 0_ C c Q Q) V) O _Ln Q _0 OL C O OL `a O v V) Q - Q O 'N C 4> L v 1 4F O +' _ Q a v V) VI � v � > u C �' v u Q) .0 u N L -0 V1 C O Q --,e U o .� AL en W C O 4-, _O 0) 4 Lw cu Q) 00 C as C L R3 n J�r w +, Ln LJ v > > Q �-, Ln _ L is CWS NC .X L C LZ R O Q -4-1 O O 0 Ca OL LZ -0 41 VI C C6 f0 v o 3 E,A,� Q) "O fV "O V) N C C 4- L CLO (a O V) 'gin v C O w O C •— CL1�4 CA � O N L ' u L 4� f0 u C% U C 4-J m 1 '> U 4m ? Q� +E 0_ C c Q Q) V) O _Ln Q _0 OL C O OL `a O v V) Q - Q O 'N C 4> L v 1 4F O +' _ Q a v V) VI � v � > u C �' v u Q) .0 u N L -0 V1 C O Q --,e U o .� AL en W C O 4-, _O 0) 4 Lw cu Q) 00 C as C L R3 n J�r Como E bA ro O bO S [LS LL 0 4- C QF t Q O 4D L. 0 CL N c ti_ 0 N Q N (n C 'N m +.i t1.1 4.1 U 0 L .U, v � fQ Qct 0 0 U v L O C N C � C u MN C C -O Q N ._ C '+ UU O O i Q 4-1 1FI O u Q C: :3 L � s �( X3) 41-0 N L O +� Q _ O (A � m O V)Q V D u > u �dJ Ak E bA ro O bO S [LS LL 0 4- C QF t Q O 4D L. 0 CL N c ti_ 0 N Q N (n C 'N m +.i t1.1 4.1 U 0 0 c c v � fQ � N Q v L O C N C � �p C MN • Q -O bA ftf�m� UU O O i O m�O O :3 N Ln O a-+ -0 ,all 41-0 a L _ a Qi 'cu � V)Q Q J �dJ 2� L= E bA ro O bO S [LS LL 0 4- C QF t Q O 4D L. 0 CL N c ti_ 0 N Q N (n C 'N m +.i t1.1 4.1 U 0 0 c c dO C O v L O C N bD •O +.i 0 N MN N OO •� O C fL$ u ftf�m� UU O O i fS3 C M >�32>ra m�O 4-j >, O 4-J in Ln O a-+ -0 ,all 3 ( 2 _ a Qi 'cu � x r6 Lu LCCC :3O — m Q 2� L= A& E bA ro O bO S [LS LL 0 4- C QF t Q O 4D L. 0 CL N c ti_ 0 N Q N (n C 'N m +.i t1.1 4.1 U 0 O N � '> dO C O C N bD •O N Q MN N OO •� O C C O E N V) O � ftf�m� bb0• u m L fS3 C M >�32>ra C y >, O 4-J 0 tO ai Ln O a-+ -0 ,all E 2 +JO CU L bA x r6 Lu >, sir E bA ro O bO S [LS LL 0 4- C QF t Q O 4D L. 0 CL N c ti_ 0 N Q N (n C 'N m +.i t1.1 4.1 U 0 W -21, NU C) o �V U) ro U � 41 m > u 0-0 Q) UO LV C a0 .N v a (L) N � CII -0 Q Q) o W N > a C: CL 0 � 0 (n o a UA dO C C N CL QO � L O 41 y6g' w� Qc 'N N V) O � N u m L am 4-j m O Oc C6 4.1 D� !Z Ln O a-+ -0 C C 2 O w V 'N x r6 Lu W -21, NU C) o �V U) ro U � 41 m > u 0-0 Q) UO LV C a0 .N v a (L) N � CII -0 Q Q) o W N > a C: CL 0 � 0 (n o a UA dO C C Qc 'N C • � C Q, 7Ln C C � 117 O w V 'N x r6 Lu W -21, NU C) o �V U) ro U � 41 m > u 0-0 Q) UO LV C a0 .N v a (L) N � CII -0 Q Q) o W N > a C: CL 0 � 0 (n o a O 41 Iwo 7E fz Lo vh vi vi CU c M, m -0 0-00 cm -2 L-1- -0 >0, Uu a) wo --L, 2- -C -am > U WD 'coC3 L cz Z > OL) aha -0 4-1 4� 0 -0 > 4- 0 FS n U > C . Y —u E 0 0 D 4� 4� M C 'D0) Q) o o o V' 4- -0 —E 0 0 CU CD 41 0 4-J Le) 0 —0 LOo (D 71 2 v) E > 0 -8 o 0 M c =.— W ul 0 ru V) U E o =Za a 41 4-1 C LJ C13 0 (1) V) > .. .. d3 - 0- 0 CL M . Lo GJ O OD -0 V) 0 -0 0 C-) CL u -C E > Ld n LL E 'S� -E ra 0 u N } i c d g > v E u > a a Q 3 E a E E Ic N � D) �e a N fn C m v N E H J O a a 0 QD q) 0 00 � L � LO aJ >v - O CL o a�J] i O 0 u; i ..X S.. i^t u-, aD L 4' 'D 0 to U i2 ma LL C +- a1 w v j5 O SO ai C . C a +_+ b!J LO pA +'cc TbA E 00 b13 , pp aJ C u t_ } - n ., C 0 � 0 as 4) a� a� w ens o "•�-� �m LiJ > +J a3 - d Lm 0 U(cua --0ra -a0 .4..o..o p U L41 CL 8- s _ 0 u 0 I - c� c� ca Zr C • ■ l g O O O 0 QD q) 0 00 � L � LO aJ >v - O CL o a�J] i O 0 u; i ..X S.. i^t u-, aD L 4' 'D 0 to U i2 ma LL C +- a1 w v j5 O SO ai C . C a +_+ b!J LO pA +'cc TbA E 00 b13 , pp aJ C u t_ } - n ., C 0 � 0 as 4) a� a� w ens o "•�-� �m LiJ > +J a3 - d Lm 0 U(cua --0ra -a0 .4..o..o p U L41 CL 8- s _ 0 u 0 I - c� c� ca Zr C • ■ 4E V) a) Y+� C •N 1 >. L Q) > +� •+' 41 L0 O N O Q v Q Q L L LO C C Q. C m mF)-0U E-0 °' 0 Ov 0 Q) o� c V) L L LA Q) c E O Y a w to •- o c N u E a •� U L Co (D C N .Y . > O L N Q) D 4.4 � N N O c — Q) E Q) Q) ~' �_ C Q > M N U Q) C Q) co L C +1 4s E 'a O E L f6 i Q) +� 4.1 O O +� CCA .— a T •_ O > > Co C O U � bD Q) L .� co V) VI u 41 'a fo Q) -0 -� bA m L Q) CO O d O +, Y ® Qom) ++ N C L O `1 ca Q1 fo O + .Q -o O E E Q) 6 o u � C o Q 3 (U cn -C *.;7, -5 41--- 'in C C co O Q CO O in 7 -C C > E Q) EW lL6 C Q) -O + ut Q1 Ln 0 Q) L Q) V) > � C 41 v C O u Q) C L COC > r- cc C Q) 1 0 +� Q) .N C C E O — CT V) QJ Q) ,fin �--� u O 41 () :L Q) L (o L �°-0� C f6 3 3 0 o� o C: -C 3 av41= ON O N 41 m 0q = 60 — > M 0-0 } V) 0 m 4- L Q) L 4.1 U 41 0- =) C U, C v C 4.1 taA N 4.1 C Q) N O O V) Q O VI 41-O �C O O (o N C O �� E� �; uY � f6 o V) Q) u 1 0 C +� O Q) O vi•O Q) +� N 3 L1 'U, 0 C an cn L Qa-') C= 1 'v C D - C U S m O N •- m LA Q_ all (6 L Q) t C +� M m L O C)L+, a m U L .N LL (o ro U `1 Q) d0 fo V) v1 Q) W L 4..i Y r C {1) >. L �--+ fo .> C C Q fo � O O C D d 41 'V) -W U N Q) Q) O io O Q Q Ln 4� Q: N Q v L u V) Q) Q L m N 0 c a� U N U � L 4- 4- CO N N _ C: •e••+ N O > u t. O +� U . to as bn c L LI LL O +s c 0 E OD �a c m to L LL QM N o u N N N :# 6 Em > Q c . � w � � v N N (6 _ C o u N .L L 'ca E u N Ln� UJ N (6 1 0 Q. o 41 4-1 QJ > L Ln O:5 ' N Q% C �..,.. wC L Q C Q Q c 41 N +� 4.1 p Q)L 0 O C u 14- p to as bn c L LI LL O +s c 0 E OD �a c m to L LL QM N o u N N N :# 6 Em > Q c . � w � � v LA ��III C a u _ •L Ca Qi i Y N N E 12 .� v O� N� o 41 4-1 QC � N C �..,.. C +; o .� U c 41 N +� 4.1 p Q)L 0 O C u 14- p U'in �2 ALU a_0 tw (U � aA v bn L c r- L^ LU c LLLL o 0 +, (z + U O E �> w 0coro +1 O a w LA u C: ro Q . `� A& L fp 0 - LL LL V u N ��III C E 12 v o QC C C 4 41 t- 0 O OL OL L zs U) a p b.D V7 CL U C L CCL N C N 0 € N w C— f6 L N L f6 W fQ 4., C C Y L > L 4-1 Q O 4-1 M N Q VI �_ L C6 E N .N �G fl3 O +' +-i V u ? O NNC Vl c0 L N N b0 Q) c0 a p to N O 7 E U O a 0 v 1 L L1} > Q� (U (U b0 O E E 3 4.1L 0 �� Q) a) 0 a +- O + N +-) Vn U 3 L C c: N O O c: pc: 4-1 +' A�1 c6 Y 3 E a� u > u b4 OO U cn a 0 to LL a p N a m L cet CL y LL O U �i h CD 0 C' O. CL 20► Chi ao O> Q O Y L + V1 •u Ln r6 C X N L O O O p Q u OC Vi O O L B 0 ) N O oma= 41 �o o L '�' N ► O O L 4+ N + � C O ,� +� � N L C: N N bD. 4- = ru N > N L U N w C > Y L4� L L N CLO 41 fU x u a) W WI� yQ rB 0 L � � E /" O N u L / L C f6 W i-+j ± L L �--I 4.1 Ln + X O N bA C U L bA C L V) u �Y +' > Ln u N L u �C E _ > > r6 C) Q -�C OLO N VI L L, Q C)- NO > O `� L C - 3 — L � DA b.� 3 41 C 7 Q to U > O L c6 N U N •0 bA Ln Q r6 U VS t)q Ln U >' N 1 Q O C N r6 x (11 41 O CO N O > c D v L N dq N O_ Q OU (U cn D -0 iL, -O u `0 > > t O C a) Z)�i 7 L- O O N N 41 UO Ci 2:- N ,N C N O u r 4- �O ,� c in +1 O -0 O L U*)O N L N u E E L: -c C6 +� N O f6 U Q CS Q) 0 v v -a +; a -° � �I -CL � N ° 41 N 7 N L C6 C:.Y (6 O bD (ll O 0 N Q Q) > Y Q) V) a--+ CY= u L L O SOA v3 L N N v dJ U CIL > O OL.� O Ir Q QC- '^ cB u N to Q) O C D N a"I O L bA N !�°L. O) OU .. ^, O i --I W ^l W � Y C c /1 ii � M a --I aJ 'O �--+ 4 L a--� f0L In � Y 4.1 rB Q fB :� � � O m •Ca 4.1 0 0 � Ln L N O LA 41 qq 4.1 o cB UU Q1 N •� U Ln m W 41 O C ra N O+ L N cn -O N v ut a' d p O U O W N O41 bA Qfl N Y N C: +' C N U _ Q N B rB . > O U L L) LAKI4 3 M Linm a o m u.- L a) v' OL .'� o o on o L a) > •= N VI cJ \ L U L Q � O GA ML � Q N 7 L u >> �-+ (a �.. ,v CO C N L LO > L N U I U Q m-0 Q m -a C Chi < Oji r 6 � .i ' t i C -�3 U L LJ W -0 j N bA c6 O C L Q) 4., Q L E U � QJ CL b-0 +, C L 3 Q M L 0 N Q) Y o 3 bD U Q Q) cz ° Ln c� O C Q) w N > cn ro � C N c6 Q) bA 73 0 °Lj u C v Z ° m° U Q +J L o C> (u v - o L Q Q o L Ln u �'�D 4 �� 41 a oat,- WV)o-6 O N p E n o to N L Q) ut Q Q) +1 41 LA 4-s bA _ Q) E N+ O >' M O N i L) rQ T aC W �O 41 D W Q `�- Q) �' N4-1 L C p o QJ to -O +' U + U Q) O N Q 4-1 . cn LA LUQ) oon x C6 Q) a Q) U m L L w w Q) O 41 Q ,L N Q) Q) > > !EU'p Q) Q) O Q) Q L a) c!) ( C a) Ln a > Q) > L O C N ° Q) U Q Q) b •L , Q Ln V) O �--r V) U V) C � V) U OD 8D C E F U Q) C C6 Q) Q) U O Q O C tUo O c � ca 4' fl O +� Z5to L Rs () O_ � V) cB 0- E L Q) O + p ca Q° V) 0- (A Lni i w +, W 0 — a Ln U 0 Mu Ul L C v 0 c cz 0 3 a� C o -y- 4+ 4+ Y O N u O Q N +' ro -0 L O (ij O C U a) O 04.1 L O C ov n 0.0 4 � a� a) C 73 �0 3 v a a +a a) +, 0 +� m bU ° V) � 0- O-0 N'> C a OL S � co U � Q AIL A O bA bA aJ C C L 4- C Y V) (f L � Q) 0 v a) v a�C(U Y O a� m +° on L. -Q O 0 u Lto u L " +' Do- Q a) o o 41 41 _ > 41 > > N> N Vt L. O bO > +_� 0 O L C- O > 40 d ,h. .& ,& Q) *' +, >- a L m > L ++ L � •O bA L Q b0 C +�-� �--� +� C- M Y C f4 C Q _ o t U C V) M : L 4--L C v01 41 Q) •� L > LJ Q) L Q) 41 Q) 4 C L 0u O 0 a w U E o AML N c Q) Q) E > CL a-0 N N 4- , O 4--� O Q1 by L C O CLn O Q C (B 7 Q Mu H Ln as Ln .row (u u _ c In a Q > Ln Q) .fir' ca O v CL Q C U V) O y n n 0 C 0 Q O 0 Ln OL I., CL 0-0 m u O Q C y O -0 L E Q L O (ij O C U a) O 04.1 L O C Q E Q b00 H Ln as Ln .row (u u _ c In a Q > Ln Q) .fir' ca O v CL Q C U V) O y n n E a) V) N ` E Q V) Q C Q) O O CO r, .• ,.�. OL I., CL co O O 3 O i O t� V) bA E C Q) % Qi Q� Q) V) O 7 V) H Ln as Ln .row (u u _ c In a Q > Ln Q) .fir' ca O v CL Q C U V) O y n n <o; U Q) to . bD 'cn C C O CC C E "O O `n 14- C p C +_ L ie O U Q C L N O Q 4n L U7� O Ri CL � U O C 0 d V) D Q 0 u ..0 A L•J in ion d Y v 4- V) (0 o c C Q)4� co N N C bA w i C Ln Flo V O U) N U Q O C O �n bA f6 } Ak C O CC C E "O O `n 14- C p C +_ L ie O U Q C L N O Q 4n L U7� O Ri CL � U O C 0 d V) D Q 0 u ..0 A L•J in ion d Y v 4- o c 4� ca C (1) (A a) O W) C - V) L N Q) Y I'6 M +' to O Q Y C O �n bA f6 } C QAai O L fl'6 � Ln > M w Q• 41 7 '41 C_ ro Ln ui In N>-0 > N to M C Q C N 7 U V) C CZ Q L x.� m O�� 7 W In i O N C a+ W-0 O •> C N QLn N •N i -0 4— L U •� L m .— v v AL (u C C i i O o Q�w A C O CC C E "O O `n 14- C p C +_ L ie O U Q C L N O Q 4n L U7� O Ri CL � U O C 0 d V) D Q 0 u ..0 A L•J in ion d Y v 4- o c 4� ca C (1) (A a) O W) C - C N i + O C N L N Q) Y in bA O �n bA f6 } pp O - L to-"-, UQy-c: w Q• 41 7 '41 C_ ro Ln ui In dU C C O O C OLn dA C CZ �C V1 N •N i -0 C4 • M N 'U C i� M v AL A C O .N 7 0 G9 C 'L C Li LL O i-7 C 43 (U ao m C m L LL :z cc CLa Y D 9 u +-; C E E i 4.1 _C lam/, m _0 V E L- u U LO U Ln O r, 4-1 u Q) 3 j O CD L C (U C O U 0 U O -j E c c L Ln L U L 'O O 41 14 14 � a Um �D 4- O (a 41 a V) N0 Z) ca _E a C 4.1 j +1 N > i N N Q V V) N E N E `} (a U Ln V) C V) N Q O COV)+ C N U u 3 V) O C CCC Oin 4.-' • L C 0.- - Y 4Jo O p Q) (D u O C -0 >41 D (a N � O O C E O a L-0 Q O � ' v U L U a O 4 A (a O O L M U O L bA ajO :3V) fa aL Q)� i x � ca � on LU a o a c� v u o 4- 41 �, � � L L bA bA 41 N L O i• E p (a Ln N C O N C> N3 v Q) Q) .- O L o U -C n U -0 (D -4� cn N L a� a L (a O U N A O i O N cu OE a O 41 O— C C a U O (a ._X Y L 4J O p D `� p > O C p y f p caV) CL—m �, a� 3 mEa > czo CC cm O ff.., i - Q) _� ZJ +' O Ca O 4--: l� cON C• U C U C U C w L ;�, E > U 0 2c L.QC o 0 O O N OC N L O j 0 — m N N N O OCM3 u O V) > L 41 a U I, m C a O O>- 4-1 � a Ln 41 : V)> V) 4J to N bA rt5 'O ` ca 41 p L � 4-- bn Qn -,.e -C ` u CU O (a N = E 3 p •� O L a� -4- N +� a) � � +� cU t� rcs pp -p bap O 0 fil C C+ (6 .� .0 O U ra C L41 C m L Y N N+ U In D4-1 0 a a a Ln r LO °JN3�� ov �o� O p a--' O 3 i O c6 C O L C bA Up 000 U E N Q U 2c = L C ,n Q C C 0 > X •0 N O > U O L O-0 +1 q) O i boC C O C Q >, N c CC � Y 4- WC) Y O Q (a O L (a C a O u} � 8D 43a)-�'Op N°o COD O ca b O > `-' N 4 1 O ra O 4+ C ° C= > 4 N a N U s N ® (moi, (a L. L C abA QJ � (n � E � NU � a to C C vi > a O ca 0 S[ v (a O L (a N (n Zs M W 1 C O+ > O C C �C O E> C �- O� O v 'O > i O O_0� .3 LLQ to L O C U X Q) 0 O+ L %S L> O O �"' O U WC Q C a in +) -bA c6 p�j O >t,0 C L> E (u C •� C v pip N mod N C p tLO CL � qUj C N � � .O O la U 4, E LC O O L QJ E QJ > ca r U 0- R.-,- �� N l) Q a�>Q�.^ C �-4-J. wa inLna D 9 u +-; C E E i 4.1 _C lam/, m _0 V E L- u U LO U Ln O r, 4-1 u Q) 3 j O CD L C (U C O U 0 U O -j E c c L Ln L U L 'O O 41 14 14 � a Um �D 4- O (a 41 a V) N0 Z) ca _E a C 4.1 j +1 N > i N N Q V V) N E N E `} (a U Ln V) C V) N Q O COV)+ C N U u 3 V) O C CCC Oin 4.-' • L C 0.- - Y 4Jo O p Q) (D u O C -0 >41 D (a N � O O C E O a L-0 Q O � ' v U L U a O 4 A (a O O L M U O L bA ajO :3V) fa aL Q)� i x � ca � on LU a o a c� z.S^. i meg, w4=—�.a N v � v o .C: LLn C6 � 0 � O 'L eC a Q N x .i w C cc CL Y 701 -r- N V) L L O a� c � L � OL o 4-1 V) 10 ul >- C: c c 4- 0 � O G Q C N U Q) \ U) V) m to c .o E L � ?L o o c �� T3 >, '> 4-ju tn CL >- 4— L _ V) 12 7C:a;L- O V) Ln U Ln � c. L L U V1 Ln Ln O i O 'N Co ` j C�C C 0 U O 41 +> O \ m > N v � v o .C: LLn C6 � 0 � O 'L eC a Q N x .i w C cc CL Y 701 -r- N V) L L O a� c � L � OL o 4-1 V) 10 ul >- C: c c 4- 0 � O G Q C a� Q) \ U) V) m to c .o E L o C o c �� O_ tn C O E �. L _ V) N 41 O V) Ln U Ln � c. O bA in 41 Ln i O 'N Co ` in > E N O 41 +> O \ O 41 > a U Q (A AL AIL 0�.1 • � � ty} N QJ � ' � U > +, cu A A, 'A' N v � v o .C: LLn C6 � 0 � O 'L eC a Q N x .i w C cc CL Y 701 -r- N V) L L O a� c � L � OL o 4-1 V) 10 ul >- C: c c 4- 0 � O G Q C Q) 41 N U) V) m N N W i o C o c �� V) � .� C C6 L Q N 41 O V) Ln U Ln � c. O bA in O 3 .a O 'N Co \ � c O - CL ai L ,U OL L N Q y > o41 a cc uu� Q _ a CL 0 0 Y 'L o o c �� V) � .� N C Q O > O 4J U 0 Lnr6 O Q Y � 4- L O bA in O O 'N Co ` o a • j w _0 Ln V7 +> O \ \ � c O - CL ai L ,U OL L N Q y > o41 a cc uu� Q _ a CL 76 0 0 Y V, a� o o c �� V) � .� f0 > O 4J U 0 Lnr6 O Q ND U V) O bA in O O 'N Co +, • j w _0 72U V7 +> O \ > a U Q (A AL AIL 76 Cr– L_J C:W co CIO V) 41 + > = � O L� co N G •ra O Y N N V) L m Q N 1 Y C L> L E Q O -- CL) to00 }. N 0 N ` G AL. cu .. E Q! to L 10 ry v, -0 O O ca �1 CL O O 1I"! �✓ L.. -., L - N sem^ 0 Q � � 0 V Q C)- to 'Ci Q V u > —> V) -0 C O is i-' L _ Q (6 CII i � >- t(i C a + UC: 0 •t;;.. f>6 Q t f6 C7 [4 �O 0 AIL AL. 0 { a to +j 0 .0 >` ru (U C cz+� + ai ++ O L f0 0 . Ln m �o Q u x> in L �C u u O O &-- Q Ln N +� . _ N Y aJ + � �G7 N ca ca Q O O v– c6 > OL W u 0 a� C u 0 Q) m N Q C � d' O C •� N Q u +L N N—p CB 0 L> N N N N N QJ .N -N i 41 L O Q 4-1 CB E Q bQ L_ L u {,y� 0-0 N 41 v, C O -M ns bA -0 �� N f6 +, C O �� m 300 z m> �Q-.�� —�s QV,� Q a 2 Al Al .i O L cz c cl u N LL O L +U a 0 V E a yr do � C +° }r +j -0 0 y L � h0 M N fir•, -0 N a O. E a t E CL a a V: r� V) -4- < Q � U -0 +S u C C:U o oQvn3 3: 0E O u N C U) U U O C - -00 o +, O 0 (D -4- U 3 O0 C M E 0�O-0r� bA Q b!J N U 30 v r6 C +J L C bA .1 �_L +) In > � U 0 ai LU C Z ca U O U m LL .c Q U bD 0 7 �C 0 M '-0 CB b24 -Q n s E u ru a o o L- >,L- a J X C u O! U U) L +, +, U E O.� -e-� L U U jo Q a 0 Q W bD i 'O O °J U 0 +U U 0r6 i N 0 w (D a) N O O C Q O O Z) 'O QXJM U N "O �] cB 4- rLn Ln vQ U '�' N rT6 to C 1 0 bD E Q U E �-% OL L U r6 r4 N ui 1 M 0- nJ Q r0 U _ Q) a 4-1 -1= U, a) M C i v r6 u °� M •� M U�� E u F U U- E Q. � v o OLo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' m o Ln o vi o Ln m m N N fi N N > m — �o O c 3 � i Ln o O ca O � 4.1 4� O C: -- Q) U O i a) >, -- O f6 > O u E L C Q L ut Q N O U O i U (U6 Ln' Q E LL yr Z; unf-TT unf b Aew-8Z Aew-TZ Aew-bT AeW-L adV-OE jdV-EZ jdV-9T jdV-6 j d V -Z Jew -9Z JeW-6T JeW-Zl JeW-S gaj-LZ gaj-OZ qaj-ET qaj-9 uef-OE uef-EZ uef-9T uef-6 i^ b C' u u Q) L c6 O O +1 4- QJ >� Q '� N ?� C d00.�L -4-1b0 +'�, QJ O 6 > U u •� L 4- u m Q4.1 Ca ,.._. '- O Q O bA OD 0 O bA Q U C m C J Q) � m N N bA Q) �L m +� O 4 .0 C OL Y 4% C b0 L m vi �O t4 u QI N Y Ca ,- Q 0--o to p> > Q 4'•' C O Q) E Q 41 o C N (u E C p) >� !? > N� C 7 >, - Q ry 0 4- � 4-1 p u +, +� > ca O O ca N Q� QJ O p N u N a- � •C a) C Q) O i U .0 L C C +, N 0 > C o > Q) Ca -C L C m N Q t L fa .� o a N p U Q N O N J t6 OGi u � U Ca �_ E O Y� rc Y ca p O u b!J QJ > 0- C -O Z,> ul N 0 O> N N Y Q) Ca N m () Q) OL tfi >. — 0 Y C C N LJ C CA .0 >� E v 4.1 M C +�to Q C 'O Q) N bA C Q ++ Q) N ra L Ca Qj 1 N p C O— L L Q 0 Q �, _ > L p 3 Q) � O 4.1 p C �7U- 0) C Ca > � . L }� ,�_ ..perp�-- Q) C� L 4! m-0 O u p N i C O Q) Ca U � O— (n -6 to > i... E N N C Co (1) O O OL > cB ca a � 4- ++ O C C > u +, Q) p u_ bD 0 O N Q) U C6 L >` Q Ca Q E L U C U N +--' +� O 0 +-a O N C !? �� L 0 C +' L C O a �O C u 4- N v O ~ p p Z3 O.. bjD +,t O b C ° C 0- 3' 4 v N O u Q > C° > pU ca '� Q) t o > 41 U v 3 o a N v a� N Q) C N G) LLO E� o a) L ° te a) ' c '^ 3 m an o ; Q O � � �Q) N VQ > 0 QJ O 1 4N N- Oi C O bA L4 a L Y -61 U � 41 0 73 u H L. -61 0 o s� bA u C aj O Q) 3 C: O 0 N CL � Q) m i +- O f6 C E N N , U -Ci 4- 4• N J O Ca G O O N N 0 0 a 0 M OL 0 41+, O �--� O C: Q) 3 Lr)p N o C U Q 0 p C— N ..�s 0 O QJ cap LY N L ca N. Q 0 N C L a� — oo u 1 w— o �-Y p x i N L vo `� Q) Q> o+, U 0� = 0- o f 0 u = C N Q) bio L +s +� N 3 a� -c (U Q) V) E bC.Q bC:D 0 w to Ln `N Q) C: bo L +O C - 4 N L w > QJ L •U C C""4.1 .L 'L 4.1 _ 1 Ca Q) CL C a) >^ > rad m Q Q O bA p 0 u " D 0 Ca m � a--� L N O o _0 'O C a J Q) >, C N ) V)+ N N C QJ O L N eo C L a > Ca m U C C O u C Q) 7 3 \ O Q) x-0 O 0 0- a")Q) > Y 0 u Q) N 0- L ,aj N v- C v c N o L- Err[ N i O 'L U Q) `� C Q) C O 0 > Ca L > Ca +J 0 p C ea L Q Q) Q Ca C Q) N ra C a) O u m C Q— Q) o ca to Q ►. t C Q- +, .� ,, Q) u 9) a) 0 to u C E +� L ca v E 5 t >- N x N Q) c6 E 0IS 1 C) Q 4 r O 0- cLa O bA pia LJ M 41 Q O �Cj� 4.1 s w 41 � L O L cz N O u � Q Y +1 � U tLJ) m -O Q) � � N p � Q U V) N � L L C) N � � 'A — OL U bb E 'N L O � o ca L +� � Q) Q) J qq .-- -O bA N a--� L Q) Q) C -0 r- Q) J N C N C6 Q) `+- 1 L O Q) ® ca N N L ;—t-- —U) N O ca U - 0 Q) N bb > O �-- C: C: W0" U `� C" ~ LAJQ) L I I I I I I I I > m > CL W I? Q) .- N • • n� w 110 0 - Ln ai 1-1 Ln Lo 1 �, r3 0 CL o ao a -61M Q1 ;' v a ® ° �� c U te- v o o L Q E to a w �� LL v �D 4i - = ( Ln v �7 C� > v� v 1 �5 F U Q CJ r� u7 Ln O � N Q1 V O r Q4.1 +' > � L C" x +,O C- -� Q �n Q Z3 C Q1 U4— vi aJ ® -u U Q rts T3 O in Q +' C 9J i r� ' r G x k' qJ t0 � Ql � � Q ® U ,> t4 in a C =� > 4-1� Q.. O �,. U Ql QU U f'v O C Q -C -4- - Si O Q dJ pU� Ul Uj -0 , Hn UO v U U Cs p C i uo co YV C E -o#J V1 O � 91 (� '°°� �. i1.. O Q m a� E' _ F -Qj O ru p - �' 4-1 1.1 R3 En .iL . `� U L E m w a to uj � C U W G9 _N CC. vs U �, C U v Ci' � U >� Q® TS Q CJ O —i = L. -I U U U t4n (%1 v 0 A Ci C _ i r O N N O •-� 0 E i a c C �1D QJ 12 o `^ v o O mm C ro O C V Q "Z CIO O v 'O v -o d O (� C) - .r Q v Q d O 2 12 o r>— v s o Q> E) E o s'Q Q m12 o 12 s 46, i s > C) V 7E N ro N > 12 _r oo c a s a o o a N v > '.� - ro o Q — O E v U v bS Q f-. IBM tR O a V. c V? o Q -c U 3Fp cn 41 _0 L V) Q) L N Q O L o C O C > Q C �f UJ +� _ V -6 C +� O O 4-1 j in i NE m(j O N N to N p N V) Q m N - C U U v L > C L V1 L a L +� U QJ bA a-•� •— U C: clo N m in m N O N c6 U L N �n u U O (a OU U Cl 41 u N bD Q O N Q N L CL p O 41 N D 0- N Q) Ln O 4 C Q V) C_ p C O L p co O 0 0 a p C Q)u (U C+ p C v� U ca LO J J _ N 0- 4-j +j O fa N +j Ln E > OU U > Q)a U bA a ��a� O0�� ouC a�+,°+�'�ovN3v� N ,C N O N_ bA Q N a-1 N N C N �� .0 L L -O CL> L U U bA -4- L� +� N O� C N O L to O -0 •� Q O .� Ln O > ca Q N U Q W > �O N 4-' C U cn L O N N N bA C O N OD Ln u vi U in by �C N L(UQ) U O in 4-1 N O N f6 'O C Q 'i Q Q NbA bA i OL N d fT6 f0 �C L -C Q j, � • V1 U O > - O lE 1 +� L O C- � Q 1 M O C N— U -O O X -0 m co C bjD O N N � N= O in O— C6 4 •U �--� �_ U a r U u .F.� •� 0 O CO L M v L— -_ N> c0 N V1 N f 4� N U N O� L U N C Q ai L N OD L. .> O N 41 � O � Q E cn o N C :-' O C C N bA c�a r6 Q +� N O O L O E co v� Q C - N N� p N C L O C U L> Q- O L -61 N f6 O U L U> L 1 b0 � N> O N L O po U bA C C L Q J vCi O a L. L U L i N L U 41 N O> bD to aL Q U d � _> c6 o m c6 O� CL N to C In a) 4.1 Q) r V) u r�r^ U O QLD, a) V a) . u C, CL C>6 Q) C C C6 Q) = N u 73 v >,.0 = Q u O "- a O V) 0C C O O V 57 v L L O � ,}• — d 4� f6 a) U E O _ C O 7a4+ u I" a) Lu N _ V)E F CD iH L04 C E vY CL -Cu > o Q) a) L bQ L1 4, O vi m o an 4-j C C O -C.- u d � In riq 7 f i 41 > U C a 41 a) > (D a) bD _ V)E LO . C Ln C 4-1 41 C � E aa'4.1 U aJ J a) i O O cz; mE aa)> F CD iH L04 C E vY CL -Cu > o Q) a) L bQ L1 4, O vi m o an 4-j C C O -C.- u d � In riq 7 f I oo L 4 C V) v � ' v o a � E U_ L aJ C i 0 a) U a) N a,4 �'' C m a= c0 c0 a) > Uf0 O>Q O �C _0 C C O C a) O U",u ° U)+1 GJ +J LQ-) � 'f6 'o � }- C ° a) 3 Q U C 0 '; E°°U 0 bA O L +, v L C U> U Q O > O O m a 41 XMI ,i V N ¢ L U U LL m CZ U C 0 co (z00 °� a;�a -ao 0 Q- Q) ° C Q) ° C a L a O °41 c6 + N O j ° O °; ° v) -°C vii u u 0 u° O U — O= N L ao C; O 4� L.> f6 a� °� �> NQS a�Uu41V) CZ u GO a) a-- L L Ak L Q A&I AL Ak LL a, Y `- v �, 4- 0 O Q) � 'u o f U p .� +� 0— V) C rn c L �-0 � +��uL�� v� O a Ln ° va)ZLna C.� �- "�"'3i LA � V).- 0.) ). -CA u V)0.) 04- f6 c'" N bA 7 Q u O V) 4 OAS U bA� C _� U Q) }° � tl) �a C -, °� X C +- aJ U U C C u V ..0 o f U) - L> c6 d C N U a) :? r o Q) 'E o C L m Q C a W a Q) [6 >` N-- +-� '> 4- , E �-� :- a+s �a +_ C > LR Q N O a) > L � v> a) w•- 7 O o C % a) C C v� C �' +, Q) U M co C', rJ ` n -r_ . (J >, 0 - lr > � > ° C U Q) a) N > 0-0 m 1.e) o �' O O a) N- O a) > a) L a 7 O s.... "'o U .Q E cn CO n -� f6 .� U C Q) > a C G L a L H N U LL O a) Go O lie u4 E41 LA 41 v i (L) >4� i > 12 c E 4i Vi m �� p _ O CL A U a Q E7+ W �c V) C oU � C� °- > c C Nan u 0 U a� bA u >. .Q 0 +' v �O aJ m .r_ •— 0 4.1 O O N aJ a �- °�' °�° °�° 3 c C CLC: DE ° a� C U)(L) o E N� N E +. O lB — L L Q) u b0 NN bA C 6 L ° O 4- L N bU � aJ N ° a) N C a) Q) O C0 Q U LC C O U O 41 'Y > Q +' C + > o + a) a) i 0 ID > a1 C bD L tB N r6 O +� +� in L w +� r6 'n 0 0 (U +, bb M O U Q O Q a) o .0 CO L a) 41 LnQ O N O Q 0 ° N ° 'O a) N C u L C6 �' ++ C , N -0- 0 � O N -O 0 +, N M N pp b0 0 L Q C N o O CO v aJ L 1 > Q C J vi -O ° in +, i--� L �..i QJ o- L — Q� i L. ■ .r ■ O V1 N Q m Q O ra C C a� L O t iCL Ln 0 -07 O Q Lo pp Q v>i o C N CO U N M L C� � 'cn O > U C +- in � >, �O aJ Q C L L C U° bop U p N� N Q O Q C ca Q1 -0 u1 C to C L +� +, Q- 0 Q c� t3 C — C + E U n •C to 0 (6 C M C u O Q ZO i' - C 0 L -Y Q L� o Y E— 0= a) L D Y U> Q A > vi ca 0 (; 3 OO o c e " 0 4'' Q Q Y 0 41 u N ° E v 3 u O Q° Q C o a� cs � �, a a o L � V) Q - 0 0� I- -�� o o a;ood�� Liu °Qj GJ 41 Q- c-0 o 3 C > co Ln 0 c�� E a v QJ c crz Ln Ln "'— 0 E um> ° ami o ami ca v�-0 61m0 0 v > ai 0- aj u C > r- >, ,- a; L L W �� 0 �'m� �� v " W bQo� o° o ° 0 c L o aaj o E u 0 C E u U z3 � � 'i CL Z3 0 vi Q> N aJ m 0 4� N ca `� L W +-� M a) O L - C O O () C — �- L 0 v +� a) v U Ln 'M L-0 C 0 O Q C +.i v C 07 `°L° `-"� `n Z CZ u c 0 "' o� co u o� 0 3 341 c 41 vLn ° 0 aQ 0 > +� C 0OL 41 >- O u ° a, 0 bA L C 7 O L Y L •C 0 v 3 -0 a� L u C a V L. -r- .E Q-c m m 2:° w� Un m cn 0 'm 0 E+ 6,§ o� Q Q (L) a) N Y _C - a L u Ute' z v a)� dND 41 N C N V a a a) cu a) '� a) '� L> U i, -O O N 0 ( Q -p 41 -O O �c 4' +� +� a a a) � L C ca E -0cu +� 41> > O � (6C O p N C6 N a) c6 -0O L �0 'O 1 EC to u -6 - O a) 41 .� N > O b�A 4 N 3 u41 Ln E N u C u+� O N f6 N ° L L C E L Q bC.O u a41�C 'L O E O+� N E o Q Q — N Q) � �-- a a) �--� O L M 41 L a) N 3 N 41 Q 0 N a-•� C N a) Q) a) +'Lu =3p C Q '� O m � a) +' N Q N N N�qQ O O -O U . L. .2 L. Co M N.O U O N L a) t2 — a) w -O fo a O U 41 Q) O 4p- a) a aJ > E O L C U N '- m u M m C T a) C p OL C N N C U L C a a) M 4J L 4- C: �' N '� -p p +� L -C +� +� O +� bA a) U L +, +� 'L. 7 N C w O O N4- O 4.1 a) 41 Ln � N Q E a) C A N Q) u 41 a) m a D a Z3 L Q) L- OL L LUa E Cp N N Q) �f � 'tB UO N a V) p +� U ,L � > o 4-1 > p C C6 U 4- i bA a) L U N 0 a) N N to N > E E 'm a) ca bA aJ 41 > L > > i > N _0 p N N N o L a r C6 tB C_0 o L.4) E L C O N L a) (B -0 cL6 u Q a) a) .� o E LOL n N a O U L. Q U N E Q +� Q Q Q) .O • r • a ■ U) Q • • • w Q N NO Ln = 41 4- ' L Q) C ' a) c -p ca fl X U dA _ > +� �i u N > Y > 4J O 4O '� N bD CL Q U L U U m U E ON o� O C a u_ N X N 'O aJLn pp +, t �O C + p N ca N U +' o m u L p bA � O N Q C p C m .� ca N 41 C bn� a U bA a a a> o + > } bA + C C a) + C m u Q) Q) (II (� Ln +-F- i) C a) fa .� a N aJ > cC6 u t OU N ca v _C to U U -C N C `�- O a) N Q) a) + a) N C+6 � U C +J 3 to E a ' Q) +j �.�� v Q� o o� �� s � J �� .� ai N Z33°a) LnQ u qj o Y � co UO + C c a a N ca > N O C LLc—�6 L M a C0 O f0 — D W a) qp a) Y C O U Q) O — U N fB N 41 � DLL o M f0 N M Q `n O C ate -1 L 4- C u N a) 4- E v A� a) p v; bA G3 E }i E o `g o ,Ln� �. a) O O +� O [6 � c6 O 4- u C M u a) .L C C O +� E +� >, I.._ p r 1 L f6 p N �Ln L M N L Q m Q)U � L M N co UCZ O p C t co �' -p C � a) o U+ >� N a c/') > N O aLn 0 O o Q) E 'O O i � O O 'a N L- N O N a --i f3 L Q c � W 4-1 N Q) Q) -p .� . �C a) N p bz bo v N +� o o+ O p +� N u C C N +� N +, N -6 N o C -O a) 0 w a) o >v o> W p C_ L Q) U a) 1 a U C U m > lE Q) L L L Q) X f6 Q C6 L L o a 0 0 0 F -a a o E C a ti 4- H �- -6 G f6 -- Q) C: > QJ Ln L in O m O N O> Q O- M 7a ti UU X u OL QJ QJ O N 41 Q cD O N !; N N COQ, fl-C Q)� U) jv �m T, N O> O n a O >U N cn > CSD Q1 v; • b0 y +� >• Q) C6 v) 1Q) Ln vi !L' C QJ > J u X n E o Q) Q) O ' Q) CU) -O L-O Q- Q) F u +u O O 0 . U '= a) o <3.C6 tip + i L P C N a) C + Q) CD Un dD caQ r T Ln t v: v, O a o �' n U QJ + O QJ V)a1 N LO QJ O > - C + o C C -O O C6 r - .-_ -- CZ CL O U LLnbA +to O L � U Q Q NO vii �_ Q N O ibD u� aJ C ON _J Q (D — �_ QJ QJ 4- CC E a u N QJ Q) --` QJ Q)-' u �� r0 C Q) C (6 U > '-� Q) QJ an-+ U _ ate--+ • L CCD O (1) O cn E l7 U m - 3 �, v= c J Q c; am_. C) C-> a� Q I I I I Q �: li fD ti cD > E ti u i>> 41 Q L O N E �O 0 E O V)� iii vvi C Q) E O E Q) CU C a V) 0 N -k, 4.1a) C m Q) L N a 4-O O L >= L a) U C N +' O 0> -O d +� E O• m eD °� C N a p> u o ,`�'„ �^ a c ,On C o C Q) +� " u M O .Q= V) O Q) C +� bA '(E f0 E a c6 C 4; Ln 'E_ E Ln a) a) L +l u>< E 1 0 w u 0 a j Qvi J a) bA L a O C O ca L L a 0 M O u-C E O -0 O O a)U U 4� 4+ L Y a U) O bA Q> 'O bA N a) 4-1 Q) +� N V, Q-'� L N O "U O � 41 C � Q) N !? � O C � � � 'O u Q) � L 1.4 Q b Ou� O U m Ln O O oQ O C C C O N O C C 4. -O Ln LA '� by 'U vi r6 r6 N O C C C v C v N H Q)~ i O c C Y N ) O bn Q) cD i U vi f= E U u p ou c p ca 0 L a `D d LLJ Ln 0 -0 u O, C + tCE a) a QJ Q) � �O C 'U a) +� a CL o . C O+, O O �� Cao >, O m o CZ u LOL C) o a) a) ani c o. N ~ a O r bio O -O N .> L t5 M N Q)) a U bA U� -O U i 1 0 iJ O a Q) n c6 � i S C N O C C O cD vOi (0 CB LO O QJ i! �C ppa C a +, +-, L N M U I I N 0 a U E Ln U Vf L bA a) Ln ,C Nu L OQO oi-0 N o � L M o � Q E Ln aNJ a) (U M 41 c c G M U +� t L C -0 a) a) 4� L i fl + C +J a) aJ L Ln a) o N 0 L C to C b.0 '0 C f0 f0 a L bA a-•+ L Q U> C -0 7 U M 4- V1 .N LLL a) C Y a) O LLQ L N aJ Q) O N 7 O O V) O C O -0 —_Q C V1 O a) L •,C bA — -0 +J L M a) "Z5 U L 4, a) +, Q QO aJ ,— L C O C O C L C N .N CD U C O L L C Q c _0 c o L O> '^ a a) Y E a) 3 Q 3 L 0 m v 3 +1 a a°) °o = °Q v c -0 V) , W .-- C° u m Co -0 O Q `~ c� r- in 0 , u e� N� c N O o 0 _0 41 u V) Q o-0 c + w ut '� C °' 'L °) E O� i a— Q) Q) O w i U a) > QJ L~ f 0 0 �_ M O E C `� -0 V) 4J L. bD 0 Y L U aJ U- a) a) +� 'N E ' ut �O Q '( N aJ CJ c6 Ln Q Q U N •0 L (B a--� C M Q) : •> '> C6 dU U cB Q a) L -0 +� ut O a) +' L L V) c� b0 � 6 N L O 41 c ° Q E bQ a) m +J ca L U a) O VI N (U L a a) p O C bA Q V1 fl bA O L .> N O N V1 X O 4% ! > Q 4.., u) U — L L U 'V) U L Vl QJ o u o �-Y Z) O u V) a) c b°o Ou Q Q L i C a) C u N m Ou to a) C > O cn U ~ L w O O E OO E 3 m a) c- c vv) -0 L bD m by .L r� a N .N �n L W 4 C i> N O-0 +' C o �, Q L Cl 'm -o C bC: a) > u u a) O ON Q p O N> o LA CLO m D o b�0 C Q 0 0 X 0 Q O 'n + O o E E +' (Ln N W O U C -0 + •— c 4 N E O O b � @ 3 +, �, _0 � -0 bA u • � Y L °; Q +' C ° . � E u ' a� O N 0 o° w N Ln v cL6 , L -00 bb- o U ° Q: N a _0 M D L Q .E- ca ° a '�n ° -a a u Ln E a v, m -° w 3 0v to L> 4 O i 0 O o 1 p CL. Q an u o f ° o u° ci E a) ca a) w Vi c— a) E f— Q c +, L O L N C �' L u L D- OL , C OQ bA c°n > in 0 c Q O 4.1 L u c° c� Q>, c m L O CL c u E +, +, E bCA a1 Q Q aJ Q ..... L > •� t O C 0 aJ ca N Q) Ln C -C Q E O (u t N m U° V) C N O c� ca O N O N v vi a) °� u -p L L i E N 3 bA O by (�6 �� 6-C Q fB 0 Q -0 CZ > m C > L Q Y i-' � 4.1 7 QJ N L E LnL. C C E C 0 -0 a) -0 O °U +�- vi L Ln u � C 0 bA Q) t O N Q o N 7 L N° O M Q N .� N o~ 3 7 C >' N� L bA Ll N +�' Q N u p .O N O N E L bA II � .c E c• L Ln 0 CZ V) b � � ° a te aY bCnQ"o� �+,�� L L Ln N c bA a) -0 m E u .� > Ln a) 41 ca ' co >' Ln U C bA , Q aJ 3 C .— �41 — 'L C Q L .NLn Q) = L O Q N Q bA C to > 1 'U f0 N d4 -0 O M M a) Q-0 S O o� N .E Q) C O C O O C � .0 Q E a--� L Q) QJ f0 E'3 V) Inn � N ° Q `^ E a; > a aU W c •c 4 � � O E v `� > -0 � � E N bb +� •> QL1 > 4' .�_ > �J Q v C N °u Q -P m 5 b0 — � +; ,U tua U Y m O m U u m U U 3 '(a � L a� L ut L U ° 0 N 0 cT> Q a) L L' u (>m a m Y o �o v LLL o Q (.E OL a u U Q ,n a 3 �Q EuLU C) LLL LLJ cm W Iswr'� 11 '' Ie.�M W W a_, OL GL tn cu C Ln G � C Q O E f6 � .L t`nn � O U � � N Q LJ C z O L 0 O C O +, ^v) O 0 O C) O -0 •meat L d w cCv H L C Q p to Q) Q -O Ild 142 L (Q LO L O C vi N •O O N 4. , +- O L _m U L g. Y C (� N U OP U m Ov I.- 00 Q C 4.J �3 `r d C i O 4 M gQj 5C rb Q Ln C � � � � N O N U � � v ca C Lo o bz 4.1.1 U O � u LV) E PrI 1� C D QJ � O O 41 v O N iN N a O - :D C Cid NN bA to >V)C O C L N -� a CII O CL N O ry M Cl Qaa-0o Ak I.- 00 Q C 4.J �3 `r d C i O 4 M gQj 5C rb Q Ln C � � � � N O N U � � v ca C Lo o bz 4.1.1 U O � u LV) E PrI 1� C D G u � v C � � a d o L a +� A ,� a C C � aQ -0 u N L a) m E Q) -0-5 CL ( L + C +,fB U ou o bA -0 C 1 aJ > > N f6 i (U V)N ca C W 41 (� C �-a a w -0.E- 0 at-- 0- — C6 w— bhp cu = 0 C bel .®' u —cu 0 C +8� Q 0- O -� u ®— p � %3 r�� w w a OLn E C L too + :S- $ { Cu M M Ua v o w w r`c O m ❑ ® n. 0 s C 4 -0 ru L (rn a v) =' AL L) u bAbC_A O -a +J a1 �n U o N 4.1 mE a u o c V1 ;; C �_ 1 •� - MVl +, Q% L m In 4. a v v C M L} C � * 3 3 3 o cu to c Q C f Q) O Q) -0 � ,��n � -� O o �k6 av/ LL a L > Li uy o u u to CL V ' L 0 L) 6p a ami V QLO a fw�� O CH N20 0 1II� d > w 44 v on CL CL O. 4,cc cn 96 0. o �W �E 41 Q�c LnL. L 4i Ln U L _0 °' N> Lo m � c >, p V) ° Ln O() Q s Q u � 0 V)41 v, 41 4. a) — L c0 0 o u c° ca +, Q M Q Q M Q 4141 M c° o Q C r� u ra L U O> f6 U (a f6 O LL u O �> O Li Q) 0 to Q U U E >, N 0 ' _ L Q L 4.1 Q � E Q. Q L Q o V) a) c6 V) � V1 Ul O '"G fB N Q L u v Q Q L Q u E •� — Q Q u+ L U Q — +1 v) MnL- LO 41 CZ C: a) Cr aJ u C) u� -0 L vi s- Q U C:+, 4- 7 C L -0 L C > Z) .F Q Q- +1 cn co , 4 - � 3 �c m°�3 a�N o�'� �L��o � >aifl> )Ln rZ �OU�> 0) C: QC >> 4.1 p in t6 M bA > C a� a) � N cn H 0 3 6 0 0- 41 dA -� O 4J 10 L- W O N -a vi o LL - p v) -p Q 0 Y 4.1 41 Q) Q O Ln o Oc U : t a) a) c O C6 a1 b-0 Q u Ln 4.1 C N U Q Q- O (B > i N� E (L6 +1 Q C = vs 0 a) L_ Ln L a) Q m Q) — Q _� r5 u 3 cU 4-1 +- to a) Q~ u aJ N Q +L U t+6 c: aJ a �O y, ° Ln 41a) L Q (a Q > O (n L C 7 L Q C L u v) O N to L N Q` 'm C m � m cz �, p O C 40 g)p ' µ c U O> Q a N U) L C a) C Q c° a) c .L Q cB +� L u Q ° m bA L 4+ Q u Q 4- v) •`—n 4-J -U') f6 u Q Q >' _ ° L > _0 Q Q) > � C +' C Q Q 0-0 Q C° u E M Q Q Q O C ru O W M 0_ L c Q) dLn 41 ca LO u E N O Q v u ° u >- 41 O +� v' to v, m Q N C o 3 p E— ��0a; ��on� �Da0U�a�.a � .��oLn Q+ -1 � � ;- 41 a� -O Ln EE 3 Q u n�� Q Q O- ` N E Q c U .L l) Q) '(n IM> u C) Ln N u C v C v) Q 0 Q O p O > y) M -Q .v Ln -0 v bo E a) _ _p V) U 41 Q) I � Q .. � � � � � � Q � L Q V1 � L U 0 Ou CL 0-0 .�. ,u vs O vNi O .v o Q- rG -0 Q. a Q p C N� bA C Q L L �b 0 0- Q :E _r_ to N > p i .4� C -° C N Y Q>> i c M 41 41 in v3 — ut � L- a- Q + +� C Q a) vi -� n3 0 Ln N C a O� � QC: 41 ��O0QQ ua, 0 Ln C CL °' o�+� a° °A o +1 0 +1 �, �, +' c Q Q Q Q u QLn � 0 C Q) C O a) U. u N Q ca a) v) Q L L ut _ 0 a)> O � a) 41 V) Ln L Q 0 4.1 4.1 Ln n3 0 4-1 sNI cD cl :E A3-nw 3nv hatIDNINSVM a i z3;p,( 3AV AZI;a3A1tin Ir O El.: 9 NO EJt ii 3AV AZI;a3A1tin O 9 s5 3AV AZI;a3A1tin r .w C� L7 rf Z W WtD L Q co �C2, C p i6 3 QI ,�O Z O-0 O+�E rp arc o -Ea $rp O. O_.H.�U � OIOd Gv Y 'Ll p v1 N O— C L Q �el. 4J9 U C' N C o 1p+�VlRaI�J�� LLmw0-& _"�mar>p-0=o-' O �0.>,. ptaro m s CJ Li'9'}>E.Tu v 01�oc' C3 ? nt� 'c o C C p M., vv��o = — uiz rpa ro _a E C Q C div • C m E l y� yip av s - o c� EncQ�p C Ol Q) N,E-d vi O C -OQ C w E C) Q d' Q O vt t6 w LU o � W V Q LU p U UQ F- LU z � zZ i LLJ Ln LLJO HOZ Cl)�~i7 + in ZLU U ZV) �O Z Q Qd N N J w O � l..) �--� W W h- F-- V)w JY z Z7- O J IYJ �F-LLJ � N VU vl v7f2r Q Z— Z—Zw ::D Lu W O I wo"o m ma Q� L7 �- C L pp � N U V) N C p L t� O to > +-� U N C '- U U Q i N > 4- fII C p L Q O N ca p pp U Q N m v 3 p O ca v p Ln 41 u czm` vV) QUtea-° �' °'� �,o I 3 o p° mo c 3 4-,3 u o M OL0 0 v Q) o p '^ o L N o NN4 L N 0 m +' — Q O f6 C N 4� 41 p (D I I NN 4- W in U V I 3Av N O: :'rllFsSbM a� 2y z lJ 3AV lllw z w C a - _ bl I .13:1v C si x3i1r _ I� ~ = v% — r- i iWr A, s dAb Yabd �ZJY �j y 1j} 11Ci � J S" Il+l jJ lF `I f� 3AV NiC7:�IJ11 AgA hes"/o I } C-'9 e3?lv a 3A1' I:IH. 5 It a 3 w s c rwv0r:nc a 3n, a Lid-i`i. ... ....... -.... O .« - - C i 'b N'b HJ rl9 u O K Ln a W a O ZW11 114 any 4 3nV NO10NiH'Svm, Zw Z _ O � U IAV llltN Z G 611 A311'd £I A311V s' _ 077) iR♦ Ytivd Y ar a.": it1YY*4-_- 11� "�••� j �' ] r= -N Jns VHS 43,11 Lug ---� s b • —.�� (: dry 1 O S'1 I 3AV; ao V 1"y , ti0 A311V Z a 3AV -11H 3 6Fi 0 ins NYJNnC t. C r y W =n 4i LL /Py"4vPJn9 rr LUm ti G�l a a 'v 13'J 0 KD Lo E > � (1)-O > C6 > C L Q) 4 � L Ccz an C6 O.Q Q) u to Q) X L +� o Y � L vi O (n v M to u M L -B L CE N O -p QJ C +, V c O ocn -� o o a L. w c +� � o oA C: c p a) U Q > c to v o u N M +� c u Q) Q O41 MW L a) Q a 0 w O s — bA cab Q) p L L- vi Q Q 41 E E > V) — a + o Lan E a) `� N L Q) 1 E u Q ca u o +J U +� vi W .- O C, 0 >- I— O +, > Q u� 1 c6 O bn c L ICU (A L _7 _0 Q) 4- V) Q bA (B a--� Q) — (6 m Q) >. •� L 41 U Q) 0E a) 4, Ln_ ca > IM Y CL Q o ,�„ c, c a s� U 1 O U> m N O u own .1 Q' M c EO N Q) O c Q) � L � Q) N Y C -0 C O on a .N a o C � E u 41 u ° vi E o v U _C V) M Q) n3 O •� -� Q) O to > O E tiA E C L= in > -a +� a -� L C u (o - L In 6 Q) Q) C—U 73 C6 U Ln m L O �--� E i U M Q) >Ln c C Q) C:L OL EO + a) CZ EO L L E m � Q) . EZ C a) cz 3 (B N Ln L a) o +� L— o L L a+�+� L Qu E Q uu u rQHto U • • • ■ ■ s U') +' fBLn Q) + QJ L O(73 C L V C6 Q) a.• > On j > ii O_ •L N O Q) a) C 00 -= C, 0 4-i1:' V) O L :n Q f. CD CII y Q)4-1 O cn �(71 (13O '� C an _ E ca . u O an a) N O u>L Q O o Cl Q) �`o O ca ca -O V) Q) F F .L Y u N v cOL v LL Q� v C O ti -C C ° aJ O Ln O c6 (D O v 7D — r _� 1 O Q) v ID O _> > U OD 1) CID OL Co rj OL Q) CLO D Q C O J-� U C 0- o� l Cu +� On V v X �' an U O O U O O_ µ L s O ti O E p 0 0 0 r6 O v C co L Q v-- 4. +1 U +-, U ca 0 O_ � cn m Q 4- • • • y / / LU -a Q) ®o-0 2 E 2U ` �/ � U \ u E % (1)/ � R % u m \ 2 .g \ § \ ± / ® �� -i 3 \ , . 2 /£ % \ E j e Ul 0 4- 0 .§ /ƒ LZ Q) 3 2 \ o / 4 w / § \ % o \ \ ) c L) / ) / � � ® » . V)) o & 4 \ « n Q) o e 'Q •- 0 / m &.- « § \./ / f CL / '/ 4-1 % u 3 ° ± ) 6 3 u o n o e o% / @ 3 c E J . V) 4- 0 2 C u \ J § \ Q) / _& \ / E \�7 J o E & \ .[ F .§ % U- � 4-1 \ v / 2 \E ° 2 / e n / 2 2 % / / \ \ LA 2 u 2 ƒ / S \ n ) ¥ � = / u ƒ 3 7\ 0 n c c 2 U » p o % / 2 2 .- e J - @ a 'Q 3 3 / } 2 y o UJ � m< o. ■ r�? C =; O to Q) QC6 c %_-o V) QJ L O (I ¢, 41 QC V) L C O O - Q C6 O � O Q) 41In V) V) Ln f�/} U OL V)aaao � L ^:V�3 > " A 1 Q C m 0.CL Or. ,i C6 N D O U dace 2 U � � O C I U m W .. ,� c O V) a� N 44 V V) *' ro N L c6 O ro N Q O M L O Q)— L 4..i Q V) .Q 3 E f6 f6 N Q) bA _CL r 4-1 — C L C C6 m m � �--� V) f6 C Z) L � Qi N L U) f6 C U Q O C Om u Q C J V) Q J� LA E [ ki_ O 0 � C w r6 •u O O ut O Ln tU V) � f 1 Q .v Q Q) L ~- E Q 41 Q) U 00 4-J 1 e E LL u 0 oa V m d �p -0 C c :u LJ v Q -0 > Q w O C Q) Q' CL E v C =; O to 41 (U Q) QC6 %_-o V) QJ L O (I ¢, 41 QC V) L C O C O O O L - Q C C O A O Q) 41In -0 V) C6 Ln U Ln L m L Q U OL V)aaao 41 (U v � L _ N j.+ fn C C -0 O Ln CU Vi a -,O }'L > " C m 0.CL Or. ,i �I L N +, > f6 O O+� ,> \ t/ T C V Q C O '^L m Ln ca C N M U ca C O O N O Q Q L C C N 2 L U Ou O O AAk l Q O 4-1 ° o v Q O �. u - Q C6 U '> C � DC E m IAL 0 Ci. Q y a Vl L > L- U bD -O • L O N to 41 O Ln L"c bD 41 o+ v ca41Q• C co u � m Y a. Q a O E Ln Ln �C CNC Q N •m C � N U C6 L O - L L a N VI N L in � 4�-, �--� V1 C O p C N -, O N N L"'we C O � L r. O(U O L � O -c: O �+.14-- L u4,m� Q AL �I L N +, > f6 O O+� ,> \ t/ T C V Q C O '^L m Ln ca C N M U ca C O O N O Q Q L C C N 2 L U Ou O O AAk l Q O 4-1 ° o v Q O �. u - Q C6 U '> C � DC E m IAL 0 Ci. Q y a 4.1 V, L O p E 4.1 � u O C Q + N O N u In C = L o -04141 La > cz o Q �' Ln U a vi �0 C C ca O 0� Q 0 Q L Q4.1 a� O C Q o w +J L O Q _ Q- — O co 41 () �O Ou L N O Q Q) Q Ln v w O C Q W 73 N ou E .N C V1 � QJ V) O V7 O 0 p O vii +� 4.1 C bA �: O O QJ o Ln Q) C E X H C vi O rm C: X O C O O -1-1 Q) u O 'O ca Q v Q E C 0 O OLc a--� u u u •� O C •L Ln V) i VI ('6 0-L-9 O O O — Q) O O � ��0 L L C 0-�� %^ M C u s LL L -E L O 0-.Y L .� In Q) u Q Q > E C L T cz QJQ •� L C 4.1 N -0 •� (n dA 0 bA C Q) O C pq C O O C In L cz �,. In Q m C O+ C O O u) C a--+ �--� -0 Q) Q) N (0 _ Q Q�+a� ++ E u Q V) Q)•L v -0 a L 1 00 C ca v E C Q -p Q) Q) O u L Q a) L a� > a Ny u� p Ln bCA c > ago H H ii o � V Y1 g o E s 0 UO O o m o w LDto ? v Q� n N Y OMO Lo W L C M O C CY) �2 iD ^ cc O t` C b4 M 69 C14 b4 O 464 c�0 E Q C C L O o c 0' M LO O� W M M �O Q U Q� r 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 M C)M V LO LO l0 LA V 111 �o co U L N M N �0N N W LO ry LMj� M 00 O W W O n n n M M O O M O M W W I W' K�D l -R kA b4 LO C) C) kA C) J ` C 7 m C m Y N Y U N 61_ NU 0) 10 Q 'O Q Cl �� N V 'a In __ N N O t/ C C p Ol C N Vf N p O 61 Lx 2' w OJ id J Y 4/ U O N d � C E w 01 C C i VI !- a O�a N d CDL N d p p p O "5 E O N in O in O V d J W C X_ p] N C C v W Q v Z �>n IJJI � L 79 D E C (n L O O W W C O W v 0 Ln J Lf) J ISI � O O ._ _0 �i -�z L ✓ � .�.n (� M Q� 0 o Q L O Q c�0 E Q O tf} L O � L �O Q U Q� Q _O -0 Q D O QJ C U L © S 4-1 c v un c � L 11 C s1 Q) c O O y- Q) mE U O n �>n IJJI � L CO 0 O (n L L Q 0 ISI � O O ._ _0 �i -�z L ✓ � .�.n (� M OL O O E ci E, Q- E X p • _ C 30 3O In Z -Ql ... (f) � OL OL "� 4-1 46 �3 y — > 1 _ _ b L = rLn-_ y= _ �% iU a) N la P, > u% >- _ ti O N Fac CL) An a--� • ulc N N • � Ln L O > O C E .1 (� Q C �^ Ln O �--� O L vi }; }Li N Ln OO� L L Nv O C Qi -O O> V) v C:O O QJ iO 4.1 L fl3 -O O Q C t6 (n (n N N (n •L (n O C (n aO N C +' O C (n O by u 1 +' Ln C _ -4-Ln N 'O L4.1 U +1 O O Q O O Q 0 O u N C +1 caOL N W Q U -0 M -0 Y C N L C >- O U) O _0 � u O O m - Q C co +� 41 NLnON M Q +1 O 1 � w Q) � O O f6 N C -0 +� 41 (�6 i U LJ Q L O S4-�_ U OD Q .� m O> •L bA N N N Q N- O > L 41 N O ro CO U (n N N O +1 +' O Q L N> Q U N = � Ln U > r6 .L L L C L v 41 O -O ca •� Y N Q1 > a --s Q C O bA (fin 4- .N > C +� N C L C a CO vCi 7 O O c \ C C L N cC: D+ � Q1 O LAS m Q + Q U C C > +� 41 C U > L U Q .Q N� O 41 wL U L U Ln Q U C O v O > (n - O O Q- N O (B C 4- L L 4 0 0 7 +O L .� (n f6 U UO W u m v v U Q(z� C C Q W LO (n O C N L Q L C tB O (n O vi °> O a c L Q S o v L Q by C-0 o UO bA +� N (U N+ E O LL .� �C +' L 0 Q� 3� L C C> c6 L U -p by � N; 3 L N bA N m U C L O N > O — N O O +� +� y O .0 Q N C Q p L (Oji Q} 1 c6 O +, (n ca 41 4J - 4- Q C CL 41 E N 41 'O E O Q N- 41 (n Q Q) C N N O N- C U C L- p 0 3 - 41L E (� C co L Ln 73 j„lE! L O-0" N C O L U Q E C �C -O 41 1 E c 4- L U C M W.- O O E O N +� cB C m N L -p 0 ®�' bA t � o c 3 3 uu a c V; �� °� c v� a � o !6 m Q N N C f� fB fa U L (n bq Q C +; .L � L N -4-j L O uO Y In .� U C U u +� -F O� M u co Q O C 4J bb O C-0 O C E u- .N Q+ is C —1 -0 0 U 41 _.9 -VI i (D l� N C i — Q. Q Q m � • • • ® o a � o ° � g o / / m / S ¢ % \ § $ ƒ 0 0 § � £ / \ U § — 2 / E uLn ) Qj /�D bD u§�� ® o o f -o E\ 0/ §•t --o E q / 0 k 2 LO w E o o n.- e n m± o o F • d o ma %\ E 2 2 2 3x % i _n \ 3 � \ § g g E e E 2 E 0 0 o m E\ ®� [ .1 m g o ._ ƒ § / OL § / 2 /_ § n % 2 - m : « \ § & S % /® > Q_ ° E 0 ' / § �: o 2\ o 0_0 7 0 [ 2 C: 2 2\ £ e /°= y F 4/ E 2 0\«§ u f 2 % 6 � � § k �./ ) \ n t .7 / / f ƒ �_ n o w \ / / / § § o § ƒ % / )'� E c E ± U k= k\ O' 3ƒ E\ k m E 3 w } c E C:t:: W LLJ J f Q) p v 41 a +' E Com/! w'bAE c 'M- vn c Vl +, L cc cDc Q d W V7 Q� 0 CL 'L V7 O c E v c W c 0 0i E C1 L_ �1 CD C in L 0 a� Ln a) u U) y— 0 O_ N m -6 LO v a) Q E -41 > + D 4.i Na 0 c 0 0 0 +-+ 0 U) 5, W U C U N 0 QJ L O 'L cz� OL Qi N L L E N= m c N 0 Aik +- a•Fo L L v Ln 0 ±2 ° E Q� 4.1 Q 3 c d O W E ai O a E AIL Q) p v 41 a +' E Com/! w'bAE c 'M- vn c Vl +, L cc cDc Q d W V7 Q� 0 CL 'L V7 O c E v c W c 0 0i E C1 L_ �1 CD C in E '" 4.1 c _0 Ln a) v N 0 c O L D y— 0 O_ N m (ibA a) Q E u C -c j Na Q L 3 4.1 O cj 0 0 +-+ 0 U) 5, W U C U N 0 QJ L O 'L U N L v 0 Aik Q) p v 41 a +' E Com/! w'bAE c 'M- vn c Vl +, L cc cDc Q d W V7 Q� 0 CL 'L V7 O c E v c W c 0 0i E C1 L_ �1 CD C in ao v 4.1 c _0 v N ca 41 O N m u'E (� j. N 4.1 O cj Q +� u L O> N L N L o v ° E 0 c E in LU 0- v E O N N N m C 0 E L Q O_ +, cu ai 0 _0 N N N ��-0 ca 0 O CB 'V) 4- �m 0. U o v)+, A6. Al Q) p v 41 a +' E Com/! w'bAE c 'M- vn c Vl +, L cc cDc Q d W V7 Q� 0 CL 'L V7 O c E v c W c 0 0i E C1 L_ �1 CD C in C/I) LIA N m 4- N C hE O `. c CCO G � 41 c w �E W C �7 a7 C L U- 0 VT Q? a _0 CL 0) •i T 0 (n W m 4 c Q 0 O VI Ln U N C O L � � O +cu u C/1CC +. N bA O bA O Ln in UJ C N L O � N i O �, C6 Z U E �Q >� N �Z N CD an VI Vi Q : E 4- E y� OC -0 ca > U C ® ul V) C. f6 Nps Lu Z) L 41 c w �E W C �7 a7 C L U- 0 VT Q? a _0 CL 0) •i T 0 (n W m 4 c Q 0 O N u N � 4-1 4 N U) o C QJ C/1CC N OLC j o Ln in UJ o N L O � N i O �, C6 Z U E u >� N �Z N -2m O 'co � 4-, U Vi Q : E 4- E y� > ca C N C 41 N O L ww�yff� bA o O + v Ln bA 1 Nps Lu Z) L Q C A, U Q n a Ak 41 c w �E W C �7 a7 C L U- 0 VT Q? a _0 CL 0) •i T 0 (n W m 4 c Q 0 Ln N Q E Q 41 U N u 4 N U) o C N C/1CC N o C N L u C O _Q O CI"? N ci u NO u _0 a 00 L (uU :t� QU = —J L w ca a c (n is O OC: cE� �: -0 . Lu Z) L U A, IABI Ln N Q E Q 41 U y O � to L a� 00 04- M c 0 E to O -0 L o L CL Q NA LL W L N u N � N c C: � Y L � C:4-, u cLu c .:Q n- .1 ��_ ai !co c o E s :t� QU = C: :�:! _ n O s� -0 E. (u Q) (u . Qa�m DaLu A, IABI y O � to L a� 00 04- M c 0 E to O -0 L o L CL Q NA LL W L L.k V-1 Imm COD CA I- of rte._; `s vu; t.< 4 Q) i L U i1 U C > O C C += +N1 �a� N a°E°�°� L U Q) 4) E i uo - aur- Q N C a - � c 3 C6 v U d O p -o� v p C N >� N C a O C bap F 0Z7; c >, O C Q> +_+. a ma 4.1 m Ln a� �, a�� Fz Ln �� C Ln U V)C Ln — 41 (m a v a� a� � n C �, a� � c° 0- � � ;°' Ln u a o [o > E a Ln a o Q Q) � o> opo o u i u v °' N a� o+ Q 41 OCL O 0N Y V) U +' Q) N ) U °) -C a 0 co '^ OD on L Ln Q a +� 4J O W> C � C - to 3 u X > ^In � Q) _ U Ln a i O -O c� Q) O m 4) QJ O O Ca-r- QJ to = V In U Q) L L Ln Q) +' f6 > C U U .LU — L C6 O LJ +, Q) +1 L > 0>' > ��an ��va V, > Q) •U V) �,�'v o ° ° �'a�� ' a� o L C a 2 m C > L W o `s vu; t.< VT V) ti M4- _0 4� -0 CL) 4-Yom-' 4� cn Q) C: 0 unU, 41 0 L. U Ln j OL Ln Z 7::: :2 (n C, ru 41 CL > UJ Q) S_ 0 > C: 4- -r 41 41 E z- 0) - — U-) ID T 0 41 �2 Ln Lf) OL U) 4- L 4-1 4-1 E E bb V) C: (1) D E 0 c Q) 0 Q) > Ln (A U C) (L) (1) 0 0 0 0 U u 4- U 4� 41 CL CID Lr) 4-J CL(A > -i Q)•E Oz o bo > m 4 CID 7 M r 0- T-- OL 4- M CL z 0 -F, - C) W 4-1 bo 0 E 0 41 tLo U . 0 f: q) Ln V) Ll > a Q) �; C: lzz-- — CL 4- _0 0 W > U) u L - OD W W UL QJ V) (U V) t E Zp Q-1 — >` 0 U N L2 4� X w CL L, ro 4, 4, 0 E p u L Q) 0 -C 0 u u CL U LO Lf) 4-1 0 _0 E 0 V) — Ln L- OL.. o- u 0 u V) V) b.0 W u u m 4-1 V) u bjD E 41 CB O 4� Q) > &-- V) Ul) OL N Ln 0 M vi U-) 4� 0 CL -0 (n — M 4� 0 W 0 U 4- 0 73 — o w V� b)O In L- u) 4-1 -0 — Q) E 7- En U V) W 4-1 U') 0 UO >, M > V) 0 Q) OL > 73 10 E Q) — L- -0 -C 0 -0 OL 0 -0 Ln ru L- 41 � w — u -0 Q) V) — 41 a - -0 Ln C L- Q) bD 0 o Z3 -0 m , Q) 0 0 E 4-1 u 76 E U 0 4-; Ln a) 0 E 41 u L.- 0 0 V) Z, w Q) C? CL Ln 4-1 0- Q) 0 Q) u 4-1 W Q) -�; c: u A o Q) Lo _0 -0 V) EQ) Q) V) 0 LQn) V) U) Ln 0 -0 0 Ln U a -4-1 U 4-1C u — L- ltn' bD o E w o Q) W C: -0 Q) 41 N CL m E 0 L C)L Q) 0- U U) 4� 0 o 0 Ln (D 0 Q) 41 -0 41 U) Q) M Q) Q) Ln B Lo Q) V� o -0 0 0 o 41 41 0 4-1 Ln u u w E > 0 c C) L- -0 Q) u D 0 U 4- u 0 E -0 w E 5, rz -E -C 41 — 4- Q) 0 4-1 x U -0 C: W W M M 0- 4-1 M 0 w 0 Ln E In V) Ln c E bD 4" Q) Q) = L.. - N Q) 4� Ln Q) C) . 0 4-1 Q) Q) Ln Q) C: 4-1 LLJ Q) 00 0 :E E E u 0 LO CL -0 M C: -4-1 U) OL > Q) 0) V) bb0 M L- u Q) 0) 0 C: U) Q) 0 V) OL W Q) C: U 0- U 0 r- CL (u 0 U U 0 0 OL 0 4-� o on u o E V) V) V 4- L � > Ln Q u) c: - -a Q) 4� (/) C O ca ca Z 41 E 0) C) V) 0 un Q) Ln 4� 41 V) Ul) ME 0 w "0 w w c V) > a Q) > (u 0 OL — C: V) a ct� uj M — OD Q) (n +Q) Ln CL C) Z) U -C• lie 1.� • , tt f f, lie 1-- cm LLL W (U a) 41c > v L E #+ c Q Y ca E Y/ N V M .S O E +.A i N N N U O L Q C (U m A& 7l W �r N C O N C: a- O Oe Z L Q� Q E ( c 4} v, -0 u ~ o w � U a) U CJl c CL E da ��bA N U OL i fB Q F bD U) U C to N .E U .L w N 0 'v, c #/> Ak, 7 4- cu L V) (1) O L U i co > .L i N O O SbA L N to N E C yyQ�i+) O1 N U O U —O " L O V)0 a An i.. E E v � v uj O L o4.1 u C O E O L Q 0 •N bD O Ri L O Ln (U a) 41c > v L E #+ c Q Y ca E Y/ N V M .S O E +.A i N N N U O L Q C (U m A& 7l W �r N C O N C: a- O Oe Z L Q� Q E ( c 4} v, -0 u ~ o w � U a) U CJl c CL E da ��bA N U OL i fB Q F bD U) U C to N .E U .L w N 0 'v, c #/> Ak, 7 4- cu L i Q-0 ai 4 � .mac N to N E " C U) O O c+, t, tri v uj "OC N L o4.1 � O 4� W d7 CL L O Ln 7 C iia V bA C 14-- f0 ts cvc a.., NV1oEu Da !Cm (ui -a E to > L O z) ,t UJ N QJ by L L o>�,oQ-> U Ln C. Q. a LL .E u (U a) 41c > v L E #+ c Q Y ca E Y/ N V M .S O E +.A i N N N U O L Q C (U m A& 7l W �r N C O N C: a- O Oe Z L Q� Q E ( c 4} v, -0 u ~ o w � U a) U CJl c CL E da ��bA N U OL i fB Q F bD U) U C to N .E U .L w N 0 'v, c #/> Ak, 7 4- cu L i Q-0 ai 4 � .mac N to N E " C ++ 0 4, t, cc bw "OC N L .wr � O 4� W d7 L "t L L O (U a) 41c > v L E #+ c Q Y ca E Y/ N V M .S O E +.A i N N N U O L Q C (U m A& 7l W �r N C O N C: a- O Oe Z L Q� Q E ( c 4} v, -0 u ~ o w � U a) U CJl c CL E da ��bA N U OL i fB Q F bD U) U C to N .E U .L w N 0 'v, c #/> Ak, 7 _J m 0 W J J_ W H I- W Q LL FAYETTEVILLE MOBILITY Parking Technical Appendix Existing Conditions — Parking Inventory and Utilization Parking Management Land Use and Future Parking Demand dna Y4 S�{��a� 9 ± � - I Yy �'`-"�.l 9~!•� fir: _ y _ i Vol 74, a ._ ...r� - �.� - �t . _.. 7:'•"IIK�]7iG+C'1n1,c.w't i 1V1 a+ Z c. , EXISTING CONDITIONS PARKING INVENTORY r to AND UTILIZATION Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study August 2017 NELSON NYGAARD EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Table of Contents 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... l ProjectGoals.............................................................................................................................................. 1 Aboutthis Document.................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Background and Document Review....................................................................................2 Parking -Related Planning Documents....................................................................................................2 AdvisoryGroup and Stakeholders........................................................................................................ 3 3 Parking Inventory...............................................................................................................4 StudyArea.................................................................................................................................................. 4 WilsonPark................................................................................................................................................. 6 InventoryOverview................................................................................................................................... 8 4 Weekday Parking Utilization............................................................................................15 Spatial Analysis of Parking Utilization................................................................................................1 6 ParkingUtilization Counts Process........................................................................................................17 StudyArea Parking Utilization: Weekday.........................................................................................1 8 WilsonPark: Weekday Utilization......................................................................................................34 5 Weekend Parking Utilization.............................................................................................35 Study Area Parking Utilization: Weekend.........................................................................................35 Wilson Park: Weekend Utilization.......................................................................................................50 SundayData Collection..........................................................................................................................51 NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates I i EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Table of Figures Figure 1 Select Study Area Parking Inventories........................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Fayetteville Parking Study Areas.................................................................................................... 5 Figure3 Wilson Park District Study Area......................................................................................................7 Figure4 Parking Inventory by Category....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Parking Inventory and Regulations - Weekday.........................................................................10 Figure 6 Parking Inventory and Regulations - Weekend.........................................................................1 1 Figure 7 On -Street Parking Rates and Regulations................................................................................... 13 Figure 8 Off -Street Parking Ownership and Access.................................................................................14 Figure9 Weekly Parking Revenues.............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 10 Parking Utilization — Thursday 11:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m..........................................................20 Figure 11 Parking Utilization — Thursday 1:00-3:00 p.m.........................................................................21 Figure 12 Parking Utilization — Thursday 7:00-9:00 p.m.........................................................................22 Figure 13 Overall Study Area Parking Utilization - Thursday, April 28, 2016 ..................................23 Figure 14 Core Entertainment District Publicly Available Utilization......................................................24 Figure 15 Core Business District Publicly Available Utilization................................................................24 Figure 16 Weekday Peak Publicly Available Parking Occupancies in the "Core" of the Entertainment and Business Districts: 11 a.m. — 1 p.m.....................................................25 Figure 17 Evening Peak Publicly Available Parking Occupancies in the "Core" of the Entertainment and Business Districts: 9 p.m. — 11 p.m.....................................................26 Figure 18 On -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday..................................................................................27 Figure 19 Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday.................................................................................27 Figure 20 Privately Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday.................................................28 Figure 21 Publicly Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday...................................................28 Figure 22 Publicly Accessible Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday..............................................29 Figure 23 Restricted Access Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday...........„....................................29 Figure 24 Downtown Business District Parking Utilization - Thursday.....................................................30 Figure 25 Entertainment District Parking Utilization - Thursday..............................................................30 Figure 26 Publicly Owned and Open to the Public v. Privately Owned and Restricted Parking Utilization - Entertainment District - Thursday...................................................................31 Figure 27 Downtown Business District On -Street Metered Parking - Thursday....................................32 Figure 28 Entertainment District On -Street Metered Parking - Thursday.............................................32 Figure 29 Weekday Utilization Compared to Restaurant Location — Thursday 9:00 — 11:00 p.m............................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 30 Wilson Park Overall Utilization — Thursday, April 28, 2016, 1:00-3:00 p.m.................34 Figure 31 Parking Utilization — Saturday 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.............................................................37 Figure 32 Parking Utilization — Saturday 3:00-5:00 p.m........................................................................38 Figure 33 Parking Utilization — Saturday 9:00-11:00 p.m......................................................................39 Figure 34 Overall Study Area Parking Utilization — Saturday, April 30, 201 6__ .......... __ .............. 40 Figure 35 Core Entertainment District Publicly Available Utilization......................................................41 Figure 36 Core Business District Publicly Available Utilizationa.............................................................41 Figure 37 Weekend Peak Publicly Available Parking Occupancies in the "Core" of the Entertainment and Business Districts: Saturday 9 p.m. — 1 1 p.m...................................42 Figure 38 On -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday..................................................................................43 Figure 39 Off -Street Parking Utilization -Saturday.................................................................................43 Nelson%ygaard Consulting Associates I ii EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 40 Publicly Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday...................................................44 Figure 41 Privately Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday................................................44 Figure 42 Publicly Accessible Off -Street Parking Utilization -Saturday..............................................45 Figure 43 Restricted Access Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday.................................................45 Figure 44 Downtown Business District Parking Utilization - Saturday....................................................46 Figure 45 Entertainment District Parking Utilization —Saturday.............................................................46 Figure 46 Publicly Owned and Open to the Public v. Privately Owned and Restricted Parking Utilization - Entertainment District — Saturday..................................................................47 Figure 47 City -Owned, Open to Public Spaces in the Entertainment District - Saturday..................47 Figure 48 Publicly Accessible Off -Street Spaces in the Entertainment District, Saturday..................48 Figure 49 Downtown Business District On -Street Metered Parking - Saturday...................................49 Figure 50 Entertainment District On -Street Metered Parking - Saturday.............................................49 Figure 51 Wilson Park Overall Utilization — Saturday, April 30, 2016, 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m ....... 50 Figure52 Sunday Parking Utilization - Focus Area...................................................................................51 Figure 53 Sunday Parking Utilization — 10:00 a.m...................................................................................52 NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates I iii EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 1 INTRODUCTION The Fayetteville Multimodal Plan is a long-term effort that identifies transportation network needs, recommends and prioritizes improvements, develops performance metrics and measurement tools, and helps the City and the community achieve their goals in improving transportation. In tandem with this effort, the City has also commissioned a Parking and Mobility Study for the Downtown and Entertainment Districts. As part of this effort — which is designed to both stand alone as well as support the Mobility Plan — characteristics of the parking system are inventoried, analyzed, and forecasted to develop recommendations for parking system design and system management strategies. PROJECT GOALS Early in the study development process, the City and its Advisory Group identified several goals that will guide this study. These are: i. Understand parking in the context of a multimodal system/downtown. 2. Plan for responsible economic development. 3. Establish coordinated parking management. 4. Explore regulations that are customer -friendly and easily understood. 5. Explore new technologies. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This existing conditions document is a technical memorandum that details the initial analysis supporting the parking management components of the Mobility Plan. It is intended to document the supply, use, and management of parking in Fayetteville. This document outlines the current state of on -street, off-street, public, and private parking assets, organized under the headings below: ■ Background — A summarization of the extensive work that has been conducted over the past several years related to parking, as well as the insight of key stakeholders involved. ■ Parking Inventory — A review of all public and private, on -street and off-street parking spaces by location and regulation. ■ Parking Utilization — Observed use of existing parking through the course of a typical weekday and weekend day, which includes utilization profiles of certain "districts," general and restricted access garages and lots, and publicly- and privately -owned garages and lots. The data summarized in this report was collected primarily in April 2o16 by the City of Fayetteville, supported by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, and represents a "snapshot" in time. Fayetteville has an active Parking Management system and some regulations have and will continue to change slightly since this effort. Use of These Materials This existing conditions document serves as a technical guide for the final Parking Management Plan. Public -facing materials created from this data are more digestible and concise and meant for a broader audience. NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 11 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 2 BACKGROUND AND DOCUMENT REVIEW To understand parking in the context of Fayetteville, three elements of this study help frame the background from which the Parking and Mobility Study will be built: Existing and past planning documents related to parking • Stakeholder guidance and participation ■ An agreed-upon set of goals for parking in downtown Each of these is described below. PARKING -RELATED PLANNING DOCUMENTS Several valuable past planning efforts have helped to set the stage for this current study. A review of relevant reports which serve as important context for the parking strategy was conducted in the Spring of 2016, and a summary of these studies and their treatment of issues and goals related to parking and transportation is described below: • The Fayetteville Downtown Master Plan (2004) is a short- and long-term look at a vision for the future of downtown Fayetteville and includes several strategies and action steps related to parking: — The third of six fundamental strategies states that, "Fayetteville needs to get smart about parking, so the need can be efficiently and sustainably met but the sense of place is enhanced, not weakened, in the process." — It includes an implementation step meant to, "Catalyze a shift from individual, inefficient surface parking lots to shared parking, parking structures, and to foster a park -once environment." — The plan also introduces revised parking standards within its proposed Downtown District ordinance and seeks to add on -street parking to all appropriate streets in downtown. The Master Street Plan (20051) classifies all city streets and provides cross sections showing dimensional requirements of many streets. The street classification and design guidelines directly impact the citywide parking system through the provision of parking lanes and/or the permission of on -street parking. The documents that comprise this plan (maps and sections) are used to guide long range traffic planning through street function, design, and location. For example, parking is not allowed on Residential Streets and is allowed only on one side of many Local Streets. • The Dickson Street Parking Deck Feasibility Study (2005) examines the physical and financial feasibility of a parking garage serving Walton Arts Center patrons, customers and employees of commercial establishments, and University of Arkansas students. The study found that a 1,2oo-space parking structure is likely to be financially viable due solely to development -related demand, excluding any University of Arkansas I The Master Street Plan has been updated since 2005 with cross-sections and a map. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR participation. Further findings state that the University could benefit from using up to 200 spaces in such a structure. ■ The Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan (2oo8) aims to encourage a continued balance of housing and other land uses as well as emphasize connectivity and walkability in this downtown -adjacent neighborhood. Parking is examined in its historical context and on -street parking is identified as a traffic calming measure while underutilized off-street parking is identified as infill and liner building candidates. • The Downtown Parking Deck Site Selection Study (2012) builds on and updates the work performed in the 2005 study. The objectives of this site selection are far more modest (theatre expansion considered in 2005 did not occur) and seeks a net gain of approximately 300 parking spaces. After assessing four sites, various configurations, the parking gain, revenue lost during construction, and direct and indirect costs, the design team recommended that the Theater Site be selected for construction of the Downtown Parking Deck. Ground was eventually broken on the Spring Street Parking Deck in 2014, and it opened in October, 2015. • The Fayetteville Active Transportation Plan (2 015) guides the City in the design and implementation of future bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure. The pian looks at parking as an element in a multimodal transportation community while promoting the use of on -street parking as a pedestrian safety measure (buffer zone) as well as increasing the amount of high quality bicycle parking throughout the community. ■ The University of Arkansas Campus Transportation Plan (2015) guides the growing University towards an efficient transportation system that is less automobile - oriented than it has been in the past. The plan provides options to simplify the parking system and reveal the cost of parking to users, maximize space efficiency, and increase transit, walking and bicycling to, on, and from campus. ADVISORY GROUP AND STAKEHOLDERS The Mobility Plan is being completed at the direction of the City of Fayetteville's Engineering Division. A group of stakeholders comprised of City staff and downtown organizations, including the following, is helping to inform the Parking & Mobility study: ■ Block Street Merchants Association ■ Dickson Street Merchants Association ■ City of Fayetteville Development Services Department ■ City of Fayetteville Parking ■ Walton Arts Center These stakeholders are part of a larger Advisory Group that is guiding the Mobility Plan and they will continue to provide valuable insight into the data that has been collected as well as the formulation of recommended actions. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 3 PARKING INVENTORY STUDY AREA The main Parking Study Area (see Figure 2) encompasses the Downtown Business District and Entertainment District, some paid parking areas on the University of Arkansas campus, and surrounding residential areas to the east of campus. The two districts combine to form an area of roughly half a square mile. In order to be comprehensive and fully -understand the dynamics of parking in a city center, all on- and off-street parking assets should be evaluated, including private parking. While public parking is typically the most discussed and prominent parking resource for a city center's businesses, a significant amount of business and entertainment activity is generated by people using privately owned parking. Furthermore, when developing estimates of future parking need later in this effort, it will be necessary to know how public and private parking is used by existing development to make projections that accurately reflect how Fayetteville parkers behave. The study area contains significant on- and off-street parking assets. Just under 20o distinct public and private off-street parking structures and surface lots are found in the study area. This includes City -owned, privately -owned, and a handful of University -owned facilities — each group with a mix of restricted and public access. On -street parking is also available on many streets throughout the study area. Many on -street parking spaces are metered while a significant number are accessible only to permit holders. There is a large amount of unrestricted on -street parking at the periphery of the study area. Relatively little on -street parking is time-limited without requiring parkers to pay a meter. Overall, the combination of the Downtown Business District, Entertainment District, and immediate vicinity contains approximately 9,070 total functional parking spaces, with almost 1,300 on -street and almost 7,800 off-street spaces in lots or garages2. Approximately 3,200 of these spaces are publicly available; this includes all unrestricted, handicapped, and paid -entry parking spaces whether privately or publicly owned. Figure 1 Select Study Area Parking Inventories On -Street Off Street P.,kiidy able KeVnUea Use,/ Private 2 The inventory includes all off-street facilities larger than about 5 parking spaces. Small residential driveways or minor rear lots were not inventoried. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 14 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 2 Fayetteville Parking Study Area and Parking Districts r r r � , e r f v r r � � � ' r I � .. II r r 1 I r f r r r ! 1 r � F Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study 4 _ i Study Area y Downtown Business District Entertainment District NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15 0 0.05 0,1 0.2 Miles EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR WILSON PARK In addition to the main study, the project team assessed parking in a small portion of the Wilson Park neighborhood, just north and adjacent to the Entertainment District. The area studied includes the park itself, streets adjacent to the park, residential streets south of the park (private driveways not included), and five private parking lots - one of which is a sorority house. This area, shown in Figure 3 below, contains about 540 parking spaces: ego off-street and 250 on -street. Of these spaces, about 36o are publicly accessible, unpriced, and unregulated. One block contains spaces reserved for the residential parking program. This report considers the Wilson Park study area separately from the main study area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 16 I ............. r.—.-�3Jfi*. 1 f A d 1 1 Yr I I{ •.. rr E 1 ! ! 1 1 t I 1 S I 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 a f 1 i i I � s • LA T t . f R a 1 • 6 . � 1 1 R R F J t 1 1 f i e ! ! 1 R a 1 I + I s ....z¢.....,..----------------- ,..-.r.-...r.,r.r...r„-.r._-ra EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR INVENTORY OVERVIEW This section documents the supply and regulations of parking assets in the main study area, which does not include Wilson Park. The inventory is based on existing data provided by the City's Parking Management and Geographic Information Systems Divisions. The Parking Management Division collected significant additional data in the field to create a comprehensive inventory of public and private assets. Figure 4 tabulates all parking spaces in the study area including all off-street and on -street spaces, excluding small private driveways with five or fewer parking spaces. Data was compiled and used to create a complete parking database of all parking assets in the study area, which was then geo- coded to spatially display the existing parking assets, as shown in Figure 5. • There are about 9,1oo active parking spaces in the study area. • About 4,800 of these spaces are located in the Entertainment District, and 3,3oo are located in the Downtown Business District. ■ Approximately 40% of these spaces are publicly owned, although not all publicly owned spaces are open to the public. ■ Privately -owned, but publicly -accessible parking is not a large portion of the overall supply (7%)• ■ Approximately 86% of all spaces in the study area are off-street, occupying roughly 25% of the land in the study area. • Roughly two-thirds of the off-street supply is privately -owned (66%). • There are 21 publicly accessible lots and garages, most heavily concentrated around the Downtown Square and at the western end of Dickson Street. • Many regulations shift by time of day and weekday to weekend. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 18 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR An important concept for any parking study is "access" — who can use a parking space at any given time. There are two broad categories of access, regardless of ownership, shown below: Publicly Accessible parking is available to any member of the public, often but not always for a fee. This parking is signed and clearly open so that any user understands that it is publicly available. Restricted parking is limited to certain groups, such as permit holders, employees, and/or customers. Figure 4 provides an overview of parking inventory by category. The majority of parking is off- street, in lots and garages. The Entertainment District has almost 50% more off-street parking than the Downtown District, but the two have approximately the same amount of on -street parking. When the team inventoried these areas, there was significant inventory under construction as part of upcoming developments. Figure 4 Parking Inventory by Category Parking Location Entire Study Area Downtown District District Other Spaces Total 9,070 3,250 4,851 969 Publicly Available3 3,217 1,499 1,625 93 Restricted Use/Private 5,853 1,751 3,226 876 Off -Street 7,796 2,671 4,249 876 On -Street 1,274 579 602 93 Unavailable (Construction)4 639 - 601 38 The parking inventory and regulations are depicted in Figure 5 and Figure 6. All garages, surface lots, and block faces show the number of spaces within each area. For both on- and off-street parking, the various regulations are color coded by general category. 3 This summary table considers regulations on a typical weekday. There are 383 spaces that become publicly available after a certain time of day or on weekends 4 Restricted on -street spaces include Loading Zones, Permit Only, UA Only, and Police Only spaces NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 19 m 0 d1 0 Z -Y- 19 19 a Q tA Z� 0 W L) 0 Z 0 U Z LA X W .� '. Ifo 14%gp r ozz X � y _ 1 • yv. i 3av � .. :.r ru .,_ rz_� �d� y DC7 1� •hY YY J]If1YY) i— � 4 .. k + �w a /n/ l � �' . • 7iEti1 :A • = Y i 5 11.1 ! 1 •� o C pip C E w A `w P9 aa o" c . v l7 a c w m Ln r�i > m L a ° w w Q m LL tl LL Q Q a � 2 L v a bA a IZD O D F— In J OO 2 a Q dj LL � o Cw ca G H z 0 a z O u z W _N x ld.d EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Parking Regulations The regulation, location, and operation of parking spaces greatly affect how spaces are used. Therefore, the study team catalogued the ownership, use category, and regulation for all parking spaces within the study area. On -Street Parking While a majority of the on -street parking (8o%) in the study area is available for use by any member of the public, there are on -street spaces which require permits, as well as University -only spaces and spaces reserved for municipal use. As there is no charge associated with residential permit parking, only 42% of on -street parking is priced. An even smaller percentage of on -street parking is time-limited (29%). Figure 7 shows the breakdown of on -street parking regulations and fees. Key points include the following: ■ On -Street Meter Rates and Time -Limit Variations: There are two primary meter rates in the study area, and they are grouped spatially. Meters that charge $0.15/hour - $o.25/hour are generally located in the Downtown Business District, while meters that charge $0.50-$i.00/hour depending on time of day are only found in the Entertainment District. All $0.25 meters are time-limited to two hours while all other meters are not time-limited or offer an all -day option. Unregulated spaces exist around the periphery of the study area. • On -Street Meter Time -Span Variations: Coin-operated, $0.15/hour-$0.25/hour parking meters are enforced from 8:oo a.m. to 6:oo p.m. Monday through Friday. Entertainment District pay stations are active every day from 2:00 P.M. until 2:oo a.m. • On -Street Free Parking: In the Square, there are 77 spaces that are free and time- limited. Outside of the square and the core of downtown, there are an additional —400 spaces that are free and unrestricted. ■ On -Street Residential On -Street Permits: Located only within the Entertainment District, resident -only parking spaces require permits acquired from the City of Fayetteville Parking Management Office. Homeowners are required to renew their permits each December while renters must do so every six months. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 112 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 7 On -Street Parking Rates and Regulations On -Street t. * e.Total Unrestricted 408 32% Daytime Metered - $0.25/Hour, 2 Hour Limit until 6PM 282 22% Residential Permit Only 191 15% $0.50/Hour (2-5PM), $1/Hour (5PM-2AM), $5/Day Option 146 11% Residential Permit or Metered ($0.50/Hour (2-5PM), $1/Hour (5PM-2AM) 86 7% Free, 2 Hour Limit (in 4 Hour Period) 77 6% Loading Zone 35 3% Daytime Metered - $0.15/Hour, Long Term until 6PM 15 1% Police Parking Only 14 1% Motorcycle 9 <1% Free, 10 Minute Limit from 8AM to 6PM 8 <1% University Parking Only 3 <1% Total 1,274 Off -Street Parking Off-street parking includes all public and private parking in garages and surface lots in the study area. There are 201 parking facilities in the study area, described and categorized by facility type, ownership, and rate type below: Parldng Facilities ■ Parldng Garages are indoor, usually multi-level parking facilities. There are nine such active facilities in the Fayetteville study area, which contain just under 2,300 spaces representing 29% of the total off-street parking supply. Three additional facilities of this type are under construction as part of new residential development. These projects are anticipated to add 639 spaces to the supply, some of which will be publicly -accessible. ■ Parldng Lots are outdoor surface -level facilities. This is the dominant form of off-street parking in Fayetteville, numbering 193 such facilities containing over 5,500 spaces or 71% of the off-street parking supply. Access Publicly Accessible parking is available to any member of the public, often but not always for a fee. This parking is signed and clearly open so that any user understands that it is publicly available. ■ Restricted parking is limited to certain groups, such as permit holders, employees, and/or customers. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 113 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Ownership • Publicly -Owned Garages or Lots are owned by the City and Washington County, but not all are available for public use. Some of these facilities provide a mix of public, resident permit, and customer parking while others — such as the Washington County courthouse — do not make their supply available to the public. ■ Privately -Owned Garages or Lots are owned by private landowners or private institutions. Some of this parking supply is available for public use for a fee. However, most is restricted to residents or reserved for employees and/or customers. For the purposes of this study, this includes UA lots. Figure 8 shows the breakdown of off-street parking by type, ownership, and access. Note that some publicly owned lots and garages have both restricted and publicly available spaces. Figure 8 Off -Street Parking Ownership and Access Containing Public # of Facilities # of Spaces # of Facilities # of Spaces Total Privately Owned 166 4,156 4 1 1,027 Containing Public Access Spaces 3 2155 267 Total Publicly Owned 26 1,373 5 1,240 Containing Public 14 8596 4 845 Access Spaces Total 1192 5,529 9 2,267 1 5 102 additional spaces in 2 facilities are publicly available after 8PM 6 281 additional spaces in 4 facilities are restricted dependent on time of day, but publicly available at other times NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 114 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 4 WEEKDAY PARKING UTILIZATION This section documents and analyzes parking utilization counts for the entire study area, providing a snapshot of the time and location of parked cars for typical days. The survey team — consisting of City staff — conducted parking utilization counts on a weekday (Thursday, April 28, 2016) and weekend day (Saturday, April 30, 2016) during sixteen hours on each day. On Thursday, data collection began at 7 a.m. with the last loop beginning at 9 p.m. and concluding at 11 p.m. On Saturday the data collection periods were shifted forward 2 hours to ensure collection during higher activity times, beginning at 9 a.m. and concluding at 1 a.m. Parking can be defined as being at optimal capacity when there is at least one empty space per block face or along a typical row of parking, ensuring customer access to businesses but also indicating a busy commercial environment. This typically equates to a target of 15% vacancy per block face and 5%-10% vacancy off-street. If any block or parking facility has less availability than the target, it is effectively at its functional capacity. Charts throughout the document provide a dashed line at this 10% vacancy point for reference. Parking demand fluctuates over time, particularly in the active Dickson Street and Downtown Square areas of Fayetteville. In order to ensure that the data collection dates were representative of normal conditions, the City provided access to their revenue history. Figure 9 compares revenue from on- and off-street pay stations and event parking by week in the Entertainment District, showing that the week during which data collection took place was slightly above the annual average for parking revenue. Although individual lots and block faces may function differently during spring compared to other times of year, using data from April is a good representation of how the study area functions and represents a slightly conservative sample. Figure 9 Weekly Parking RevenueS7 $ >0,Oon 52.5000 s2(' Ooo .`.i 10,0010 1'5'0".10 Revenue Comparison 2015-2016 1 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 A7 49 51 2015lNeekly Revenue a ,7015Wee Uv R vale -=°Axe rage We, Revenue Jan 2015-1uly 2016 7 Source: City of Fayetteville, Utilization Revenue Comparison Analysis. Note: The collection schedule for Downtown Business District Meters is not regular enough to allow for a weekly comparison. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 115 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM i PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR The study team considered the following in selecting dates for utilization: • Avoiding major events (i.e. Bikes, Blues, and BBQ or an extremely large WAC event) that shut down streets in the Entertainment District • Capturing demand from UA affiliates • Weather ■ Construction schedules which may significantly impact roadways ■ Day of the week - Nelson\Nygaard has found that Thursdays represent a typically busy day with significant evening demand at restaurants and bars. This section analyzes weekday temporal and spatial patterns and provides a sample of parking utilization of different facilities by type, ownership, and accessibility, followed by the same analysis for a weekend day. Utilization patterns are shown for both the primary study area as well as the Wilson Park study area. Although this data is incredibly valuable in highlighting how parking in Fayetteville functions, it is equally valuable to understand how users perceive the system. The visitor who can't find the available spaces next door because they are hidden around the corner still feels a crunch in prime locations regardless of overall capacity. Utilization is just one piece of the puzzle; additional analysis of regulation, safety, signage, technology, and more will yield valuable additional insights. SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF PARKING UTILIZATION An important part of understanding how parking is managed in any city center is being able to see how various parking facilities and segments of on -street parking interact with each other throughout the course of a day. A chart of hourly utilization rates for one specific location is valuable, but seeing how that location behaves among others located nearby can reveal patterns and trends not evident in numbers alone. The lot which is completely full may be right around the corner from another lot that has plenty of availability at that same time. To develop the spatial analysis, the parking utilization data collected during the parking counts was geo-coded to be displayed on a series of maps. The maps show the use of each parking facility by color -code, as explained below: 0% 30% 60% 80% 90% 100% Over Capacity • "Cool" light blue/blue colors refer to 0-30%, 3o -6o%, and 6o -8o% utilization breaks. All are ranges at which on -street parking and off-street parking facilities are viewed as under-utilized. Any resource that consistently performs at this level, especially during peak -demand periods should be viewed as having excess capacity. • "Ideal" green refers to blocks and facilities with 81% to go% utilization and represent actively -used resources. The nearer utilization levels approach the high end of this range, the more efficiently they are being utilized and nearing functional capacity. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 116 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR ■ "Warning" pink refers to utilization above 91% and is considered at functional capacity. While fully maximizing efficiency, the on -street parking or off-street facilities are full or near full, giving the impression of a lack of parking. • "Critical" red denotes parking beyond the marked capacity (more than loo%), meaning that cars are double-parked or parked illegally. Resources that consistently perform at this level indicate that demand exceeds capacity. PARKING UTILIZATION COUNTS PROCESS City staff, working with Nelson\Nygaard's parking data collection protocol, completed the counts on foot and by vehicle in five different "routes" throughout the study area. This approach proved to be the most efficient process to collect a vast amount of data within the targeted time periods. Additionally, the City now has data collection tools and trained staff to complete any future counts if needed. Data Collection Notes Working with the City, the team sought to collect a comprehensive data set that provides a snapshot of a typical day in the study area. However, there were some special events impacting parking supply on the days of data collection, including$: ■ On Thursday from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m., 165 spaces in the West Street Lot were unavailable due to school bus parking. ■ The Farmers Market at the Downtown Square made 65 on -street spaces around the square unavailable during data collection periods on Thursday from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 2 P.M. While vendors are able to park vehicles in these spaces, occupancy data was not collected. Special events on these days included9: • Thursday, 4/28: Farmers' Market 7 a.m. — 2 P.M. ■ Thursday, 4/28: Malpaso Project at 8 p.m. at the Walton Arts Center (WAC) ■ Saturday, 4/30: Farmers' Market 7 a.m. — 2 P.M. ■ Saturday, 4/30: Spring Artsy Craftsy at Town Center: 10:3o a.m. ■ Saturday, 4/30: Dickson Street Pup Crawl 2 P.M. — 6 p.m. ■ Saturday, 4/30: Symphony of Northwest Arkansas (SoNA) at 7:30 p.m. at WAC Data collectors strive for accuracy in the field. However, normal fluctuations in the data collection process occasionally lead to missed counts on some facilities throughout the course of the collection span. Any missed facility is shown on the utilization maps in grey. 8 Comprehensive data was not collected for six off-street facilities totaling 561 spaces (including the 498 space structure at The Academy at Frisco) and 10 on -street spaces, accounting for approximately 7% of inventory. This inventory has been removed from utilization count summaries. 9 Per Events Calendar provided by City Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 117 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR STUDY AREA PARKING UTILIZATION: WEEKDAY • Over the total study area, parking is never more than 50% occupied. However, much of this unoccupied parking is privately owned and not currently open to the general public outside of customer parking. • Even at peak occupancy, over 4,000 parking spaces of the total 9,07o are unused. • However, in a two -minute walk area around the "core" of the Entertainment District, parking is nearly 70% full at the evening peak. Similarly, the parking within a two -minute walk of the downtown square is 66% occupied or unavailable during the daytime peak of ii a.m. • On -street parking is generally used at a slightly higher rate than off-street parking throughout the day. • Some publicly owned facilities are highly utilized for the majority of the day, while others have availability. • During the day, parking along the east side of Arkansas Avenue and W. Lafayette Street between Arkansas Avenue and N. Gregg Street is well -utilized and often over capacity. This is currently outside of the Downtown Business District and the Entertainment District boundaries. • The most heavily utilized on -street spaces throughout the day can be found at the Downtown Square and the residential permit parking on Boles and Watson Streets, as well as on -street spaces close to the WAC on Dickson Street and School Avenue. • Privately -owned garages and lots across the entire study area are generally more occupied compared to publicly -owned facilities, especially during the evening. This indicates that these facilities are a vital part of Fayetteville's parking supply. • Publicly -accessible off-street facilities have a comparable utilization rate to that of restricted -access garages and lots. • Metered on -street parking on Mountain Street west of Block Avenue has availability throughout the day. 34% of publicly available spaces in the "core" of the downtown business district remain unoccupied during the mid-day peak. • Mid-day - ii a.m. to.1 p.m. (Figure io): — Overall, less than 50% of all parking inventory is utilized throughout the study area — On -street and off-street utilization rates are comparable at 50% and 48% respectively. — Parking activity is concentrated primarily to the northwest, closest to the University as well as immediately surrounding the Downtown Square. — Ample parking is available in unrestricted and metered on -street spaces as well as in publicly -accessible municipal and privately owned off-street facilities. ■ Early Afternoon - i p.m. to 3 p.m. (Figure ii): — The total parking inventory is about 40% occupied. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 118 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR — Smaller restricted -access private off-street lots see more occupancy. While metered spaces on Center Street from East Avenue to College Avenue become full, almost all other on -street parking areas in the Downtown District continue to have open spaces. ■ Evening — 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Figure 12): — The total parking inventory is about 30% occupied. — There are three clusters of high demand: around Dickson Street, near the Downtown Square, and in the northwest nearest the University — On -street parking is functionally full on many blocks of Dickson Street, Spring Street, and School Avenue where metering is in effect until 2 a.m. and in the Downtown Square area where metering ends at 6 p.m. — Off-street parking is busiest in the Entertainment District, especially the publicly accessible and restricted lots near Dickson Street between West and Block Avenues which are between 8o and l00% full. ■ For additional time periods, please see Appendix A. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 119 9 L4'1� 16 A -o 2, Q, CL 0 00 0 co 0 ol 0 — -0 > 2 2 .2 in 0 Lu m 10 CO ol fL CL E CL O O M 0 0 T ca 5) 7 s ca F- I c .N C Y ca a m irn i LO 0 O O 9 t v �V O D T' a a IQ � � o ❑ o 0 0 0 fl 0 0? O o O 'a 0 U -0 Q A 'a m Cl) O O O O W r o 0 o° u i a o o� 00o a (� � a 1 11 CL LO 0 O O 9 0 Z aQ a 7 a� z T Z ca LL- � O 0 W G Z 0 V 0 Z H X LU E CL C O 0 0 r T 5, u1 7 L H I C O m N rn c Y t0 d N_ 7 LM LL � v • N o G i o O e © O © O \ Q Utl 'p P M O GS ^ 0 O 0 0 o l -D V1 O W > Q d co P ci Ix zL •� 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Utilization Patterns: Weekday The series of charts on the following pages show parking utilization profiles throughout the day for different parking categories in Fayetteville. Overall Parking Utilization The peal, period of parking activity in the study area is between 11 a.m. and i p.m. when parking is about 50% full (Figure 13). In the evening, parking activity drops to about 35% occupied as retail establishments and traditional 8-5 businesses close for the day. Figure 13 Overall Study Area Parking Utilization - Thursday, April 28, 2016 ■ Occupied a Unavalab e Vacant `'--- - - - - -- - 4778 4190 4773 7�``� 5208 c^3 5680 5493 5686 6491 4 2, 1 u';; 01"C 7AM 9AM 11AM IPPA 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM Two -Minute "Core" Utilization During a weekday, peak utilization of the entire study area is between a a.m. and 1 p.m. At that time, the publicly available parking in a "core" two -minute walk boundary within the Entertainment District (about 830 spaces) is 36% occupied with another 20% of the spaces unavailable due to a recurring event conflict, leaving over 350 spaces available to the public (Figure 14). Publicly available parking in the "core" of the Downtown Business District (about 550 spaces) is 54% occupied with another 12% unavailable due to the farmers market, leaving almost 190 spaces available but not immediately adjacent to the market (Figure 15). In the evening, the publicly available parking in "core" of the Entertainment District is 6o% occupied, approximately 300 empty spaces—mostly in the Spring Street Deck. Evening publicly NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 123 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR available parking in "core" of the Downtown Business District is 27% occupied with over 350 spaces available. However, the publicly available parking in the "core" of the Entertainment District is 6o% occupied, with only about 300 empty spaces—mostly in the Spring Street Deck. Figure 14 Core Entertainment District Publicly -Available Parking Utilization ■ Occupied m Unavailable Vacant 9^ 351 366 552 511 7AM 9AM 1 ]AAA 1 PM 422 638 572 311 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM Figure 15 Core Downtown Business District Publicly -Available Parking Utilization w Occupied m Unavailable Vacant 242 189 260 243 308 261 373 389 7AM 9AM 1 1 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 124 0 N O E Cd 0 Z he Of C Q o� z Im aLL �o O Lu C1 2 N z O z O u c� Z tA X W D 7 r H O 06 CD Z Y IL Q — 4) Q) o � Z m aLL. od W 2 LI) Z O 0 Z O u C9 Z X W n rjjjp^� — [D N U cn 4) U O m N Q cm 0 m z 0 z EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR On -Street vs. Off Street Utilization Utilization rates for on -street and off-street parking manifest themselves differently over the course of the day, as shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19. On -street parking peaks in the midday and evening, while off-street activity peaks midday then steadily diminishes in the afternoon and evening. During the morning, on -street parking is never less than 25% occupied, while off-street parking is comparatively 20% occupied during the hours of 7 a. m. to 9 a. m. It is important to note that these are aggregate numbers over the entire Fayetteville study area, with localized areas experiencing different use dynamics. Nevertheless, overall off-street parking drops under 35% utilization on a typical weekday evening, meaning there are almost 5,000 unused spaces in lots and garages after 5:00 p.m. Some of these spaces may not currently be available to the public, which is an inefficient use of valuable land in these busy areas. Figure 18 On -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday 100gr, 90410 Toa -v 862 Boa 50"A 40'}0 2040 7AM ■ Occupied a. Unavailable Vacant 676 543 620 720 720 590 732 9AM 11 AM IPM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM Figure 19 Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday 1004/1 p90IN 70;,0 6 0 N 5629 50 ,'o 4o z,, 30,%: 20% 10 Qla 0„c 7AM v Occupied v Unavailable Vacant 4102 3647 4153 4488 4960 4903 4954 9AM 1 1 AM 1 PM 3PM SPAN 7PM 9PM NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 127 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR City -Owned vs. Non -City -Owned Off -Street Utilization As shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21, City owned and privately owned garages and lots have sustained peak periods during business hours that drop off somewhat in the evening. The City - owned facilities are utilized at slightly higher rates than the privately owned facilities during the peak hours. Even during the peak periods, there are over 1,200 municipally owned spaces and over 2,600 privately owned spaces that are not being used. While City -owned see a larger drop in use during the evening, they continue to exhibit higher occupancy percentages than their counterparts. City -owned facilities may not necessarily be available for use by the general public; some are limited to specific employee or other user groups. Overall, 1,250 City -owned off-street parking spaces go unused at peak. Figure 20 Privately -Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday 0 G>z 90" 80?/= t0s. 60% 3638 so=,: 40 �A 309/0 2T114 i e��f�t1 7AM it Occupied VtiCant 2839 2411 2638 2816 2952 2986 3042 9AM 11 AM IPM 3PM SPM 7PM 9PM Figure 21 Publicly -Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday ■ Occupied a Una cilrble Vracint 1 c305�. 90�� - 1263 1236 /c0 6 11'� 1991 20>�c 0{;v 7AM 9AM 1 1 AM 1515 1672 2008 1917 1912 IPM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 128 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Publicly -Accessible vs. Restricted -Access Off -Street Utilization Publicly -accessible parking is open to any driver, usually for a fee. A lot may be privately -owned and still open to the public. The garages and lots that are available for public use are utilized at similar rates to the facilities where access is restricted during the peak period mid-day (see Figure 22 and Figure 23). During the peak period, there are approximately >,000 publicly -accessible off-street parking spaces unoccupied. Both types of off-street parking have low utilization in the evening period for the study area overall, although the spatial analysis highlights areas that are functionally full. The public may perceive many of these spaces as inaccessible due to issues such as unclear or restricted regulations or walking environments. Figure 22 Publicly Accessible Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday 10o e 90°c - a0 70 ao0.� 1612 5J'Al 40 30 G�c 20'l: 7AM _ Occupied 0 Unavailcible Vacant 1106 997 1319 1371 1547 1415 1512 9AM IIAM IPM 3PM SPM 7PM 9PM Figure 23 Restricted Access Off -Street Parking Utilization - Thursday 100°ie 900 80'?c 701?c 60 4011 50' / 4o0u 30 2Q''r�. I op V1. 7A M a Oeeupied Vacant 2990 2644 2828 3111 3408 3483 3436 9AM 1 1 AAA 1 PM 3PM SPM 7PM 9PM NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 129 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Downtown Business District vs. Entertainment District Utilization As with the study area as a whole, peak utilization in the Downtown Business District occurs around the noon hour. Evening activity drops more significantly after business hours. 65 spaces are unavailable until 2 p.m. due to the presence of the Farmers' Market. Figure 24 Downtown Business District Parking Utilization - Thursday ■ Occupied N Unavailable Vacant 100°c 90% ------------- --------a-------------------------_------ ---- 80 183b 1575 1803 70"� 1992 r% 2553 2256 2301 ea2619 .say% 301NO 10", 7AM 9AM 11AM 1 P 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM In the Entertainment District, peak periods occur around lunchtime as well as evening bar and restaurant demand. This portion of the study area maintains 35-45% occupancy throughout the weekday study time period, with approximately 2,200 observed unoccupied spaces at peak. Figure 25 Entertainment District Parking Utilization - Thursday 90`'. ,0 6()�';, 3192 30 ;r 0`;. 7AM 0 Occupied Unavailable Vacant 2497 2203 25322761 2737 2446 2351 9AM IIAM 1PNM 3PM SPM 7PM 9PM NelsWNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 130 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 26 provides a comparison of the utilization of City -owned, open to the public spaces (approximately 30% of the supply in the Entertainment District), with utilization of privately owned and/or restricted spaces. Although not always apparent to the user, parking supply is managed by the City or private operators. This comparison shows that although there are about 2,000 unoccupied spaces at peak in the evening, at peak only 40% of publicly owned spaces are unoccupied. Figure 26 City Owned with Public Access v. Privately Owned and Restricted Parking Utilization - Entertainment District - Thursday On -Street Meters Paid parking is another form of parking regulation that is meant to encourage turnover by pricing spaces relative to demand. Generally, City -operated paid spaces require a cash fee at meters directly adjacent to parking spaces from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday in the Downtown Business District, while pay stations located throughout the Entertainment District with multiple payment options govern spaces there from 2 P.M. to 2 a.m. seven days per week. In the Downtown Business District, utilization of these spaces is 50% throughout the day until pricing ends. At 7:00 p.m., when there is no longer a fee to park in these spaces, utilization jumps to the highest it is throughout the day to approximately 6o%. High utilization occurs in spaces along Center Street between Church Avenue and College Avenue. Mountain Street has availability west of Block Avenue at this peak time. Use of metered spaces in the Entertainment District is high around mealtimes, although some spaces go unused throughout the day. Utilization peaks in the evening and many blocks are functionally full. However, many spaces go unused just outside the core of activity. The relationship of these utilization patterns to the location of Entertainment District restaurants and bars can be seen in Figure 29. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 131 '&Occupie i -City Owned, Open tc) Public w Uncvoilable Occupied - Peivalely Owned vacant 100% 80°Jo 704 2499 2205 2534 2448 2353 v 2763 2739 60 , 3194 V) Q 50 C,,; AO' ' ° 1 161 ObsPr'ved ci: y Owned, Opemo Public - "'1,100 a N_-144} --- __-_ 9fY°a l Sup ily: ~990 ____ u } 30 /b urir_tiorti�r4 1187 115T- 716=� 7AM 9AM 1 1 AM IPM 3PM 5PM 7PAh 9PM On -Street Meters Paid parking is another form of parking regulation that is meant to encourage turnover by pricing spaces relative to demand. Generally, City -operated paid spaces require a cash fee at meters directly adjacent to parking spaces from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday in the Downtown Business District, while pay stations located throughout the Entertainment District with multiple payment options govern spaces there from 2 P.M. to 2 a.m. seven days per week. In the Downtown Business District, utilization of these spaces is 50% throughout the day until pricing ends. At 7:00 p.m., when there is no longer a fee to park in these spaces, utilization jumps to the highest it is throughout the day to approximately 6o%. High utilization occurs in spaces along Center Street between Church Avenue and College Avenue. Mountain Street has availability west of Block Avenue at this peak time. Use of metered spaces in the Entertainment District is high around mealtimes, although some spaces go unused throughout the day. Utilization peaks in the evening and many blocks are functionally full. However, many spaces go unused just outside the core of activity. The relationship of these utilization patterns to the location of Entertainment District restaurants and bars can be seen in Figure 29. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 131 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM IPARKING & MOBILITY STUDY C\ §Fayetteville, AIR Figure 27 Downtown Business msllGO-FeetMlree Parking - Thursday . occu, gked Vaca.-'! G� 9� a0 A« !65 126 136 133 156 aces qs �s Sx 3« la« » 9AM HAM I PAA 3P 5P& ]00 168 Figr28Enlmmmmmsld0-SletMetered Parking -Thursday 0 Occupied Vomm 7P 9PM 2� �o t s 290 0 286 6 290 288 ms 290 29 &» ms k« D5 10% %#a 9APA IAAA ,pm aPM 5PM 7P& «» NleenNl maradConsulting Associates Inc. 132 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 29 Weekday Utilization Compared to Restaurant Location -Thursday 9:00 -11:00 p.m. Parking Utilization Study Area " Downtown Business District Entertainment District Thursday 9p-1lp 0% to 30% 30% to 60% 60% to 80% 80% to 90% 900/6 to 1000% ® Greater than 100% Restricted/No Data Q Publicly Owned Facilities 0 0.05 >x 1 0.Z Mees NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 133 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR WILSON PARK: WEEKDAY UTILIZATION Full data collection was limited in the Wilson Park focus area to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2016. The peak utilization period occurred in the early afternoon from 1-3 p.m. with 48% of the parking inventory occupied. Of the approximately 530 on- and off-street parking spaces in the area, more than 275 spaces were available - mostly to the east and north in the park itself. Of particular interest is the high utilization of parking just east of the residential permit spaces on the westernmost block of Ila Street. Figure 30 Wilson Park Overall Utilization - Thursday, April 28, 2016,1:00-3:00 p.m. Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study Wilson Park Diwlcl On -Street Utilization 0% to 30% — 30%4 to 60% 60°1 to 80% — 80% to 90° a — 90% to 100% — Greater than 100% No Data Off -Street Utilization 0% Iv 30% 30% to 60% I- 60% to 80% 80% to 90°/ 90%4 to 100° o Greater than 100% No Data 2 298 289 277 280 200 227 256 224 VL 0 0:05 0.1 0.2 v. ■■ 1vWes wv i.rr NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 134 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR S WEEKEND PARKING UTILIZATION Spatial Analysis: Weekend Weekend occupancy data was collected in the main study area on Saturday, April 30, 2o16 in two- hour time intervals from 9 am with the last loop beginning at 11 p.m. and ending at 1 a.m. In addition, a limited count was performed on Sunday near churches in the northeast corner of the study area. As explained in detail above, the following spatial analysis displays the utilization data geo-coded on a series of maps. The maps show the use of each parking facility by color -code, as explained below. • "Cool' light blue/blue refers to 0-30%, 3o -6o%, and 6o -8o% utilization, points at which on -street blocks and off-street facilities are viewed as underutilized. ■ "Ideal' green refers to blocks and facilities with 81% to go% utilization and represent actively -used resources. • "Warning" pink refers to utilization above 91% and is considered at functional capacity. • "Critical" red denotes parking beyond the marked capacity (more than ioo%). STUDY AREA PARKING UTILIZATION: WEEKEND WEEKEND UTILIZATION: OVERALL KEY FINDINGS • Over the total study area, parking is never more than 40% occupied. • Peak parking demand for the weekend is at night (9:oo-u:oo p.m.) with a minor peak at midday. This trend is accentuated in the Entertainment District where the elevated use period lasts from 7:00 p.m. to 1:oo a.m. ■ At the evening peak, parking is functionally full (over go%) in the publicly available parking in the "core" of the Entertainment District, with some capacity in private parking. • The peak demand in the Downtown Business District occurs between 11:oo a.m. and 1:oo P.m. (45%). Evening occupancy in this area is very low (less than 25%). • Even at peak occupancy, there are almost 5,000 unused spaces throughout the study area. • On -street parking use is very steady throughout the day but does not exceed 55% occupancy. Certain corridors such as Dickson Street and Center Street are heavily utilized, while others are nearly vacant. ■ Off-street parking, including both publicly and privately owned assets, is never more than 40% full, regardless of the time of day. • Publicly owned and available off-street parking in the Entertainment District approaches functionally full at the evening peak. • The utilization in publicly -owned garages and lots increases in the late evening but does not exceed 50% occupied. • On Sunday, demand in the northeast corner of the study area is extremely high on Highland Street and in the large surface lot behind Fayetteville First Baptist church. However, at this time over 400 spaces go unused within a short walk of this area. NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 135 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR ■ Mid-day - ii a.m. to i p.m. (Figure 31): — Overall, parking is 35% occupied. — The highest concentrations of parking activity are in the Downtown Business District focused on the areas surrounding the Downtown Square. — On -street parking on Center Street and some Dickson Street blocks is functionally full. — There are available spaces elsewhere in the system outside of these prime spaces. Afternoon - 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Figure 32): — Overall, parking is 30% full. — Parking activity is generally not concentrated during this time period. Nighttime - 9 p.m. to a p.m. (Figure 33): — Publicly available parking in the "core" of the Entertainment District is functionally full with at least 9o% occupancy in the evening peak (9 p.m. to ii p.m.). — Overall, parking is about 40% full at night, which is the peak time period on Saturday. — On -street parking around the Downtown Square and along Block Street is also approaching 9o% of capacity which is functionally full. — Available spaces exist at this time in both City -owned and publicly -available parking outside of the Dickson Street core. Nelso0ygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 136 E CL 0 0 qc 0 0 T 712 ca co In I C O N C Y d M 7 LM U- , a ;:------------------ 0 -- p --'----- t _v O w Z p N m' D c W o o o e- q \ 'a = 4- �' 3 c qc o O A O 2 Q 0 C7 v a Q a a •; M o 0 0 0 > O � O O O O '- 0 in W 0 M `0 m C), (/ 2 a 0 N O od UI Z ae oe a Q m 0 D a, z co aLL °2 o O CW U G N D z O u t� Z l - _N X ua E O_ O O .17 0 0 T O 7 m N I 0 O N Q7 C Y cc O CL N M 7 LL 1 e 1 . _ ... r. _ . -" '�� .+.. _ ---- ------ r 1 1 r JJjj 9I 1 1 r r9 1� ®A � Tj�il • , _- U it �' �� cif I�I � I. �'• �1 I `1 lr�� i n; • I + — 1 t 1 - I 37 w - 07 N w' fl o 0 0 0 2 0 d Y.. 1J c 0 OQO OQ- 0^ T a M a 0 0 0 0 °i n in w t3 ,o w o, C7 1 ` 1 1, 11 O 0 Z r X W CL O O 0 0 ai T A 7 Va i C 0 N C `1 cC a M M d 7 _2) LL. d, N O O LO 0 0 P1 C") V � O i o o� a O �- 'w G a N w' e o q 0 O o C) qs c a � Z a O 'A aQ O P O O N "6 Q T a 0 na � o CD a C7 s� uj '0 r�Q1 L u r it 1 1 1 A; 1 I A 1 w CL1 1 r d, N O O LO 0 0 P1 C") EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Utilization Patterns: Weekend As noted earlier, normal fluctuations in the data collection process occasionally lead to missed counts on some facilities during collection. Therefore, the total number of observed spaces in utilization charts may vary by time period up to io%. The dashed line in each chart represents 9o% of the total inventory during that time period. At this point, parking is "functionally full" with only one in every ten spaces available, causing users to feel like no parking is available. Overall Parking Utilization Parking activity on the weekend peaks in the late evening when visitors travel to the Downtown Square and Dickson Street areas for Fayetteville's nightlife. However, even during this peak, parking utilization only reaches about 40% (at 9:oo p.m.), leaving approximately 5,000 empty spaces in the study area. Parking activity is the lowest in the late afternoon, when parking is only around 30% full. It is important to note that these are aggregate numbers over the entire study area including both publicly -available and restricted parking; demand varies from block to block. Figure 34 Overall Study Area Parking Utilization - Saturday, April 30, 2016 ■ Occupied *Unavailable Vacant 100% 901ra -- 80°/a 70U,4988 6022 5421 5854 5457 6006 5284 5578 60°o 50% A00/a 300/a 201K, 11 04b 9AM 11AM IPM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM Two -[Minute "Core" Utilization On Saturday, peak utilization occurs at 9 p.m. The two -minute -walk "cores" of the Entertainment District and Downtown Business District are very busy at this time, particularly the Entertainment District (Figure 37), which is functionally full, at 9o% occupied. Parking in the "core" of the Downtown Business District is almost 90 % occupied at its peak during a weekend farmers' market at ii am, and approximately' 70% occupied at 9 p.m. For the Entertainment District, this means that visitors must hunt for parking outside of a two - minute walk from Dickson Street near the Walton Arts Center. Although spare capacity is not a long walk away, this can be challenging for people with mobility issues or those who may not know that parking is just around the corner. In particular, tourists or infrequent visitors to downtown who are visiting the WAC or other restaurants struggle to find parking. These drivers often type a destination into a navigation system which points them to the parked -up front door, not nearby parking. Fayetteville's topography compounds this issue, as the slope of Dickson Street and especially the streets north of Dickson act as a barrier to walking. Nelso0ygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 140 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 36 Core Downtown Business District Publicly Available Utilization 90% 80 Mo 70go 60`;'o 50�1� a0',, 30% 20'%, 101A 9AM ■ Occupied Vacant 88 --- 153 '1 0'7 159 11AIMIPM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PM NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 141 { G 1 00 M up 13 LI) aC S i- V) l C N ] k C n lM � �F- m N C f39 in c,4c cV E 4' Cd fO t a i 0 Z c •�- cC 5 ° s Q °3,r W J_ O LO Z O 4f 0 ce LL 0.,a CN ) - g T LU d - f N y _ P C o a z r 0 u o z 0 CN E r Y 0 a i LU ca Q T V m 70 4 _ ` Y 7/ Q a u m CL y°• �: o 0 o p X .0 a) o a w p A C i O o p V) 3 'c Q as in og o 41 v Fl C O \ LL EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR On -Street vs. Off Street Utilization Like weekdays, on -street and off-street parking utilization exhibit different temporal ,behavior on Saturday, as shown in Figure 38 and Figure 39. On -street parking sees a high use rate during Farmers Market hours, then gradually diminishes before abruptly climbing again during dinner hours. The off-street supply sees a relatively flat utilization profile with a noticeable peak during the Saturday period of 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. It should be noted that off-street utilization does not exceed 40% while on -street utilization does not exceed 50% on Saturday, meaning there are never fewer than 5,00o empty parking spaces at any given time. Figure 38 On -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday 1000A 90% 3091t, 70X, 625 60G3 So 40lc 30�?!e 20p1? 1 on 9AM a Occupied a Unavailable Vacant 575 597 733 706 369 548 711 1 1 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PM 7P/A Figure 39 Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday 9PM 11 PM 90" s; _ 50% 7 E, 4842 4711 4436 4863 60%5393 5253 5220 5296 50S 40 30% 20% 10% 0 9AM 11 AM IPM 3PIA SPM 7PM 9PM 11 PM NelsWNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 143 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Publicly Owned vs. Privately Owned Off -Street Utilization Figure 4o and Figure 41 show that employees, resident, and visitors to Downtown Fayetteville are using privately and publicly owned off-street facilities on Saturdays at roughly equal rates. Both ownership types see roughly 600 more vehicles parked during the evening peak than during the time of lowest demand. The easily discernible peaks in the public facilities are concentrated along Center Street between Locust and College Avenues in the morning and within the Entertainment District in the evening. Figure 40 Publicly Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday 100% 900/0 -_ _..... 80% 7001 1756 6os'ff 50% 40'?';� 30% 20% 104%0 QC/o 9AM 0 Occupied Vacant 1568 1917 1938 2035 1731 1431 1788 11 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PhA 7PPA 9PM 11 PM Figure 41 Privately Owned Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday ■ Occupied acar3f 100"1/0 90% - 80% 70%- 2980 3005 3075 60%3637 3274 3336 3282 326] 50'0 c 40% 30/0 20% 10% M/ 9AM 11 AM IPM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PM NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 144 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Publicly -Accessible vs. Restricted -Access Off -Street Utilization As opposed to Thursday trends, restricted -access facilities see little variation in occupancy and lower utilization on Saturday than those that are publicly -accessible. During the evening peak, the garages and lots that are available for public use are utilized at a much higher rate (over 50 occupied) than the facilities where access is restricted (about 30% occupancy). Despite increased use during peak periods, over >,000 publicly -accessible off-street parking spaces remain unused at all times. Figure 42 Publicly Accessible Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday 100 6 90% - 805Iu 704j 1317 1576 Son: 40`:0 305a ao5� 9AM 1 1 AM 0 Occupied Vacant 1120 1607 1680 1778 1445 1513 1 PMI 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PIvl 11 PIv1 Figure 43 Restricted Access Off -Street Parking Utilization - Saturday x Occupied Vacant 1 ti0�%a 901; 800,11_' 705% 5o5a 3812 3519 3641 3535 3513 3260 3310 3344 SO% A0% 301,., 2059 10"10 coi- 9AM 11 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PAA NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 145 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Downtown Business District vs. Entertainment District Utilization On Saturdays, parking utilization in the two districts has an inverse relationship. As was the case during the week, peak utilization in the Downtown Business District occurs around the noon hour due to the Farmers Market held on the Downtown Square. There is a small uptick in activity at 9 p.m., likely due to Entertainment District spillover and some demand from Block Street bars and restaurants. Figure 44 Downtown Business District Parking Utilization - Saturday ■ Occupied . Unavailable Vacant 100% 90%-----------------------------------------------------------------m.- 80% 70 1948 1737 2088 2218 2426 2404 2196 2476 so 40% 30% 20SeONE 10 LY. 0?a 9AM 11AM 1PAA 3PM SPM 7PM 9PM 11PM In the Entertainment District, occupancy grows throughout the day, peaking in the late evening. Some Farmers Market spillover is noted at midday, but before 7 p.m., there are consistently almost 3,000 unoccupied spaces. Figure 45 Entertainment District Parking Utilization - Saturday a Occupied Vacant i 100°% 90:u 8©S 7rc'/; 60e`e 3283 2909 3014 3014 2887 40% 30i X/; 201x3 10" 'r. 9AM 1 1 AAA IPM 3PM SPM 2212 2118 2465 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 146 7PM 9PM 11PM EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 46 provides a comparison of the utilization of publicly owned, open to the public spaces with utilization of privately owned and/or restricted spaces. In the evening, publicly owned parking is quite busy, with approximately 75% of spaces utilized, which is close to functionally full. Figure 46 Publicly Owned and Open to the Public v. Privately Owned and Restricted Parking Utilization - Entertainment District - Saturday Looking more specifically at these publicly owned spaces reveals that at peak on a weekend, the observed publicly owned off-street facilities approach functionally full, while capacity remains on - street (Figure 47). On -street parking spaces can be less intuitive to the user hunting for long-term parking and thus be overlooked. This parking demand profile can lead to scenarios where users hunting for parking can't find a space and become frustrated. If the on -street capacity is not easy and intuitive to find, frustrated users may simply leave. Figure 47 City -Owned, Open to Public Spaces in the Entertainment District - Saturday ■ Off -Street Occupied On -Street Occupied Vacant � 100•',%c 0 _.__--431---- 318---_.._.___ 0% 962 835 882 869 788 558 '5 ,n ;, Observed City Owned, Open to Public, Off -Street: -835 m 50:%: 90% Functional Off -Street Supply: -750 O 50';, X10 a' 30:e Q 20° `a 9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PIA NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 147 Occupied - City Owned, Open to Public Occupied - Privately Owned Vacant 1 C70�� 9 "z ---------------- -------- - - - - -- 70;> 2214 2120 2467 2911 3016 3016 2889 t 660 3285 SQ`'rc > •$ d i'v Observed City Owned, Opento Public --1,200 1204 � 30 « _� _ _ _ _ ~ ~ _ - - 14 _ _ - - --- - - - - -- —➢0 9095 Functional Supply. 1,080 12$1 118r 20"A lo`;e 716 11.61 1441 r 9AM 11 AM 1 PM 3PM SPINA 7PIA 9PM 11 PM Looking more specifically at these publicly owned spaces reveals that at peak on a weekend, the observed publicly owned off-street facilities approach functionally full, while capacity remains on - street (Figure 47). On -street parking spaces can be less intuitive to the user hunting for long-term parking and thus be overlooked. This parking demand profile can lead to scenarios where users hunting for parking can't find a space and become frustrated. If the on -street capacity is not easy and intuitive to find, frustrated users may simply leave. Figure 47 City -Owned, Open to Public Spaces in the Entertainment District - Saturday ■ Off -Street Occupied On -Street Occupied Vacant � 100•',%c 0 _.__--431---- 318---_.._.___ 0% 962 835 882 869 788 558 '5 ,n ;, Observed City Owned, Open to Public, Off -Street: -835 m 50:%: 90% Functional Off -Street Supply: -750 O 50';, X10 a' 30:e Q 20° `a 9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PIA NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 147 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Some privately owned lots are open to the public in the Entertainment District, particularly on weekends. Figure 48 shows that these lots provide some relief to the system, with 375 spaces unoccupied at peak. Figure 48 Publicly Accessible Off -Street Spaces in the Entertainment District, Saturday 100',, 90% 704%;, 60% s0010 40010 30ONO 20°0 10',13 no/, ■ Occupied Vacant 491 376 ----.....---- 645 9AM 11 AM 1 Phil 3PIA SPM 7PM 9pNS 1 1 PM On -Street Meters Utilization of metered spaces is higher, reaching capacity, in the morning in the Downtown Business District. This reflects activity from the Farmers' Market. Throughout the rest of the day, there are over 70 unused metered spaces at any given time in the Downtown Business District. There is a slight increase in use of these spaces after 7:00 p.m. In contrast, use of metered spaces in the Entertainment District is highest in the evening. Utilization peaks at 7:00 p.m. when 70 spaces go unused. Interestingly, utilization of these spaces is consistent before and after the 1:oo p.m. data collection time when these spaces become priced. When the price goes up at 5:00 p.m., these spaces remain well -utilized despite the price increase, as many are front -door, prime spaces. In fact, the peak demand for this type of space occurs at 7:00 p.m. Nonetheless, even at peak time, approximately 30% of spaces are unused, and the majority of these are west of West Avenue or north of Dickson Street — one or two blocks away from the center of activity. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 148 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 49 Downtown Business District On -Street Metered Parking - Saturday Figure 50 Entertainment District On -Street Metered Parking - Saturday ■ Occupied Vacant 100% 90% - - . .... .- 80% 130 127 70% 184 157 168 6040 504tH �1C1�Ya 300 264.0 10'i0 o':!n 9AM 1 1 AM IPM 99 102 118 3PM SPM 7PM 9PM 11 PAA NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 149 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR WILSON PARK: WEEKEND UTILIZATION Full data collection occurred in the Wilson Park focus area from 11:oo a.m.-i:oo p.m. on Saturday, April 30, 201.6 with roughly half of the parking assets surveyed again from 1:00-3:00 p.m. The utilization of this focus area's parking inventory was about 30% all day. The only well - used facility during the Saturday data collection period is the off-street lot associated with the University of Arkansas' Kappa Delta house. Figure 51 Wilson Park Overall Utilization - Saturday, April 30, 2016,11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study Wilson Park District On -Street Utilization 0% to 301/6 30% to 60% ® 60% to 800% 80% to 90% 90% to 100% Greater than 100% —= No Data Off -Street Utilization 0°/ to 30% 30% to 601% 60% to 80% 801% to 90% i_ 90% to 100% I� Greater than 100% No Data 3 ----------------- ----------- a-.......---- 378 177 o aos I. n.12 Mile. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 150 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR SUNDAY DATA COLLECTION To supplement the Saturday counts, the City conducted some Sunday spot checks in the northeast corner of the study area. In particular, these counts sought to capture demand during peak church hours. These counts revealed that at peak time, there are over 450 spaces available. However, the lot behind Fayetteville Baptist Church is over capacity, as are streets right outside on Highland Avenue. In contrast, surrounding lots have significant amounts of unoccupied spaces that may not be accessible to the public. Figure 52 Sunday Parking Utilization - Focus Area NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 151 a Occupied Vacslnf 3 �4�iu 468 475 7G4•'n 726 605.. 50L� 4 0 °-re 30% 25r .. ; 10 a 9AM 1OAM 11A10 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 151 EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 53 Sunday Parking Utilization —10:00 a.m. i Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study ' Study Area 0% to 30% 3091 in 0% ® G04n to 69% eo%>ti so% eosx m tao�fi i Grnare=Than 1AV44 �1 fS.OS 6.1 (1,7 �1VFas NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 152 Immomm, M., r' a� ;ok m. - -ax, -;� 79ZI:7 1 tow ki i g�y s � � ," _•tib .".� . PARKING MANAGEMENT Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study August 2017 NELSON NYGAARD PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR NelsWNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 11 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR WHAT IS PARKING MANAGEMENT? At the heart of a safe and welcoming central business district should be a well-managed parking system where parking spaces are easy to find, priced according to need, and complimented by programs and features that foster easy walking, shopping, dining and working. The tools of an effective parking management program start with well-placed and convenient parking spaces, legible and intuitive regulations, carefully -calibrated pricing that reflects the value users place on convenience, streamlined payment technologies, and an efficient and friendly system of enforcement. When these tools are well-managed, the experience of parking becomes positive as customers perceive that it is available, comfortable and convenient. This memorandum documents how current parking management practices affect the experience of parking in central Fayetteville. At the busiest time of the day (11:oo a.m. on Thursday), about half of the total parking spaces are occupied, and there are unused spaces in both the Downtown District and the Entertainment District. We will seek to answer whether the other half of parking spaces are truly available: as in, how are they regulated and enforced? What information exists to find those spaces? Can the general public use them, and if so, when? Parking is also about what people do after they park, particularly as every person who parks a car becomes a pedestrian on the way to their destination. Critical to this is the degree to which parking supply is integrated with Fayetteville's overall transportation network and variety of destinations. With free rides for the public on Razorback Transit and several high-quality bicycle trails, Fayetteville offers more than just driving and parking. How are these multimodal options integrated into Fayetteville's street, sidewalk, and parking system? How well do the multimodal options connect to major destinations? And how does this affect parking demand? Parking management is explored in this memorandum under the following headers: Page WhatIs Parking Management?..............................................................................................................2 Priceand Time Limits................................................................................................................................. 3 Technologyand Payment Systems.......................................................................................................19 Enforcement............................................................................................................................................... 24 Governance..............................................................................................................................................27 Signageand Information.......................................................................................................................29 MultimodalConnections..........................................................................................................................35 ZoningReview..........................................................................................................................................41 ParkingProvision......................................................................................................................................41 Parking Provision Best Practices............................................................................................................46 BestPractice Summary............................................................................................................................49 NelsoMygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR PRICE AND TIME LIMITS ■ Entertainment District prices are designed to create availability in the Entertainment District in the afternoon and evening by charging a higher price at metered spaces in the later hours of the day. Pricing spaces is typically meant to encourage drivers to buy only the amount of time they need at a given space, thus encouraging availability at prime front -door spaces. The daytime span of the Downtown Business District pricing reflects heavier demand during working hours and lower evening and weekend demand. ■ Fayetteville's Downtown District includes a greater mix of rates and time -limits — including free parking on weekends —than the Entertainment District, likely in response to a greater mix of users. ■ There are five privately -owned facilities where the public may pay to park in the Entertainment District. Several off-street facilities, such as churches, provide informal free parking during the week. This parking is not clearly marked, so is only available to those who know about it. • The all -day off-street parking rates in the Downtown Business District are 50% or less compared to the Entertainment District. ■ At any given time, there are many spaces in the entire study area that are open for permit holders at a great discount over regular hourly prices. Most of these facilities are only 6o% occupied at peak, although some in the core areas of demand can reach maximum capacity at peak times. ■ For those who hold City -issued permits or coupons, the maximum parking price in both the Downtown Business District and Entertainment District is $0.30 per hour (Annual Parking Permit, Municipal Parking Monthly Permit). An Entertainment District employee working from 5:00 pm to 1:oo am would pay approximately $0.50 per day (go% of the $5 all day option). ■ By Ordinance, the City of Fayetteville has the ability to implement special event parking rates when the Walton Arts Center is host to shows of a certain size. Event parking requires customers to carry cash to pay the $5.00 fee, and it is not always obvious to consumers when event parking might be in effect before they arrive in the Entertainment District. ■ Event parking is more common at the West Lot than the Spring Street Deck. On average, weekly West Lot event parking income is $15.00 per space, while the Deck is closer to $7.00. The customer entry fee during event parking periods is $5 per vehicle. Parking Districts The City of Fayetteville manages parking pricing and time -limits via two distinct areas: the Entertainment District parking zone and the Downtown Business District parking zone (Figure 1). The City established these zones to manage pricing and time regulations based on the respective nature of activity in each of these zones. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Entertainment District The Entertainment District, also known on wayfinding signage as the Dickson Street District, is located north of downtown and just east of the University of Arkansas. Destinations within the district include the Walton Arts Center and the majority of the shops, restaurant, bars, and entertainment venues lining Dickson Street. Parking facilities in the Entertainment District parking zone, also known as the Dickson Street Area, includes on -street spaces of varying regulations and permit structures, public and privately - owned publicly -accessible off-street facilities, and off-street lots that are restricted from public use. Downtown Business District The Downtown Business District, also known as the Square Area, is immediately southeast of the Entertainment District and comprises the commercial and employment area surrounding the greater Downtown Square. Destinations within this district include: ■ Fayetteville Farmer's Market (on ■ Fayetteville Visitors Center Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays) E Fayetteville Town Center ■ The Historic Square and Gardens ■ Fayetteville Public Library ■ Shops and restaurants lining Block ■ Federal Building Avenue, Center Street, and Mountain Washington County Courthouse Street • Lights of the Ozarks City Hall Parking within the Downtown District comprises various types of facilities including on -street parking, City -owned parking decks and lots, privately -owned publically-accessible off-street facilities, and private and publicly -owned facilities that are restricted from general public access, NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 1 Entertainment District and Downtown Business District ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT r ------ DOWNTOWN I BUSINESS DISTRICT Fayetteville Parking and Mobility Study Study Area Downtown Business DiVrict Entertainment District Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15 0105 03 0.2 et Mile-, PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR On -Street Regulations This section reviews on -street parking regulations only. Additional information on off-street parking facilities is in the following section. Regulations listed below and off-street regulations listed on subsequent pages are those that were in -effect at the time of manual data collection in Fayetteville (April 28-30, 2016). While a majority of the on -street parking in the study area is available for use by any member of the public (80%), there are on -street spaces which require permits, as well as University -only spaces and spaces reserved for municipal use. As there is no charge associated with residential permit parking, only 42% of on -street parking is priced. An even smaller percentage of on -street parking is time-limited (30%). Figure 2 On -Street Parking Rates and Regulations Entertainment District Parkers are required to pay for parking at metered spaces in the Entertainment District between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 2:0o a.m. every day. The time spans and price of priced on -street parking within this District are as follows: Weekday Price and Time Spans — On -Street ■ $0.50 per hour from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., no time -limits ■ $1.0o per hour from 5:00 P.M. to 2:0o a.m., no time -limits ■ Free and no time -limit from 2:0o a.m. to 2:00 P.M. Weekend Price and Time Spans- On -Street NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16 1n -Street Weekday RegulationfRate, Time Limi4 and Time Span(s) Total % Unrestricted 408 32% $0.25/Hour, 2 Hour Limit until 6PM 282 22% Residential Permit Only 191 15% $0.50/Hour (2-5PM), $1/Hour (5PM-2AM), $5/Day Option 146 11% Residential Permit or Metered ($0.50/Hour (2-5PM), $1/Hour (5PM-2AM) 86 7% Free, 2 Hour Limit (in 4 Hour Period) 77 6% Loading Zone 35 3% Police Parking Only 14 1% $0.15/Hour, long-term parking 15 1% Motorcycle 9 <1% Free, 10 Minute Limit from 8AM to 6PM 8 <1% University Parking Only 3 <1% Total 1,274 Entertainment District Parkers are required to pay for parking at metered spaces in the Entertainment District between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 2:0o a.m. every day. The time spans and price of priced on -street parking within this District are as follows: Weekday Price and Time Spans — On -Street ■ $0.50 per hour from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., no time -limits ■ $1.0o per hour from 5:00 P.M. to 2:0o a.m., no time -limits ■ Free and no time -limit from 2:0o a.m. to 2:00 P.M. Weekend Price and Time Spans- On -Street NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR $0.50 per hour from 2:00 p.m. to 6:0o p.m., no time -limits ■ $1.00 per hour from 6:0o P.M. to 2:0o a.m. , no time -limits • Free and no time -limit from 2:0o a.m. to 2:00 P.M. The current pricing structure is designed to create availability in the Entertainment District in the afternoon and evening by charging a higher price at metered spaces in the later hours of the day. Rates are generally similar on weekdays and weekends, with the exception of the hour at which the price increases during the day; it is priced at the higher rate an hour earlier on weekdays (5 p.m.) than on weekends (6 p.m.). NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 17 Q F CID 0 2 od Z Y OC Q � d G 3 0 a!i Q T 00 W � U W W Q z Q 5_ Z AC Q N C O O rn d C co O c 0.1 C .Y co co CL anr:>WlYi�uiw..vm Inr r la vl �i+ ,r `� rrrr r1WA ]yh r5r•1•r,�r r _-. 'r"rr-iasr nvy irairr _.r r f. - � _ `t r x �T,r»„�,i7i ry . .iaY.y r C r liv `rl+a�.. 7 � .� Nt_ �� •^� �> me raFrlr ”' r .•,.� _ L N'O eZ)�' p r !Y it • ,ar+l � '�Si� (�Aa JIr' i -q tl = _ S F r_r__r___r_rr r V = I IN NJ t: r" -x rwrrwlyarar r 1 , r,r _-.rr o. r«r. rti -♦ rr.r.raax;Unh b", 3i1v a c 0 aa1rJ G N N c W) C CO y� a 60 0) 5 > •> tU y L N O ,CQ v c w _ I p O 2 c v oc —c: >. v rJ v >. m -6 c E � � m �� m c v ra a � c * vt N E °c °c c u E a w > p a v Q co D v a c 3 LL i Q Q 2 ri V a a` a Oc dw Elo OD PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Within this district, parkers have a location choice; they can park for free outside the metered area (on -street spaces on Highland and Mock Avenues, Lafayette and Mt. Nord Streets) and farther from the core of activity, or they can pay the higher price per hour to park closer to their destination. Similarly, the time -of -day price change reflects increased evening activity; as the bars and restaurants along Dickson Street become more active, the parking associated with these destinations is in higher demand. This trend is pronounced on Saturdays as seen in Figure 4. Figure 4 Saturday Metered On -Street Parking (Entertainment District) 100% 90% a0% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ Occupied Vacant 184 130 127 187 168 99 102 118 9AM 11 AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PM NOTE: the total number of observed spaces may vary by time period up to 10% due to data collection error. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 19 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Downtown Business District Fayetteville's Downtown includes a greater mix of rates and time -limits than the Entertainment District. On -street parking in this District is regulated as follows (see Figure 3): Weekday Price and Time Spans Figure 5 Striped Loading Zones on Block Street' ■ Free 2 -hour time-limited parking (predominantly surrounding the Downtown Square) ■ $0.25 per hour for up to 2 hours 8:0o a.m. — 6:0o p.m. ■ $0.15 cents per hour for parking in metered, long-term spaces off-street, on Church Avenue, and on Center Street ■ From 6:0o p.m. to 8:0o a.m., all metered spaces are free and+ without time -limits in Some loading zones that are striped on the street but allow unregulated parking from 5:00 p.m. — 7:0o a.m. (Figure 5) Weekend Price and Time Spans ■ Free and without time -limits at all spaces at all times 0 Some loading zones that are striped on the street but allow unregulated parking from 5:00 p.m. — 7:0o a.m. Figure 6 Weekday Metered On -Street Parking (Downtown District) in Occupied Vacant 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 165 126 136 133 156 100 168 7AM 9AM 11AM 1 P 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM NOTE: the total number of observed spaces may vary by time period up to 10%due to data collection error. I Image Source: Google Streetview NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 110 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR The Downtown Business District pricing reflects its heavier daytime demand, during working hours, and its lower evening and weekend demand. A variety of time limits aim to give visitors options between short-term higher -turnover parking spots and a cheaper price for a longer stay. Time -limits, while intended to encourage turnover in order to free up spaces for potential new customers, unfortunately also tell already -visiting customers that they have to leave. In contrast, correctly managed pricing can reflect the value of parking and allow customers to pay for the length of stay they want without fear of a ticket. Metered spaces do not experience high use during the weekday (Figure 6), but do see a spike in activity during the evening after pricing regulations expire. Off -Street Regulations Off-street parking includes all public and private parking in garages and surface lots in the study area. There are 198 off-street parking facilities in the study area. Publicly -Owned Garages and Lots are owned by the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, and the United States Government, but not all are available for public use. Some of these facilities provide a mix of public, resident permit, and customer parking while others — such as the Washington County courthouse — do not make their supply available to the public. Privately -Owned Garages and Lots are owned by private landowners or private institutions. Some of this parking supply is available for public use for a fee. However, most is restricted to residents or reserved for employees and/or customers. Entertainment District Off Street Facilities Cim-0tunedQt StreetEacifities For City -owned facilities within the Entertainment District, the same rates and time spans apply as they do for public on -street parking, including the flat fee, all -day rate option. There are long- term options for parking, which the next section covers in detail. Paid parking in the Entertainment District operates 7 days a week unless the mayor designates a free parking day or days. The off-street pricing structure in this District is as follows: Weekday Price and Time Spans + $0.50 per hour from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm, no time -limits ■ $1.00 per hour from 5:00 pm to 2:oo am, no time -limits + Free and no time -limits from 2:oo a.m. to 2:00 pm • An "all day option" for a flat fee of $5.00 in publicly owned facilities such as West Lot and Spring Street Deck ■ On designated event nights, one can only park for a flat $5.00 fee in a limited number of facilities (no hourly option available during event times). This is detailed further on p. 18 Weekend Price and Time Spans ■ $0.50 per hour from 2:00 pm to 6:oo p.m., no time -limits + $1.00 per hour from 6:oo pm to 2:oo a.m., no time -limits ■ Free and no time -limits from 2:oo a.m. to 2:00 pm + An "all day option" for a flat fee of $5.00 in the West Lot and Spring Street Deck ■ On designated event nights, one can only park for a flat $5.00 fee in a limited number of facilities (no hourly option available during event times). This is detailed further on p. 18 NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates, Inc. 111 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Privaiehl-Owned Publfclt7-Af-cessible Off5trept Facilities Most of Fayetteville's privately -owned publicly -accessible parking facilities are located in the Entertainment District (Figure 7). Many of these facilities charge a fee to motorists on an hourly or per -use basis and do not sell monthly or annual permits. Figure 7 Entertainment District Paid Private Facilities Open to the Public 'At the time of data collection. These lots are now permit -only lots. Some segments of these private facilities are reserved for customers of an adjacent building during business hours but are then open to the general public outside of business hours. Regulations and payment directions are conveyed in a variety of signs prioritizing different pieces of information at each facility, which can lead to confusion for motorists looking for a parking space in the district. Figure 8 Mixed Regulations at Privately -Owned Facilities CHIPQTLE CUSTOMER PARKING ONLY. t8 arra - 10 pml lo""•>,t irc�«a naGcrtrcorad In addition to these private facilities, some facilities provide informal public parking during the week. In particular, staff noted that Central Methodist Church owns two lots and a deck, totaling over 350 spaces. These spaces are indicated on Razorback Transit's route maps as a NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 112 Name InventoryFacility 1 UA Lot 53 63 West Ave After 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, Lot 53 rates are the exact same as City facilities in Entertainment District facilities. Lot 70 (Dickson Street 55 Gregg Ave $0.50 per hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a Improvement District) week, Fayetteville Depot 156 (some spaces 548 W Dickson $1.00 per hour (2417 Sunday to Tuesday, restricted at certain Street 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday to times of day) Saturday) $2.00 per hour (5:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. 609-611 W Wednesday to Saturday) $2.00 per hour; Daily Maximum of $5.00 Underwood Plaza/The 267 Dickson Dickson Street after three hours Bakery Building 33 Locust Street $2.00 per hour (Evenings, 6:00 p.m. to behind Dickson 6:00 a.m., 7 Days a Week) Street Inn 'At the time of data collection. These lots are now permit -only lots. Some segments of these private facilities are reserved for customers of an adjacent building during business hours but are then open to the general public outside of business hours. Regulations and payment directions are conveyed in a variety of signs prioritizing different pieces of information at each facility, which can lead to confusion for motorists looking for a parking space in the district. Figure 8 Mixed Regulations at Privately -Owned Facilities CHIPQTLE CUSTOMER PARKING ONLY. t8 arra - 10 pml lo""•>,t irc�«a naGcrtrcorad In addition to these private facilities, some facilities provide informal public parking during the week. In particular, staff noted that Central Methodist Church owns two lots and a deck, totaling over 350 spaces. These spaces are indicated on Razorback Transit's route maps as a NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 112 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM % PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR "Park and Ride" (Figure 27, P. 37) but are not formally marked on the ground. Drivers may also be able to park at certain buildings such as the lot outside of Wasabi Restaurant, which has become a privately -owned pay lot. There are no signs noting that this parking is available, thus it is not formally part of the public supply. However, those who feel comfortable using these spots may do s0.2 Downtown Business District Off Street Facilities Cite-0toned O.ntt'eet Facilities The off-street facilities which are owned and managed by the City in the Downtown Business District charge monthly or a flat daily rate upon entry on all weekdays. They are: ■ $4.00 for the Town Center Parking Deck ■ $4.00 for entry to the 1s� level of the Municipal Parking Deck ■ $50.00 monthly permits for the 2nd level of the Municipal Parking Deck $3.00 for entry to the 3rd level of the Municipal Parking Deck ■ $0.15 cents per hour for parking in metered, long-term off-street spaces ■ $0.25 cents per hour for parking in metered, off-street spaces. The all -day off-street parking rates in the Downtown Business District are one to two dollars less than in the Entertainment District. P)-tvateh.t-Ot.uned JAibliclp-Accessible Q f Street Facilities There is only one privately -owned parking facility open to public use in the Downtown District. This facility, located at 16-2o E. Mountain Street, does not charge for parking. In addition to these private facilities, some facilities provide informal public parking during the week. In particular, staff noted that the St. Paul's Episcopal Church parking (about 6o spaces), Center St. Church of Christ (about 70 spaces), and the Washington County Courthouse (just outside the study area, approximately 307 spaces) parking is available to the public. However, like the Methodist Church Parking in the Entertainment District, the lack of formal designation means that only those in the know will use these facilities. 2 At the time of inventory (Spring/Summer 2016), the Methodist Church also had ongoing shared parking agreements with nearby residences, a best practice in efficient parking use. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 113 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Permit and Discount Parking Programs The Fayetteville Parking Management division offers a variety of permits and coupon discounts for regular parkers in the heart of Fayetteville. The details of those are as follows: Entertainment District ■ Annual Parking Permit: In the Entertainment District, any member of the public may purchase an annual permit in the District for $boo. These permits are not valid for residential permit spaces, but are valid anywhere else in the Entertainment District paid spaces. If a permit holder parked for 8 hours a day during business days, this is approximately $o.go per hour.3 ■ Residential Parking: A resident is allowed a permit via a windshield permit plus a "guest pass" hangtag. Residents are permitted to park within one of two sub -areas within the Entertainment District, depending on their address. The dividing line between the two sub -areas is Dickson Street. Residential parking spaces are physically identified and numbered on the street. Similar to paid parking in the Entertainment District, permits are required from 2:00 P.M. to 2:0o a.m., 7 days a week. Enforcement starts at 1o:oo am by City ordinance. These permits are free of charge. Employee Parking Discount: Employees of businesses operating within the district are eligible for a coupon code. These coupon codes, also called "cards," apply to "certain paid parking spaces" and may be discounted by up to go% of normal parking rates (Figure 9). Full-time employees can receive up to 22 coupons per month, while part-time employees get a maximum of ii. With this coupon code, employees pay approximately $0.06 to $0.08 per hour.4 ■ Additional coupon programs: Employers and other entities may purchase coupons or enroll in a coupon program linked to designated spaces at the discretion of the Parking Management office. 3 Assumes parking 260 days/year for 8 hours/day. 4 Assumes discounts on either $5/day or $0.50 and $1 /hour rates. Employees who park during unpaid time receive an even deeper discount. NelsoOygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 14 0 H m O 2 V Z Y 19 Q � aQ CU nCU za) Q T [B OC Oo L LU U a z W Q z Q 2 0 Z Y Q d •..� Nirl^tMr4•GY M .s --.- .. _ -. O 9 1 � 1 1 � I - — ' � r � 1 I n1'n' 1 t1.' 1 am I _ C N i 1 _ � 1 o 1 E�E'vi 1 U C a q 1 1 1 d 1 , 3 p n s' •w «------•w 3"e 5�'CNV Anx r.... rq,.4+, u,. , .s C O _ C N Lj U C a U d 3 p ~ U Q QiO 3 0 O N ! N Q N Q o w U) N D Q c7 C ccy0 G or D V W �lfn .s PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Downtown Business District In the Downtown Business District, the following permits are available and open to anyone: • Hangtag Permits: A hangtag permit for long-term (10 hour, red -top) parking meters for $90.0o per annual quarter (3 months). This is approximately $0.r7 per hour.5 • Gated Lot Permit: A permit to access gated lots for $90.0o per annual quarter. This is approximately $0.17 per hour. G ■ Municipal Parking Monthly Permit and Town Center Deck Monthly Permit: A parking card permit providing access to either the Municipal Parking Deck's 2nd level or the Town Center Parking Deck for $150.00 per annual quarter. This is approximately $0.30 per hour.? ■ Town Center Parking Deck Coupon Code: A coupon code for entering the Town Center Parking Deck, set at $4.00 per single entry, or $133.00 per loo entries. The Town Center does not purchase these codes from the City, but does distribute them. Converted to hourly rates, this is either $0.50 per hour (for a single-entry pass) or $0.16 per hour (for a loo entry pass).8 Permit and Coupon Prices Figure 10 provides a comparison between permit types, prices, and facility utilization. Overall, these permits make parking relatively cheap in Fayetteville compared to hourly rates for the public. Those that are priced higher are ostensibly more valuable to the user, while those that are cheaper or free should be less valuable. The cheaper permits provide access to surface lots, while the more expensive permits allow access to structured parking or on -street spaces. At any given time, there are a total of over 2,000 spaces that are accessible for a variety of permit holders at a great discount over regular prices. Holding a permit does not grant one access to all of these spaces, but not holding a permit limits access to these spaces either by price, time, or both. Facilities open to permit holders generally have at least 40% unoccupied spaces at the daytime and evening peak, meaning that permit holders can likely always find a space. 5 Assumes parking 260 days/year for 8 hours/day. 6 See footnote 2 7 See footnote 2 6 Assumes parking 8 hours/entry NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 116 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 10 Permit and Coupon Prices, Access, Utilization and Revenues 9 2015 Permit revenue information provided by COF. 10 On August 1 st, 77 spaces in Lot 7 (D lot) are being converted to permit parking only. Folks with parking cards are being switched to hang -tags so they can park in Lot 7 or any red top meters. Note that we are not putting meters in Lot 7. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 17 Total Spaces d. PermitPrice Per Accessible Utilization Utilization Revenue Permits Entertainment District Residential Permit Free 191 37% 35% ONLY On -Street Residential Spaces $ 277 Parking Permit Entertainment District Residential Permit Free 86 30% 67% MIXED On -Street Spaces Employee Entertainment District $0.06— Parking On -Street Paid 162 48% 50% unknown unknown Coupon Spaces 0.08 Downtown Business Hangtag District Long Term $0.17 223 69% 18% $41,860 138 Permit � Meters _ Lot 5, Lot 7 in Gated Lot Downtown BusinessF$0.17 218 68% 3% 125 Permit10 District $34,490 Lot 5, Lot 7 in City -Issued Downtown Business $0.17 218 68% 3% 125 Parking Card District Town Center Parking Deck Town Center Parking $0.16- 226 ° 54% ° 19% $2,616 Coupon Deck 0.33 50% Annual Parking Paid Entertainment $0.30 1,453 48% $1,875 9 Permit District Spaces Municipal Parking Municipal Parking Monthly Permit Deck $0.30 321 53% 14% $70,704 113 and Town Town Center Parking Center Deck Deck Monthly Permit { 9 2015 Permit revenue information provided by COF. 10 On August 1 st, 77 spaces in Lot 7 (D lot) are being converted to permit parking only. Folks with parking cards are being switched to hang -tags so they can park in Lot 7 or any red top meters. Note that we are not putting meters in Lot 7. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 17 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Event Parking Working with the Walton Arts Center (WAC), the Parking Management division can switch to an "Event Parking" system to process a large volume of vehicles within a short period of time. This has recently been piloted for U of A football games as well, with a shuttle taking people to the stadium. The WAC has a tentative schedule of all shows that are expected to reach the 600 ticket sales necessary for event parking to be in place. The City schedules staff based on this schedule, as well as up to 3 additional shows per year. The specifics of Event Parking are below: ■ Rate: $5, flat fee. Vehicles that are already parked at the time when event parking management begins can pre -pay for parking at the normal rate. • Payment Method: Cash only, paid on the way into parking. This is to avoid long lines at kiosks. ■ Locations: If the show has sold more than 600 tickets, Event Parking is in the West Avenue lot. If the show has sold more than 850 tickets, event parking is provided in the Spring Street Deck and West Avenue Lot (525 spaces in total) ■ Parldng Attendant Staffing: 5-10 individuals ■ Timespan: Event parking begins 2 to 3 hours prior to the start time of the event. • Wayfinding and Availability Indicators: In the past, the City has used a mascot (Rooty the Recycling Pig) to direct traffic to the Spring Street Deck. The City also uses a sandwich board directing traffic to event parking locations. PEOs use waWe-talkies to communicate with one another and help to direct traffic to empty spaces. Event parking is more popular at the West Lot than the Spring Street Deck. On average, weekly West Lot event parking income is $15.00 per space, while the Deck is closer to $7.0o. Figure 11 shows a comparison of revenue per space in each facility. Parkers buy fewer spaces in the Spring Street Deck than the West Lot, likely because the West Lot is more convenient and visible but priced at the same rate. Figure 11 Event Sales Comparison per Space for West Lot and Spring Street Deck 201611 35.07 3a.W 25,00 20.00 15.09 0,00 5.00 Income Per Space C'. y Q 0 LL ' �, _ %,Vosttot •___ Spring StrPc-t. 11 Source: Revenue and Utilization Information from COF, as of June 3, 2016 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 118 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR TECHNOLOGY AND PAYMENT SYSTEMS KEY FINDINGS ■ Technology varies throughout the study area • Kiosks in the Entertainment District accept coins, certain monetary bills, credit cards, and pay -by -phone Coin-operated meters in the Downtown accept quarters, nickels, and dimes. Traditional, mechanical, coin-operated meters are no longer fully supportive of list -century consumer expectations • Kiosks are pay -by -space, requiring users to enter additional numbers on a keypad. ■ Pay -by -phone is available in the Entertainment District Today, there are multiple ways to pay for parking in Fayetteville and multiple technologies depending on the type, location and ownership of parking. Paid on- and off-street parking in the Entertainment District (roughly half the on -street supply) is predominantly managed by parking kiosks, whereas on -street metered spaces in the Downtown District are exclusively mechanical meters (Figure 13). All spaces controlled by kiosk also accept mobile payments whereas the single - head mechanical meter spaces in Downtown do not. Other City -owned lots and garages use a combination of gate arms that respond to proximity cards or require in-person payment and coin-operated meters for payment. Figure 12 City On -Street Spaces by Payment Machine Type Payment Machine Typee 1Spaces Multi -Space Kiosk 250 Single -Space Meter 283 Grand Total 533 With a parking system built out over time and with different ownership structures, it is very easy to end up with a wide variety of payment technologies, but this outcome can result in confusion to parking users. The challenge is how to integrate these different technologies into a comprehensive and legible whole in a way that doesn't leave the user stranded in the rain hunting for change or trying to interpret rules on a kiosk. The overall integration of different technologies impacts the perception of the entire system. Even if fees are not high, a frustrating payment experience can intent customers and visitors to leave the area and spend their money elsewhere where parking is more convenient. The subsequent review provides further detail on Fayetteville's meter, kiosk, and mobile phone technology and payment systems, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 119 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Gated Parking Facilities Gated facilities in Fayetteville work off of either a proximity card or a combination of cards and in-person payments. The following provides a summary by gated facility: • Municipal Parking Deck: The Chancellor Hotel has full control over payment in Levels 1 and 3 of the municipal parking deck. Level 1 is reserved for hotel guests while Level 3 can be made available to the public for $3.0o required upon entry. Patrons can purchase a Municipal Parking Deck permit and access Level 2 with a proximity card. ■ Town Center Parking Deck: Town Center Parking Deck allows visitors and downtown employees to park at any time for a $4 entry fee. A discount coupon code may also be purchased in advance. A parking card can be purchased for a monthly fee for unlimited entry into the deck. ■ Lots 5 and 7: These two lots are gated, with access via proximity card only (Gated Lot Permit) until Fridays at 4:30 P.M. Parking Management controls whether the gates are raised or lowered. 12 Currently, the gate technology does not provide any data on occupancy in real-time. Meters The traditional coin-operated parking meter, which uses a single point of sale to apply to a specific on -street space, is the predominant technology used throughout downtown's on -street supply and in many of the city -owned publically-accessible off-street facilities. The City uses Duncan brand meters in this area which accept nickels, dimes, and quarters. Depending on the location and regulation, one quarter can cover 6o minutes of parking (on - street, "short-term" meters) to loo minutes of parking ("long-term" meters). The time purchased is displayed prominently within the meter head. As posted on meters, the City does not offer refunds for payments in broken meters and can ticket for parking in a space with a non-functional meter. Figure 13 Existing Single -Space Parking Meters in Downtown Fayetteville 12 Lot 7 is no longer gated as of August 2016. For consistency with other report documents, all inventory is reported as a "snapshot in time" and this information was recorded before this change. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 120 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Although the meter is convenient to the vehicle, intuitive to most people, and conveys basic information on the time -limits and cost of parking at the space it serves, traditional, mechanical, coin-operated meters are no longer fully supportive of 2V -century consumer expectations. These single -head meters especially do not accept any form of payment other than coins, forcing those that need to extend their stay to find coins and feed the meter. Additionally, in some instances, single-space meters take up excessive sidewalk space and obstruct sidewalk access especially for those in wheelchairs, as shown in Figure 14 along South Church Street: Figure 14 Single -Space Meters Causing Obstruction on Church Street Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 121 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Kiosks Kiosks in the Entertainment District are relatively new "pay by space" LUKE pay stations by T2 Systems (formerly Digital) that provide several modern conveniences in comparison to coin- operated mechanical meters. The City phased in the kiosks along with other streetscape improvements to the Dickson Street area and the greater Entertainment District Parking Zone. For parking where payment is made at a kiosk, the user must enter the parking space number on the machine's keypad. Parking space numbers are located on the asphalt or curb next to the space. There is a level of convenience since the user does not need to return to the parked car to display any proof of payment. Payment options are somewhat restrictive: pay stations only accept bills less than $5.00, coins, or credit cards. This requires users to have change, small bills or use a credit card. Moreover, kiosks do not give change, which means cash users will likely spend time trying to find exact change, an inconvenience in an age of growing digital pre -payment for parking. Figure 15 Point of Sale for Parking Kiosks in the Entertainment District NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 122 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Mobile Another option for people parking within the Entertainment District is the ability to pay for parking with their mobile phone. Through a contract with PayByPhone, a company offering similar services to locales as diverse as Ann Arbor, MI, Galveston, TX, and the City of London, a parker simply can pay for parking by calling the listed number and entering a code assigned to Fayetteville. The user can also access the PayByPhone mobile app to pay for parking within the Entertainment District. This is advertised on every kiosk next to the keypad as well as on signage though out the district. The City also provides drink coasters and table toppers in many of the restaurant and businesses in the district. Figure 16 Pay by Phone Information on a Parking Payment Kiosk NelsoMygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 123 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR ENFORCEMENT KEY FINDINGS ■ Fayetteville's Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) have a stated mission to give assistance and discourage violations ■ PEOs use handheld computers for enforcement, but part of the process is manual ■ Most violations are less than $loo. 91% of all tickets issued as of Summer 2015 were for meter violations at $15/ticket. The majority of violations occur in the Entertainment District (as of Summer 2016, 68%) ■ Although the City does not tow and boot regularly, private operators do, and this aspect does negatively affect the parking user experience. The Police Department may tow vehicles for a special event, with advance notice. Parking Enforcement Officers There are four employees of the Parking Management Division known as Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) that lead parking enforcement, as well as one supervisor. Each officer's mission is "to prevent unauthorized parking and control parking by giving assistance or issuing parking citations to discourage violations of City of Fayetteville Parking Regulations." 13 Highlights of the enforcement program include: • Shifts are staggered throughout the day to ensure continuous coverage for 17 hours on weekdays, 11 on Saturday, and 12 hours on Sunday. • PEOs are trained and instructed in important customer service approaches, such as wearing specific uniforms that are required to be in good repair and answering questions politely while avoiding arguments. • Each officer is assigned a specific work area, provided a radio and handheld computer for entering violations, and expected to be visible and report all parking facility maintenance needs. The portable radio communicates to Fayetteville Police Central Dispatch. PEOs also carry a cell phone to assist customers with questions or parking equipment assistance (a land line is forwarded to the on-call or on -duty PEO 24/7 assistance). A number to reach the PEO on duty is listed on all of a parking equipment for customers. ■ Each PEO also carries an Wad to check for unpaid parking stall violations in the Entertainment District and to get emailed alarms when equipment has issues needing attention. ■ PEOs also wear body video cameras as part of their uniform requirements. PEO's handheld computers take pictures for public record, but license plate numbers must be manually entered. Other characteristics of this technology include: ■ Computers communicate via Bluetooth with portable O'Neal printers (attached to PEO's belts) that print citations 13 City of Fayetteville Parking Management Division, Parking Enforcement Officer Policy and Procedure Manual, August 2010, p. 1 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 124 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR ■ Enforcement officers apply chalk on tires to track how long the vehicle has been parked; the action of placing chalk must also be entered in the handheld, as this provides a "timestamp" on when the car was last noted. 14 Fines and Violations Violations may be issued up to three times a day per vehicle. Possible fines include: $15 - Meter Violation ■ $15 — Parking over the time limit (2 hours, 15 min, or in the Square) • $15 - Against the flow of traffic ■ $15 - Across the line ■ $15 - Over 18 inches from curb ■ $70 - Prohibited and Restricted Parking (roadway, blocking driveway, no parking zone, double parked, too close to corner, sidewalk) • $195 - ADA Violation Figure 17 Courtesy Drop -Off Box for Parking Citation Payments Parking citations can be paid online the following day, at the Parking Management Office or City Hall, or via 24-hour drop boxes located throughout the Downtown District and in City off-street parking facilities (Figure 17). The Parking Manager is empowered to reduce the fine "for good cause shown by the driver/operator prior to forwarding the ticket to the City Prosecutor's Office." Appeals must occur within 14 days of issuance. In 2015, there were 15,725 net (issued minus voided) citations, and $261,3o6 in revenue was collected. The majority of these citations occurred in the Entertainment District, which is consistent with the perception of this area as drawing more visitors - who may be unfamiliar with parking regulations - as compared to people who park regularly. Of the 17,308 total citations issued, there was an average amount of $1453 collected per issued citation in 2015, reflecting the fact that not all citations are paid. As of Summer 2o16, 91% of all tickets issued were for meter violations at $15 and 6o% of all violations occurred in the Entertainment District. 14 City of Fayetteville Parking Enforcement Officer Policy and Procedure Manual NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 125 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 18 Breakdown of Violations and Fines by District: 2015 District Citations Issued Entertainment 11,067 Citations Amount Issued Voidedis $205,545 1,576 $45,465 Downtown 6,913 $116,760 679 $16,820 Total 17,980 $322,305 2,255 $62,285 Towing and Booting Parking management does not tow or boot from any City -operated parking facilities, but towing and booting does occur in Fayetteville in privately owned lots and decks. The Police Department is authorized to tow vehicles for multiple reasons, including vehicles that have been parked for more than 72 hours on street or in a City lot for more than 24 hours if "space is needed for a reserved or special event."15. The PEO manual indicates that Parking Management does indeed have the authority to tow and/or boot, even though the City chooses not to do so. In private decks and lots, operators may also tow and boot, which leads many users attributing private enforcement actions to the City. The municipal code requires signage to alert the user to this possibility. The University of Arkansas has a standardized policy on booting and towing. 16 Although Parking Management does not tow and boot, this aspect does affect the parking user experience. Customers towed from privately owned but publicly accessible lots may not realize that it is not the City who has towed their vehicle. 15 The Fayetteville Police may also tow for the following violations: hazard, obstructing driveway, prohibited tow zone area, parked continuously upon any street for more than 72 hours (unless the vehicle is permitted in a residential zones and has a current registration), parking in the same location on any street for longer than 14 days, parking in a gated lot for more than 24 hours, or parking without a valid license plate. 16 As described in City of Fayetteville Parking Management Division, Parking Enforcement Officer Policy and Procedure Manual, August 2010, p. 13 NelsWNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 26 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR GOVERNANCE ■ The Parking Manager has limited authority to set regulations outside of the Municipal Code ■ Governance of parking regulations may be administratively cumbersome as it requires code amendments, approval from the mayor, or both Today, parking operations are centrally managed as part of the City's Department of Sustainability and Parking, which is responsible for facilitating sustainable transportation, living, and business choices in Fayetteville. Most of the job functions related to parking, including maintenance, enforcement, and customer service all answer to the same division manager. The Parking Manager then reports to the Director of Sustainability and Parking who then reports to the Mayor's Chief of Staff (Figure 19). The Parking Manager has limited authority to set regulations outside of the Municipal Code. The Fayetteville Municipal Code governs parking regulations, including pricing, time -limits, and time span. In the code, the Parking Manager is specifically given the authority to determine the location of two-hour time-limited spaces. Otherwise, priced blocks are specifically listed in the code, i.e. "On street parking spaces on Spring Street from Block Avenue to West Avenue and on School Avenue from Center Street to Spring Street shall be available to the public for paid parking ...... 17"The mayor, or his duly authorized representative" may set up meter zones, not the Parking Manager.i8Therefore, governance of parking regulations maybe administratively cumbersome as it requires code amendments, approval from the mayor, or both. Most routine parking management activities are entirely under the Parking Manager's control, including parking office administration, enforcement, maintenance, and fee collections, as shown in the organizational chart below. The Parking Manager can reduce the fine if the driver/operator provides a "good cause."19 Unpaid tickets are referred to the City Prosecutor for hearings. 17 Fayetteville Municipal Code, section 72.1 B.F. Accessed via municode.com, 6/20/2016. 19 Fayetteville Municipal Code, section 72.57.A. Accessed via municode.com, 6/20/2016. 19 Fayetteville Municipal Code, section 72.99 E Accessed via municode.com, 6/20/2016. NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates, Inc. 127 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 19 City of Fayetteville Parking Organization Chart (with # of employees)20 1"TR Chief of Staff Director of Sustainability and Park Parking 2 Parking Clerks I Operations Supervisor 1 1 Maintenance Worker I I A Enforcement Officers I 110 Part -Time Event Attendant) 20 Adapted from City of Fayetteville information NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 128 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR SIGNAGE AND INFORMATION There is detailed parking information online; but the Visit Fayetteville webpage does not clearly link to it. • Public parking information on the street is consistent in color scheme • Some information — such as green text on a white background for parking signs or paint on the curb — may be difficult for drivers to read from afar • City regulations do not require private lots to provide standardized information about payment rates or use, which has resulted in a variety of private signage that is confusing to the user. Finding parking is rarely the main goal for anyone visiting Fayetteville. However, without adequate signage or information, it may become the main thing people remember, which can threaten the enjoyment of meeting friends, shopping or dining out. Effective signage and information can avoid having the parking experience eclipse the overall Fayetteville experience. Strong, intuitive signage systems encourage an environment of "park once" or "park and walk" behavior, focused not just on getting cars into parking facilities, but getting people to visit multiple destinations on foot once they have parked. When planning how to direct an individual to their final destination, it is vital to consider all decision points along the journey. This includes providing directional information in advance of a traveler starting their engine, providing guidance and reassurance during their journey, and ultimately generating a sense of arrival and welcoming. Nelson%ygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 129 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Before Arrival Downtown Business District Pay Parking Area a—ve-Pv iI k Parking Resources =:k i=1.�.111;iliiE�. moi' 411�`.�S.f l{; ?3fj'{l ii �ary�� n•- €�,s �y� ■ D "_3�, S`_3iioi, Lc atnns and i+,nws�W. e,r.■- r �r - ............... ... ■ s a t■a Entertommnoit!}tslriat� w. I • Parking Location Map I,ai � ■ � • A6. r Tin tit cenmr 1 © Y CI 0 ff Fayetteville A 01.. . : ;;hare NY Vatkingticket tktw!ilrawtt t'atirintr • ... • - •. , � . tytrrTan,mmrp4ars�s Sgrrnal Event P¢rmats % Inyburiaiie. Vt—i v nE.r1f Airwl'!i QrrinynnT Hours at Enforcement Downtown 8o3=nesi Dixtrid i5quare Area) Downtown square NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 130 Contact Us i°arkfn� ManagemertT How, PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR There are many available resources on transportation and parking through the City of Fayetteville's website, which can be accessed via the aptly named Internet URL: www.fayettevilleparking.com com Figure 20 Parking Information Page from the 2016 Fayetteville Visitor's Guide This includes information regarding parking rates and regulations, presented in both HTML and PDF formats to the visitor. The "Parking Flyer," provides a map of all public parking outlets in the central neighborhoods of Fayetteville, including Downtown and the Entertainment District. The flyer describes the Entertainment District and Parking Zone as "The Dickson Street Area," which is an informal description, but it does not match how the area is described on signs later in the journey. With the benefit of regional and academic partners alike, the City has the ability to advertise the many convenient parking options available, but sometimes the key information—or even the basic header of At Arrival While not uniform throughout downtown, most public parking facilities and regulations are identified on signage using green text on a white background with City of Fayetteville insignia included (Figure 21). NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 131 "Parking"—gets buried under other PARKING INFORMATION information. One such resource (which MYSTA7'10"Fort —d,—d..d.",q—A3�t qN-PAW PARMW —.4-4—PP4z fr PaVi gby may be more likely to be accessed b a Y Y Y Yc01 Fnd Apra _h 1r- _, .Y.;H, i.ra,..,a r,9. ° *°^ —'.' ft ►V- MV4,4w.r_ visitor to Fayetteville and the University of ea=r8m aM p""h-V*4LYm "..P—ad. is M—.14—W ra.�a�h p�=PS�"F^M1 Arkansas) is the Fayetteville Visitor's 'V�''9'Pat�- ^r+�kb•PW^�^a N"90w OMET AREA Bureau web site n}at b. _d. wh.ne +9. Pay..f.m can 6a .a 5=raan—t Pn4Sanc �nris ar. rna,i.d For (wwrw.experiencefayetteville.com) and (. trr-y UNE PdARWtl parafe.or{, i.,Ntr Psriirg. P=Airy printed visitors guide. Although there is a $a)a�a«.Pn. Rar-9t ��+=aaaum a�or�na d,.m�raB5pring5vox "Getting Around" page dedicated to axe.=5aPN3 K(Y7f5). y =g. a,}d, yoeFe.mrry gand c��e,ex Yw-6—Pear by Pha..- h. M.tlaY.e M&WJ and vk,k.L transportation access linked from the the loeefkn rnmywrlw Fgnrmlr. �P=y'6YaP� P=hing ratcx-Free Lky is 075aSj.,roukiry spsm.wda.. ywkngsral,af►. banner on all pages, the link to parking locations is not called out in a separate 53 category. Instead, a link to the City's site and the "Parking Flyer" exists under the "Maps" section. There are also no links to the University of Arkansas pages dedicated to their parking and transportation information. Nevertheless, in the printed visitors guide (accessible as a PDF), there is a full page clearly explaining the parking and multimodal access options in Fayetteville. These guides are commonly distributed at many travel and tourism sites throughout Northwest Arkansas. At Arrival While not uniform throughout downtown, most public parking facilities and regulations are identified on signage using green text on a white background with City of Fayetteville insignia included (Figure 21). NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 131 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR In the Business District, long-term meters are "red -top" meters. The red paint conveys that long- term (10 hour) parking is available at those meters. Colloquially, "red -top meters" refer to "long- term parking." (See Figure 3 for a map of long-term meters). Figure 21 Fayetteville Public Parking Signage and Painted Curb - , > _ __ .: ,, � _.�•.,;.�:....,r,,, 'moi On -street in the Entertainment District, as users approach parking spaces, there are several indicators of where to park and how to pay: ■ The curbs are painted in several areas to indicate regulations. The red curb intuitively reveals where it is always illegal to park. ■ Numbered spaces painted on -street indicate designated on -street spaces. In residential areas, this numbering makes it clear to a visitor that they can safely park without blocking a driveway. • Numbers are painted on the curbs at the front of the vehicle and the rear of the vehicle. r Residential on -street parking also has large numbers, with "RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY' painted in white next to the number. ■ Signage indicates where pay stations are located and notes that users should pay for parking at the pay stations. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 132 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 22 Parking Information and Markings on Figure 23 A High -Contrast Sign in the West Ave Spring Street Lot PARK NG LOT PA i - i ! A P y AT 01 pAy 5100M 0. rRi rpt �: �ar�'i r r•..' grow mors-FRI 2A, S .501X# M ON-FRI 5P#-2,AX $I.00/0 SAT -SUN 2w6PO S .501"R SAT -SUN 6Pw2A* SLOW" FLAT FEE &U-20 55,00/ Ay EYFNiPAR NG S5.001CAS" This information is aimed at drivers, but it may be difficult to understand and use. The thin green text on a white sign could be difficult for a user to read (Figure 22) until very close to the parking location. A higher -contrast sign, similar to Figure 22, together with a consistent color scheme, may be more useful to drivers. Private Lot Signage City regulations require private lots to provide signage if booting or towing is possible, but that is the limit of regulations. The municipal code notes that, "at the owner's option, the sign may show the hourly rate and any maximum day or evening rate for parking in the lot."21 Without consistent design, layout, font size, color, etc. requirements for signage in privately owned lots, signage is not standardized. For the user, the resulting mix of signage is confusing and could be a deterrent to parking. 21 Fayetteville Municipal Ordinances, 72.71.C.4 NelsoMygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 133 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR During Your Stay After arriving in central Fayetteville and parking, the pedestrian -level wayfinding system eases navigation and comfort while walking around Downtown and the Entertainment District. The locations of public off-street parking facilities serving both districts, such as the Meadow Street Deck and the Spring Street Deck, are integrated into Fayetteville's wayfinding system as a destination. The signage also directs people to walk to many destinations beyond the Districts, including government buildings, arts institutions, and multimodal transportation options (such as the Frisco Trail). Figure 24 Pedestrian -Level Wayfinding outside the WAC This type of signage helps users "park once" and access multiple destinations on foot. When users can understand how parking connects to where they are going, they are often willing to walk farther. For example, a driver at a traditional suburban mall may park a ten-minute walk from their actual destination, but be willing to walk as they understand how to get there. Wayfinding signage in a downtown has a similar effect. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 134 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS KEY FINDINGS ■ Almost the entire study area is within a 15 minute walk of a transit route, but most services are infrequent. ■ Fayetteville does not have any formal park and ride facilities although some unofficial facilities currently exist, such as the Central United Methodist Church Lot. ■ Key holes in the walking network — such as the lack of sidewalks along Gregg Avenue — are barriers for people choosing to park and walk to local destinations. ■ Bicycle facilities in Fayetteville are remarkable, particularly off-street. A lower density of on -street facilities, however, means that direct access to shops and restaurants from the robust trail system may be more difficult. The parking study is part of a broader Multimodal Plan for the City of Fayetteville which will examine access and transportation in more detail. Thus, this section provides some preliminary findings related specifically to parking and its interaction with other modes in the heart of Fayetteville. Transit Connections Both Razorback Transit and Ozark Regional Transit (ORT) provide regular if infrequent service to Fayetteville's Downtown Business and Entertainment Districts. Almost the entire study area is within a 15 minute walk of a transit route. Razorback Transit is free of charge, while ORT fares are $1.25 per ride. Frequency, the primary driver of ridership, is low on all routes except the Brown route. However, the regular headways of the low -frequency ORT routes make them intuitive to the user who just needs to remember the time past the hour when a bus will arrive. Figure 25 provides an overview of transit in the study area. Figure 25 Bus Services in Downtown Fayetteville Razorback Brown UA Union Station UMC Parking Deck 6:49AM 5:49PM 13 min Transit Ozark Regional 1 Walmart Washington County 6:OOAM 7:30PM 60 min Transit Supercenter Operations Ozark Regional 2 Karcher North The Cliffs 6:OOAM 7:30PM 60 min Transit America Apartments Ozark Regional Northwest Downtown (Hillcrest Transit 4 Arkansas Mall Towers) 6:30AM 7:30PM 60 min NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 135 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 26 Transit in Downtown Fayetteville (as of Winter 2016) UNIVER`ITY 11 � ARKANSAS Downtown Transit Razorback Transit N Rniiu 13 Ozark Regional Transir R.- 1 R-,2 ' Ro v. iYq •..rurnr u Note: This map does not include the "Brown Reduced" variant of Razorback Transit's Brown Route. That route is detailed on the following page. "Park-and-ride" facilities are a common strategy to relieve congestion and demand for core area parking by providing cheap remote parking and frequent transit service. This allows a driver to curtail core -area automobile travel by parking at an outlying transit station and riding the bus for the remainder of the journey. Although the State of Arkansas has not designated any commuter park-and-ride facilities within Fayetteville some "unofficial" park and ride arrangements already exist. One of the most prominent examples is the utilization of the Central United Methodist Church's parking deck at ig West Lafayette Street which is directly served by Razorback Transit's Brown Reduced Line, providing a quick, free ride to the Downtown Business District, the Entertainment District, and the University of Arkansas campus. Although not formally designated by the State, the official Razorback Transit map designates this location as a park-and-ride facility. By concentrating commuter parking in a church parking facility that would otherwise be underutilized during the weekdays, the demand experienced along Dickson Street and the Downtown Square areas maybe relieved. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 136 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 27 Razorback Transit Brown Route with Park and Ride in Entertainment District22 C L. U- mow"mfteft--v West 4 Maple as Washington Eleni School ��rr S� Maple��i 12. �t West _ UMC A Caragre f LafayettL- St 3t � ■ # a ■ < on - Dickson' I & School ■ _-: a west (north) CUWARJ Walton • ,Arts Center , j • Highland r Dickson ' K� �"& SchvoJ Dickson�: & Dickson (South) $ Locust y �T tu r< <: Spring SL } r 6V) HIIlGP@St Towers 10 • Housing Authority Ola -fits St • Fayetteville' AiL � Downtown' Library • Square Do- Mountain - ! g i A . ■ ■ �► ■ � ■ ■ R �1Ct.lri�lf; C� +Mount// & Locust 22 Source: Razorback Transit, hitp:llaarkino.ugpk.gdu/ resources /document s/17-777-Bro:wn.pdf, accessed December 1, 2016 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 137 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Walking Network The way the parking supply is used is directly affected by the availability or lack of a walking network. At some point, every person who parks becomes a pedestrian. When pedestrians feel comfortable and safe they are willing to park once and may even want to walk much farther between destinations. In this way a comprehensive pedestrian network can significantly expand the reach and effectiveness of a parking system. Fayetteville's sidewalk network is relatively consistent in the study area, although there are some gaps. In the heart of commercial areas, there are high-quality amenities such as textured crosswalks (Figure 28). However, barriers exist; certain key intersections are wide and hard to cross on foot, and in some locations sidewalks are lacking. For example, the intersection of Dickson Street and West Avenue is a busy pedestrian intersection and may be a good contender for a pedestrian "scramble" to allow people to traverse multiple roadways at once. Currently, pedestrians walking from the West Lot to bars and restaurants on the northern side of Dickson must wait to cross both West and Dickson. Similarly, the lack of sidewalks along Gregg Avenue is a barrier for people parking at the City lot and choosing to walk to local destinations. Figure 28 Example of Textured Crosswalk - Dickson Street Figure 29 compares parking utilization on a busy weekend night with noted walking issues from the public, showing that some facilities may be underutilized due to walking connection issues. As part of the public engagement for the larger Mobility Study, participants were asked to note areas of concern on a map, both online and in-person.23 Comparing these noted issues with parking utilization shows that some publicly available facilities near the WAC may be underutilized as the public perceives that the walking environment in that area is unsafe. 23 For more information on this public outreach and its results, please refer to Mobility Study materials. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 138 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 29 Wikimap Walking Issues Compared to Weekend Utilization Saturday 9-11 pm Publicly Available Off•Street Facilities* ---� Study Area Downtown Business District Entertainment District On -Street Utilization 0% to 30% a..y.,..-" 30% is 60% 60% to 80% 80% to 90% ' 90% to 100% Greater than 100% Restricted/No Data OFF -Street Utilization 0% to 30% 30% to 60% 60% to 80% -;� 80% to 90% 90% io 1 00% Greater than 100% Restricted/No Data Walking issues } r 4r rv�r,y wrhYeY.w..i. n � ... re :...,a dui• 0 0.05 0.1 . 0.2 Miles Bicycle Connections i 47 Bicycle infrastructure in Fayetteville is plentiful and mostly off-street. The infrastructure both serves people on bikes and as a highly visible reminder to Fayetteville residents and visitors alike that travelling around town by bike is convenient and comfortable. This includes multi -use trails and an even geographic distribution of public bicycle racks. A lower density of on -street facilities, however, means that direct access to shops and restaurants from the robust trail system may be more difficult. Expanding bicycling options in Fayetteville is another way to alleviate parking pressures. Bicycle share programs have proliferated in many cities and towns across the United States and across the country. Despite this boom and the presence of potential significant latent demand both in Fayetteville and at nearby UA, there is currently no City bike share program. Currently, the closest bicycle share program is based on the University of Arkansas campus and not marketed to the general public. In addition, signage geared towards drivers can play a role in the comfort and safety of bicyclists and support an overall sense that Fayetteville is a City for cyclists. While there is signage to warn drivers about maintaining a 3400t minimum distance when passing bicycles, there is no reminder for drivers to look in their mirror when turning right or to look behind them before opening their car door into the right-hand lane—the lane most bicycles intuitively use. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 139 i d .. I"r Bicycle infrastructure in Fayetteville is plentiful and mostly off-street. The infrastructure both serves people on bikes and as a highly visible reminder to Fayetteville residents and visitors alike that travelling around town by bike is convenient and comfortable. This includes multi -use trails and an even geographic distribution of public bicycle racks. A lower density of on -street facilities, however, means that direct access to shops and restaurants from the robust trail system may be more difficult. Expanding bicycling options in Fayetteville is another way to alleviate parking pressures. Bicycle share programs have proliferated in many cities and towns across the United States and across the country. Despite this boom and the presence of potential significant latent demand both in Fayetteville and at nearby UA, there is currently no City bike share program. Currently, the closest bicycle share program is based on the University of Arkansas campus and not marketed to the general public. In addition, signage geared towards drivers can play a role in the comfort and safety of bicyclists and support an overall sense that Fayetteville is a City for cyclists. While there is signage to warn drivers about maintaining a 3400t minimum distance when passing bicycles, there is no reminder for drivers to look in their mirror when turning right or to look behind them before opening their car door into the right-hand lane—the lane most bicycles intuitively use. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 139 IRA i lfiahyat3k`" v°' °` HIN �s e �� '�'+�Trl�` 1 qs �iR� - •.•� 1 a PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR ZONING REVIEW The Code of Ordinances of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, were adopted in August 2004 and codified most recently in March 2oi6. Chapter 72, titled "Parking Regulations," defines parking regulations and requirements for general uses and joint facilities. Within the Unified Development Code (UDC), Chapter 172 ("Parking and Loading") establishes regulations for the development of parking areas, structures, and loading areas. 24 The Code of Ordinances covers many topics in great detail, but this memorandum focuses solely on the provisions related to parking and transportation demand. The parking -related ordinance (Chapter 72) covers the entire City of Fayetteville, including the Downtown Business District and Entertainment District. Zoning often controls and requires the provision of parking, which has impacts on the viability, cost, and form of proposed developments in a community. In a comprehensive parking review, reviewing zoning requirements and policy in service of larger downtown goals becomes necessary. As downtowns evolve, the level and mix of uses change; code often necessitates that parking demand is continually re-evaluated and updated to match the prescribed requirement. This section reviews Fayetteville's current zoning ordinances and compares them to national best practices. ■ Fayetteville uses parking maximums with no minimums for all of its non-residential use categories—a best practice in parking standards. ■ For residential uses, the code provides ratios that serve as both a minimum and a maximum. ■ Many of Fayetteville's required parking maximums still allow for more parking than accepted national standards from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) would typically expect. Developers can relatively easily adjust maximums upward. * Provisions for shared parking exist within the Code of Ordinances but are limited to residential uses and purposes. ■ The Code of Ordinances includes detailed requirements for bicycle parking, but it does not account for additional multimodal measures such as electric vehicle parking or transportation demand management programs. PARKING PROVISION Fayetteville's non-residential parking maximums and residential parking minimums are higher than the peak parking demand rates found in Parkbig Generatimi 011 Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2olo), as illustrated in Figure 32 and Figure 33. ITE produces this periodic report, which is the prevailing national standard in determining parking demand for a development. ITE standards are based on parking demand studies submitted to ITE by a variety of parties, including public agencies, developers and consulting firms. These rates are a comparative starting point to determine baseline assumptions. 24 Accessed via municode.com, July 2016 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 141 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Although widely considered an industry standard, the peak parking demand rates found in the ITE guide are primarily derived from studies conducted in auto -dependent single -use suburban sprawl settings where data can be easily collected. When applied as requirements in a more complex, denser, and mixed-use environment, these tend to project parking demand at a rate that could reproduce a similar auto -dependent suburban sprawl pattern. Fayetteville's application of maximums with no minimums for non-residential uses—a best practice in parldng standards—can curb this type of sprawl; however, many of Fayetteville's parking maximums still exceed even these suburban ITE rates for the described land uses. Figure 32 and Figure 33 compare Fayetteville's zoning requirements to ITE projected parking demand for a cross-section of uses; note that for some uses, Fayetteville's requirement are below ITE rates—most notably for hospitals and medical/dental offices. Parking requirements are important as they guide the amount of parking—and therefore land and construction cost— needed to develop an existing or new property in the City. Most of the requirements shown in Figure 32 are general City requirements. Most parking requirements take into account only two variables, land use and the size of development. As with the requirements in the Code of Ordinances, these are typically expressed in terms of number of spaces required per a certain square footage of a particular land use; or per residential unit; or (for restaurants and theaters) number of seats. As currently configured, Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances allows some flexibility in its minimum and maximum requirements—another best practice. Several regulations allow for reduced residential parking requirements, such as transit provision or on -street parking. Conversely, developers may increase the number of off-street parking spaces for a non-residential use if specific conditions are met. Most of downtown Fayetteville falls into the Districts listed below, which have specific use requirements.25These districts also have specific setback requirements, including a "build -to" zone between the front property line and 25 feet from the front property line. Districts in the study area (Figure 31) include: ■ Downtown General • Main Street Center ■ Downtown Core 25 Code of Ordinances, Chapter 161. NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates, Inc. 142 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 31 Parking Study Area Zoning Zoning i-. Study Description Mato street J Downtown Neighborhood Cone rvotion Residential MU111•famfly - f-orty Units per Are 7nstilotiOnal 0 4.03 Q1= 0.2 Miles Residential Parking Fayetteville's required minimum parking regulations for residential zones are contained in "Standards For The Number Of Spaces By Use" (Chapter 172.05) and are fairly broad: two parking spaces are required for each single-family, duplex, or triplex dwelling unit; for multifamily or townhouse dwelling units, one parking space is required per bedroom (Figure 32). These parking minimums also serve as maximums. Fayetteville's zoning allows for up to a 10-15% decrease in residential parking requirements based on context, reflecting some of the realities of parking demand. These context factors include: proximity to transit stops (one-quarter mile radius), the inclusion of motorcycle and scooter spaces or bike racks, and the implementation of shared parking. On -street parking located adjacent to a development's frontage can also count toward the site's total parking requirements. These factors reflect how facilities for alternative modes can change parking demand — i.e. it is more likely for a person to ride a bicycle if there is a safe place to park it at home, or to take transit if it is located nearby. Other factors also play a role in parking demand and are not included in Fayetteville's regulations. These factors include the mix of adjacent land uses, demographic characteristics of the community, availability of other alternatives (biking/walking), traffic demand management programs, vehicle ownership rates, housing unit size, share of affordable housing units, etc. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 143 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 32 provides a comparison of residential parking minimums/maximums to ITE standards. Fayetteville's parking minimums for residential uses are higher than ITE -predicted peak demand. Thus, even in the evening (which is the time of day when most vehicles are parked at residential uses) there are likely spaces unoccupied at developments built to these standards. Figure 32 Residential Parking Ratios ITE Peak Parking Demand Fayetteville Principle Use Fayetteville Required Minimum Spaces Residential Single-family, duplex, or 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit 1.2 per Dwelling Unit26 Above triplex Multifamily or 1.0 spaces per bedroom 1.2 per Dwelling Unit Above townhouse Non -Residential Parking In contrast to minimum parking requirements, Fayetteville's parking maximums for non- residential uses restrict the total number of spaces that can be constructed. Reasons for setting maximum requirements may include a desire to restrict traffic from new development, promote alternatives to the private vehicles, or limit the amount of valuable downtown land that is devoted to parking. Parking maximums can be introduced in any place where there are or could be measures in place to combat spill-over parking to nearby properties or streets. While the policy is most likely to be appropriate in transit corridors, downtown, and areas with high levels of traffic congestion, it can be useful in any district that wants to limit traffic or the amount of land devoted to parking. Fayetteville's parking maximums can be adjusted relatively easily by developers. Developers can automatically increase off-street parking by 15% above the maximums listed in Figure 33. In exchange for stormwater mitigation such as bioswales or pervious pavement, or planting trees, a developer can increase the parking maximum by an additional 15%. Thus, some of the maximums in both Figure 32 and Figure 33 can be increased up to 3o% depending on other aspects of a given development. 26 Urban Low/Mid-Rise Apartment (ITE code 221 ) NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 144 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING R MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 33 Sample of General Parking Ratios under Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 145 ITE .. ak Parking Demand Fayetteville Principle Use Fayetteville Required MaXiMUM Spaces Ratc vs. ITE Medical Hospital 1.00 per bed 4.49 per Bed Below Convalescent Home, 0.50 per bed 0.35 per Bed Above Assisted Living, Nursing Home Medical/dental office 4.00 per 1,000 sq ft 4.94 per 1,000 sq ft Below Funeral Homes 0.25 per seat in main chapel, plus 1.00 per two 0.20 per seat* Above employees, plus 1.00 reserved for each vehicle used in connection with the business 3.20 per 1,000 sq ft Civic Community Center 4.00 per 1,000 sq ft Above Church/religious 0.25 per seat (main auditorium); 1 per 40 sq ft 0.20 per seat Above institution (assembly area)** Industrial Wholesale 1.00 per 1,000 sq ft 0.5 per 1,000 sq ft Above Warehousing 0.5 per 1,000 sq ft 0.5 per 1,000 sq ft (same) Entertainment Bowling Alley 6.00 per lane 3.13 per lane Above Golf Course 3.00 per hole 3.56 per hole Below (Weekday PM) Theater 0.25 per seat 0.46 per seat^" Below Commercial Retail Stores and 4.00 per 1,000 sq ft GFA 2.87 per 1,000 sq ft Above Shops Hotels and Motels 1.00 per guest room, plus 75% of spaces 0.95 per occupied room" Above required for accessory uses Furniture and Carpet 2.00 per 1,000 sq ft GFA 1.22 per 1,000 sq ft Above Store Professional Office 3.33 per 1,000 sq ft 2.84 per 1,000 sq ft Above Sales Office 5.00 per 1,000 sq ft 2.84 per 1,000 sq ft Above Restaurants 10.00 per 1,000 sq ft, plus 4 stacking spaces 0.47 per seat Below - per drive-thru window *APA standards; ** Whichever metric provides more spaces; " average of hotel and motel demand; "^ Movie Theater with Matinee (Saturday, Peak Hour); Required minimum spaces standardized for comparison. ** Assuming 50 sq. ft. per 4 -seat dining table, Fayetteville requires 0.125 spaces per seat. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 145 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR PARKING PROVISION BEST PRACTICES Figure 34 compares best practices for urban parking management to Fayetteville's existing practices. While Fayetteville is not hyper -urban, the heart of downtown is a walkable, mixed-use environment that lets residents and visitors alike enjoy a more urban lifestyle. Parking regulations often underpin development decisions and should be carefully considered for their impact on the built environment. Fayetteville's zoning follows several best practices in parking provision, including parking maximums, encouragement of shared parking, and bicycle rack provision. These elements taken together can help to shape a more efficient parking system that encourages travel by multiple modes and regulates the overall number of parking spaces provided. However, in other ways, the zoning code could be updated to facilitate a more multimodal planning environment. For example, no regulations exist that encourage safe pedestrian access across driveways or promote transportation demand management programs. Figure 34 Parking Best Practices Compared to Fayetteville Policies Nelson%ygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 146 Best Practices Existing Regulation Reduced Parking Minimums: No minimum parking spaces are required for non - In a number of municipalities, parking minimum residential use. Applicants must provide a statement requirements can be reduced when certain indicating how parking will support the use without conditions are met, such as central business negatively impacting adjacent properties or traffic. districts, or with a specific percentage of affordable Parking Maximum Increases: housing. Developers are automatically allowed to increase the Removed Parking Minimums: number of off-street parking spaces by 15% above the Some places have done away with minimum City's maximum. Developments are allowed to further E parking requirements for the entire municipality increase parking spaces another 15% by using alternative while others have targeted specific zoning districts. stormwater treatment techniques or planting trees (more or Parking Maximums: less trading one environmentally positive treatment for another). cn In a growing number of municipalities, parking Residential Parking Reductions: x minimums have been replaced with parking a maximums. In some cases, the amount required as Minimum required residential parking can be reduced a minimum is directly converted to a maximum. In under the following circumstances: others, the current standards are rejected • Properties located within a quarter -mile radius of a altogether and a new analysis is carried out based transit stop (max 15% reduction). on local auto ownership rates and commuting . Replace vehicle parking spaces with a patterns. motorcycle/scooter space (max 10% reduction). • Replace vehicle parking spaces with a bicycle rack (max 10% reduction). Remote off-site parking Shared parking is allowed for groups of uses including Shared parking up to 1,000 foot walking radius is residential uses only. Shared parking requires an common. agreement and is permitted only where the peak parking Park once demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at o different times (either daily or seasonally)—both of which Required parking spaces for all uses in all districts limit the ability and incentive to share. Three arrangements N need not be limited to use by residents, employees, exist in Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances: occupants, guests, visitors, or customers of such uses and may be used for general public parking. This enhances the inherent " ark -once" efficient Nelson%ygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 146 0 Q E W X LU as N 7 w 0 Q an _ U J c PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR of a downtown area. Shared parking can be provided on-site or in other private facilities through agreements. Sharing public parking Potential to consider public parking (on- or off- street) as part of shared supply. Accommodation of small parcels When buildings and parcels are converted to new uses, exemptions from parking requirements may be granted when providing the required amount of parking on-site is infeasible. Promotion of small commercial reuse Allow for exemptions in cases where overall building and parcel in use is below a certain size (e.g. 5,000 sq ft). Allow for exemptions in cases where building and parcel in use is to a lower parking intensity. Funding shared parking with in -lieu fees Where zoning requirements for minimum numbers of parking spaces exist, a parking in -lieu fee or payment has found great success at reducing parking supply for dense mixed-use areas that have lower parking demand or high potential for sharing. Fees vary widely. Improving walkability No front yard parking in downtown area. Reduced or eliminated minimum building setback requirements in downtown area. Reduction in curb cuts In downtown or village center zoning districts, development reviews emphasize a prohibition of curb cuts and driveway openings along key transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian routes whenever possible. Pedestrian accommodation Where curb cuts are present, standards expect a level crossing for pedestrians (raised driveway) and Shared Parking Between Developments: Formal arrangement encouraged between uses with non - conflicting parking demands (e.g. bank and church). Shared Parking Agreement: To be filed if a privately owned parking facility is serving two or more separate properties. • Shared Spaces: A complex regulation states that: "Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one (1) user at the same time." (172.05) Parking requirements are entirely waived for Change of Use in three districts, regardless of project size (a best practice): Downtown Core, Main Street Center, and Downtown General. None. Front yard parking is not prohibited, but landscaping requirements make its provision difficult. For property lines adjacent to the Master Street Plan, 15 -foot wide landscaped areas must be provided. Setbacks of less than 15 feet may be allowed in "Urban Zoning Districts". For residential zones (excluding single family and two-family uses) and non-residential zones, all developments must feature a 15 -foot landscaped setback (177.04). Note, right-of-way requirements for streets are designated by the Master Street Plan (166.18). Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances includes specific provisions regulating curb cuts and driveways for vehicle ingress and egress based on property use and street typology (166.085). • Unless shared, curb cuts must be a minimum of five - feet from adjoining property lines. Curb cuts must be a minimum of 250-50 feet from the nearest intersection or driveway depending on street type. • Curb cuts are discouraged for single-family homes on arterial or collector streets. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 147 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 27 Todd Littman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 148 clear sightlines for exiting motorists to see If a new curb cut is granted for a parking lot that was pedestrians. constructed before the Code of Ordinances was Access management passed, the parking area must be brought into Encourage joint access to multiple lots through compliance with all existing ordinances, shared driveway/curb-cut access. No regulations exist related to pedestrian access across curb cuts. ` ........-. A minimum number of car share spaces are None. M .N required to be provided free of charge to car share .o v a services (such as Zipcar), in relation to the amount of parking provided and proximity to transit. Any parking spaces offered to tenants of a new None. development offered as a fee-based option distinct from charges established for renting, leasing, or purchasing primary -use space within the development. These fees shall reflect market realities (i.e., the actual value of parking). Unbundled parking makes housing more affordable for tenants or buyers who do not have a vehicle (or '? who have fewer vehicles than standards would a indicate) without affecting price for others. In addition, it makes the cost of providing parking clear to residential and commercial tenants and buyers, and to help them make more informed decisions about their transportation needs. Typically, unbundled parking leads to reduced parking demand (10-30%27), which in turn lets developers build less parking and more of the functional building space (whether that is living units, commercial space or office space). A conservative approach may be to ease minimum requirements by 20%. Minimum bike parking facilities are provided in All new building construction or expansion requiring five or relation to the scale of development, and minimum more off-street vehicle parking spaces must provide APBP-compliant design standards for such parking bicycle parking. Non-residential developments are required E facilities are specified. to provide one bicycle rack for every 20 vehicular parking spaces, with a minimum of one rack per development. Residential developments are required to provide one bicycle rack for every 30 dwelling units, with a minimum of one rack per development. Y f� Up to 10% of required vehicle parking may be substituted with bicycle parking at the following rate: one additional co bicycle rack per one automobile space. This regulation is allowed in addition to other variances, reductions, and shared parking agreements (§ 172.05). 27 Todd Littman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 148 PARKING MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM I PARKING R MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 1 Regulations to encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs by building managers. A sample of TDM programs includes: C Pre -Tax transit benefits — Employees are 0:� provided with access to "transit checks," M vouchers, or debit card systems that allow the Im c use of pre-tax income for purchase of transit a` fares. • Preferential parking for carpooling, for instance 10% of all parking spaces are set aside for carpool vehicles prior to 9:00 AM on weekdays, or provide carpool parking in prime locations. Provide ride -sharing services, such as a carpool and vanpool incentives, customized ride - o matching services, a transportation information o package for new employees and residents, a '18 Guaranteed Ride Home program (offering a Z5 limited number of emergency taxi rides home V) per employee), and an active marketing program to advertise the services to employees and ~ residents. BEST PRACTICE SUMMARY None. Overall, Fayetteville's zoning requirements follow several national best practices, including allowing for shared parking, robust bicycle parking requirements, and maximum parking requirements for many uses, rather than parking minimums. However, the City can influence travel behavior and reduce parking demand through multiple additional forward -thinking strategies: • Unbundling parking spaces from multi -unit residential developments permits developers to construct and include less parking, lowers the cost of housing, and raises the likelihood that new residents will travel by public transit, biking, or walking. • Transportation demand management programs incentivize employees and residents alike to use public transit or carpool, and reduces their reliance on a personal vehicle. • Promoting car -share by designating downtown parking spaces for car -share services such as Zipcar provides downtown residents with flexible access to a car, and enables those who wish to forgo owning a personal vehicle. These strategies, in combination with Fayetteville's existing parking practices, could promote multimodal transportation downtown and lower the need for dedicated parking facilities. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 149 wo _45 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND Fayetteville Mobility Study June 2017 N NELSON NYGAARD LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................3 Aboutthis Document.................................................................................................................................. 3 2 LAND USE AND PARKING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.....................................................4 MethodologyDetails................................................................................................................................. 4 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE & PARKING ANALYSIS.............................................13 Dickson& Block Focus Area...................................................................................................................13 CenterStreet Focus Area.......................................................................................................................23 WestEntertainment District Focus Area...............................................................................................34 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 12 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR I INTRODUCTION Parking does not exist independently; it is intricately intertwined with the overall mix of land uses and activities it serves. As Fayetteville evolves and attracts a variety of land uses, this relationship is critical. This memorandum explores the relationship between land use patterns and observed parking demand to project what may be expected in the future. Fayetteville has taken progressive measures to capitalize on its mix of uses and walkable environment with active small-scale retail, restaurants, and bars. Careful consideration of how the land is zoned or used (built environment, roadways, open space, or parking) has a significant impact on the vitality of any business district. Current national trends are moving towards more residential and infill development with less parking; this is helping Fayetteville achieve broader economic development goals. Zoning has shaped past and current land uses and parking supplies, and it must continue to evolve in tandem with the changing needs and desired environment in Fayetteville. A separate zoning review and best practices summary that links the land use topic to parking supply requirements has been prepared and can be found in the Parking Management Memorandum. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This memorandum includes a land use and parking analysis for three focus areas in Fayetteville using an adapted parking model. The model is based on the concepts that parking demand for different types of land uses changes over the hours of the day and that people parking in a mixed use downtown like Fayetteville's are regularly sharing spaces for more than one land use. By calibrating the model to match real observed demand (determined during utilization counts), potential parking demand as future developments are proposed and implemented can be ascertained. In addition, the team modeled two development scenarios for each of the three focus areas to determine the expected parking demand. This demand can be compared to existing supply to understand how parking may need to change in the future to support demand and to meet City goals. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 13 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 2 LAND USE AND PARKING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This analysis examines the relationship between land use, parking supply, and parking demand (estimated and observed) for both today and the future in Fayetteville. The methodology uses observed parking utilization data (detailed in the Existing Conditions Parking Inventory and Utilization memorandum) together with national standards and practices to understand the sufficiency of parking supply throughout the day. The methodology, as described below, uses ratios adapted for Fayetteville to calibrate a model that is appropriate the context of Fayetteville's mixed- use focus areas. METHODOLOGY DETAILS Understanding the relationship between land use patterns and parking demand is critical. The studied areas have distinct parking districts and user profiles which pose challenges to managing resources. Traditional development expectations often assume that parking will be provided for each separate development with little or no consideration of shared parking or access among different uses. This may be applicable to suburban sites with lots of space and isolated single land uses, but is not appropriate in a mixed-use environment like Fayetteville's Downtown Square Business District and Dickson Street Entertainment District. In a proven principle often referred to as "staggered peaks," the actual demand for parking varies by use throughout the hours of a day and days of a week: office space generates parking demand during traditional weekday business hours; parking for residential housing is often highest overnight as many residents use their cars during the day; and the parking demand generated by bars and restaurants is highest during meal times and into the evening (Figure 1). If parking is shared between multiple uses, the aggregated parking demand by time of day is less than the total that would be programmed separately for each use. Figure 1 Parking Demand Varies by Use throughout the Day 12am gam --j 6Pm 11Pm NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 14 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR A second principle of shared parking in a mixed use area is often referred to as "internal capture," whereby a single parking space that is used for one use at a single time may serve another use at the same time simply by the virtue of someone walking to a second destination after parking at their first destination. For example, stepping out of work to grab a sandwich next door eliminates demand for a parking space at the sandwich shop; buying coffee before heading upstairs to your office eliminates demand for a parking space at the coffee shop; and picking up dry cleaning around the corner after parking at home eliminates demand for a parking space at the dry cleaner (see Figure X). Mixed use areas naturally promote this type of shared parking which eliminates the need for many redundant parking spaces. Figure 2 Parking Demand Is Reduced When People Visit More Than One Destination on Foot Mixed Use - Park Once Development � e CAR TURN IFA Mixed use areas typically experience reductions in traditional parking demand expectations as a result of both staggered peaks and internal capture to varying degrees, depending on how well uses are mixed together and what the walking environment is like between them. There are several anecdotal ways in which Fayetteville's Downtown Square Business District and Dickson Street Entertainment District already support similar shared parking patterns, and the methodology shown in this memorandum is based off of those findings. In particular: • Patrons of restaurants who also visit bars are sharing parking ■ Drivers who park in church parking lots Monday through Saturday to go to restaurants/offices etc. are sharing parking • An informal shared agreement exists between residents and employees downtown and a neighboring church that allows people to use the church parking lot except during church service/event times on Wednesday and Sunday. ■ Other informal agreements allow restaurant employees to use daytime worker spaces at night. ■ Evening patrons of the Walton Arts Center and other entertainment venues who park for a show and then eat dinner and/or get a drink are sharing parking. Additionally, parking is shared by a lunch crowd during the day. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR The analysis methodology used in this memorandum is different than a traditional parking generation exercise due to the "staggered peaks" and "internal capture" shared parking principles observed in Fayetteville. Most often, parking generation analyses rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) periodic report titled Parking Generation, which is the prevailing national standard in determining parking demand for a development. ITE standards are based on parking demand studies submitted to ITE by a variety of parties, including public agencies, developers and consulting firms. The most recent parking generation manual available is the 4th edition (2oio) and is used as a comparative starting point to determine baseline assumptions. However, as described previously, to model a mixed-use business district environment, Nelson\Nygaard used an adapted parking model with inputs from the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking Manual (2nd Edition, 2005) and Fayetteville -specific land use and parking data to accommodate staggered peaks and internal capture. To model the parking demand based on land use, the team used the following steps: 1. Existing Land Use: Categorize and aggregate existing land uses (by focus area) to determine the built square footage that attracts parking demand and adjust for known vacancy rates. 2. Traditional Parking Demand Model: Calculate and compare how much parking would be "needed" if each land use had its own, dedicated supply of parking based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation guidebook using existing land uses in the study area. 3. Adapted Parking Model: Apply an adapted parking model derived from the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking Manual to show the expected parking demand throughout the course of an average weekday, adjusted for staggered peaks and internal capture. 4. Observed Parking Demand: Compare the adapted model -generated parking demand to observed parking utilization counts collected in Spring 2o16 and calibrate the model if necessary to match observations. 5. Future Land Use: Add future development scenarios to the existing land uses and model the new expected parking demand. Future development is more likely to behave like current observed demand, so the future model relies on the outputs from the Adapted Model with existing land uses. Activity Areas Working with the City of Fayetteville, the project team selected three smaller focus areas within the overall parking study area that provide different contexts for parking demand. Each area has an approximate 2 -minute walk radius (4 -minutes across) and represents where drivers going to certain land uses might park. A close examination of parking demand and land use intensity in these areas provides insight into the relationship between the two. Each focus area has unique characteristics, and all enjoy the walkable, mixed-use, and vibrant character of the Downtown Business and Entertainment Districts. These areas are shown in Figure 3. Regarding the proximity of one focus area to another, it is noted that the analysis cannot fully account for cross -activity, such as if a driver parks in one focus area and visits another. The land use analysis is presented in three focus areas: ■ Dickson & Block: A focus area that contains some businesses along Dickson, the Washington County Circuit Court, and several law, accounting, and newspaper offices. Nelson%ygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 16 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Boundaries include Lafayette and Spring Streets on the north and south and a combination of College, Church, and Thompson Avenues on the east and west. This area also contains a large concentration of churches. ■ Center Street: This area represents the traditional downtown core mostly located within the Downtown Business District. Land uses are currently dominated by office buildings, banks, and general retail, with some residential and hotel uses. The thrice -weekly Fayetteville Famers' Market takes place at the center of this focus area. • West Entertainment District: This area contains the busiest portions of the Entertainment District, including both the Walton Arts Center and the significant retail and restaurant concentration along Dickson Street. It includes large municipal parking facilities such as the West Lot and the Spring Street Deck. Figure 3 Land Use and Shared Parking Focus Areas Land Use and Shared Parking Focus Areas P West Enterratnment Marla ' Dicks- & Black E—J-1 Center sir -t 0 0.05 0.1" 0.2 �i� Milea NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Existing Land Use Washington County's 2016 Assessors Database, which includes land use type and gross floor area by building, is the basis for the focus area land use analysis. The team cross-checked the database with observations of downtown and City staff to confirm its accuracy, then separated the information by focus area into use categories that are compatible with ITE and ULI/Nelson\Nygaard parking demand equations. Parks, parking lots, vacant parcels, and vacant buildings are excluded as non - regular parking generators. Single family, two-family, and three-family housing were also excluded in this modeling exercise because these developments typically have their own driveway parking and do not rely on other parking resources. The existing land use summary of all focus areas is shown in Figure 4. To adjust the existing land use database to reflect today's conditions, the team applied a io vacancy rate for retail and 13% vacancy rate for office space, as identified in a commercial real estate market summary (2016)1. A residential vacancy rate was not applied. The same vacancy rates were applied in all three focus areas. I University of Arkansas Center for Business and Economic Research (2016) Commercial Real Estate Market Summary for Benton and Washington Counties. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 18 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 4 Existing Land Use in Focus Areas Land Use Dickson & 1310 k Center Street West Entertainment District Sq. Ft.,U,,tscMJUni 1,000 Sq. Ft. Bank 92,000 Sq. Ft. Church 91,000 Sq. Ft. 8,000 Sq. Ft. Cleaners/Laundromat 21,000 Sq. Ft. 13,000 Sq. Ft, Coffee/Donut Shop 13,000 Sq. Ft. Convenience Market 3,000 Sq. Ft. Farmers Market 100,000 Sq. Ft.2 Fast Food 7,000 Sq. Ft. Funeral Home 7,000 Sq. Ft. General Retail 43,000 Sq. Ft. 75,000 Sq. Ft. 106,000 Sq. Ft. Government Office 145,000 Sq. Ft, 11,000 Sq. Ft. Hotel 206 Rooms 10 Rooms Low to Mid Rise Apartment 132 Units 325 Units 2,000 Sq. Ft. Medical/Dental Office 7,000 Sq. Ft. 9,000 Sq. Ft. Office 112,000 Sq. Ft. 360,000 Sq. Ft. 30,000 Sq. Ft. Quality Restaurant 6,000 Sq. Ft. 16,000 Sq. FL Residential Condominium 16 Units Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 4,000 Sq. Ft. 27,000 Sq. Ft. 65,000 Sq. Ft. Sit -Down Restaurant/No-Bar 56,000 Sq. Ft. 18,000 Sq. Ft. Theater 677,000 Sq. Ft. 132 Units 206 Hotel Rooms +Farmers Market 2,590 Seats 266,000 Sq. Ft. 325 Units 10 Hotel Rooms 2,590 Theater Seats Total 405,000 Sq. Ft. 16 Units Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area counts 2 Equivalent for use as grocery store land use type Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 19 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Modeling Parking Demand Traditional Parking Analysis The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) produces a periodic report titled Parking Generation, which is the prevailing national standard in determining expected parking demand for a development or set of land uses. ITE standards are based on parking demand studies submitted to ITE by a variety of parties, including public agencies, developers and consulting firms. These studies are often based on peak hour demands of suburban sites with isolated, single land uses which have free parking3. To calculate the parking "required" for a development, an analyst compares peak parking demand by use to the size of the use and assumes that the peak amount of parking is required all day every day exclusively for that use. (Figure 5) The approach for Fayetteville includes ITE peak period parking demand rates as guidelines to benchmark how the existing parking supply in each focus areas compares to its land uses, enabling the team to confirm that parking in Fayetteville is shared and to what degree. Adapted Parking Model Nelson\Nygaard's experience indicates that projections using standard ITE parking rates tend to overestimate demand for areas like the Fayetteville parking study area. Mixed-use areas offer the opportunity to share parking supply between various uses. Throughout the day, different uses have different peak demands: for example, an office may have a high demand until 5 p.m., and a restaurant open for dinner may have a high demand only after 5 p.m. This reduces the total number of spaces required to accommodate demand by the same land -uses in stand-alone developments (Figure 5). Both ITE and the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking Manual (2nd Edition, 2005) report demand by time of day for most land uses. By layering this information with peak parking ratios, an analyst can determine a more realistic peak parking demand for all uses in a given area. Figure 5 Example: Traditional Expected Parking Demand v. Real Demand Profile 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation 4th Edition, 2010, page 2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 110 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR To model this mixed-use environment, Nelson\Nygaard used an adapted parking model as described in Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking Manual (2nd Edition, 2005) plus applied context factors specific to Fayetteville. Adjustments to the model include: Time of Day: Time of day adjustment factors for demand by use provide a more accurate depiction of different land uses' parking demand profiles throughout the course of a day. For example, residential land uses generate greater demand during the early morning and evening peaks when residents are at home, and traditional office buildings generate greater parking demand during the morning and into the early afternoon periods when people are at work. These factors help to produce "staggered peaks" for different land uses and create a more accurate depiction of how parking supply is actually used throughout the course of a day. Internal Capture: Unlike traditional stand-alone developments, mixed-use and walkable environments in Fayetteville's Downtown Business and Entertainment Districts encourage and provide opportunities for customer, visitors, and employees to visit multiple destinations using one parking space, rather than having to drive and park multiple times during a visit. For example, an office employee who walks to a sandwich shop does not generate any additional parking. This type of behavior is classified as "internal capture." A conservative percentage of internal capture reductions were applied to activity areas based on results of the land use mix, as well as observations of the existing walking, bicycling, and transit environment to convey people after parking. Transportation Demand Management: Another parking demand reduction factor included in the analysis is an adjustment for transportation demand management (TDM). These types of programs work collectively to change how, when, where, and why people travel and provide people the options to reduce reliance on the single -occupant vehicle. TDM measures include a range of cycling, walking, transit, and carpooling incentives that can range from simple infrastructure such as bicycle parking, bus shelters, and sidewalks to more advanced information campaigns and financial incentives to leave the car at home. A TDM measure that many cities use is paid parking, which clarifies the real cost of parking provision for the user and may encourage some to use a more cost-effective mode of transportation such as walking, biking, or taking transit. The model applies limited TDM factors to employee and residential parking demand. Parldng Demand User Groups: These factors impact the final calculation by defining the average share of peals parking demand attributable to non -office employees and office visitors, which often have varying parking demand rates from traditional office employees. The factors are kept constant throughout all Fayetteville focus area. Twenty percent of peak parking demand is assigned to employees while seven percent of parking demand is assigned to office visitors. These numbers represent national averages derived from research efforts.4 Transit Access: This factor adjusts for the impact of transit on retail/restaurant access. Shopping centers with access to transit services appear to have lower peak parking demand than those sites without transit service.5 As all focus areas are located within Fayetteville's central business district and are served by the same transit lines, this value is kept constant at eight percent. 4 Shoup, D. C., & American Planning Association.. (2005). The high cost of free parking. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association. Smith M.S., & Urban Land Institute. (2005). Shared Parking Second Edition. 5 Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Parking Generation, Fourth Edition. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 111 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MODILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Model Calibration In the spring of 2o16, a parking utilization survey of all parking assets in the combined Fayetteville study area was conducted to accurately capture the downtown's parking demand throughout the course of a weekday and weekend day. To understand how closely the modeled demand matches actual demand, this analysis compares the modeled results by time of day to observed utilization. A full analysis of the parking demand data is included in the Parking Inventory and Utilization Existing Conditions memorandum. Development Scenarios Using the Adaptive Model, a series set of analysis was performed to quantify the parking demand of potential future land uses with the current parking supply and demand. The goal of this exercise is to understand how parking needs will change as development intensifies, based on existing patterns. The Nelson\Nygaard team worked with the City of Fayetteville to create two development scenarios for each focus area and determine how parking supply would support those scenarios. Scenario 1 represents a degree of development expected in the short-term, while Scenario 2 provides an insight as to how parking can support longer-term developments. Figure 6 Development Scenarios Overview NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 112 West Entertainment Additional Land Use Dickson.District Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Apartment Units 150 350 375 375 50 500 Retail Square Feet 10,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 5,000 30,000 RestaurantlBar Sq. Ft. 40,000 Theatre Seats 500 500 Movie Screens 5 5 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 112 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE PARKING ANALYSIS This section compares land use to parking supply and demand in the three focus areas. The model determines how much parking would be needed assuming that parking is used between land uses and people (customers, employees, visitors) visiting multiple destinations according to methodologies described above. The combined results of these analyses are then compared to the actual observed parking demand. The assumptions used in the existing land use analysis will also be applied to project future land use development and parking demand. This analysis assumes that typically no more than go% of the parking supply should be fu116. This creates a "1o% reserve," of parking spaces that can be used for overflow during events, overlap during peak times, and additional operational reserve. Thus, the charts in this memorandum include an "existing parking supply" and "reserve parking supply" which is go% of the existing parking supply. DICKSON & BLOCK FOCUS AREA KEY FINDINGS: DICKSON & BLOCK FOCUS AREA The parking supply that exists in the area (over 1,700 spaces) is comparable to what a traditional, single -use suburban environment might require. ■ Demand patterns show that parking is overbuilt. Almost 1,000 parking spaces remain unused throughout a typical weekday, with much more availability in the evening. The focus area has modeled peak parking demand ratios of 1.13 spaces per residential unit and 1.93 spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable non-residential floor areal. ■ For each future development scenario, modeling indicates that there is enough supply in the focus area to satisfy the projected parking demand. ■ The focus area can accommodate additional residential and retail infill development. Existing Land Use The Dickson & Block focus area consists of a relatively small mix of land uses with more than 300,000 square feet of retail and office space plus a large concentration of churches, and over 1,700 parking spaces. There are only a few residential units$. Land uses are grouped as accurately as possible into categories created by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation 4th Edition (201o). Figure 8 shows the breakdown of land uses by category in the focus area; the square feet and units shown are not adjusted for any existing vacancies, but vacancy rates are included in parking demand calculations. 6 Pierce, G., Wilson, H., & Shoup, D. (2015, July 28). Optimizing the use of public garages: Pricing parking by demand. Transport Policy, 44, 89-95. 7 Peak hour is defined as 12 a.m. on a weeknight for residential demand and 11 a.m. on a weekday for non-residential demand 9 Since analysis was performed, Gather Dickson Apartments at St. Charles Avenue and Watson Street has opened with 90 apartment units and 151 parking spaces. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 113 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 7 Dickson & Block Focus Area Parking Supply Map Weekday Regulations Short -Term 2 Hour ■� Unrestrfcted I D iyrk of r Metered I �— AHarnoon/Eventgq M Metered Ahernoon/Evening Metered/Perritt I o Moweyde ' Restricted (loodtng/Police) —mom UA/Reildcnv Handlcopr?ed - UneestricRed Ctwornar/Guest Porkittg Public Pray Parking Private Pay Parking NG Rose rued/Pestric Ie... ® UA/Reridem Rafmh 177 try unavoliuble rxr/.I (Can5tFUCOn) RSA Pt NOV, t' R -4~ nr1 A!i-r 3is6 214 Bar/Nightclub 4,000 SF } �htRL•'r 3�j`i"f I 15288 Convenience Market 3,000 SF ? 28 14f f Y � r 38 �t7 n 9ZXO �I). t 2 (2) c2. 40 30 405,000 SF 16 Units 61 I h I to tv 135 307 20 1 �f f 12 e ' 40 `- I '2 12 , a IjJ!, 25 I ` 12 111 tz 42 ! T Y — — — — w w . uM00mi Sr A'# Ft 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles a�w Figure 8 Dickson & Block Focus Area Existing Land Use and Parking Supply NrIking Supply Off-street Total of Spaces 1,572 Bar/Nightclub 4,000 SF Church 91,000 SF Convenience Market 3,000 SF General Retail 43,000 SF Government Office 145,000 SF Medical/Dental Office Office 7,000 SF 112,000 SF Residential Condominium 16 Units Total 405,000 SF 16 Units NrIking Supply Off-street Total of Spaces 1,572 Off-street Publicly Available Parking 0 Off-street Private/Restricted Parking 1,572 On -street Total 179 Total 1,751 Note: ` Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 114 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Existing Parking Supply and Demand In the Dickson & Block focus area, there were 1,751 total parking spaces at the time of the data collection, as 151 new residential spaces were still under construction and not yet available. As Figure 9 shows, during the weekday midday peak, about 700 parked cars occupied about 40% of the parking supply. On the weekend, parking occupancy is much lower. Figure 9 Dickson & Block Focus Area Observed Utilization (Weekday) f Occupied Vaccint 90% Reserve (Functionally Full) 9n^„ 90°b 70°, 1064 991 1062 q_, 1169 1316 1278 15fl0 1416 s0 au^� 3o s qe;:i E 7AM 9AM 11 AM 1 PIA 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM Utilization charts reflect observed vacancies and occupancies Normal fluctuations in the data collection process occasionally lead to missed counts on some facilities throughout the course of the collection span Therefore, the total number of observed spaces may vary by time period up to 10% Figure 10 Dickson & Block Focus Area Observed Utilization (Saturday) w Occupied Varan 740?0 9a i 80 t: 74•"1, 6o-,1496 1432 1485 1413 1419 1409 1439 1439 5G"... 4G? 30 201,„ 011, 9AFA 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM Existing Land Use Analysis According to national parking generation rates from ITE (Figure 11), the needed number of parking spaces—assuming that each land use has its own dedicated supply of parking—is 1,812 spaces. The Dickson & Block focus area has an existing supply of 1,751 spaces (excluding lots under construction at the time of data collection). Thus, the parking supply is about loo spaces less than what national standards would suggest is needed, assuming each land use had its own separate parking supply. Nelso0ygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 115 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 11 Dickson & Block Focus Area Existing Parking Demand (ITE) The model contains variables that account for different land use contexts as described in the preceding methodology section. The variables in Figure 12 are specific to the Dickson & Block focus area for weekday and Saturday cases. Figure 12 Dickson & Block Focus Area Parking Demand Reduction Variables Commercial Internal Capture Weekday d, 14% 0% Residential Internal Capture 14% 0% Employee TDM Program (Parking Pricing) 5% 0% Resident TDM Program (Parking Pricing) 5% 0% Retail Transit Access Effect 5% 1 0% While ITE estimates would require more than 1,800 parking spaces, the weekday parking demand model for the Dickson & Block focus area estimates a peak demand at ii a.m. of 787 spaces (Figure 13 and a surplus of approximately 75o empty spaces, not including the io% reserved supply. This finding indicates that overall the land uses in this area generate much less parking demand than national standards might require and that existing parking is overbuilt. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 116 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 13 Dickson & Block Focus Area Modeled Weekday Parking Demand The peak observed demand (Figure 14) occurs between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. during which time there is a surplus of approximately 820 spaces. The bulk of this demand is from the government office use. The modeled and observed demand show similar trends throughout the course of a day, which indicates that the parking demand estimated by land use correlates to the area's observed parking demand. However, modeled evening demand is lower than observed, likely indicating a "spillover effect" — parking demand generated by uses outside of this particular area - from adjacent focus areas that have more active retail/restaurant businesses. Overall, there is still ample parking supply in the evenings. Not all of the parking is currently open to the public, which may need to change to accommodate future development. Opportunities for future land uses which generate both daytime and evening demand could occur if there was additional formal and informal shared parking. NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 117 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 14 Dickson & Block Focus Area Modeled and Observed Weekday Parking Demand Saturday parking demand, as seen in Figure 15, is minimal. The model slightly under -predicts demand—again, potentially due to spillover parking from the core of the Entertainment District. Sunday demand, however, is far more significant owing to the concentration of churches. Even during this peak use period from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Sundays, modeled demand is 750 spaces less than the reserve supply (Figure 16). NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 118 1,900 1�W fxyting PerF�n>�; 1,7(18 �' &xerre Parkin 1 5T _ _. ._. » 1T...�.._».«.. «».»._..�»....«.._ »... 1,500 1,300 6,900 i q k,V00 E L'� 900 ModoTud Paak ❑om=d; Jk 3 0 90 a 700 Soo 500 100 300 700 272 295 2a9l 299 20 261W212 223 1/1IEl'1yf�i [rn.L]�„4u1A • I�rwe.aef; aar • VM4k idfDmtl¢�f EN1tr_ C,or.r.sv.,vu CDP{ke Otto_ C 'd RtvMl ' r Time atDoy - - 16 DicksonLure Block Focus1. 11' '1 Demand 7,A047 1,ga0 1,100 Ex;ningPndfnq 1,JD4 1,e00 . s goo 8 1,.a0 _ f,1DG Wr+Rsc.murCuecr*+rN�ee ModOodPeek Do.yimd-.T9? � � •rrnrkef 0 900 - a"io+falltl�l�itf CIlii __ __.._..-. _.. •1.Lr�'159tiD!•VI :M ni• r0a OFftca E50 crarrift o w t Soo A00. '100 YGQ 100 ;rC;%-s6ataY'�Cmr: LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Future Development Scenarios The team worked with the City of Fayetteville to create generic development scenarios based on known and theoretical developments in the area. Modeling these generic development scenarios quantifies the potential effects of future mixed-use development on parking demand and the resultant impact on the adequacy of the current supply. These development scenarios do not prescribe a specific location for the developments proposed as this is contingent on many factors, including land acquisition and financing, and is outside of the scope of this study. In this example—as well as in all subsequent development modeling presented in this document— some parking supply may be lost to the development itself as construction is likely to take place on existing parking lots. Some developments may build replacement parking, and some may be able to share parking that exists today. Since specific supply changes are unpredictable, the parking supply line is kept constant in each future scenario. The first scenario would introduce iso residential units to an area that is currently home to very few residences. As part of such a development, 10,00o square feet of accompanying retail floor area would be included in a mixed-use configuration. Figure 17 Dickson & Block Focus Area Development Scenario #1 - Land Use X11.1 II Total 1 1 ArealUnits Scenario 1 Area /Units (including development scenario) RestaurantlBar 4,000 SF Church 91,000 SF Convenience Market 2,600 SF General Retail 10,000 SF 53,000 SF 23% Government Office 145,000 SF Medical/Dental Office 7,000 SF 112,000 SF 166 Units 938% Office Residential 150 Units 415,000 SF Total 166 Units Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total Floor area. The demand analysis in Figure 18 shows that such a development produces a new weekday demand peak of almost 850 parking spaces between io a.m. and ii a.m. This level is still approximately 700 spaces fewer than the reserve supply in the study area. The most significant change in parking demand throughout the day occurs early in the morning and in the evening, when residents would be parked at home. Note that the standards do assume that some residents leave their cars at home during the day. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 120 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 18 Dickson & Block Focus Area Development Scenario #1 Modeled Demand A second development scenario for the Dickson & Block focus area would see 35o residential units added; a scale comparable to new housing developments recently completed in the Fayetteville parking study area. In this scenario, 20,000 square feet of retail floor area would be added to serve the additional residents. Figure 19 Dickson & Block Focus Area Development Scenario #2 - Land Use Land Bar/Nightclub Added Floor Area /Units Total ++Area/Units (including development scenario)* 4,000 SF Church 91,000 SF Convenience Market 3,000 SF General Retail 20,000 SF 63,000 SF 46.7% Government Office 145,000 SF Medical/Dental Office 350 Units 7,000 SF Office Residential Total 112,000 SF 366 Units 425,000 SF 366 Units ,. 2188% NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 121 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. Figure 20 shows that this new development creates a higher weekday demand peak of almost 930 parking spaces between io a.m. and ii a.m. and a secondary peak of almost goo parking spaces at 4 p.m. This level is still approximately 60o spaces less than the reserve supply in the focus area. The largest increases in parking demand occur at and after 7 p.m. as new residents return home for the night. This was a minimal demand period in the existing land use analysis. Parking management methods such as sharing parking between complementary uses could easily absorb this new demand without the need for parking facility construction in this focus area. Figure 20 Dickson & Block Focus Area Development Scenario #2 Modeled Demand NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 122 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR CENTER STREET FOCUS AREA ■ More than 950 parking spaces remain unused today throughout a typical weekday, with much more availability in the evening. This indicates that parking is overbuilt in this area. ■ The focus area has modeled peak parking demand ratios of 0.70 spaces per residential unit9 and 1.63 spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable non-residential floor arealo 11. ■ For each future development scenario, modeling indicates that there is enough supply in the focus area to satisfy the projected parking demand. • On-site parking as part of all new developments would maintain a very healthy reserve. Existing Land Use The Center Street focus area is composed of a greater mix of commercial retail, banking, office, residential, restaurant, and hotel facilities. The focus area is also home to a significant periodic use; the Fayetteville Farmers' Market operates on Tuesday and Thursday from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. and on Saturdays from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. around the historic Fayetteville Square. This use is modeled as 1oo,000 square feet of supermarket space for the purpose of calculating generated demand. Land uses are grouped as accurately as possible into categories created by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation 4th Edition (2010). 9 This figure does not include hotel parking demand or room count 10 This figure does not include parking demand or square footage attributed to the Fayetteville Farmers Market 11 Peak hour is defined as 12 a.m. on a weeknight for residential demand and 12 p.m. on a weekday for non-residential demand NelsWNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 123 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 21 Center Street Focus Area Parking Supply Map Weekday Regulations — Short -Term 2 Hour Unrestricted DtCXS0N ST U U > a a 7 12 :0 ,"�I 27 r Idl 15 27 8 6 4 }6 i6 53 .i n� 1588 88 1q' rr g.n U65 38 70 U 130 8910 '3 10 13 [) 7 39 � C F'N S"2-1 l�' 25 Y C14 ]5 CiQ nL563 2 U11 11`10 i ls... 27 (yry a r- 18 7� 0 58 18- v I�}°`U LJ J _ _'1 St �J. Gi 2I2�- 7� ` C$2J K65 t n�T C ioo 8 V 12 4 91`ni I 2[y 16 ' 15 8 to � � 22: 10 m 214 z T p 'St 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 t Miieso u . S' NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 124 Daytime Metered o Afternoon/Evening Metered ® Afternoon/Evening Metered/Permit Motorcycle Restricted (loading/Police) UA/Resident Permit ELI Handicapped Unrestricted -7zT1 Customer/Guest Parking Public Pay Parking Private Pay Parking Reserve d/kestricte... UA/Resident Permit ,,. Unavailable (Construction) DtCXS0N ST U U > a a 7 12 :0 ,"�I 27 r Idl 15 27 8 6 4 }6 i6 53 .i n� 1588 88 1q' rr g.n U65 38 70 U 130 8910 '3 10 13 [) 7 39 � C F'N S"2-1 l�' 25 Y C14 ]5 CiQ nL563 2 U11 11`10 i ls... 27 (yry a r- 18 7� 0 58 18- v I�}°`U LJ J _ _'1 St �J. Gi 2I2�- 7� ` C$2J K65 t n�T C ioo 8 V 12 4 91`ni I 2[y 16 ' 15 8 to � � 22: 10 m 214 z T p 'St 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 t Miieso u . S' NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 124 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 22 shows the breakdown of land use by category in this focus area. As discussed, a vacancy rate is applied in the modeling process. Figure 22 Center Street Focus Area Existing Land Use and Parking Supply e Bank 92,000 SF Cleaners/Laundromat 21,000 SF Coffee/Donut Shop 13,000 SF Funeral Home 7,000 SF General Retail 75,000 SF Government Office 11,000 SF Medical/Dental Office 9,000 SF Office 360,000 SF Quality Restaurant 6,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 27,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/No Bar 56,000 SF Farmers Market" Hotel 100,000 SF 206 Rooms Low to Mid Rise Apartment 132 Units Total 677,000 SF. 206 Hotel Rooms 132 Units +Farmers Market Parking i . Off-street Total 1,636 Off-street Publicly Available Parking 955 Off-street Private/Restricted Parking On -street Total 681 371 Total 2,007 Note: ' Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. .. Farmers Markets only held Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday mornings: Represents a grocery store during those periods, NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 125 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Existing Parking Supply and Demand In the Center Street focus area, there are 2,007 total parking spaces. As Figure 23 shows, during the weekday peak from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., 55% of the parking supply is occupied by almost 1,000 vehicles. Figure 23 Center Street Focus Area Observed Utilization (Weekday) a01116 70`;4, 1049 soy% 1502 506f a00A 30% 200.6 0 90% Reserve (Functionally Full) 939 1055 1074 1392 1373 1567 7AM 9AM 11 AM 1 P111 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PPA Due to variability in collection, not all spaces were counted at all times of the day. Uncounted spaces account for less than 3% of the total capacity during all count periods. Existing Use Analysis According to national parking generation rates from ITE, the needed number of parking spaces— assuming that each land use has its own dedicated supply of parking—is 2,949 spaces. The Center Street focus area has a total supply of 2,013 spaces, which is about goo spaces less than what national standards would suggest. This comparison alone indicates that parking demand in the focus area is lower than a typical analysis would predict. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 126 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 24 Center Street Focus Area Existing Parking Demand (ITE) As previously discussed, the adapted model contains variables to account for the land use and built environment context in Fayetteville. The variables in Figure 25 are specific to the Center Street focus area for weekday and Saturday cases. Figure 25 Center Street Focus Area Shared Parking Reduction Constants The adapted model for the focus area estimates a peak demand at 12 p.m., when less than 1,200 spaces would be required (Figure 26). During this timeframe there is a surplus of more than 600 vacant spaces not including the 10% reserved supply. Currently, all of these spaces may not be open to the public; they represent the potential to accommodate demand without building new parking. When overlaying the observed demand (Figure 27), the peak demand period occurs between a a.m. and 1 p.m. during which time there is a surplus of more than 80o spaces. The observed and modeled demand show similar trends throughout the course of the day, which indicates that the parking demand estimated by land use is calibrated properly (and somewhat conservatively) to the area's observed parking demand. There is an opportunity to increase the concentration of developed land in both the daytime and evening throughout this focus area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 127 Weekday a. Commercial Internal Capture 32% 32% Residential Internal Capture 31% 31% Employee TDM Program (Parking Pricing) 15% 15% Resident TDM Program (Parking Pricing) 16% 16% Retail Transit Access Effect 8% 5% The adapted model for the focus area estimates a peak demand at 12 p.m., when less than 1,200 spaces would be required (Figure 26). During this timeframe there is a surplus of more than 600 vacant spaces not including the 10% reserved supply. Currently, all of these spaces may not be open to the public; they represent the potential to accommodate demand without building new parking. When overlaying the observed demand (Figure 27), the peak demand period occurs between a a.m. and 1 p.m. during which time there is a surplus of more than 80o spaces. The observed and modeled demand show similar trends throughout the course of the day, which indicates that the parking demand estimated by land use is calibrated properly (and somewhat conservatively) to the area's observed parking demand. There is an opportunity to increase the concentration of developed land in both the daytime and evening throughout this focus area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 127 7� a7c7 --- 7,e6o _. T,F46 To66 PaS9�P:1r�L?�.,...�.�...,..«....,..,.........,_...........w..-,.,................... •rb�lr�:rs�,.«�a y�pw �.i:.y�..�....�mn..��u,...�w. -�-. .-s�r_�uss�».�t.�_4zr_-" _•er_ __ alQrcrn ivalkKr t ate. • apwaerQs v— r� Modeled Peck D]aTEd f Yq terry `°a""fA �F. tw.n.Mn;l+alnwme 4wd 91W.e edQrssn ilCe+l &Dow 700 - ?' 1 VAeAeW'/DSI Lr lkn. Q?0 rri' _.._ a Gimasws E31n•.e 3iq _ __ Olfke d-00 Cax:vl ed -JI! 400 700 104 t. of OQy 7,r66 2,060 ---------..------------- —..._. 7y00 . 7,a0o 2,7W 2,StiT0 2,100- 2,i0d •�. u t' Riurw 'aiii3iwia i9 .. _ 9FE." 5mer $ i,S60 N t' _ MadrledP*ak.Qaman& 1-)!8!aa�ar cro�nw I,aOk �r..Ov+n e..ela4..rt 1Mo% a I,l7e shmrmunraDw.s I,ow ... -. - - •ks& 700 - �''-'' ``R - enSedkdrDaoa4 LYflro a66 ani 660 995 921 bas $79 400 3a6 625 7 f16 432 I60 m h � b e � n � N n r •S d n tll 6 Cl 4 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 28 Center Street Focus Area Modeled and Observed Weekend Parking Demand NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 129 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING R MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Future Development Scenarios As noted previously, the team worked with the City of Fayetteville to create generic development scenarios. Nothing is known about net parking supply changes, so the parking supply line remains constant in the future. The first scenario would add 375 residential units with 25,000 square feet of accompanying retail floor area included in a mixed-use configuration. Figure 29 Center Street Focus Area Development Scenario #1 - Land Use Land 'i!"i Floor Area /Units etal 1! r Area/Units (including development scenario)' Bank 92,000 SF Cleaners/Laundromat 21,000 SF Coffee/Donut Shop 13,000 SF Funeral Home 7,000 SF General Retail 25,000 SF 100,000 SF 33.4% Government Office 11,000 SF Medical/Dental Office 9,000 SF Office 360,000 SF Quality Restaurant 6,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 27,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/No Bar 56,000 SF Farmers Market" 100,000 SF Hotel 206 Rooms Residential 375 Units 507 Units 284% Total 702,000 SF. 206 Hotel Rooms 507 Units +Farmers Market Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area, The estimated parking demand pattern for the first future development scenario is quite different on a weekend day than during the week. While weekday demand is largely driven by office and bank functions, forecasted weekend demand is a result mostly of restaurant, hotel, and farmers market activity. The larger of the two peaks occurs on Saturday at 12 p.m.—during the farmers market— when demand is estimated at 1,417 spaces (Figure 30). The parking surplus is diminished at this time to less than 400 spaces below the io% reserve, which will be needed to mitigate some of the lost supply during market operations. There is still an opportunity to add evening uses or accommodate overflow parking from the nearby West Entertainment District focus area during events at the Walton Arts Center. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 130 voc 2,00 .Am .,300 7.100 SI.'s'00-- „ 106 1,h0D— MgdsTad Pnok p , ie•.ond� 1340 4 1,400 r .. 1,100I'mo ExiA_ � McdeCedflamend.. +- ~------ 000 a..-v.400coo - 0 700 400 560 400 0m :00 $ •ti m 4 � $ $ o :_ � `e a � m $ $ 4 of D" , .,400 a,a60 - .a6e I 40D 7,100 a.60o Exisfin PcrklllQ x61 ...-�.-. . �... .. e,. .............. ....:.« �...... i,ti00 IADO Modalad Pack Damm1ch 11.417 1,300- e I W _.. _. �._Em hlinflAladaled Df and u 1,100QOO e 1000 afl- 400 7 4' 700 rr+.. � Js$".- �v-.•• r _- _ ..+ time cl Dy w Ccfl4r;.t7sra�l Swap ■F.sfenst Harwe .�alewne How. • Apmtna.+ dnnEry Rerrn."rorr f 1CM@IY/lflylndlxml .FILid $e.prr-e Rerouraal f,Hai r Sil•4m»n RgIpVM N (ru 4n+1 • {nrY r hYd@eyi7faMl O1rna * ribrneme W Dllk . Olrkr • W f}err'F✓�r 4ap rF4ryTh1a1 HWim ■soman nlP�ka iy:bnuu� Slwdlel. Fnew�mrs <Irerrnrineudl+mwx . Mtld Se.(w:n Rae+brwm yrmp - ta•Gu.x Ccesus.�M {aa eefli r aurae Rh5(U441�77�alQllke c C�s�rnwbnA ;yflllb OIIE' I -AND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR A second development scenario for the Center Street focus area would add 40,000 square feet of restaurants with a bar to the Scenario #1 addition of residential and retail (Figure 32). Figure 32 Center Street Focus Area Development Scenario #2 - Land Use Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area Figure 33 shows that this set of new development creates a second demand peak at 7 p.m. due to the now dominant restaurant demand that even exceeds the midday demand peak. Peak demand now requires more than 1,500 spaces, shrinking the margin between forecasted demand and reserve to approximately 300 spaces. Parking management methods such as transportation demand management (TDM) incentives and appropriate pricing can potentially absorb this new demand without the need for parking facility construction in this focus area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 132 1 11 Area/Units 1r X11.1Floor (includinq development scenario)* Area /Units Bank 92,000 SF Cleaners/Laundromat 21,000 SF Coffee/Donut Shop 13,000 SF Funeral Home 7,000 SF 100,000 SF General Retail 25,000 SF 33.4% Government Office 11,000 SF Hotel 206 Rooms Low to Mid Rise Apartment 375 Units 507 Units 284% Medical/Dental Office 9,000 SF Office 360,000 SF Quality Restaurant 6,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 40,000 SF 67,000 SF 56,000 SF 149% Sit -Down Restaurant/No Bar Farmers Market" 100,000 SF Total 742,000 SF. 507 Units 206 Rooms +Farmers Market Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area Figure 33 shows that this set of new development creates a second demand peak at 7 p.m. due to the now dominant restaurant demand that even exceeds the midday demand peak. Peak demand now requires more than 1,500 spaces, shrinking the margin between forecasted demand and reserve to approximately 300 spaces. Parking management methods such as transportation demand management (TDM) incentives and appropriate pricing can potentially absorb this new demand without the need for parking facility construction in this focus area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 132 7.000 ......_. 2,,700 7,600-- 2,500 7,200 �. Fp14ncyPgitir.«2s'�..y................ w----- ------------------------- '• 1' Ron a Park"vf : 7 fF12 -------`---- -•-'._,.._.«� is 1,706 9 1.690 _.. .... _- 1,STi0 7e9frai6d PQok barnne; 1.461 I.400 o. 1 _ _ _ Cxim in ModdalDd f]cwnrmd, c 1.166 ~a 1r9e9 r �� Yee I ]00, �t 700 P --_4- 100 yy iim al on/ IT= of Cloy w Cnlle,Y,fp.�,Y 9•qY ■ nnmwerY f�QrY,P - fy,urnre� GteaCry huu�evml wn+un/Lanatxnss *W rd 91.0o.A },aY.r�Roi418ar1 • SS•9v,rve Rtl1nYN1YlR [nu:.'(E!} •4m� 4 fMMK 91'�9rftd Otfke +'C � 01 1k. flf1Ye C�au4 kamll • Cc 1fcrfbce� ��,t, af�nwnl Flm.r ” 4raYnen.nv„ye .apa,rme4, �+,1dkr o.,rrHrca,r ava�.,rt,Araw.�a •NOW sl.ae.,w a.,sawm f6a.} . Sn•Wr•n Ccnnumm jin W'.q s r u1.rt]adut 0+4ie sGa.�n...d q�IRe Q11ses Ce 0NIW.I 7,400 ...._ ... _ — 7.800 2,700 i,000 7,700 '1.100 E.istin Pa i^A�-..-..1-..e-,..�.........,...>cs•>�..aar 2AW nr...nr 006-- n 1.700 1.600 - Modeled Pot* Demand: 1,5081 a _.. I,6n9_- Yy - 100 m1„w — - — -a 'r.. 1 ,00 - --� - 1,000700 + sw •► I. _.._ 700 i� •�' 660 560 1c6�f + ', •t 3bo dim 700 IOp S q�q p�n 4 qt O [s q 4 n Y Ji 3 n 4 Q IT= of Cloy w Cnlle,Y,fp.�,Y 9•qY ■ nnmwerY f�QrY,P - fy,urnre� GteaCry huu�evml wn+un/Lanatxnss *W rd 91.0o.A },aY.r�Roi418ar1 • SS•9v,rve Rtl1nYN1YlR [nu:.'(E!} •4m� 4 fMMK 91'�9rftd Otfke +'C � 01 1k. flf1Ye C�au4 kamll • Cc 1fcrfbce� ��,t, af�nwnl Flm.r ” 4raYnen.nv„ye .apa,rme4, �+,1dkr o.,rrHrca,r ava�.,rt,Araw.�a •NOW sl.ae.,w a.,sawm f6a.} . Sn•Wr•n Ccnnumm jin W'.q s r u1.rt]adut 0+4ie sGa.�n...d q�IRe Q11ses Ce 0NIW.I LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR WEST ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT FOCUS AREA ■ During the Saturday evening peak demand, 32% of the total parking inventory in the focus area is unused. Availability is much higher during the morning. ■ This focus area has modeled peak parking demand ratios of o.86 spaces per residential unit12 and 4.13 spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable non-residential floor area�3 14. ■ As development scenarios intensify, modeling indicates that both the reserve and total parking supply in this immediate focus area will be exhausted by the projected parking demand. ■ A development scenario that expands demand at peak times will require access to almost Soo additional parking spaces Existing Land Use A variety of land uses comprise the West Entertainment District focus area with just over 150,000 square feet of commercial, retail service, and office spaces as well as a large performing arts theatre, and 325 residential units15. The area is known for its high concentration of restaurants and bars, which comprise 40% of the total usable floor space, as well as multiple entertainment options at the Walton Arts Center, TheaterSquared, and the UArk Bowl. Land uses are grouped as accurately as possible into categories created by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation 4th Edition (2olo). Figure 34 shows the breakdown of land use by category in the focus area; again, the square feet and units are adjusted for existing vacancies only in the model results. 12 This figure does not include hotel parking demand or room count 13 This figure does not include parking demand or seat count attributed to the Walton Arts Center 14 Peak hour is defined as 12 a.m. on a weeknight for residential demand and 6 p.m. on a Saturday for non-residential demand 15 Since analysis was performed, The Academy at Frisco at West Avenue and Lafayette Street has opened with 219 apartment units and 496 parking spaces. NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 134 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 35 West Lot Focus Area Parking Supply Map Weekday Regulations Short -Term 2 Hour � Unrestricted > [laytime Metered T� Afternoon/Evening Metered Afternoon/Evening Metered/Permit Motorcycle Restricted (Loading/Police) UA/Resident Permit Handicapped ® Unrestricted CUStomer/Guest Parking Public Pay Parking Private Pay Parking Reserved/R estr icte... ® UA/Resident Permit ®Unavailable (Cons"ction) ' E, i y7 0 0.05 ori az Miles NelsonWygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 135 a A- G „z, 0 c LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 36 West Lot Focus Area Existing Land Use and Parking Supply Land-tfse p. Bank 1,000 SF Church 8,000 SF Cleaners/Laundromat 13,000 SF Fast Food 7,000 SF General Retail 106,000 SF Hotel 10 Rooms Low to Mid Rise Apartment 325 Units Medical/Dental Office 2,000 SF Office 30,000 SF Quality Restaurant 16,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 65,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/No Bar 18,000 SF Theater 2,590 Seats 266,000 Sq. Ft. 325 Units 10 Hotel Rooms 2,590 Theater Seats Total Parking Supply p. Off-street Total Off-street Publicly Available Parking 2,191 1,327 Off-street Private/Restricted Parking 864 On -street Total 186 Total 2,377 Note: " Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area Existing Parking Supply and Demand As Figure 38 shows, the weekend peak in this focus area occurs during the evening from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m., as the behavior in this focus area largely mirrors that of the Entertainment District as a whole. The baseline sees 68% of the parking supply occupied by 1,584 vehicles. Figure 37 West Entertainment District Focus Area Observed Utilization (Weekday) 10v^i= 90 Sol', �G„ 1202 sG 1679 50°1c AOA 30% 20"4- 01/ 01/ G/ 7AM 9Aht ■ Occupied a Unavailable Vacant 90% Reserve (Functionally Full) ----------------- 1054 1308 1460 1384 1158 1006 11 Aho IPM 3PM SPh1 7PM 9P11A Utilization charts reflect observed vacancies and occupancies (and unavailable spaces due to events or other conflicts) Normal fluctuations in the data collection process occasionally lead to missed counts on some facilities throughout the course of the collection span Therefore, the total number of observed spaces may vary by time period up to 10% NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 136 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Figure 38 West Entertainment District Focus Area Observed Utilization (Saturday) 100% 9094. ------ .._e_.,-._. 90%, 70"v. 1AA9 60'; 509% 40% JO?b 20 10'0 04r: 90% Reserve (Fundlonally Full) 842 T~Prs_743 1064 1A71 1379 9AM 11 AM IPM VIA 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 NA Existing Use Analysis According to national parking generation rates from ITE, the required number of parking spaces— assuming that each land use has its own dedicated supply of parking—is 2,719 spaces. The West Lot focus area has a total supply of 2,327 spaces, which is about 400 spaces below industry standards. Figure 39 West Entertainment District Focus Area Existing Parking Demand (ITE) NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 137 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR The adapted model contains variables that account for Fayetteville's land use context and built environment. The variables in Figure 4o are specific to the West Entertainment District focus area for weekday and Saturday cases. Figure 40 West Entertainment District Focus Area Shared Parking Reduction Constants The land use model for the West Entertainment District focus area estimates a peak Saturday demand at 6 p.m., persisting through the 9 o'clock hour. At peak, it is estimated that 1,734 spaces would be used (Figure 41). During this timeframe there is a surplus of more than 350 spaces not including the io % reserve supply. These spaces may not all be open to the public currently and could be used if regulations were different. The peak demand period occurs between 9 p.m. and ii p.m. during which time there is a surplus of over 500 spaces (Figure 42). The observed and modeled demand diverge temporally to some degree, owing to the model's treatment of generic theater schedules (with matinees) and its treatment of maximum bar/restaurant demand. The model assumes maximum theater demand from i p.m. to 3 p.m. and again from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays which may or may not be indicative of Walton Arts Center's program schedule on a given night. The model treats bars as sit down restaurants as well, thus maximum demand is generated at 6 p.m. The bars and restaurants of Fayetteville's Entertainment District operate differently, thus explaining the extended peak in the observed parking demand trends. Only the morning period shows predicted and observed ample availability in the West Entertainment District area. Nonetheless, the model provides a conservative peak demand estimate that is useful for future scenario projections. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 138 Weekday d. Commercial Internal Capture 30% 30% Residential Internal Capture 30% 20% Employee Parking Pricing Effect 15% 10% Resident Parking Pricing Effect 20% 10% Retail Transit Access Effect 8% 1% The land use model for the West Entertainment District focus area estimates a peak Saturday demand at 6 p.m., persisting through the 9 o'clock hour. At peak, it is estimated that 1,734 spaces would be used (Figure 41). During this timeframe there is a surplus of more than 350 spaces not including the io % reserve supply. These spaces may not all be open to the public currently and could be used if regulations were different. The peak demand period occurs between 9 p.m. and ii p.m. during which time there is a surplus of over 500 spaces (Figure 42). The observed and modeled demand diverge temporally to some degree, owing to the model's treatment of generic theater schedules (with matinees) and its treatment of maximum bar/restaurant demand. The model assumes maximum theater demand from i p.m. to 3 p.m. and again from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays which may or may not be indicative of Walton Arts Center's program schedule on a given night. The model treats bars as sit down restaurants as well, thus maximum demand is generated at 6 p.m. The bars and restaurants of Fayetteville's Entertainment District operate differently, thus explaining the extended peak in the observed parking demand trends. Only the morning period shows predicted and observed ample availability in the West Entertainment District area. Nonetheless, the model provides a conservative peak demand estimate that is useful for future scenario projections. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 138 )Ao 7,440 2,407 0,6-00 — - - - - — - - - - — - - - - 2,WO 3,100 ReiWVS P 2,09A 11000 J.M 1,200 log too cirke rFOp x0p - 200 100 )POO 1.90034 W, NN TAM 1.00 ?,w Exitfing PaMna. 2,127 )POO 1.90034 W, NN TAM 1.00 1A00 LP 1,000 400 alu:i too • 71W 01 M, tom' f F R—M Soo 406 300 zw loo LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR Future Development Scenarios As in the other focus areas, the team worked with the City of Fayetteville to create development scenarios to model the effects of future development on parking demand and on the adequacy of the current supply. Nothing is known about net parking supply changes, so the parking supply line remains constant in the future. The first scenario for the West Entertainment District focus area would introduce a modest amount of additional general retail (5,000 square feet) and 5o residential units to an area that is already home to 325 units. Uniquely, this development scenario also would involve a Soo -seat performing arts theater in the area and the addition of a five screen movie theater to the area. Figure 43 West Entertainment District Focus Area Development Scenario #1 - Land Use Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 140 Total Floor Area/Units Land Use Bank Added Floor Area s development scenario), 1,000 SF Church 8,000 SF Cleaners/Laundromat 13,000 SF Fast Food 7,000 SF General Retail 5,000 SF 111,000 SF 4.7% Medical/Dental Office 2,000 SF Office 30,000 SF Quality Restaurant 16,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 65,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/No Bar 18,000 SF Hotel 10 Rooms Low to Mid Rise Apartment 50 Units 375 Units 15.4% Theater 500 Seats 3,090 Seats 19.3% Movie Theater 5 Screens 5 Screens -% Total 271,000 Sq. Ft. 10 Hotel Rooms 375 Units 3,090 Theater Seats 5 Movie Screens Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 140 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR The estimated parking demand for future development Scenario #1 again occurs at 6 p.m., when demand is forecasted to reach 2,o96 spaces (Figure 44). This figure, driven by theater, movie theater, and high evening restaurant activity, represents a case where demand has matched the reserve supply. As such, all future development beyond this scenario will need to consider parking accommodation in development plans. Figure 44 West Entertainment District Focus Area Development Scenario #1 Modeled Demand NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 141 LAND USE AND FUTURE PARKING DEMAND MEMORANDUM I PARKING & MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville, AR A second development scenario for the West Entertainment District focus area would see 500 housing units added; a scale comparable to the new housing development recently completed immediately north of the focus area. This time, the retail increase is more substantial (30,000 square feet). Figure 45 West Lot Focus Area Development Scenario #2 - Land Use Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. As seen in Figure 46, forecasted demand for this development scenario exceeds not only the reserve supply but also the total parking supply of the focus area. The new demand of over 2,400 spaces requires over 3oo new spaces to re-establish a reasonable reserve. The largest increases in parking demand in this scenario are due to the new residential units, though these do realize a larger internal capture rate, limiting even larger parking need. This scenario shows that both new housing plus a potential movie theater requires new parking construction in this focus area, though both can be accommodated in Fayetteville's nearby focus areas without new parking construction. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 142 +o Bank 1,000 SF Church 8,000 SF Cleaners/Laundromat 13,000 SF Fast Food 7,000 SF General Retail 30,000 SF 136,000 SF 28.4% Hotel 10 Rooms Low to Mid Rise Apartment 500 Units 825 Units 154% Medical/Dental Office 2,000 SF Movie Theater 5 Screens 5 Screens -% Office 30,000 SF Quality Restaurant 16,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/Bar 65,000 SF Sit -Down Restaurant/No Bar 18,000 SF Theater Total 500 Seats 3,090 Seats 19.3% 296,000 Sq. Ft. 825 Units 10 Hotel Rooms 3,090 Theater Seats 5 Movie Screens Note: Retail, office and residential vacancy rates are not accounted for in the total floor area. As seen in Figure 46, forecasted demand for this development scenario exceeds not only the reserve supply but also the total parking supply of the focus area. The new demand of over 2,400 spaces requires over 3oo new spaces to re-establish a reasonable reserve. The largest increases in parking demand in this scenario are due to the new residential units, though these do realize a larger internal capture rate, limiting even larger parking need. This scenario shows that both new housing plus a potential movie theater requires new parking construction in this focus area, though both can be accommodated in Fayetteville's nearby focus areas without new parking construction. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 142 MO 3,400 3/00 370 mod, roo Peck Darnm& 2,4 17 ._.� 7,600 3,HM . .. - --- 2,400 7,300 3,7w :,100 g k;lo0 k f,00 kr`oo GI I,Ad3 moo W a,'w n 1,100 1.000 AW too 706 cQo Soo 400 sw :w 100 � < � d i � 6 6 0� A 4 •4 a€❑p.� 6 i � �v i � — _ Pietro 6T ➢3Y a � —. „• ■.�L„419e,ibr • Thpteer G1uuFTy kirwveanl [t+arnfta..dx�..n . NWd Ghvril Fa a Iamd saiu-n Rnaaurr,w yMn} i[tlaVECNe lad beer) keM .'rte B1Jt14Tlln1 Gal Ika 011sr Qwe... Fayetteville Parking Master Plan Implementation Schedule: PHASE 1: April, 2018 — December, 2019 GOAL: Customer service through consistent information, enhanced technology, and increased parking supply will lay the foundation for future parking improvements. RECOMMENDATION Customer Service 2. 1 Increase Available Supply Event Management ACTION ITEM Rebrand enforcement officers to promote a friendly and informative customer service approach to enforcement Add additional on -street parking and begin shared parking agreement negotiations with owners of underutilized private lots. Install consistent signage in private lots and add to database as agreements are brokered. Consider permit system for shared lots where property owners may be uncomfortable with full public sharing. Actively broker shared parking agreements between developers and other private lot owners and, as needed, update code to reflect shared parking best practices. Coordinate with WAC, Theatre Squared, and area businesses to implement agreed upon event management strategies, such as prepaid and valet parking. Monitor and support expansion of services as needed. 4. Create a Residential Form stakeholder group to discuss Parking Benefit District & recommendations for residential parking Continue to Research program (mixed use parking and/or Demand -Responsive Residential Benefit District proposals). Pricing Form stakeholder group to begin discussion on current utilization, permit programs, current rates, and rate change recommendations from Study. Meet with Downtown business stakeholders to discuss minimum pricing for smart meters and consider incorporating pay by space/plate system in lots downtown. TIMEFRAME Immediate and Ongoing Immediate and Ongoing Immediate and Ongoing Spring, 2018 5- 7 E1 a 10 _ ------------ Upgrade Technology & Updated enforcement software and Event Management hardware are needed to alleviate reliance on expiring AS400 system and to pave way for integration with future pay by plate and License Plate Recognition (LPR) enforcement as well as "first -ticket free" enforcement capability. Integrate mobile credit card payment capability with new enforcement software for event parking. Customer Service Develop a communication and outreach plan for parking constituents (UA community, business community, visitor's bureau, chamber of commerce) and continually update educational materials, maps, and website to reflect new agreements and available technologies. Upgrade Technology Research options for pay -by -phone (or current mobile payment vendor) in private lots and Downtown Business District. Streamline Signage Enhance customer service by re- designing consistent, easy to understand rate signage for publicly owned and privately owned lots. Identify areas to install additional parking wayfinding signage. Multimodal Improvements Study feasibility of shuttle to remote parking and work with transit providers to determine potential routes. Work with transit providers to include current remote parking destinations located near E transit stops in their mapping. Multimodal Improvements Work with Transportation to develop a Sidewalk Plan with the goal of improving walkability in the downtown and creating intentional signed and lighted links from Downtown Business District to Entertainment District. Spring, 2018 Summer, 2018 Winter, 2018 Spring, 2019 Fall, 2019 See Annual Sidewalk Plan Fayetteville Parking Master Plan Implementation Schedule: PHASE 2: January, 2019 — December, 2021 GOAL: Consolidating parking programs between the Entertainment and Downtown Business Districts, upgrading enforcement strategies and equipment, improved event management, and transportation demand strategies will lead to sustained improvements in the overall parking experience. RECOMMENDATION ACTION ITEM 1. Residential Benefit Recommend system and earmark funding for projects consistent with Improvement District stakeholder group input. Begin work on projects as funding becomes available. Ensure employee and other permit programs are equitably priced in 2. Streamline Permit Program Entertainment and Downtown Business Districts and recommend Multimodal Improvements changes consistent with stakeholder group input. Work with transit providers to consider subsidizing trips for residents 3. living near transit stops and to update routes to include remote parking facilities. 4. Future Development Work with Planning and Development Services to develop TDM toolkit for developers. Draft and adopt TDM language as necessary, including shared parking ordinances and unbundled parking requirements. Review development code to determine if changes are needed to fee in -lieu programs or other TDM strategies such as parking cash -out programs, bike share/car share membersh�s, and bicycle facilities. Recommend rates and time limits consistent with stakeholder group 5. Recommend New Rate Structure and Time Limits input. I Recommend smart meter installation consistent with stakeholder 6. Upgrade Technology group input. 7. Upgrade Technology Recommend pay -by -plate enforcement method in Entertainment District and Downtown Business Districts and integrate LPR readers as funding is available. _ Continue improving event management as new technology allows. 8. _ Event Management Fayetteville Parking Master Plan Implementation Schedule: PHASE 3: January, 2022 — December, 2023 GOAL: A commitment to superior customer service and ensuring that parking is available and easy to find. RECOMMENDATION ACTION ITEM 1. Continue to Research Consider allowing Parking Management control over rate changes to Demand -Responsive achieve measurable availability goals and draft and update code to Pricing set maximum rates and defined availability goals. Continue to incorporate private lots into availability based pricing 2. Continue to Research Demand -Responsive system consistent with stakeholder group input. Pricing__ Upgrade Technology Outfit LPR enforcement cameras for one enforcement vehicle, 3. 4. Residential Benefit Continually invest residential district revenues into identified projects Improvement District as funding is saved up. 5. Increase Available Supply Work with special event organizers to consider if the use of streets for event space rather than arkin lots is a preferred polic to ursue 6. Future Development Support Bike Share and Car Share opportunities through reserved parking and requirements in new development. Continue and improve Shuttle/Transit partnership_. 7. Multimodal Improvements Continue installation of walkability improvements and intersection infrastructure. Work toward a goal of making 80% of the total parking supply within 8. Increase Available Supply the study area open and available to the public in some form (e.g. traditional parking, valet services, shared parking agreements). 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 68-16 File Number: 2016-0104 RFQ #15-08 NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC.: A RESOLUTION TO AWARD RFQ #15-08 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $584,978.00 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY REPORT, TO APPROVE A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,740.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, Resolution No. 221-13, which was passed on November 5, 2013, expressed the intent of the City Council to fund the development of an updated Transportation Plan. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby awards RFQ #15-08 and authorizes a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. in the amount of $584,978.00 for the development of a Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertaimnent District Parking and Mobility Report, and further approves a project contingency in the amount of $14,740.00. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. PASSED and APPROVED on 3/15/2016 Page 1 Printed on 3116116 File Number; 2016-0104 Resolution; 68-16 Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer Page 2 Printed on 3116116 -: City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West MountainStceet Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-6323 Text File File Number: 2016-0104 Agenda Date: 3/15/2016 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: D. 1 RFQ 415-08 NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC.: A RESOLUTION TO AWARD RFQ #15-08 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $584,978.00 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY REPORT, TO APPROVE A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,740.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, Resolution No. 221-13, which was passed on November 5, 2013, expressed the intent of the City Council to fund the development of an updated Transportation Plan, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby awards RFQ 415-08 and authorizes a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. in the amount of $584,978.00 for the development of a Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report, and further approves a project contingency in the amount of $14,740.00. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 3116/2016 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2016-0104 Legistar File ID 3/15/2016 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item / Chris Brown 2/26/2016 Engineering Development Services Department Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approval of a Contract with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. in the amount of $584,978.00 for development of a transportation master plan and downtown/entertainment distric parking and mobility report, approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $100,000, and approval of a contingency amount of $14,740. Budget Impact: 4470.9470.5314.00; 1010.6600.5315.00 Account Number 14021.1 Project Number Budgeted Item? Yes Does item have a cost? No Budget Adjustment Attached? No Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Comments: Professional Services/Contract Services --- - Fund Transportation Master Plan Project Title Current Budget $ 499,718.00 Funds Obligated $ - Current Balance Item Cost $ 5841978.00 Budget Adjustment $ 100,000.00 Remaining Budget Approval Date: CITY OF �TayIVIC ARKANSAS MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Director of Development Services FROM: Chris Brown, P.E., City Engineer Ce DATE: February 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Transportation Master Plan/Downtown and Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Study -Contract with NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. for development of a Transportation Master Plan and a Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report, in the total amount of $584,978, including $489,978 for the overall master plan, and $95,000 for the focus area parking study. The City Council Transportation Committee reviewed the Master Transportation Plan scope at their February 23`d meeting and recommended approval of the overall master plan scope by a vote of 3-0. (The parking study scope was not available for review at the Committee meeting.) A budget adjustment in the amount of $100,000 from the general fund reserve balance is also requested to fund the parking study portion of the project. Finally, a contingency fund in the amount of $14,740 to allow for additional items of work and/or expenses that may arise during the project is requested. BACKGROUND: In 2013, the City Council passed Resolution 221-13, expressing the intent to fund an updated Transportation Plan in the amount of up to $500,000. In 2014, staff began the process of procuring a consultant using the City's consultant selection procedures, with the intent of bringing a proposed contract and budget adjustment to the City Council. However, during negotiations with the selected consultant, it became apparent that the work scopes developed by the consultant were not in line with the City's vision for the project, and negotiations were ended with the consultant. The City re-initiated the consultant procurement process in 2015, and on December 29th, 2015, a selection committee consisting of City staff members and City Council Member Matthew Petty selected the team of Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. and Garver, Inc. to provide consulting services for the Transportation Master Plan. Following the selection of the consulting team, the City recognized the need to add an additional task in the Transportation Master Plan that provides detailed analysis of Parking and Mobility in the Downtown and Entertainment District areas. The purpose of this study would be to analyze Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 parking inventory and utilization as well as existing and future demand and recommend refinement to existing parking management strategies and system design. CONSULTANT BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates (with Garver, Inc. as their sub -consultant) was chosen over 4 other consultant teams that submitted statements of qualifications. Nelson\Nygaard is a 123 person firm specializing in transportation planning for all modes of transportation. Their statement of qualifications lists such projects as a mobility and parking study in New Orleans, complete streets design guideline development in Chicago, participation in moveDC, Washington D.C.'s long range transportation plan, and leading an in -progress master planning effort in Boston. Locally, they are in the final stages of completing a Campus Transportation Plan for the University of Arkansas. Nelson\Nygaard was also the lead consultant on the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, a manual that has been adopted by numerous cities nationwide and provides a new set of standards for creation of city streets that are more safe and inviting, and provide service to all modes of transportation. This manual has recently been adopted by the City as a reference document in our Minimum Street Standards Manual. The Nelson Nygaard project team for this includes Project Manager Jason Schrieber, Deputy Project Manager Lisa Jacobson, Zabe Bent, and Boris Palchik, among others. Mr. Schrieber has spent time in Fayetteville serving as Principal in Charge of the University of Arkansas Transportation Master Plan, and Ms. Jacobson is the Project Manager for the UA project. The local team from Garver includes Ron Petrie and Jeff Webb, both of which have managed multiple projects for the City, the latest being the Spring Street Parking Deck. Mr. Petrie's past experience as the Fayetteville City Engineer gives him insight into the challenges and constraint the City's transportation system faces, which will be a valuable asset to the team. Excerpts from the project team's Statement of Qualifications, which provide additional detail, resumes, and past experience on similar projects, are attached. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN SCOPE DISCUSSION: Exhibit "A" to the contract is the scope of work which details the tasks to be completed by the consulting team. After initial kickoff meetings, and establishment of detailed goals and objectives, the consulting team will review the City's existing codes, policies, master plans, and other data in order to fully understand the existing conditions of the City's transportation systems. Once the initial review is completed, a "Mobility Facts Book" will be delivered, that will summarize existing conditions and provide a review of best practices from peer communities. Public Participation will be an integral part of the plan development. Using the Mobility Facts Book and other outreach materials, the consultant will host multiple workshops throughout the project, and will develop a website and online interaction tools in order to engage as many citizens as possible across all demographics and in all areas of the City. Using the existing conditions analysis and the information gathered during the public involvement process, the consultant will identify network needs across all modes of transportation, and will develop lists of issues and opportunities within the City's transportation system. Ultimately the final plan will be developed with both broad recommendations of policy and overall direction of multimodal mobility for the City, along with detailed project priorities, and strategies for implementation of the plan. Critical deliverables with the final plan include: 0 Planning and design policy recommendations Y Tools for evaluation and prioritization of projects • Implementation and Financial Plans PARKING AND MOBILITY SCOPE DISCUSSION Task 5.8 of the scope of work (attached as Exhibit "A" to the contract) details the parking study tasks to be completed by the consulting team. After initial kickoff meetings (which will be scheduled in conjunction with Transportation Master Plan kickoff) the consulting team will review existing studies, data and mapping. Next Nelson/Nygaard will conduct a detailed parking system inventory and evaluate existing utilization and use that data to perform a future parking demand analysis and evaluate parking expansion needs. The consultant team will also conduct a thorough review of existing parking management. and system design and develop a suite of parking management options including supply and demand management strategies and administration and customer service improvements. The Downtown and Entertainment Districts will be evaluated as separate districts but the strategies developed will either apply to both or be modified appropriately for each context. Public input will be integral to the Parking & Mobility Study with workshops, surveys and up to six meetings with stakeholders. SCHEDULE AND FEE Nelson Nygaard has scheduled this work to be completed over a period of approximately 15 months. This schedule will be modified and updated as the project progresses. The overall plan and the parking study will progress separately, but consultant visits, public meetings, and final plan development will be scheduled together to minimize travel costs and other expenses. The schedule is attached as Exhibit "B" to the contract. The proposed fee for the work scope detailed above is $584,978, of which $489,978 is allocated for the overall master plan, and $95,000 is allocated for the parking study. Detailed fee information is also attached to this memo. A contingency amount of $14,740 is also requested, to allow for additional items of work and/or expenses that may arise during the project. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: This project will be funded from the Transportation Master Plan project budget. Currently this project has $499,718 in funds available; a budget adjustment in the amount of $100,000 is needed to provide the full project funding. The general fund reserve balance is the proposed source of funding for the additional amount. Attachments: Proposed Contract with Ex. A Scope of Work Ex. B Schedule Fee Spreadsheets Budget Adjustment Purchase Order Request Additional Consultant Information Resolution 221-13 CITY OF TaY"Ile ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Contract for Transportation Master Planning And Parking Analysis Services This contract executed this J& day of M(X h 2016, between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Nelson\Nvgaard Consulting Associates, Inc. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville has previously determined that it has a need for a Transportation Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is also in need of a detailed downtown and entertainment district parking analysis and plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville, after soliciting statements of qualifications for such services pursuant to City of Fayetteville RFQ 15-08 (herein after referred to as Request for qualifications or RFQ), has awarded this contract to NelsonlNVpaard Consulting Associates, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Nelsen Hurd CItipg ocialLes, Inc. has represented that it is able to satisfactorily provide these services according to the terms and conditions of the RFQ, which are incorporated herein by reference, and the terms and conditions are contained herein; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Services to be Performed: Nelson\Ny,gaard Consulting Associates, Inc. hereby agrees to provide the City with transportation planning and parking analysis services, as requested and more specifically outlined in the RFQ, this agreement, and the attached Exhibit "A" Scope of Work. 2. Time of Service: Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and services shall be performed as identified in the Timeline found in Exhibit "R" attached hereto, subject to revisions mutually agreed upon, 3. Compensation: As compensation for Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc, providing services to the City as described herein, the City shall pay II`wielson Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. an amount not to exceed City of Fayetteville, AR Contract for Tr anspor Lation MasLer Planning Services (RFQ 15-08) Page l of 5 $584, 978.00 inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses, based on the submission of invoices for work completed and properly authorized. The fee will be payable as follows: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. shall submit invoices at minimum 1 month intervals to the City. The invoices shall include charges for all labor and costs in accordance with Contract. Payment will be made for hours worked at standard hourly rates in effect at the time work is performed, plus reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses include travel expenses, purchase of material, and other direct expenses, including work performed by subcontractors. Payment for reimbursable expenses shall be at actual cost, supported by paid invoices or other acceptable documentation of expenses. The City agrees to pay all approved invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. The City shall not be obligated to pay any invoices which are not in accord with the terms of this Contract. Nelscn' Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. reserves its rights to stop all work on this project if, at anytime, an approved invoice remains unpaid for a period exceeding sixty (60) days. 4. Insurance: Neison\Nyigaard Consullinp, Associates, Inc. shall provide and maintain in force at all times during the term of the services contemplated herein insurance for Workers' Compensation, Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability, and Professional Liability. Such policies shall be issued by companies authorized to do business in the State of Arkansas. Evidence of such coverage is to be submitted with contract approval. Minimum amount For Commercial General Liability and Professional Liability is $1,000,000 aggregate. Notwithstanding any other provision, Nelson\Nvaard Consulting Associates, Inc. will not be required to include City as an additional insured on its Professional Liability coverage. 5. Term of Agreement: Services performed pursuantto this Contract shall commence upon execution of this agreement and continue for the period specified in the Timeline in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, unless canceled or terminated within thirty (30) days written notice by either party. Nelson' Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. will be compensated for services performed in accordance with the terms of this Contract prior to the effective date of termination. 6. Amendment of Contract: This Contract may be amended only by mutual agreement of the parties. 7. Legal Compliance, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. is responsible for full and complete compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and licensing requirements imposed by any public authority having jurisdiction, 8. Approval of Agent: The City reserves the right to require Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. to replace the assigned agent with another agent of the same company if, in the opinion of the City staff, the agent is not rendering or is incapable of rendering the quality of service and cooperation required. City of Fayetteville, AR Contract For Transportation Master Planning Services (RFQ 15-08) Page 2 of 5 9. Auditable Records. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associat+es,lnc. shall maintain such accounts and records in connection with its performance of services For the City as may reasonably be required by the City. Neeson 1I ward Consulting Associates, Inc. shall, at any reasonable time during the term and for a period of one year Following the completion of work under the contract, afford the City's agents and auditors reasonable facilities and access for examination and audit of its records pertaining to its performance and shall, upon request by the City, produce and exhibit all such records. 10. Assignment and Subcontracting: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. shall perform this contract. In the event of a corporate acquisition and/or merger, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. shall provide written notice to the City within thirty (30) business days of such notice of action or upon the occurrence of said action, whichever occurs first. The right to terminate this contract, which shall not be unreasonably exercised by the City, shall include, but not be limited to, instances in which a corporate acquisition and/or merger represent a conflict of interest or are contrary to any local, state, or federal laws. Action by the City awarding a proposal to a Proposer, which has disclosed its intent to assign or subcontract in its response to the RFQ, without exception shall constitute approval for purposes of this Agreement. No assignment or additional subcontracting shall be allowed without the prior written consent of the City. 11. Cancellation: Either party reserves the right to cancel this Contract, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' notice of the intent to cancel, or with cause if at any time either party fails to fulfill or abide by any of the terms or conditions specified. Failure of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. to comply with any of the provisions of this contract may be considered a material breach of contract and shall be cause for termination of the contract at the discretion of the City of Fayetteville. In the event of such a breach, the City of Fayetteville will promptly notify Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc, which will have five (5) days to cure the failure to City's satisfaction. In the event that sufficient budgeted funds are not available for a fiscal period, the City shall notify Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Ince of such occurrence and the Contract shall terminate on the last day of the then current fiscal period without penalty or expense to the City. The City reserves the right to terminate within the thirty (30) day notice because of budgetary issues. 12. Indemnification: Nelson\NVgaard Consulting Associates Inc, shall indemnify, pay the cost of defense, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, and hold harmless the City from all suits, actions or claims of any character brought on account of any injuries or damages received or sustained by any person, persons, or property by or from the said negligence of Nelsortil,hiyga_ard Consulting Associates,__ Inc.; or by, or in consequence City of Fayetteville, AR Contract for Transportation Master Planning Services (RFU 15-03) Page 3 of 5 of any neglect in safeguarding the work; or on account of any negligent act or omission, neglect or misconduct of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.; or by, or on account of, any claim or amounts recovered under the Workers' Compensation Law or of any other laws, by-laws, ordinances, order of decree, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City of Fayetteville. The first ten dollars ($10.00) of compensation received by NeisonlNygaard Consulting Associatesi Inc. represents specific consideration for this indemnification obligation. Furthermore, Nelson\Nlygaard Consulting Associates Inc. in performing its obligations under this contract, is acting independently and the City assumes no responsibility of liability for the NejsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.' acts or omissions to third parties, and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its officers and employees against any and all claims, lawsuits, judgments, costs and expenses for which recovery of damages is sought, suffered by any person or persons, that may arise out of or be occasioned by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc,' breach of the terms or provisions of contract, or by any negligent act or omission of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc., its officers, agents, employees, or invitee, in the performance of this contract; except that the indemnity specified in this paragraph shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its officers, or employees. In the event of joint and concurrent negligence of both Nelson\Nygaard Consultin As_oc.iates, Inc. and the City, responsibility and indemnity, if any, shall be apportioned comparatively in accordance with the laws of the State of Arkansas, without, however, waiving any governmental immunity available to the City under Arkansas law and without waiving any defense of the parties under Arkansas law. This paragraph is solely for the benefit of Nelson�Ny aard Consulting Associates,_ Inc. and the City and is not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to any other person or entity. 13. Governing Law & Jurisdiction: Legal jurisdiction to resolve any disputes shall be Washington County, Arkansas with Arkansas law applying to the case. 14.5everahility:: The terms and conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to be severahle. Consequently, if any clause, term, or condition hereof shall be held to be illegal or void, such determination shall not affect the validity of legality of the remaining terms and conditions, and notwithstanding any such determination, this agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless the particular clause, term, or condition held to be illegal or void renders the balance of the agreement impossible to perform. 15. Changes in Scope or Price; Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price, or fees to this contract shall not be allowed without a prior formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor (if the total cost of the contract with such proposed changes, modifications or amendments does not exceed the approved City of Fayetteville, AR Contract for Transportation Master Planning Services (RFQ 15-08) Page 11 of 5 contract price including any approved project contingency) or the City Council (if the total contract cost with such proposed changes, modifications or amendments exceeds the approved contract price including any approved project contingency) in advance of the change in scope, cost or Fees. 16. Freedom of Information Act: Documents prepared while performing City contractual work are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. If a Freedom of Information Act request is presented to the City of Fayetteville, Nelson\Nvgaard Consulting Associates, _Inc. will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. §25-19-101 et. seq.) Only legally authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this compliance, 17. Documents Comprising Contract: The contract shall include this Agreement for Transportation Master Planning services, as well as the following documents, which are attached: Exhibit "A" Scope of Services b. Exhibit "B" Fayetteville TMP Schedule If there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the above referenced documents, the conflict shall be resolved as follows: the terms of this Agreement shall prevail over the other documents, and the terms of the remaining documents shall be given preference in their above listed order. WITNESS OUR HANDS THIS 6.—DAY OF ' f)0..Ji*)- , 2016. NELSOrYfa RD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ei v "� - 0'� .—� L'4✓C Printed Name & Title C' ATTEST: j k 1 � Y, �d V.,.l_)-,1..". "-9�•* !�.`_f C � ='s ✓�'�Tr JU1�Q. �7�J Business Address City, State & Zip Code Date Signed: 2� Q1 c NC9 City of Fayetteville, AR Contract for Transportation Master Planning Services (RFQ 15-08) Page 5 of 5 ATTEST: Sondra Smith, City Clerk Daze Zli;nr.:a` �rs� ✓r�� iYllllrf111 4. r Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR City of Fayetteville, AR Transportation diaster Plan Project Exhibit A - SCOPE 1,1 Project Kick -Off Meeting The Consultant will meeting with City staff, any key stakeholders identified by the City, and potentially a Steering Committee to discuss the final scope of work and project schedule, establish communication protocols, coordinate preparation activities, and collect studies, data, and other information that will be used throughout the project. During the kick-off, the Consultant will conduct a brainstorming session to clarify key roles, schedules, community event types / dates/ locations, and consistent graphics elements for outreach materials. 1.2 Final Scope of Work and Project Schedule Based on the discussions at the project kick-off meeting and follow-up correspondence, the Consultant will work with the City to finalize the Scope of Work and Project Schedule, including the Community Outreach Schedule. DELIVERABLES: Meeting Notes Final Scope of Work and Project Schedule Knowledge of the community's values is necessary to effectively produce network typologies, design standards, measurement tools, and an implementation plan. The Consultant will incorporate the goals of the City Plan 203o, Downtown Master Plan, and other guiding documents. The Consultant will also talk to citizens, stakeholders and elected officials about how the transportation plan can improve their lives through and inclusive public participation .process that receives input from sometimes disengaged users and from all areas of the city, not just special interest groups and downtown areas (see Task 4 for details). With robust public input, designs for transportation solutions can be tailored entirely to the community context and preferences. Such a system is only effective, however, if the solutions are reflective of Fayetteville's values. A small (as small as possible), tailored set of community-based project goals will be developed during Task 4 before any network priorities are set. This process will necessarily involve and inform key stakeholders who may not fully appreciate the community's Asion, such as AHTD, large institutions and employers, and members of the community itself. The overall goals, when set, will lead to a set of measurable evaluation criteria in Task 7 designed to meet the objectives included in the Request for Qualifications. These measures will encompass choice modes of travel such as bus, bicycling, bikeshare, walking, carshare, taxi, scooter, etc. with careful attention paid to the need to balance automobile throughput against other community needs. DELIVERABLES: Goals Statement Measurement, Prioritization Framework and Criteria ,TASK 3 EXISTING CONDITI-014S The following subtasks are intended to be conducted in parallel with overlapping input and feedback informing each subtask's analysis and conclusions. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 11 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR 3.9 Review of City Codes, Policies, Standards, and Design Guidelines The Consultant will conduct a review of all appropriate municipal codes and ordinances that support or should support plan development, as well as other broader goals identified early in Task 2. These go beyond standard elements such as vehicle lane dimensions, crosswalk standards, curb ramp designs, other traffic, street or sidewalk elements and extend further into elements such as parks and recreation, parking regulations, land use and growth policies, development regulations,, and citywide zoning. In addition, the Consultant will work with City staff to fully understand existing street design, evaluation, and implementation practices across applicable City divisions, as well as curb management practices. 3.2 Review of How Streets Are Classified Traditional roadway functional classification is an ordering system that defines "the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a network." Functional classification, by most definitions, is mono -modal; it focuses on one type of traffic, in this case, motorized vehicles. Classification systems that are more relevant to settings like Fayetteville should include non-dri,,ring modes and non -travel uses of streets that allow for flexibility in street design. The Consultant will conduct a review of Fayetteville's existing circulation patterns, capacity (planning level), traffic volumes, and non -motorized usage to identify how these Factors align with the classification of existing streets. This information will guide recommended street typologies developed in Task 6, considering community-based criteria on circulation, environmental protection, neighborhood livability, land use, and other factors to provide additional context sensitivity. Doing so will help ensure that Fayetteville's streets are planned and designed to serve a variety of uses and not simply vehicular movement. 3.3 Review of Street Cross -Sections Based on information provided by the City, a close review of the City's Master Street Plan cross sections and field reconnaissance, the Consultant will develop a spatial map of the City's street widths with overlays of existing traffic volumes, land use, and density. This effort will feed into Task 3_2 above and help to develop Complete Streets typologies and design guidance in Task 6, where the Consultant will highlight areas that show Opportunities for repurposing of right-of-way and areas with constrained street width (areas, for instance, that can potentially be addressed by adding to the pedestrian realm through easements or during development projects). An important part of this subtask will be evaluating curb management practices throughout the city and especially in downtown where the Master Plan calls for changes to parking management practices. On -street parking can greatly impact the environment for motorists, bus drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians depending on where it is placed relative to street width, design speed, cross -streets, and adjacent land uses, The Consultant vvill identify where parking or its management conflicts with broader study goals and the implementation of complete streets. 3.4 Transit System Evaluation The Consultant will draw upon its established understanding of local transit systems to develop a cost-effective evaluation of City opportunities based on current and likely bus transit operations in Fayetteville, The Consultant already has a firm understanding of ridership patterns and service productivity from its work at the. University of Arkansas, including underlying system strengths and weaknesses and proposed routing changes. The Consultant will prepare evaluations of the context around transit stops and routes, including infrastructure assessments, amenities, walking environment, connectivity to land uses, etc. The analyses will use existing data as available, including service characteristics, ridership volumes and patterns, compatibility with other street functions, amenities, and other factors relevant to the creation of Complete Streets. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc, 12 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR 3.5 Level of Service and Multimodal Analysis Traditionally, motor vehicle Level of Service (MVLOS) standards have been focused solely on vehicle delay and travel time, and they may therefore have a detrimental effect on non -motorized users and on the implementation of Complete Streets. Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) has been adopted by some communities as a new performance standard. However, the high data requirements of MMLOS maybe limiting for some jurisdictions. As part of this task, the Consultant will provide an evaluation of how MMLOS can be applied in Fayetteville. The Consultant will then present its full recommendations on Level of Service standards or alternative performance metrics that should be adopted by the City of Fayetteville. To develop guidelines for street standards and typologies, the Consultant will then conduct the preferred analysis on as many streets in Fayetteville as the methodology allows within the approved budget. The methodology should be conducted by the City now and in the future as a way to prioritize future streets projects and project elements according to the final community-based criteria. The Consultant team will analyze no less than six major corridors, and at least 24 intersections (specific corridors to be determined in Task 1.2). 3.6 Geographic Information System Geodatabase Benefitting from existing in-house GIS data and skills, the Consultant will quickly develop a base geodatabase of the City's streets that will eventually contain recommended typologies and eventually be a City -maintained asset, incorporated into other planning initiatives in the future. The team will focus significant effort on compiling and reviewing multimodal transportation data. While all of the following elements may not be readily available for the expected budget, the Consultant will work with the City to incorporate as much static and field information as possible, including but not limited to: Sidewalk coverage: conditions ■ ADA deficiencies ■ Curb ramp locations: compliance status = Signalized intersections;:phasing & timing ■ Turning movement counts = AADT volumes ■ Crash locations ■ Transit stops, shelters, and routes ■ Recent boarding counts The Consultant will deliver this GIS database as early in the project as possible since it forms the basis for much analysis in later tasks, but the Consultant is expected to continue to add to it throughout, incorporating recommendations and results from performance measurement tools at later stages. 3.7 Fayetteville Mobility Facts Book The Consultant will produce a highly -accessible report on all above existing conditions that can be loaded to a project website and distributed as a complete package. This format is an alternative to the unwieldy and overwhelming technical existing conditions reports that are of little use to anyone but well-informed staff. The Fayetteville Mobility Facts Book would be a product of field study and review of existing conditions through data analysis, outreach, interviews and review of past planning efforts. The Facts Book will also provide a review of best practices from relevant peer communities. It will be designed with a graphic, internet- NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR ready focus, employing maps, illustrations, and photo imagery. The information it contains will serve as the content basis for much of the outreach program. It will be linked to existing data sources where possible. DELIVERABLES: City Policies and Ordinances Memo Street Classification Memo Street Widths Memo Level of Service and Multimodal Analysis Memo Transit Evaluation Memo GIS Geodatabase Fayetteville Mobility Facts Book Prior to outreach, the Consultant will consult the City for initial stakeholder contacts, possible mobile workshop and community meeting locations, and consistent graphics elements for outreach materials. The process described below represents the initial proposal for outreach, based on successful public outreach on other projects. These details and the actual meeting schedule will be refined based on input from the City, Steering Committee, and other key stakeholders. At all times the intent of the outreach will be to receive input from sometimes disengaged users and from all areas of the city, not just special interest groups and downtown areas. 4.1 Public Education Campaign and Outreach Materials The Consultant will develop a public education campaign and outreach materials to educate the community about planning for Complete Streets. Implementation of Complete Streets can be a significant paradigm shift for sonic residents, so educational materials will emphasize why it is important tobalance all modes of transportation and how this balance is achieved. This task and the materials will be developed and refined in close collaboration with City staff. 4.2 Mobile Workshops The core of the outreach strategy will utilize the "mobile workshop" concept, allowing integration with existing events, rather than creating a whole new outreach effort. The preferred format employs interactive maps, guides, and touchpad-based input tools stationed at a simple table with visible pop-up tent, all quickly packed into and out of a van. by being mobile, the team can ensure the outreach campaign receives input from sometimes disengaged users and from all areas of the city. The purpose of focusing on mobile workshops, rather than a static location, is to engage as diverse of a population as possible, including diverse geographies. The first two substantial public engagement efforts will be mobile: 1. Values Mobile Workshop serves as a welcome and public kickoff for the project. It will include a project overview and be focused on participant input on the goals and objectives for the project. During the workshops, participants will have hands-on exercises to prioritize values and highlight areas of opportunity and concern. 2. Concepts Mobile Workshop will be the forum where the Consultant presents preliminary concepts and alternatives for street and network typologies, cross-sections, and evaluation criteria. This workshop should be scheduled midway through the project. The mobile format will include both educational materials as well as provide opportunity for participant input. These mobile workshops assume 3-4 consultant staff with assistance from the City in up to ro locations total. The mobile workshop exercises will be replicated in online versions (Task 4.4) to maximize participation. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14 Transportation Mosier Plan City of Fayetteville, AR 4.3 Community Workshop A community workshop represents the major public involvement event necessary to review the draft Transportation Master Plan components and to share and solicit feedback from the public on draft plans. It could follow a charrette process, where the meetings for plan reviews, and much of the final production work, takes place in a compressed period — sometimes even a few days. It is recognized that Fayetteville citizens are familiar and comfortable with this format as evidenced by other recent planning initiatives. This Draft Plan Workshop will present the Draft Transportation Master Plan. Citizen input at this meeting is anticipated to be primarily public comment and map markup to confirm that the input provided at earlier meetings is incorporated into the document. 4.4 Community Survey Surveys reach community members who are unwilling or unable to attend workshops. The survey will include questions about vision and goals as well as specific items related to policy and street design. The survey is not intended to be a statistically significant and is instead fun, brief, and informative. It will be distributed in paper, by email, on social media, and via the City's website in a format to be finalized in coordination with the City. 4.5 Project Website and Social Media An effective project website will help fill in the gaps for those who cannot or who choose not to attend meetings and provide up-to-date study information while soliciting feedback in-between meetings. The project website provides a fast and simple way to keep up to date with the project. The website provides a single location for study announcements, updates, contact information, meeting results, and work products. Social media will supplement this by providing frequent updates and link users to the project website. DELIVERABLES: Workshop Notes Survey and Results Memo Project Website and Social Media Education and Outreach Materials NETWORKTASK 5 IDENTIFYING ► Building directly upon the existing conditions review of Task 3 and the public input developed during Task 4, the Consultant will work with City staff and potentially a Steering Committee to identify key areas of need in Fayetteville's streets (both topical and geographical). Key questions to be asked are: + Where must we improve street user safety? • Where should we work hardest to enhance the City's bicycle/pedestrian friendliness? ■ Where do barriers to transit, bicycling, and walking need to be overcome? + Where can we increase and incentivize multimodal opportunities? ■ Where are additional street linkages, intersection improvements (both capacity and safety), and other capacity improvements needed? As issues and likely opportunities are identified, the Consultant will also identify the tradeoffs they represent. For example, proposed improvements such as cycle tracks or rapid bus treatments would require that more roadway space be used for transit and bikes, with less for regular traffic. This road capacity trade-off may benefit congestion in general but directly affect a subset of drivers on targeted corridors. A major issue for this study will be how far the city is willing to accept these trade-offs to shift to alternative modes. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR 5.1 Street Opportunities Fayetteville's street system is its front door. Every building, plaza, and open space abuts a street, and most places are reliant on streets for direct access. The quality and condition of streets is, therefore, of paramount concern to most residents, whether they be a motorist, cyclist, walker, or transit rider. The Consultant will focus on locations where a mix of modes is not seen because the street is too threatening for any -thing besides cars or through buses, The Consultant will also identify clear system gaps, conflicts, pinch points, and other barriers to seamless and safe movement by all modes and illustrate these as a "gap analysis." Particular consideration will be given to policies that influence the demand for driving. Many communities have recognized that dramatic shifts to alternative modes of transportation are possible with the right set of public and private incentives, including: • Parking pricing/cash-out • Free rides home • Web -enabled ridesharing ■ Car -sharing • Bike -sharing • Flex -hours ■ Secure bicycle parking Vehicular congestion and safety analysis will be performed to identify needed improvements, through better signal timing, revised lane utilization, additional linkages, improvements to roadway geometry, construction of additional capacity, or other structural or non-structural improvements. 5.2 Transit Opportunities Transit improvements provide one of the best opportunities to shift very large number of travelers out of single -occupancy automobiles, allowing streets to transform. After the transit service evaluation, the Consultant will evaluate community-based options to address identified opportunities. These may include: • Sources of Operational Delay • Stop Consolidation to make transit service Faster ® Bus Stop and Area Improvements ■ Land Uses and Zoning 5.3 Bicycling Opportunities As it works with the City and Steering Committee to focus on preferred street typologies, the Consultant will work to identify biking improvements to resolve the gaps in the system identified by the Active Transportation Plan that can enhance bicycling. These may not only resolve facility gaps but intersection delays, needed lighting, conflicting vehicle movements, and information and wayfinding gaps. Some of the strategies that can further enhance Fayetteville's streets and intersections for bikers include: Bicycle boulevards ■ Cycle tracks • Median lanes Bike signals • Bike jug -handles ■ Bus -bike lanes NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR • Shared -use markings • Contra -flow lanes • Multi -use paths • Bike stations The Consultant will work with the City and committee to test these strategies and how they might fill gaps in Fayetteville by showing how best practice examples from around the country have been applied. 5.4 Pedestrian Opportunities Several pedestrian design principles should be maintained in Fayetteville, as described below. These will be assessed citywide during this task. • Connectivity ■ Safety ■ Accessibility ■ Traffic Engineering Elements ■ Landscaping and Aesthetics While the Consultant brings national experts at evaluating walking systems, it will rely heavily on the input of the public for finding the best opportunities. The Consultant will be clear about its approach to pedestrian design as part of Mutating the pnhlir; about the improvements that can happen in their neighborhoods. 5.5 Land Use and Urban Design Opportunities The demand for any form of transportation rests solely with the land uses that generate residential, commute, shopping, and tourist trips. The Transportation Master Plan must emphasize the types of land uses that support alternative modes in order to inform the upcoming City Plan 2030 process. Typically, multimodalism increases when following these basic land use principles, which will be explored with the City, Steering Committee, and other stakeholders: NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 17 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR ■ Creating a matching live -work mix locally ■ Providing a sufficient mix of affordable locally -serving retail ■ Increasing residential density ■ Promoting a horizontal and vertical mix of uses ■ Concentrating density near transit nodes ■ Limiting the geography for exclusive residential use ■ Integrating a minimum but restricted amount of open space 5.6 Livability and Economics The effect of the transportation costs is a principle factor in mode choice. For the average motorist, the perceived cost to drive is simply the cost of gasoline, and in most instances, this is less than the equivalent transit fare. However, this cost entirely ignores the tremendous amount of hidden subsidies for automobile travel such as insurance premiums, registration costs, taxes, and maintenance. More progressive cities have realized the true value of the land occupied by excess road and parking surface by reclaiming this space for infill development; thus reducing vehicle trips while offsetting growing budget deficits. The Consultant will work with the City, the Steering Committee, and the public to reveal the real economics of parking and transportation as part of identifying possible regulatory opportunities that will promote vehicle trip reduction in Fayetteville. In the downtown especially, this will be closely tied to a parking management strategy that addresses merchant and business perceptions about the need to preserve parking supply. 5.7 Sustainability and Carbon Emissions At the forefront of recent transportation debates has been the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on global climate change. Recent debate has minimized public fears somewhat, even though the scientific community is nearly unanimous in its conclusions about the ill-effects of tailpipe emissions on the planet. Other local impacts of GHGs include increased asthma rates along high-volume roadways, incidence of cancer pockets near Interstates, local smog effects, and water pollution from particulate runoff. Furthermore, the extra space needed to accommodate automobile travel and parking means greater building heating and cooling costs due to reduced density; increased remote pollution impacts from paving materials production; and greater fossil fuel consumption and utility distribution costs to serve auto -oriented land uses. The Consultant will work with the City and the Steering Committee to identify clear policy and infrastructure gaps that are contributing to adverse climate change. 5.8 Downtown and Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Study Focus area parking and mobility study scope and sub -tasks are included in detail at the end of Transportation Master Plan scope. DELIVERABLES: Streets Needs Memo Biking Needs Merno Walking Needs Memo NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 19 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Land Use and Urban Design Memo Livability and Economic Memo Sustainability and Carbon Emissions Memo 6.1 Development of a Street TypologylPrioritization The Consultant will work with City staff to identify "families" of streets based on accepted utilization, context, land use, and other measures. Building on the Master Street Plan Cross Sections, the Consultant will develop conceptual cross-sections for each family as well as conceptual plan views in areas where families intersect. Proposed solutions to better accommodate all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and motor vehicles) - as deemed appropriate based on the context of the street - will be shown for each family, including features such as curb -and -gutter, bulb -outs, medians, lane markings, parking space marks, crosswalks, driveways, sidewalks, bike lanes and other bike facilities, transit facilities, and streetscape features. 6.2 Establishment of Design Standards and Green Streets Network The Consultant snrill use the Task g existing conditinns analysis, street typology recommendations, and Task 5 needs analysis to develop a comprehensive design guideline manual that includes, but is not limited to, all improvements relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, street lighting, transit stops, on -street parking, utilities, landscaping and signage. This manual will recommend revisions to city codes, policies, standard drawings, design guidelines, and City signage, as reviewed in Task 3. The design guidelines are anticipated to include recommendations related to a range of factors such as lane widths for motor vehicles and bike lanes, pedestria n reahn (sidewalks and furniture zones), street trees and other landscaping, lighting (pedestrian -scale and roadway), intersection design details (corner radii, curb extensions, signal displays and timing, etc.), transit -supportive streetscape design, medians, islands, and pedestrian refuges, parking lane treatments, parking management practices, traffic calming and roundabouts. These design guidelines will include design modules and overlays for each of the street types that allow for the integration of design features associated with Low Impact Development in the "Green Streets Network," the downtown zone, or other identified focus areas. For instance, the incorporation of green streets features into an urban main street environment will require a different design approach froin that for a street lined by single-family residences. 6.3 Transit Service Improvements The Consultant will complete a series of recommended improvement plans for Razorback Transit and Ozark Regional Transit that work to meet the goals outlined in Task 2, is reflective of the needs collected in Task 5, relates to existing and new transit -oriented development areas, and complements the streets typology and design standards. Service improvements will be summarized according to normal measures used by the local providers, such as total service hours. Capital improvements such as shelters, benches, and other passenger amenities are expected to be incorporated as part of the street design standards. Recommended improvements also will include coordinated policies as they relate to parking pricing, demand management, transit -oriented development opportunities, other forms of transit (including transportation network providers), and transit information. While it is expected that the majority of NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 110 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR recommendations will be for the existing fixed route bus system, the Consultant will also provide high-level recommendation for demand -responsive service and future fixed -guideway plans (bus rapid transit, light rail, streetcar, etc.) 6.3 City Coordination Plan Implementing Complete Streets in Fayetteville will require notable changes to City policy, regulations, and governance. The Consultant will work closely with City staff to lay the groundwork for Departmental policy changes, re-evaluating roles, budgets and authority. The City Coordination Plan will be supported by performance criteria derived in Task 7. Change of this scale can be difficult and incremental, but the opportunity to rejuvenate City policies is tremendous given the potential and interest in pushing for growth and change in Fayetteville. DELIVERABLES: Street Typology/Prioritization Networks Green Streets Network Transit Services Improvements Streetscape Design Guidelines City Coordination Plan DRMANCE AND MEASUREMENT TOC for this task, the Consultant will develop a set of performance and measurement tools that can be used to evaluate the quality of City streets and impacts of future projects. Based directly on the goals and criteria developed in Task 2 as prioritized during public outreach (Task 4), the measures will be multimodal in nature and reflect community-based considerations of land use, health impacts, safety based on public input. While the accepted measures will be used to finalize the Master Plan, the tools that utilize these measures are intended to live on with City staff for future planning efforts. These tools may include: ■ Automobile Movement Compensator — Candidate road projects could be tested. Measures should acknowledge that throughput is not the same as delay (i.e. a skinny street or intersection can handle as much throughput as a wide road that is poorly managed, but the skinny street has safer speeds that may mean greater — but acceptable — delay). ■ Bicycle & Pedestrian Evaluation Tools — One of the most insightful and current evaluation criteria is from the League of American Bicyclists, which named Fayetteville as a bicycle friendly community in 2oio. The League's evaluation is goal -focused and contains dozens of performance measures that could he considered as part of a City evaluation tool. A GIS -integrated method for prioritizing sidewalk improvements should also be developed. ■ Transit Evaluation Tool — Leveraged by best practices across the country, this tool would evaluate system changes with simple quantitative criteria (peak passenger load, travel time factor, hours of service, etc.) and qualitative factors (comparison to other future transit service, land use plans, zoning, etc.). ■ Street Design Assessment —This tool would include assessments of sidewalk characteristics, location and quality of crosswalks, signing and protective measures, compensated spatially based on proximity to key land uses, such as schools, transit stations/stops, and activity centers. NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 111 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR ■ Health and Safety Evaluator — This tool would assess linkages between physical infrastructure and health by considering factors such as emissions, VMT, crash rates, vehicle speeds, sound impacts, and other variables. ■ Economic Evaluator —This tool would evaluate the potential economic benefits of a project and relate those to long-term municipal revenue growth, individual wealth creation, and more equitable allocation of costs and benefits. Any of the above tools can be supplemented, modified, and tailored to Fayetteville's needs, based on the prioritized goals and needs that are identified. All are intended to be part of regular planning activities and to be easily maintained by City staff for years to come. DELIVERABLES: Performance and Measurement Toolkit Evaluation of Recommended Projects 8.1 Draft Transportation Master Plan The Consultant will work with City staff to develop an outline of the report based on the findings from Tasks 2 through 5 and the recommendations of Task b. The Consultant will then assemble the Draft 'Transportation Master Plan and guide it through a review process involving City staff and the public. Based on the comments and feedback received, the Consultant will produce a final version and present it to City leadership. Following the evaluation of streets and improvement projects versus the performance and measurement tools during Task 7, public feedback will help to confirm that the right projects and typologies are rising to the top. During these sessions the Consultant will also begin to discuss funding constraints and opportunities to gain a sense of whether there are enough highly desirable projects to expand the pool of funding. Following the input received at the prioritization sessions, the Consultant will assemble the results into a final draft. The plan will include street standards, street typologies, possible capital projects, City policy recommendations, City policy positions regarding partner agency projects, and other elements described above. This includes recommendations on travel demand management, parking policy, traffic and bicycle system enforcement, community education, etc. The Consultant will recommend practical steps toward implementation, bringing experience from other communities that have had success with various programs and providing insight regarding the keys to their success. 9.2 Draft Implementation Strategy Successful plan implementation is the greatest challenge for any planner. With so much at stake for Fayetteville, the Transportation MasterPlan cannot run the risk of being an end point, regardless of how well-developed, documented, and implementable it might appear. While the Transportation Master Plan must have a forward -thinking vision that ensures it is only the beginning of a process, the Plan must be well-grounded in the realities that City staff, lawmakers, business -owners, and landowners must face every day. The Plan's Capital Plan will be accompanied by a real on-going Maintenance and Operations Cost Program that acknowledge the realities stakeholders will face once the Plan is complete. The implementation steps and timeline will be grounded in a sequence that is realistic, given time, budgets, and regulatory constraints. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 112 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Nonetheless, the Transportation Master Plan process should create the kind of motivation and support from all internal and external stakeholders necessary to keep implementation on track. The Implementation Strategy will include three components for each recommended initiative: a Capital Plan, a Maintenance and Operations Cost Program, and a Financial Plan. The Strategy also will identify the parties that will be responsible for implementation and funding. The Financial Plan will outline the costs associated with each individual project, as well as potential costs and strategies for long-term Citywide projects. For example, the Consultant will likely quantify the costs for the development of a completed citywide bicycle network, but that network would be implemented over a period of years. In this case, the Consultant would also propose annual funding levels that would allow the system to be developed over a set number of years. For each of these measures, the Consultant will also propose potential funding sources. This may mean becoming involved in community discussions on topics about revenue capture, such as tax increment financing, that relate to local funds. It will mean helping Fayetteville understand the latest Federal funding programs as well as State of Arkansas priorities. Once recommendations are prioritized, the Consultant will develop the Implementation Strategy that incorporates a Capital Plan, Maintenance and Operations Cost Program, and Financial Plan, and includes details such as the following elements: ■ Specific implementation steps for each recommendation ■ Thresholds or triggers to undertake actions - for example, public streetscape projects that will couple with privately constructed new network ■ Responsibilities for each action ■ The level of effort that will be required ■ Interrelationships between activities and agencies ■ Recommended travel demand management policies (both public and private) along with the potential for Transportation Management Association (TMA) structures. A Draft Implementation Strategy will be circulated to City staff and key stakeholders as established by the City. Comments will be solicited, and comments received will be reviewed with the City. Appropriate modifications will be made to the Draft Report. 9.3 Final Plan The Final Mater Plan will convey the recommended mobility policy, related strategies, and priority projects for the City of Fayetteville. The report will be detailed to include a work program broken down by year along with costs and schedules, as well as broad, including recommendations of policy and overall direction of multimodal mobility for the City. Detailed implementation and financial considerations may be in a separate document for City consumption, DELIVERABLES: Draft Plan Implementation & Financial Strategy Final Plan NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates, Inc. 113 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR 5.8 Downtown and Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Study Scope of Work TASK 5.8.1 EXISTING PARKING FACILITIES SUPPLY AND DEMAND A. Kick-off and Background Proiect Initiation Nelson\Nygaard can use the citywide Transportation Master Plan effort kick off meeting to begin the parking study effort. At the kick-off meeting, the Consultant 'nrill work to identify exact study area boundaries. Plan Review Nelson\Nygaard will work with City staff to identify and collect all relevant and available data, reports, and studies related to parking in Fayetteville, including but not limited to: ■ City studies and reports: downtown parking studies, economic development plans, Entertainment District studies, etc. Parbing data: digital files of liaiMng inventory and regulations data by block and by lot, as available ■ Parking management practices: enforcement practices, revenues and expenses, parking technology information, permit information, specialized parldng arrangements (i.e. event, employee, resident permit parking, etc.), parking signage location inventory and locations ■ Land use information: existing, proposed, and expected future land use information, including type and gross square footage for all buildings in the study areas ■ Regulations: zoning code, related City ordinances ■ Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files: a specific list of GIS shapefiles will be requested B. Parking Inventory and Utilization Parking Inventory Utilizing in-house Geographic Information Systems (GIS) skills and experience, the Consultant will build on existing parking inventory information provided by the City. The Consultant will work with the City to conduct a full field inventory to verify existing public on- and off-street data. The Consultant and the City will add to the public parking facility inventory by adding all privately owned parking facilities, excluding private driveways and lots fewer than five spaces. The Consultant will build a GIS shapefile and develop parking inventory maps that include the private and public on- and off-street facilities, including elements such as regulations, permits, enforcement period, special use restrictions, compliance with parking ordinances, and price (when applicable). All data will be collected by block face for on -street and by individual for off- street lots. All information will be geocoded and submitted to the City. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 114 Transportation Mosier Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Parking Utilization Nelson\Nygaard is well practiced at leading, conducting, and analyzing parking utilization data. More importantly, Nelson\Nygaard presents this data in a way that is easy for stakeholders and the public to understand how the parking system is being utilized, where the hotspots are, and places that are underused. This data is critical to reflecting back to Fayetteville stakeholders how parking actually functions. The Consultant will train City staff to conduct field surveys of parking accumulation and utilization for all identified publicly and privately owned parking lots and all on -street parking within the study area to identify the vacancy rates throughout typical days, including loading zones, bus stops, and other "live" areas. These surveys will establish the peak daily parking accumulation and daily utilization for the study area's parking. The Consultant agrees that adequate parking utilization data is a necessary component to building sound analysis and recommendations. It recommends focusing data collection efforts when public school and the University of Arkansas are in session, on non -holiday days. At minimum, the City (working with the Consultant) will conduct: • One (1) full weekday utilization counts, from 7am - gpirl (unless otherwise discussed), likely a Wednesday and/or Thursday • One (1) full weekend utilization counts, from yam - ilpm (unless otherwise discussed), on a Saturday If the City would like more sample utilization counts, the Consultant can conduct them on a time and materials basis (through an add-on task), or the Consultant will provide materials and train City interns or staff to conduct the counts. The Consultant will provide all data collection materials and training to City staff, the Consultant will be available in person if needed for the primary utilization count day. The Consultant will develop detailed maps of parking supply versus utilization for Fayetteville to identify patterns of use over time and space. C. Existing and Future Parking Demand Analysis Evaluation of the Existing Conditions Today's parking utilization rates and patterns will be analyzed to assess whether the existing supply meets current demand. The analysis will evaluate system -wide demand, as well as subgroups such as public parking lots, employee spaces, private lots, and on -street spaces. Data by user groups (visitors, employees, residents, commuters) will be tabulated to understand behaviors and trends among particular population subsets. Charts will be created to represent the dynamics of the supply and demand relationship across the day and throughout the study area, the different facility types, locations, including five minute walk radii, and user groups. Evaluation of Parking Expansion Needs A summary parking Excel model starts with data from the Parking GIS database, developed in Task 1.13 Parking Inventory and Utilization, in order to analyze the relationship between supply and demand in the entire study area, plus sub -areas as identified in coordination with the City. The Consultant will account for potential parking demand in the next three-, five-, and ten-year horizons as determined from: NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 115 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR ■ Existing and on-going development projects • Planned and anticipated projects ■ Residential and commercial population shifts ■ Residential and commercial demand ■ Vehicle and foot traffic patterns ■ Available parking distance from major destinations/trip attractors and venue locations ■ Transit service improvements, dedicated bicycle facility additions, and transportation demand management (TDM) programs This work stems from data collection efforts in Task r.B but takes the data one step further by relating it to surrounding land uses and adjusting national standards in order to determine if parking supply is sufficient. This analysis will lead the Consultant to incorporate projections on future parking supply and demand based on changes in land use (i.e. potential development, build out of underutilized sites) in the study area. More specifically, this task will analyze: ■ Existing land use in downtown Fayetteville ■ Future land use in downtown Fayetteville • Expected parking demand based on downtown land use relative to the Institute of Transportation Engineers and a Fayetteville parking generation rate • Observe parking demand relative to the Institute of Transportation Engineers and a Fayetteville parking generation rate ■ Shared use analysis (peaking by time of day) • Ratio between parking spaces and built square footage, existing and future ■ Scenario adjustments based on mode split and future planned uses Nelson\Nygaard has experience all over the country in developing Excel spreadsheet tools that can be easily adjusted based on new land uses, parking supply, and mode split. In similar studies, the Consultant has found that traditional parking projections overstate demand. Downtowns offer the opportunity to share parking spaces between various uses throughout times of the day and week, thereby reducing the total number of spaces required compared to the same uses in stand- alone developments. This is a primary benefit in mixed-use contexts. The Consultant will develop detailed projection scenarios of potential future demand, drawing upon parking demand in Task i.B, Urban Land Institute (ULI) methodologies, and the Fayetteville context. Existing land use and projections will be based on information provided from the City and other stakeholders in the study, plus potential development scenarios based on vacant sites, sites identified for redevelopment, and development permitted through existing zoning. D. Stakeholder and Public Participation Nelson\Nygaard understands that parking utilization data alone does not tell the whole story of the parking situation in town. Hearing from residents, employees, customers, visitors, commuters, and others on the day-to-day and seasonal parking issues helps to paint a more complete picture. As well as hearing first-hand why parking works in some parts of downtown and not work in others, what signage is confusing, or whether or not time limits impact behavior; substantially aids in determining how the downtown's parking functions for different users of the system. The Consultant will engage the users of Fayetteville's parking system via three primary Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 116 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR methods: stakeholder interviews, public workshop (followed by a public meeting in 'Task 3), and an online survey. Stakeholder Interviews To help inform the project, the Consultant will coordinate and conduct up to six (6) interviews and meetings with identified stakeholders. Stakeholders may include City of Fayetteville staff, downtown and Entertainment District merchants, small business owners, Chamber of Commerce, key property owners, employers, developers, neighborhood groups, and others. The City may decide to include individual interviews with specific interviewees or "key stakeholders" with input from the project Consultant, Public Workshops The Consultant will integrate parking study elements into the proposed Transportation Master Plan public outreach efforts. Online User Surve To gain a better understanding of the way parking is used in Fayetteville, the Consultant can create an online user survey accessible from the City's website, local newspapers, city email lists, and other sources, as identified by City staff. Information collected from surveys will be used to identify use patterns, perceptions of the parking system, and the potential willingness to accept changes. The goal is to get as many completed surveys as possible from a diverse set of users. These surveys will specifically address the following end-user issues for groups such as shoppers, diners, employees, commuters, residents, and tourists through questions including: ■ Demographic information ■ Parking location • Parking location preference • Parking turnover/length of stay ■ Reasons influencing location selection • Final destination ■ Purpose of visit ■ Perception of parking availability ■ Perception of parking costs & price sensitivity ■ Awareness of alternate parking locations • Use of alternate parking locations Conditions for use of alternate parking locations ■ Awareness of alternate mode options Deliverables Technical Memorandum #1: Parking Supply and Demand NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 117 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR A. Document Current Management Practices Parldro Management Nelson\Nygaard will work with City staff to identify and collect all relevant and available data, reports, and studies related to parking and relevant transportation programs in Fayetteville. The Consultant will work closely with City staff to identify and document: ■ Parking permit sales and pricing structure (historical and current) ■ Specialized parking arrangements (i.e., event, valet, resident permit parking, etc.) ■ ADA access ■ Equipment and technology ■ Enforcement and revenue collection, including staffing, responsibilities, routes and protocols, and schedules ■ Existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs • Planned transit service improvements • Planned pedestrian safety improvements ■ Expected new bicycle facilities, including dedicated lanes and parking ■ Planned vehicular traffic circulation improvements, including evaluation of one-way to two-way conversions ■ Parking violation fees and fines, including associated revenues and expenses by category • Parking -related zoning ordinance B. Document Supportive Elements that Impact Parking Management Many blocks in Fayetteville are wonderful places to walk, with many downtown destinations under a five-minute walls from each other. The City's recent development projects are expected to add to the sidewalk -level activity. However, challenges such as topography and proximity of major destinations can be a barrier to a "park once" effort. Every motorist becomes a pedestrian upon exiting the car. Thus, the Consultant will evaluate how a "parker" would access destinations from parking locations throughout the study areas on foot, based on both on -the -ground observation and national statistics. This will include the identification of specific barriers to walking such as distance, topography, incomplete or inadequate sidewalk networks, lengthy or dangerous intersection crossings, vehicular circulation barriers, land use mix, and more. Deliverables Technical Memorandum #2: Current Management Structure A. Initial Parking Management Strategies Based on Task 1 and Task 2 findings, Nelson\Nygaard will develop a suite of parking management alternatives that will be evaluated and vetted with the City. Parking management strategies NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 118 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR include supply-side options (additional off-street parking, shared parking, striping efficiencies, etc.), demand-side options (pricing adjustments, wayfinding/signage, real-time parldng information, time limit adjustments, transportation demand management strategies, etc.), and administration & customer service (permit programs, policy strategies, management structure, etc.). The Downtown and Entertainment District will be evaluated as separate districts, but the strategies developed will either apply to both or be modified appropriately for each context. The plan could consider strategies including: ■ Pricing strategies: appropriate on -street and off-street pricing, event or evening pricing, leasing of private spaces (shared parking), graduated parking rates, etc. ■ Parking regulatory strategies: appropriate parking time limits, shared parking, parking benefit districts, etc. ■ Parking technologies: use of smart parking meters, kiosks, pay by cell technology, electronic permits, etc. ■ Parking permit programs: employee permits and residential parking stickers/permits ■ Supportive parking strategies: regulatory or information signage, information distribution, bike and pedestrian access, transit improvements, transportation demand management (TDM), enforcement practices, curb management, etc. ■ Parking information program: wayfinding signage, directional signage, regulatory signage, permit information, online visitor information, major destination/special event parking practices, etc._ ■ Optimization of existing supply and additional supply: structured parking, shared parking of private lots, reconfiguration of public lots, etc:. B. Public Input to Refine Initial Parking Management Strategies The Consultant will use the Transportation Master Plan's outreach process to vet initial recommendations. This process is critical to refine ideas and strategies with everyday system users. The recommendations will be presented as a draft set of ideas, open to public input. The input will be incorporated as appropriate, and used to create a preferred parking management plan. The Consultant will first present draft options to the City for review and will incorporate comments/input into the strategy options. The revised set of strategies will then be presented to key stakeholders, such as the merchant/downtown business community, likely in a morning meeting, and then to the general public as part of the Transportation Master Plan. C. Draft and Final Parking Management Strategies and System Design Draft Parking Plan Based on a single set of consolidated non -conflicting comments, the Consultant will refine the draft strategies into a draft Parking Management Plan that includes summaries of all work from Tasks 1, 2, and g. The plan will include: ■ Study process ■ Key findings NelsonkNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 119 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR ■ Appropriate maps, charts, and diagrams • Case studies from comparable communities and national best practices ■ Strategies/recommendations that are focused on sound parking management principles to support downtown vitality ■ Timeframe for immediate, short- and long-term actions r Planning -level capital cost estimates, where applicable ■ A planning -level pro forma with expected revenue and expenses, based on recommendations The budget assumes a draft will be submitted for one (1) round of revisions before moving on to creating a final document. Final Parking Plan The final report, along with all maps, graphics, presentation materials, and other materials will be submitted to the City as raw electronic files and PDF formats. In addition to a series of technical memorandums, presentations, and an electronic final report, the deliverables will also include all parking data collected in ArcGIS format, HTML text, graphics for the City's website, and electronic copies of presentation and meeting materials. Final Presentations The Consultant will present the final plan to the core City team and the City government (Mayor and City Councilors) as part of the Transportation Master Plan. Deliverables Draft and Final Reports NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 120 CA IN I L LU _1_ I IL - --------- _1 I r FT 11 - AL 7 i_7 CA Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR FEE SUMMARY NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 122 PM/QA/QC LABORTASK $9,720 DIRECT $9,720 Project Initiation $11,080 $3,375 $14,455 Vision, Goals and Objectives $5,890 $0 $5,890 Existing Conditions $78,282 $0 $78,282 Ongoing Public Participation $53,932 $21,700 $75,632 Identifying Network Needs $84,942 $0 $84,942 Streets Plan $95,412 $0 $95,412 Performance Measurement Tools $49,818 $0 $49,818 yFinal Plan $74,052 $1,775 $75,827 Parking and Mobility $93,770 $1,230 $95,000 TOTAL $556,898 $28,080 $584,978 NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 122 31 1 -Y g 1T !" U5, uY Aia t2 g 1T � C q, 4 W V) c Of ° N cq 0 � o a 0 [� T- J p 74 �" co o co 41 SA 1, Q c A7 In m 4L to to t aE O7 N O 1 S[� U ❑ o n Ew C'1 ai Au n o© a 0 o a- V U) Fes- FO- Q.. ~ 0 OO W, C 4 c u) IW Obi Z C> O N C dj O Q C. O j Y r cp m iQp., � N IlL hl O - Q Q _ C 0 0 o n n d o 0 0 0 vi CD v) C7 v> a w in ri us c> tA o M e> w Nc QJ N O It H .. o u N A a o yr N Q C R to N C 7 7 oo p N cu :m O °� w Z � (U ro u ❑ m 7 a• U v m O C! L : � Lc. o rx o � E E —> m z ro r s to o LL t t a Y— N 3 U O y arn mto c r ° N m c Q U u. N ro E R c o O a � c *' o. o a s w3 n s 2 m c 3 �? Z e w lu m N L y vl CL cL Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION CHART The proposed staffing for this project is described in the organization chart below. Core team member's cameos are included right after. Detailed resumes for each member of the team are provided in Appendix A. Rabe Sent Tnfr�c Lend NsCaanVJygraed . lain Banks 'W k P lana er !hr mW)Vma KEY PERSONNEL Qoorfslatur Elms] [In van HengeI TmnsrtLaad MalUrnadALead l'fmiwnlNygMnrd Nr[aonLHypaoN Sans Palchlk Ezra Rlmrs•Rath TrwrtxrtPlannior MulllmodMPlan ner A4iranl,N}gaard, N�tanWyyuvrci ISIIIk King Ronpeule wwlklrrgLead EnJrnMJngWad �yeharilpA/flnnn7 Gwra' 104,Mann PiMcdTlner WVlf11ngPlanner EngTooving svhur.r.urraul Crwvr tratrwebf3 EngtnranNng Paul Moore, Principal, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Principal -In -Charge I Paul Moore oversees and manages major urban design, land use and transportation planning, and engineering projects. He has over 25 years of experience in developing major transportation and transit planning projects, small area planning and redevelopment studies, traffic engineering and �. design manuals and studies, and livable transportation solutions. He has national experience with clients including Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, Memphis, Albuquerque, and Omaha, NE, among many others. Paul specializes in working with communities who want to use transportation spending as a tool to make broad community improvements. Paul has spoken at and led workshops with communities focused on transportation and its broad impacts for the ULI Rose Fellowship (Oakland, CA), Quebec Ministry of Health, University of Southern California, Georgia Tech Healthy Places Research Group, Texas Christian University, Toronto Strategy Institute, and the Meeting of the Minds conference (Portland). NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates; Inc. 116 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Jason Schrieber, Principal, NelsonlNygaard j Role: Project Manager Jason leads Nelso0ygaard's Boston multimodal practice and represents an ideal mix of progressive transportation planning knowledge, design development, and installation oversight that he has been able to channel into wide-ranging design processes for public and private clients. With almost 20 years of private and public sector experience, Jason provides multimodal planning and design skills with a unique understanding of municipal needs, private development priorities, and community concerns. Before joining NelsonlNygaard, Jason managed transportation planning at the City of k Cambridge's traffic department, permitting more than 12 million square feet of new development, including: the five million square foot North Point TOD; the three million square foot Cambridge Research Park; and the two million square foot Discovery Park. Importantly, Jason's broad transportation planning background has made him an expert at seeking a balance between all modes and developing the supportive arguments for reducing automobile dependence. He employs this knowledge both as an expert facilitator as well as an analyst and writer. Lisa Jacobson, Sr. Associate, NelsonlNygaard % Role: Deputy Project Manager Ar Lisa brings transportation planning experience in the public, private, and non-profit sectors. She focuses frequently on multimodal transportation studies, which encompass best practices for integrating flows among pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and transit. She has strong spatial, analytical, r and quantitative skills that will contribute to the success of this project. Lisa has recently been leading university campus transportation plans where she has excelled at managing complex on -campus and town -gown outreach processes by incorporating innovative yet simple and efficient outreach methods that have hernme PxamplPs for many of NelsonlNygaard's projects elsewhere. Before joining NelsonlNygaard, Lisa was a fellow with the National Complete Streets Coalition, where she worked on federal, state, and local policies. Zabe Bent, Principal, NelsonlNygaard j Role: Traffic Lead Zabe has over 12 years of experience in transportation planning and urban development, with a focus on transit service planning, complete streets and urban design, and policy design and development. ` During her recent tenure in the public sector, she shepherded a range of complex feasibility studies, from congestion pricing in San Francisco to BRT on high-volume, multimodal, constrained corridors. These include feasibility study and environmental clearance efforts for BRT on Geary Blvd, as well as conceptual design for Geneva BRT, which traverses three cities and two counties. She also led San Francisco's update to the long-range transportation plan and various neighborhood plans geared at near-term improvements to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Zabe finds innovative ways to devise and communicate the features of projects and initiatives, critical project tradeoffs, and ultimately the solutions necessary to advance the effort to the next stage of implementation. Her portfolio includes strong coordination with local stakeholders and agency partners, local and regional transit agencies and MPOs, and federal agencies such as Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as well as public outreach to diverse, often multilingual communities. Iain Banks, PTP, Sr. Associate, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Traffic Planner Iain Banks, who will lead the transportation and mobility study, is a personal transportation and parking specialist with 14 years of experience, in both the private and public sector. His projects have included city-wide bicycle master plans, parking management programs, transit development plans, ...�- capital improvement programs, community planning and transit operations. Most recently in the City of Annapolis, Maryland, lain was the lead in the City's Mobility program focusing on the interrelationships between transit operations, off-street and on -street parking resources and non -automobile facilities. This program successfully implemented a circulator bus service connecting the downtown parking garages, increasing transit ridership and garage occupancy while decreasing on -street parking demand in the local residential communities. Iain is also an expert in transit oriented development and transportation demand management plans, having completed numerous projects for the Maryland State Highway Administration, the District of Columbia, and Prince George's County, MD. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 117 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Geoff Slater, Principal, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Transit Lead Geoff is a co -lead of NelsonlNygaard's transit practice and one of NelsonlNygaard's most experienced and successful project managers and transit practitioners, playing a lead or leading role in many of the firm's most transformative and successful transit service design projects. Geoff brings more than 30 years of experience in the transit industry to NelsonlNygaard. He has held senior management F)/wpositions, '�`for government agencies and is well -versed in the day-to-day as well as long-range �i expectations for transit operators and regional planning agencies. Among his prominent recent projects are the restructuring of Port Authority transit service and Pittsburgh and a restructuring of KCATA service in Kansas City. The Port Authority project entailed one of the most comprehensive transit restructuring projects ever in the United States, while the Kansas City project, while less extensive, produced meaningful improvements throughout the system to make service better for existing riders and attract new riders at lower cost. Geoff also developed one of the country's first BRT lines (Boston's Silver Line) and brings international experience from redesigning commuter rail service throughout post -apartheid South Africa. Prior to his work in the private sector, Geoff served as Director of Planning for the MBTA, the fifth largest transit agency in the United States. In that role, he was responsible for all MBTA planning activities, including strategic planning, service planning, operations planning, and scheduling. Boris Palchik, Sr. Associate, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Transit Planner Boris is an experienced transit planner with more than 15 years in the public transportation industry. ( He has developed service plans for large and small transit systems, both as a consultant and as a staff planner for several transit agencies. Boris has worked extensively in communities that host major t institutions, such as universities and military installations, and has designed transit services that improve ridership and system productivity while addressing the sometimes competing needs of various stakeholder and rider groups. At NelsonlNygaard, Boris has led several comprehensive ' service analysis and service design projects including serving as Project Manager for recent transit studies in Rock Hill, SC; Hartford, CT; Wichita, KS; Bloomington -Normal, IL, and Pensacola, FL. He also has experience in scheduling, run -cutting, and Google Transit implementation projects. Prior to joining NelsonlNygaard, Boris held senior planning positions at Denton County (TX) Transportation Authority (DCTA) and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). Drusilla van Hengel, PhD, Principal, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Biking Lead F, . . ti Drusilla will serve as principal -in -charge for this effort. Dru has over 20 years of transportation planning and operations experience, including 10 years of research. She focuses on bicycle and Ok pedestrian master planning and project development, project evaluation, healthy communities, and safe routes to schools and parks. Her academic background and public sector work in land development, traffic operations, and community planning provide a unique perspective and rich depth of experience that has benefitted clients from Chicago to rural eastern Washington. While working for the City of Santa Barbara, Dru's efforts doubled the number of bike lanes, initiated the Safe Routes to School Program, and earned the City both Walk Friendly and Bicycle Friendly Community Status. Ezra Pincus -Roth, Associate, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Biking Planner Ezra has more than seven years experience working in municipal policy and urban planning. His expertise is rooted in interpreting government accessibility standards and transit -oriented planning r practices. His experience in transportation planning, including the assessment of bus stop compliance 4 with ADA guidelines for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, a comprehensive review of Bay Area station area plans and EIRs, and mobility management studies for state and county governments. While a management and budget analyst with the City of New York's Parks Department, Ezra monitored agency compliance with ADA standards and City ordinances across all public facilities and parklands. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 118 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Michael King, RA, Principal, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Walking Lead l't Michael has more than 20 years of experience helping transportation agencies prioritize investments to meet long-term community goals for livability, mobility, access, safety, and economic development. He served as project manager for the Lake Tahoe Basin's Regional Transportation Plan, which programmed transportation investments over a 20 -year timeframe. His previous work for the City of San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency, Vancouver TransLink, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) included developing performance measures and assessing return on investment from alternative scenarios. He is currently managing a study for BART that will account for the need for major investments in state of good repair and new capacity, model the consequences of failing to make these investments, and lay out the District's case to regional stakeholders for a new revenue measure. He is also contributing to a regional transit fare equity study now underway for the San Francisco Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Joel Mann, AICP, Sr. Associate, NelsonlNygaard I Role: Walking Planner Joel is a planner with 10 years of experience in transportation planning and transportation -focused contributions to development codes, comprehensive plans, and community master plans. Joel's career pursuits have grown from an intersection of personal passions and commitments, including bicycle and pedestrian mobility, streets as vital urban public spaces, and use of public resources to provide the best possible returns for citizens and their quality of life. He has had extensive experience in plans that feature changes to streets as cornerstone elements of placemaking and quality of life, such as road diets, one-way to two-way conversions, and strategic improvements to key intersections along corridors. He understands the dynamics of traffic and street design within the context of community needs and is skilled at explaining the technical elements of transportation decision-making in accessible language that increases community awareness and builds trust in project recommendations. Ron Petrie, PE, Project Manager, Garver I Role: Engineering Lead r: Ron is a senior project manager with 24 years of engineering experience. His responsibilities include managing the local government transportation team, which involves team member management, f `v project quality control, and client representation at public meetings. His previous experience includes serving as the City of Fayetteville's City Engineer, managing a staff of 22 employees with an operating budget of $1.2 million and an average yearly capital improvement budget of $10.2 million for transportation, drainage, and water and sewer infrastructure improvements. His responsibilities included representing engineering issues at the council, street committee, and water and sewer committee meetings as well as to the public and local media. Nicci Tiner, PIE, PTOE, Senior Project Manager, Garver I Role: Engineering rn�1 Nicci is a senior project manager who is responsible for managing Garver's Traffic Team. She has 26 years of engineering experience. Her project experience includes traffic signal design; planning �* studies to determine existing and future needs for cities and to prioritize improvement projects for short-, mid-, and long-term; traffic studies that include intersection analysis, weave capacity, trip generation, interchange justification analysis, and signal warrant analysis; and maintenance of traffic plans for bridge, interstate, highway, and urban street construction. Jeff Webb, PE, Transportation Engineer, Garver I Role: Engineering Jeff Webb is a transportation engineer with 15 years of engineering experience Jeffs responsibilities include project design, coordination, review, cost estimation, and oversight. His project experience includes new and reconstructed roadway, drainage, site, airport, water, and wastewater design. "r Jeff has served as interim city engineer and staff engineer for cities in Arkansas and Texas and has worked on major projects involving numerous city street and drainage improvements. Jeff also leads a AL team that manages Garver's CAD standards, including development and implementation of best practices and new procedures to automate or improve work flows. Jeff is also responsible company -wide maintenance and implementation of Newforma, a software -based project management tool. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 119 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR SPECIALIZED AND PAST EXPERIENCE NELSON\NYGAARD GoBOSTON 2030 2014 -ONGOING Client. Boston Transportation Department— Boston, VIA Contact: Vineet Gupta, Director of Policy and Planning, 617-635-2756, vineet.gupta@cityofboston,gov Boston is a world class city, an old city, and in many ways, an adolescent city. r. , The Boston region is home to some of the most innovative brains in technology that have ever lived; Facebook, Bridj, and Zipcar were all born here. And yet the city struggles to manage the narrow, winding streets of its medieval stronghold. f The city faces a number of challenges: How can it marry new technologies with old infrastructure to maintain the mobility demanded by all? How can the city build a bold future, when climate change may knock it all down? How can a city }, known for working class neighborhoods and Ivy League alumni continue to provide a place, and opportunities for all? What role can transportation play in the future? These are among the many questions at the heart of the GoBoston 2030 initiative. A planning process like none other in the history of Boston, GoBoston is a grassroots up, sky-high down planning initiative. The plan builds from ideas generated in Boston's most innovative and inclusive public engagement strategy — the "question campaign," which created direct input from over 5,000 unique members of the Boston region who broadened planners' perspectives, established new City goals, and challenged political leadership in new ways. By focusing on the values of the traveling public rather than the capacity of known infrastructure, Go Boston 2030 is charting a new course for engaging the mobility revolution. Supported by an unrivaled database of trips across all modes, including shared cars and shared bikes, cross -tabulated with detailed demographic sets from the Dukakis Institute, Nelson\Nygaard is not only documenting Boston's mobility in cutting-edge ways, we are inserting community-based values directly into the mobility networks of the future. In this manner, NelsonlNygaard can model how the technological "disruptors" that will change how transportation is planned, accessed and delivered will affect the region in the near term (five years) and in the next generation (15 years). NelsonlNygaard is serving as the lead planners for Go Boston 2030, working through close collaboration with concurrent processes that crafted public engagement and digested amazing quantities of "big data" to inform both current patterns and future conditions. GoBoston is, at present, a work in progress. It is, however, one of the visionary planning efforts that ask the right questions to ensure that we are investing in ways that solve the problems of tomorrow rather than outmoded approaches to address the issues of today. CONNECT COLUMBUS _ 2014 -ONGOING Client: City of Columbus — Columbus, OH Contact: Patti Austin, City Planning & Operations Administrator, 614-645-3111, PAAustin@columbus.gov Columbus is among one of the nation's largest and fastest growing cities. However, despite its status in terms of population size and continued growth, Columbus remains the largest city in the U.S, without any form of rail y transportation. Driving remains one of the most convenient and attractive forms of transportation for commuters. With approximately four out of every five Columbusites, driving commuters have the advantage of a relatively short commute time and an abundance of low-cost parking options. ti Columbus continues to offer a rapid auto commute, but few other options for getting around compared to peer cities. The City has recognized the need to i modernize their transportation system and approach in investing in multimodal transportation options to support desire growth and economic activity. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 120 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR NelsonlNygaard is leading a team to develop a vision for the future of transportation in Columbus that will build on these efforts and create a cohesive investment strategy to guide the city forward. The plan, entitled Connect Columbus, is a bold and strategic endeavor to recapture and envision the mobility desires and needs of the City while enhancing equitable, healthy, and sustainable transportation access between the places where people live, work, and play. This process has been grounded in participatory community events and workshops that are meant to catch attention, raise awareness, and even meet the community where they are. These events have included a series of week-long, charrette workshops that are open to the public, as well as a number of mobile workshops intended to reach broader and non-traditional public meeting audiences. Although scope of this project is broad and community and stakeholder driven, the final plan will produce a series of policies, guidelines, and plans that help define, prioritize, and guide Columbus to implementing realistic goals and projects. Final deliverables from this plan will include a Columbus transportation factbook, Complete Street design guidelines, street typologies and classifications, and a multimodal transportation system plan. The NelsonlNygaard team is currently wrapping up the last of the weeklong workshops and is in the process of collecting potential project candidates and creating evaluation metrics from which to evaluate the projects during the fall of 2015. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2014 -ONGOING Client: University of Arkansas — Fayetteville, AR Contact: Jill Anthes, Campus Planner 479-575-3371, janthes@uark.edu With current enrollment at over 26,000 students, representing 32 percent growth since " �< 2008, and the population of Fayetteville increasing by over a quarter over the last decade, the University of Arkansas knew its traditional approaches to transportation were failing. New garages were not satisfying complaints from the campus population, remote parking was overwhelming key transit stops, and scooters became the noisy _ solution to difficult intersections and narrow sidewalks. The University hiredzf f� �sxy, NelsonlNygaard to redefine solutions with a user -first approach, rather than an infrastructure -first approach_ '. Rather than just counting vehicles and pedestrians, NelsonlNygaard designed a broad outreach program to understand why affiliates were avoiding the bus, upset about abundant parking, and finding more conflict than benefit from bicycling. A campus wide survey received over 5,000 responses, and a three-day publicized workshop brought in a wealth of inputs and details, including unnoticed daily travel needs and locations where improvements were needed. The survey helped identify that student and faculty/staff populations desired greater price flexibility to respect their need to park in different campus locations depending on each day's schedule, allowing NelsonlNygaard to devise a tiered pricing system. A review of bus rider needs led to an updated transit system design that re -oriented bus service around providing more direct service to'campus, minimizing travel time, and interlining service to maximize efficiencies, Finally, affiliates expressed the need to make walking and biking safer and easier. The team proposed several campus gateway design interventions to both keep cars moving and prioritize crossings from campus to adjacent neighborhoods. Using NelsonlNygaard's parking and transportation demand management model, the University is currently weighing the impact of recommended programmatic and infrastructure improvements on revenues and mode shift. DOWNTOWN ROCHESTER MOBILITY PLAN 2009-2010 Client: City of Rochester— Rochester, MN Contact: Richard Freese, P.E., Public Works Director! Traffic Engineer, 507-328-2400, rfreese@rochestermn.gov In coordination with a major Land Use Master Plan process, managed by Sasaki Architects, NelsonlNygaard developed mode split targets set to ensure downtown can row gracefully while accommodating almost twice the volume of peak hour travel. The r 9 9 Y g ,, j accomplishment of these goals will lead to the reduction of over 20 full blocks of surface. parking or four to five full block parking structures. NelsonlNygaard first created a series �_, " .. of fact sheets that offered residents and stakeholders an easy way to understand commuting patterns, parking management, the bicycle and pedestrian environment, and existing transit operations. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 121 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Shaped by community input, the Mobility Plan is guided by principles of sustainability, active and healthy transportation, and international economic competitiveness. We created a typology for downtown streets, ensuring that the character and function of each street is balanced to provide safe and reliable access for all modes. We developed a parking and TDM element and a bike network plan. Responding to Rochester's future rail aspirations, the plan also identifies potential corridors for bringing streetcar and light rail into downtown. As a result of Nelson\Nygaard's work on the Mobility Master Plan, the City was awarded the Walk Friendly Communities Bronze -level achievement. The award specifically notes the Pedestrian Action Plan, use and continual update of the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index tool, and the implementation of leading pedestrian intervals in the CBD (as recommended by Nelson\Nygaard) as reasons for their designation. CHICAGO COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDELINES 2011-2012 Client: Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago in Chicago Children — Chicago, IL Contact: Luann Hamilton, Deputy Commissioner, 312-744-1987, Luann.Hamillon@cityofchicago.org Chicago is the first large city in the nation to decisively place { ;� ° ^• pedestrians in its street design hierarch while also providing safe ''"-- p 9 Y P 9 access for bicyclists, transit users, and automobiles. In 2013, the �, ]• f;'° Chicago Department of Transportation released Complete Streets s Chicago, led by Nelson\Nygaard, t The Chicago DOT and the Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children contracted Nelson\Nygaard to develop policies and processes that will deliver complete streets that will cater to all users. The project included a series of stakeholder interviews, inter -agency workshops and discussions, policy directives, working groups, and training sessions. This process ensured that key processes and elements of the project would be internally championed by Chicago DOT staff, to ensure that complete streets indeed would be implemented within the City. The final design guidelines includes a variety of critical street design elements including project development process, level of service standards, design vehicle, speed limits, turns on red, street and building typology, legal status, and crash mapping. "We all want better, safer streets," says Chicago DOT Commissioner Gabe Klein. "This effort will bring the City closer to this goal." LONG RANGE MULTIMODAL PLAN 2012 -ONGOING Client: Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago in Chicago Children — Chicago, IL Contact Luann Hamilton, Deputy Commissioner, 312-744-1987, Luann.Hamilton@cityofchicago.org moveDC is Washington DC's Long Range Transportation Plan to determine modes, projects, and policies for every street within the city for the next 30 years. The Plan will set the long-term vision and implementation actions as DDOT continues to build a world class, sustainable transportation system in a growing and evolving city. In a addition to important regional connections, the entire transportation network of the District of Columbia will be considered during the moveDC plan. Each mode of transportation will be evaluated and considered as a part of the development of the AW, multimodal transportation plan, in order to accommodate significant projected growth in population and employment without negatively impacting residents', employees', and visitors' ability to travel around the city and best meet Washington DC's goals of livability, environmental sustainability, and economic competitiveness. NelsonlNygaard is leading the pedestrian, bicycle, transit, parking, and Transportation Demand Management elements of the plan, as well as authoring the plan's policy guide. The moveDC draft plan was recently released for public review and can be reviewed at www wemovedc.org. NelsonWygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 122 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MOBILITY AND PARKING STUDY 2008-2009 Client: Downtown Development District (DDD) — New Orleans, LA Contact: Henry R. Charlot, Jr., 504-561-8927, HCharlot@neworleansdowntown.com In March 2008, the Downtown Development District (DDD) hired NelsonlNygaard to lead a team of consultants to prepare a Mobility and Parking Plan for the French Quarter, CBD, Warehouse District, and Marigny Triangle neighborhoods,. The plan included sections on mobility policies, site/intersection improvements, and transportation demand management Strategies. NelsonlNygaard led the mobility element of the study, with a focus on developing a sustainable, multimodal, "Park Once" approach that would both enhance the pedestrian experience and reduce parking demand pressure within these destination -rich, historic districts. Walker Parking Consultants led the parking element of the plan. NelsonlNygaard began the mobility review by walking the study area extensively, first with stakeholders and then in survey teams, to identify underperforming components of key mobility networks. Common constraints identified included: poor sidewalk design and upkeep; poor crosswalk design, alignment, and signal support; lack of visual and physical riverfront connections; under -investment in transit stop facilities and placement; and significant bicycle network gaps. Participants in the field surveys identified assets and opportunities to address existing constraints. The assets formed the basis for NelsonlNygaard's recommended policies to be applied throughout the study area, including: incorporation of existing neutral grounds (medians) to improve crossings; shortening crossings and calming traffic through curb realignments and re -timing signals; encouraging private investment in sidewalk design and maintenance; providing public valet parking and a parking shuttle to shift demand to under-utilized facilities; improved transit connections; and enhanced wayfinding investments to emphasize transit, walking, and cycling opportunities across the study area. To emphasize the interconnectedness inherent in many of these strategies, NelsonlNygaard identified a series of eight transformative, site-specific improvement plans at key multimodal nodes in the study area. GARVER CATO SPRINGS ROAD 2006.2013 Client: City of Fayetteville — Fayetteville, AR Contact: Chris Brown, PE, City Engineer. (479) 575-8207, cbrown@fayetteville-ar.gov Garver performed traffic studies, design and property surveys, conceptual design, and final design services to improve Cato Springs Road from School Avenue to Razorback Road. The street was reconstructed and widened, including curb and gutter and drainage improvements. The typical section is two lanes (with three lanes at appropriate intersections) with curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides with variable green space. Garver also provided engineering services to relocate water and sewer facilities along Cato Springs Road. The water relocations included 5,500 linear feet of primarily 8 -inch water lines, and the sanitary sewer relocations included 200 linear feet of 8 -inch gravity sewer lines. Environmental studies consistent with NEPA were included and required completing a Tier III Categorical Exclusion (environmental documentation). This work entailed conducting a stream/wetland delineation; coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding threatened or endangered species, the State Historic Preservation Office regarding cultural resources, and USACE regarding impacts to waters of the United States; and addressing pertinent information related to floodplains, noise levels, hazardous waste, prime farmland, water quality, and other potential impacts associated with the project. USACE coordination involved obtaining a jurisdictional determination of "waters of the U.S." and obtaining a Section 404 Nationwide Permit regarding impacts to waters of the United States. MOUNT COMFORT ROAD 2006.2011 Client: City of Fayetteville — Fayetteville, AR Contact: Chris Brown, PE, City Engineer, 479-575-8207, cbrown@fayetteville-ar.gov Mount Comfort Road, a minor arterial street, was widened for 1.5 miles to improve the link between rapidly developing residential areas and 1-49 and to provide better service to two public schools located off Mount Comfort Road. Garver provided professional engineering services to study and design improvements to Mount Comfort Road from 1-49 to Rupple NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 123 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR Road, approximately 8,000 linear feet; relocate and replace Shiloh Drive with new street construction, approximately 2,600 linear feet; and widen the AHTD ramp, approximately 600 linear feet. Garver's services included a traffic study, three alternate schematic designs for public involvement meetings, complete design, permitting, bidding, and construction -phase administration. Garver's role also included coordination with the City, the public, and AHTD. The two-lane road without curb and gutter was expanded to four lanes, and the project incorporated sidewalks, bike lanes, drainage upgrades, turning lanes, and intersection realignments. Improvements also included new traffic control signals at four intersections, off-site drainage improvements, and extensive water and sanitary sewer relocations. The water relocations included 4,400 linear feet of primarily 12 -inch water lines, and the sanitary sewer relocations included 5,600 linear feet of primarily 8 -inch gravity sewer lines. An essential element in helping traffic flow better involved improving Mount Comfort Road's connection with 1-49, which meant redesigning the way multiple legs of traffic interact. This required widening an 1-49 off -ramp, relocating the frontage road to provide additional separation with the 1-49 ramps, and moving Deane Solomon Road to interact with a secondary street. During the construction phase, Garver initiated steps to recycle and reuse waste material to save the City money and resources. Garver's Construction Administration and Observation Team worked with the Contractor to recycle the milled asphalt and reuse excavated material as fill for a future street project adjacent to the site. This included utilizing approximately 5,000 cubic yards of excavated soil in collaboration with plans to extend connecting Rupple Road. In addition, a field change during construction added five -foot -wide bike lanes on each side of the road for a mile. The bike lane connects with trails in the City of Fayetteville's trails system. FRISCO MULTI -USE TRAIN 2012-2013 Client: City of Fayetteville — Fayetteville, AR Contact: Chris Brow, PE, City Engineer. 479-575-8207, cbrown@fayetteville-ar.gov Garver provided surveying, design, property acquisition documents, bidding, and construction -phase services for the Frisco Trail. Improvements included extending the Frisco Trail from Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to the trail located in Walker Park, including 0.5 miles of a 12 -foot -wide trail with lighting, a 120 -foot tunnel under Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, two prefabricated bridges, and a pedestrian hybrid beacon crossing at Highway 71 B. During the planning phase, Garver evaluated several alternative trail alignments with a cost analysis to provide design recommendations. The planning phase also included evaluating the crossings of two major arterials, which included evaluating an at -grade crossing, a pedestrian bridge, and a pedestrian tunnel. Based on the evaluations, recommendations were made to proceed with a tunnel under Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and an at -grade crossing of Highway 71 B. Two creek crossings were studied to determine the most economical trail crossings, including evaluating an abandoned railroad truss superstructure. Based on the findings of the study, it was determined that a prefabricated bridge be installed at both crossings. The tunnel under the five -lane arterial, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, consisted of 120 feet of a 12 -foot -wide by 10 -foot tall prefabricated box culvert complete with drainage, lighting, and retaining walls on all approaches. A detailed traffic control plan was developed to allow for minimal disruption of traffic during construction. The design of the at -grade crossing of the five -lane arterial, Highway 71 B, included a signal warrant analysis for a pedestrian crossing to allow trail users to safely cross this busy roadway. Based on the results of the study, a pedestrian hybrid beacon was recommended and approved by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. Based on the findings during the planning phase, Garver designed two prefabricated trail bridges with overall lengths of 81 feet and 71 feet over creeks within designated FEMA floodplains. The design consisted of the end abutments and associated foundations of the bridge structure, hydrology and hydraulic modeling to ensure a no rise of the designated base flood elevations, wetland delineations, and permitting with the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 124 Transportation Master Plan City of Fayetteville, AR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND GLENDALE DOWNTOWN MOBILITY STUDY Client: City of Glendale Planning Department – Glendale, CA Contact: Alan Loomis, Principal Urban Designer, 818-548-2140, aloomis@ci.glendale,ca,us Developing a new comprehensive citywide set of street types and performance measures for streets was a primary focus of the study. NelsonlNygaard identified a citywide Primary Transit Network: a system of fast, frequent, and reliable transit lines connecting the City's planned growth areas. Primary Transit Streets are designed to support both of Metro's rapid bus lines, the City's own Beeline buses, and future rail service. To implement the transit network, NelsonlNygaard identified new Quality of Service measures for transit, focused on the customer's experience rather than mere operational efficiency. Finally, NelsonlNygaard created an analytical framework for helping the City balance the needs of all modes—automobiles, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, and freight—in each street depending upon its urban context. 2005-2006 The Downtown Mobility Study was adopted unanimously by the Glendale City Council in early 2007, Since the adoption of the plan, NelsonlNygaard has continued to work with the City of Glendale in project implementation. Recommended parking policies have been implemented in downtown Glendale, resulting in a reduction from 100% occupancy on Brand Boulevard to 85% with a concurrent increase in garage occupancy. Local improvement districts have been implemented and changes in parking code have been enacted, including reducing many parking minimums and introducing an in -lieu fee program. This successful program is often touted by Professor Donald Shoup in his presentations describing successful parking policy changes in smaller cities. This project won several awards: American Planning Association Award for Comprehensive Planning in a Large Jurisdiction and the Southern California Association of Governments President's Excellence Award in Visionary Planning for Mobility, Livability, Prosperity and Sustainability. DAVENPORT IN MOTION — TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN 2009-2011 Client: City of Davenport – Davenport, IA Contact: Matthew G. Flynn, Senior Planning Manager, 563-326-7743, mflynn@ci.davenport.ia.us NelsonlNygaard developed a comprehensive master plan for Davenport. The ,c,+ methodology for this document takes into account Davenport's unique river culture"' and status as the economic and cultural hub of the Quad -cities. Prior to the release w ` of the completed master plan, the consultant team produced a transportation Fact r `¢ Book that provides public representatives, policymakers, and citizens an accessible document that outlines existing conditions for all aspects of the transportation system, guiding principles for the City's transportation future, best practices, and other topical considerations such as environmental impacts of transportation and using active transportation strategies to promote public health. This document has assisted in educating stakeholders on the many complex transportation issues at hand while providing best practices in developing a multimodal transportation system. The Davenport in Motion process provided the City with more than its first ever comprehensive transportation plan; Davenport in Motion is visionary plan for creating a world class multimodal system in a post-industrial city in the American heartland. To help the City implement this multimodal vision, NelsonlNygaard developed a set of street types and design guidelines, action plan priorities for the development of a comprehensive bicycle network, transit system development recommendations, and parking management guidelines. This project won the 2011 American Planning Association -Iowa Chapter Excellence Award for Best Practice NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates: Inc, 126 APPENDix A Key Staff Resumes Paul Moore Principal EDUCATION ? ww i NELSON NYGAARD Paul Moore is involved in the oversight and management of major urban design, land use and transportation planning and engineering projects. He has more than 25 years of experience in developing major transportation and transit planning projects, small area planning and redevelopment studies, traffic engineering and design manuals and studies, and livable transportation solutions. B.S, Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Principal, 2012—Present ■ Multimodal Transportation Plan, Louisville, IC17. Project Manager for the development of a etratogic multimodal transportation plan to understand and address the current and future transportation needs within Louisville Metro, R Multimodal Transportation Plan, Madison, WI. Project Managerfor a citywide transportation plan considering improved transit options, better parking management and building upon the City's Platinum level bike system. E Eastside Commtulity Transportation Framework Plan, South Pasadena, CA. Led the development of high level recommendations for multi -modal projects that could improve quality of life in the subregion. a Pomona Corridor Specific Plans, Pomona, CA. Transportation Lead for these plans for three corridor land use/transportation plans. Recommendations for vehicle, bicycle, parking and gree rspace elements were included. ■ Link Spokane, Spokane, WA. Project Manager for an update to the transportation chapter of the City's comprehensive plan. The effort included updating of the City's traffic impact and concurrency standards and development of new complete street design standards. ■ Memphis Riverside Drive, Memphis, TN. Worked to analyze the conversion of traffic lanes along Memphis' riverfront to bike facilities and on -street parking. The project was implemented. 0 Cycle Track Analysis, Greenville, SC. Led technical analysis of a project to convert one lane of a state route through downtown Greenville to a multi -use "cultural corridor" connecting the City's arts campus to downtown and cultural venues. M Innovate Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM. Lead for the transportation component of this redevelopment that will bridge the gap between downtown Albuquerque and the. University of New Mexico. M Mariner's Mile Corridor Plan, Newport Beach, CA. Transportation planner for a multi-rnodal team tasked with suggesting a more livable, walkable design forthis stretch of the Pacific Coast fIighway. ■ MOVEPGH, Pittsburgh, PA. Project Manager of a citywide transportation plan for Pittsburgh. This plan addressed the challenge of an established city with aging infrastructure and substantial funding challenges. The plans also include development of the street design guideline and a world-class bicycle plan. ■ Connect Columbus Transportation Plan, Columbus, OH. Project Manager for a comprehensive, multi -modal transportation plan including updates to the street and access management standards. ■ West Haywood Master Plan, Asheville, NC. Transportation lead for a form -based code of this redeveloping corridor. Recommendations incl rded parking regulation and bike/pedestrian improvements. M Rivers of Grass Greenway, Miami, FL. Managed transportation analysis of a multi -use trail corridor stretching across Florida from the Gulf Coast to Miami. Paul provided expertise in coordination with DOT, quantification of trip reduction potential and transportation demand management policy. Jason Schrieer, AIBP Principal EDUCATION NELSON NYGAARD Jason has become a specialist in understanding how individual travel behaviors are influenced by physical and economic attributes often overlooked in transport systems. By improving pedestrian delay and bicycle accommodation, he has helped cities attract people away from their car. By revealing the cost of parking, he has changed employer and institutional calculus on how employees commute. Working for municipalities, businesses and universities, Jason has advanced wholesale changes to parking pricing, developed demand management programs for new development and Helped cities create new ordinances to control trips in places like Portland ME, Denver CO, and Yale University Bachelor of Science, Urban Planning University of Massachusetts, Amherst EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Principal, 20o6—Present ■ University of Arkansas Transportation Plan Update, Fayetteville, AR. Project manager for updating UA's transportation plan, including strategies to better connect new off -campus housing with the campus core, determining tight -of -way for competing modes across the historic campus, and more strategic investments in multimodal hubs. ■ GoBoston 2030, City of Boston Mobility Plan, Boston, MA. Serving as the lead planner for Go Boston 2030, working through close collaboration with concurrent processes that crafted public engagement and digested amazing quantities of "big data" to inform both current patterns and fixture conditions. f Grounding McGrath: Determining the FlIture of the Route 28 Corridor, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Somerville, MA. Part of a multi -disciplinary team to conduct a conceptual planning study effort to determine the firture of the Route 28 Corridor. Worked on right-of-way and intersection designs. • Boston Off -Street Parking Policy, Boston Transportation Department and Air Pollution Control Commission, Boston, MA. Adding expertise to a comprehensive analysis of existing parking management in Boston as well as the development of parking policy changes, Jason is applying his extensive experience in other cities to Boston. The project also includes the creation of Boston's first comprehensive parking database, designed as an open source, integrated government and public information platform. ■ Medford Square Intersection Redesign, Medford MA. As part of a parking demand assessment for a garage feasibility study led by Mass.Development, revealed that walking improvements could bring as many vacant spaces within reach as a new garage would, helping to reprioritize infrastructure efforts in the square. Included a redesign of a major intersection to dramatically improve PLOS. • Lbii Street Crosswalks, Smith College, Northampton, M.A. Led the planning, conceptual design, and design development for six major pedestrian crossings on State Route g through the historic heart of campus. Through an inchisive charrctte process, Nelson\, Nygaard developed a mixed traffic calming, signing and education strategy acceptable to public works and public safety departments in the City. Construction was completed in 2010 and has spawned a push for similar treatments elsewhere in the City. • Somerville Bow Street Reverse Angle Parking Services, City of Somerville, Somerville, MA. Developed program to design and implement reverse angle parking on Bow Street in Union Square to calm traffic, add parking supply, provide a bike facility, and smooth operations in a growing area of the City. • Bridge Street Corridor, City of Dublin, Dublin Ohio. Coordinated a team of planners and designers to develop a complete streets network of varying cross- section "families"; detailed profiles; parking, transit, and biking strategics and networks; and progressive models to support the plan. Lisa Jacobson Senior Associate EDUCATION l l NELSON NYGAARD Lisa Jacobson has transportation planning experience in the public, private, and non-profit sectors. Lisa has played a primary supporting role on a variety of projects, focusing on multimodal transportation planning projects, leading data collection, mapping, and market research efforts, as well as developing recommendations. Before joining Nelson\Nygaard, Lisa was a fellow with the National Complete Streets Coalition, where she worked on federal, state, and local policies to encourage street design to incorporate all users, regardless of age and ability. Lisa's work at the Coalition was recently published in an AARP report, "Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America." Master of City and Regional Planning, Concentration in Transportation, University of Pennsylvania Bachelor of Arts, International Affairs, The George Washington University EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Senior Associate, 2013 -Present; Associate Project Planner, 2012-2013, Associate, 2010-2012; Intern, 2oo9 Multimodal Transportation Projects ■ Saint Paul Parking Study; Saint Paul, MN. Analyzed existing parking inventory and utilization study to develop an inventory based on a combination of existing data and stakeholder input, the team collected parking utilization information, on -street data were collected by field visits; analyzed the City's parking data in the context of growth models for future scenarios and reviewed how this growth is shaped by the parking -related elements of the Zoning Code. All of this was then taken into consideration to develop strategies to improve the downtown parking -system and support the ongoing growth in downtown -Saint Paul. ■ Kendall and Central Square (K2C2) Planning Study, Cambridge, MA. Reviewed and enhanced Cambridge's progressive transportation and sustainability policies to promote transit use, biking, and walking in growing districts in Cambridge, R Innovation Square Parking Analysis and Strategy, Gainesville, FL. Analyzed existing parking facilities, created a district specific parking ratio matrix, documented the location Lind timeline for temporary surface parking, outlined the impact of transportation demand management strategies, and explored the use of existing facilities such as nearby downtown parking decks. ■ Providence I-95 Development District Design Frameworks Plan, Providence, RI. Shared parking and complete streets design for the area that remains from the 1-195 relocation project. ■ Chicago Children's Memorial Hospital Redevelopment I'DM, Chicago, IL. Developed a TDM plan, shared parking strategy, and trip generation estimate to supplement KI.QA's traffic analysis. • Grounding McGrath: Determining the Future of the Route 28 Corridor, Somerville, M.A. Worked on evaluating the future use and potential removal of elevated portions of the roadway to enhance livability, environmental health, and transportation access and mobility for all modes of travel. ■ GoBoston 2030, City of Boston Mobility Plan, Boston, MA. Serving as analyst for Go Boston 2030, working through close collaboration with concurrent processes that crafted public engagement and digested amazing quantities of "big data" to inform both current patterns and future conditions. M Centre City Redevelopment; Edmonton Alberta. Data analyst for the transportation planning and design for a new 30,000 person infill "city within a city" upon former airport lands. Included carbon - neutral plan of new LRT, tram, bus, bikeways, and parking management systems fits within a complete streets "family" oriented around new open space and water features that meet at a dense mixed-use town center. Zabe Bent Principal EDUCATION i NELSON NYGAARD Zabe Bent has over 14 years of experience in multimodal transportation planning and urban development. She is skilled at project management, conceptual design, transit planning, and evaluation processes. A former Principal Planner at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, she managed a range of efforts including the City's congestion pricing feasibility study, the update to the long range countywide transportation plan, as well as various bus rapid transit studies. Zabe also offers insight on developing and funding initiatives as they move toward implementation. MST, Urban Transportation Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 MCP, International Development & Regional Planning, Massachusetts Institute OfTeelinology, 2003 BA, Pan African Studies, Architecture, Barnard College, Columbia University, 1996 Languages: French (proficient), Spanish and Italian (working knowledge), Arabic (some knowledge) EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Principal, 2014—Present Complete Streets Planning and Design Broadway Complete Streets Plan, Sacramento, California (2014 -ongoing). Project manager focused on advancing a complete streets vision for one of Sacramento's key multimodal corridors. The vision plan considers improved safety for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motorists as they traverse diverse neighborhoods, requiring a combination of conceptual design, traffic circulation analysis, and outreach activities across multiple neighborhood, business, agency, and advocacy groups. ■ Geneva -Harney Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study, San Francisco (2013 -ongoing). Project manager of this study to evaluate BRT aligninetits and rail concepts, in order to deliver improved transit service to underserved areas and to provide new connections to areas targeted for land use growth and redevelopment. Project includes multi -jurisdictional coordination among three cities and nniltiple transit providers, as well as coordinated outreach. Transit Planning 9 LAV"TA Comprehensive Operations Analysis, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority, Livermore, CA (2015 -ongoing). Deputy project manager for LAVTA's generational update to operations to increase system ridership and improve underperforming Rapid services. The effort includes compiling systermvide operations analysis, hoard and stakeholder coordination; public outreach activities, with a particular focus on improving Rapid corridor performance. Long -Range & Multimodal Planning X Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan, Alameda County, California (2ot5-ongoing). Principal -In - Charge of effortto update 3o -year blueprint to guide investment in the County's transportation system. The Plan will be a synthesis of ongoing mode -specific modal plans, a multidisciplinary evaluation framework, focus groups and white papers on key topics, including equity analysis, freight transportation needs, effects of land use, etc. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE San Francisco County Transportation Authority Principal Transportation Planner, 2007-2012; Senior Transportation Consultant/Planner, 2005-2007 ■ Mobility, Access & Pricing Shady, San Francisco. Project manager responsible for all aspects of analysis, interagency coordination, and outreach for a feasibility study of congestion pricing. Study included coordinating pricing schemes with major investment packages to accommodate demand shifts, and several related studies, including survey of spending patterns by modal choice, focus groups, and microsimulation of key transit corridors. ■ Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit, San Francisco. Delivered the Geary Corridor BRT Feasibility Study and launched its environmental analysis as Project Manager for a BR1'project serving one of the highest ridership bus corridors in the Western US. Includes rail -ready analysis, multilingual outreach to diverse populations, and coordination with transit providers for 4 -classes of service and local planning and development agencies. I A I N J. BANKS, PTP P Senior Associate EDUCATION NELSON NYGAARD Iain Banks is a transportation planner and engineer with 14 years of experience. Iain brings a holistic approach to transportation evaluation bringing expertise in traffic analysis, bicycle and pedestrian planning, transit operations, and parking management. lain's projects have included campus master plans, development project reviews, city-wide bicycle master plans, city-wide parking programs, transit development plans, capital improvement programs, community planning and data analysis. Iain brings experience in both the public and private sectors, most recently serving as transportation planner for the City of Annapolis, Maryland where he was responsible for the city's transit system, active transportation networks, parking properties, and development review. Iain has familiarity in working with the Maryland State Highway Administration and other state, county, and municipal transportation authorities. Master of Science, Transportation Engineering and Planning, University of Southampton, England, tool Bachelor of Arts in Geography, University of Portsmouth, England, 2000 EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Senior Associate, 2014—present ■ Mideity East Livability Plan, Washington, DC. Aware] -winning plan to address and preserve local neighborhood safety, Atality and community access in a core downtown area inundated by commuter traffic. Plan enhances place, environment and community while presen4ng regional network. • Herndon Metrorail Station Access Management Plan Fairfax County, VA. Senior Associate, This included analysis of the pedestrian and bicycle access and facility recommendations to the pending Herndon Metrorail Stations in Virginia as part of the WMATA Silver Line extension. • Urbanized Area Transit Implementation Study, City of .Rock Hill, SC. Deputy Project Manager. This on-going project will include some combination of service modifications, expansion of existing service, and new service options that includes portions of the local, express, trolley, and BRT recommendations from previous study efforts. • Public Square Design and Implementation Cleveland, OII. Analysis of roadway and transit system impacts associated with new development and transit enhancements; expansion of current and planned bicycle facilities and walk networks to support vibrant central place. • Prince George's Plaza Transit Development Area, M.D. TOD plan for economic emphasis area of Prince George's County, MD. Plan transforms suburban arterial into vibrant nnrltinlodal spine that Supports rich network of comfortable and inviting streets, expanded commercial development and housing. City of Annapolis Dept. of "Transportation, Annapolis, Maryland Personal Transportation and Parking Specialist/Transportation Planner, 2009-2014 ■ Project Manager for the City's first Bicycle MasterPlan. This included procurement of the grant to find the plan as well as managing the project from community interaction to finalization and Council approval. • Project Manager for the implementation of the City's shuttle service linking the downtown City Dock with the City owned parking facilities. • Implementation and analysis of the City's Transit Development Plan for its fixed route transit system. M Management, administration and reporting of the Department's Federal and State Grant Funding program, overseeing a budget of S2.omillion in grant funds. • Development, management and administration of the Department's annual $5 million budget covering all facets of the department's services —transit, parking, taxi services, bicycle & pedestrian planning. Geoff Slater Principal r� fot,�� r EDUCATION NELSON NYGAARD Geoff Slater has extensive experience throughout the United States and internationally that he brings to all of his projects, many of which have transformed transit services from very basic operations to mature, dependable transit systems. Geoff is nationally recognized as an effective and innovative service planner. Notable projects include a complete transformation of Pittsburgh's transit service to provide better service at the same cost, the development of one of the country's first BRT lines (Boston's Silver Line), and the redesign of commuter rail service throughout post - apartheid South Africa. Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts -Lowell, MA EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Principal, 2007—Present • Transit Master Plans to identify, evaluate, and determine effective strategies forthe provision of improved transit services. These studies typically involve multiple modes and address service, institutional, and financial issues. Recent and ongoing projects include Transit Master .Plans for the Nashville MTA, the Middle Tennessee RTA, and Fort Worth's the T, the Metro Providence Transit Enhancement Study, and the George Washington Region Transit Policy Plan in the Fredericksburg, VA area. ■ Bus Service Planning, including the redesign of existing services, market analyses, the development of service improvements, passenger ridechecks and surveys, the assessment of customer demand, and cost estimation. Recent projects include a complete redesign of Pittsburgh's transit system, the redesign of bus service in Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Memphis, Miami, and Providence, RI, the development of bus service improvements for Peoria, AZ, a transit feasibility study for Pinal County, AZ, and bus operations planning for Sky IIarbor Airport in Phoenix, AZ. 111 Bus Rapid Transit, including the development of Boston's Silver Line, which was one of the nation's first BRT lines. More recent BRT projects include the development of nine new Rapid Bus lines in Pittsburgh, a new BRT line in Providence, RI, and the examination of BRT options for Peoria, AZ. ■ Rail PIanning, including the development of new services and improvements to existing lines and systems. Recent projects include a streetcar feasibility study for Saint Paul, MN, the development of new streetcar lines in Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Providence, 1U, improvements to Pittsburgh's light rail service, a light rail feasibility study in Peoria, AZ, an evaluation of the use of DMUs on the MBTA's Fairmount Line in Boston, MA. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Jacobs Engineering/Edwards mid Kelcey/ICKO and Associates Manager of Transit Planning, 2oo6-2o07; Senior Associate, 1997-2006 1 Managed and conducted a variety of transit studies in North America and overseas designed to develop effective new transit services and to improve existing systems, with a particular focus on rail, bus, and BR"I' services. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston, MA Director of Planning, 1993-1996 ■ Directed planning activities for the MBIA, the sixth largest transit agency in the United States, providing a mix of rapid transit, light rail, bus, commuter rail, ferry, and paratransit services. Responsible for both technical and policy aspects of short range service planning, long range capital planning, development of new services, assessment of existing services, and the development of improved methods to improve service duality and delivery. Also responsible for environmental compliance, community affairs, and scheduling. Boris Palthlk Senior Associate EDUCATION NELSON RYGAARD Boris Palchik has more than 15 years of experience in the transit field. He has developed service plans for both large and small transit systems with a focus on improving ridership and system productivity. Boris takes a holistic approach to service development by addressing route and schedule deficiencies, as well as the overall passenger experience in terms of wayfinding, data availability, and bus stop environments. Boris also specializes in Google Transit implementation, schedule run -cutting, and site- specific transit planning for universities and airports. Master of City and Regional Planning, University of Texas at Arlington Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Senior Associate, 20ro-Present KEY PROJECTS • Comprehensive Operational Analysis, Connect Transit (Bloomington -Normal, IL) - Current ■ Campus Transportation Plan, University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AR) - Current ■ Portland Hub Link Feasibility Study, City of Portland (Portland, M1) - Current • Transit Performance Analysis, Wichita Transit (Wichita, KS) - Current ■ Campus Transportation Plan, University of .North Texas (Denton, TX) - Current • FXWES Transit Study, Rock Hill -Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (Rock Hill, SC) - Current • Comprehensive Transit Service Analysis for the Greater Hartford Area, Capital Region Council of Governments (Hartford, CT) - Current ■ CXFA Comprehensive Strategic Plan, Central Arkansas Transit Authority (Little Rock, AR) - Current ■ FEAT Comprehensive Operations Analysis, Escambia County Area Transit (Pensacola, FL) - 20 L5 • St. John's University Plan, St. John's University (Queens, NY) - 2014 ■ New York Downtown Comiection Study, Alliance for New York (New York, NY) - 2014 ■ Mid -Coast Maine Transit Study, Knox County (Rockland, ME) - 2014 • Comprehensive Service Analysis Study, Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (Springfield, MA) - 2014 • Google'Iransit Implementation Training, Denton County Transportation Authority (LewisAlIe, TX) - 2013 r Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Transit Access Study, North Central Texas Council of Governments (Arlington, TX) - 2013 ■ Public Transportation Study, County of Sussex (Newton, NJ) - 2o11 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA), Lewisville, TX—Senior Planner, 20o8-2010 Dallas Area Rapid Tr .visit (DART), Dallas, TX—Service Planner III, 2004-2008 Drusilla van Principal EDUCATION H engel, PhD NELSON NYGAARD Drusilla van Hengel has over 20 years of transportation planning and operations experience, including 10 years of research. Her consulting experience focuses on bicycle and pedestrian master planning and project development, project evaluation, healthy communities, and safe routes to schools and parks. Her efforts while working for the City of Santa Barbara doubled the number of bike lanes, initiated the Safe Routes to School Program, and earned the City both Walk Friendly and Bicycle Friendly Community Status. Dru's academic background and public sector work in land development, traffic operations, and community planning provides a unique, perspective and rich depth of experience that has benefited clients from Chicago to rural eastern Washington. MBA, Sustainable Business, Bainbridge Graduate Institute, 2008 PhD, Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, 1996 MA, Social Ecology, University of California, Lavine, 1993 BA, Psychology and Biology, Dartmouth College, 1985 EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Principal, 2014—Present R City of Calgary Design Consulting Services for Various Bikeway Projects (Calgary, AB) — Dru is currently providing support services for ten projects and leading the conceptual design for five corridors (Bowness Road NW, Edmonton Trail NW, Northmount Drive NW, 20 Street NW, and Mount Royal University). The work also includes facilitation at city stakeholder meetings, development of design options, multi -modal evaluation, and peer review. • Santa Monica Pedestrian diction Plan. The Santa Monica Pedestrian Action Plan draws from empirical analyses and community engagement to recommend citywide and location specific actions that Mil improve safety, access to transit, and overall walkability. While working with Alta Planning + Design, Dru provided project management and oversaw each step of the process, including the coordination of four subconsultants, the City Manager's Office, and a multi -department project task force. Dru conducted the collision analysis, and managed the development of priority policy, practice, program and project recommendations holding the community and staff goals as paramount throughout. Dru continues to manage the project through a subconsulting agreement with Nelson Nygaard. ■ Various Rural Wisconsin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. Dru advised the Shawano County Bicycle Pedestrian Plan, Kenosha County Comprehensive Bike Plan, and Whitewater Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. They were transitioned to her for project management because of personnel changes, until each plan's adoption The three Wisconsin State funded plans established blueprints for increasing the recreational, tourism, and utilitarian trips in these communities. • Brookings Transportation System Plan Update, City of Brookings OR. While. at Alta, Dru helped the City negotiate a contract with the State of Oregon Department of Transportation that enabled its Transportation Systern Plan update to focus on improving conditions for bicycling and walking as a priority. Dru led the evaluation of existing bicycle and pedestrian conditions and conducted Field review and workshops before conning to Nelson\Nygaard. The client's satisfaction with this work resulted in a request to renegotiate the contract in such a way that Dru would stay on the team through the project's completion. Dru serves as the Principal in Charge on this project, providing strategic advice, concept development, and quality assurance as a subconsultant to Parametrix. ■ Clackamas County Active Transportation Plan (Clackamas County, OR) 2014 Dru served as project advisor on this project assisting in the development of an evaluation framework for selecting active transportation routes. j Ezra Pincus -Roth NELSON Associate I, Boston, MA N Y G A A R D Project Role: Deputy Project Manager ai With nationwide experience in municipal and regional policymaking, Ezra Pincus -Roth channels a passion for providing safe and effective transportation options for all people. His expertise is rooted in interpreting r °y government accessibility standards and transit -oriented planning practices. His experience covers many facets of transportation planning, including parking studies for universities, accessible bus stop designs, and mobility management studies for state and county governments. tf Previously, Ezra worked as a management and budget analyst for the 4� New York City Parks Department, a consultant for the San Francisco Foundation, and a research fellow for Reconnecting America. EDUCATION Master of City Planning, Transportation and Land Use, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2013 Bachelor of Arts, Politics, Oberlin College, OH, 2o08 EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consultialg Associates Inc. Associate, 2914—Present; Intern, 2013-2014 ■ Planning and Engineering Services, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Various), 2014. Managed data collection and analysis behind a bus stop placement and spacing study in South Boston, as well as a bus shelter placement study throughout Somerville, Cambridge, and Watertown. These studies required field measurements and analysis to ensure bus stop modifications were always compliant with agency design guidelines and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. ■ Bus Transit to Workplace Study, Shelby County (Memphis, TN), 2013-2014. Wrote and edited segments of the final report, particularlythe profiles of accessibility and mobility options in Memphis area job centers. Conducted additional GIS analysis as needed. M Statewide Mobility Management System Analysis and Implementation Plan, Idaho Transportation Department Division of Transportation Performance (Boise, ID), 2014. Wrote a chapter of the final report summarizing the current landscape of mobility management initiatives at the state and regional level throughout the United States-- giving particular attention to transportation services for special -needs populations, including the elderly and disabled. ■ Transportation and Parking Study, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee, WI), 2013-2015. Coordinated all analysis and client correspondence associated with a comprehensive study of an urban research university's traffic circulation, transit operations, parking occupancy, transportation demand management practices, and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. He designed a series of pilot street improvements on an arterial road running through the heart of campus. M Boston University Transportation Demand Management, Boston University (Boston, MA), 2014-2015. Led data analysis and graphic design elements of this plan to help remedy the transportation impacts following the closure and redevelopment of multiple campus parking facilities. ■ University Parking & Transportation Master Plan, University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY), 2013-2015. Wrote memoranda summarising the existing conditions and future opportunities of transportation demand management (TDM) programs and practices on campus. He also coordinated efforts to model current and future transportation demand based on a variety of scenarios and strategies. ■ Binghamton University Transportation and Parking Study, Binghamton University (Binghamton, NY), 2013-2014. Using existing GIS analysis, prepared graphics of transit service and parking pricing strategies for the final report. Also co -wrote sections of the final report's recommendations. r Savaimah Downtown Parking and Mobility Strategic Plan, Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission, (Savannah, GA), 2015 -ongoing. Contributing to data analysis, GIS production, and team coordination behind this comprehensive review and plan for parking in one of America's great historic districts and destinations. Michael R. King Principal EDUCATION NELSON NYGAARD Michael King plans, draws, designs and writes about complete and sustainable streets and networks. His 20+ year career has arced from traffic calming in New York City, to protected bicycle lanes along BRT routes in Guangzhou, to pedestrian safety in Mexico City, to the USDOT Safe Routes to School Task Force, to shared streets in Santa Monica, to Real Intersection Design workshops, to street design in Abu Dhabi, to road diets in St. Louis, to Complete Streets Chicago, to NACTO's Urban Street Design Guide, to tactical urbanism in Rio de Janeiro. In 2013, Michael was awarded the APBP Private Sector Professional of the Year. Master of Architecture, Columbia University, New York City, NY, 1992 Bachelor of Arts, Architecture, Washington University, St, Louis, MO, 1987 Washington University, Urban Design Studio, Barcelona, Spain, 1987 EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Principal 2004—Present DESIGNED, PLANNED, STUDIED, ANALYZED • Ann Arbor Street Design Framework Plan, 2015 - project advisor ■ Promoting Socially Sustainable Transport through Improving Nonmotorized Transport in Vientiane (Laos), Medan (Indonesia) and Davao (Philippines), Asian Development Bank, 2015 - designer and technical advisor • Temple University Landscape Master Plan and Traffic Analysis; Philadelphia PA, 2014 - project team Iff Traffic Circulation and Gateways to the City's Downtown, New Rochelle NY, 2014 - project manager ■ Spring Street 2 -way Conversion, Ossining NY, 2013 - project manager • New Haven Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Analysis, New haven CT, 2oo9— project principal ■ Bus Rapid Transit non -motorized access planning, Asian Development Bank, Yichang (China), 2012 — project team ■ Regional Transportation Strategy, Transl,ink, Vancouver BC, 2012 — project team X Minnesota Avenue Redesign, Washington DC, 2012 — project team ■ Farragut Square Pedestrian Safety and Access Study, Washington DC, 2011 — project principal N Fifth Ward Bicycle and Pedestrian Conceptual Plan, IIouston TX, 2011— project principal ■ Bus Rapid "Transit station area planning, Asian Development Bank, Ulanbaatar (Mongolia), 2011— project team 4 Route 34 Road .Diet, New Haven CT, 2011- technical advisor ■ Improvement of Pedestrian Safety and Movement in A] Ain (UAE), 2011 — technical project manager V Manchester Road Corridor Master Plan, St Louis MO, 2011 — project team ■ State of Rio de Janeiro (Brasil) Non -motorized Transportation Master Plan, 2011— project team 0 Pedestrian Safety at Bus Stops Study, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, 2011 - principal in charge 0 World Bank Low -Carbon Urban Transport Initiative, Wuhan (China), 2o11— project team Joel F. Mann, AlCP Associate EDUCATION i NELSON NYGAARD Joel is a planner with 10 years of experience in transportation planning and transportation -focused contributions to development codes, comprehensive plans and community master plans. His career pursuits have grown from an intersection of personal passions and commitments, including bicycle and pedestrian mobility, transit systems as key layers of a community's civic infrastructure, and use of public resources to provide the best possible returns for citizens and their quality of life. Joel has worked both as a master planner for private land developers and as a corridor and transportation planner primarily for public agencies: He has developed expertise in bicycle and pedestrian planning, transportation policy, and street design and has applied this to jurisdiction -wide transportation policies and plans, small -area sector plans and corridor studies, and implementation programs for developing, funding, and advancing capital projects. Master of Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel hill, 2003 B.A., Urban Studies, New College of Florida, 2001 EXPERIENCE Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Associate, 2013—Present SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Comprehensive Transportation Plans It Connect Atlanta Plan, Atlanta, GA. The City of Atlanta's first-ever modern comprehensive transportation plan, which focused on accommodating urban growth through improved connectivity, walkability and transit investment. Joel was the lead project planner on this effort and developed the plan's bicycle croute framework, resulting in many of the Core Connection bicycle routes currently being advanced in Atlanta today. He was also closely involved in identifying recommended capital projects and developing plan policies. ■ Omaha Transportation Plan, Omaha, NE. The city's first coordinated planning effort for transportation projects and policies, this plan coordinated with parallel citywide efforts to minimize environmental footprint and encourage reinvestment in the central city. Joel developed project ideas for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and led the prioritization of projects for plan implementation, Transportation Support for Sector Plans and Development Master Plans N Downtown Lowell Master Plan, Lowell, MA. Led a series of redevelopment opportunities and public realm enhancements that were considered with regard to added vehicle trips, changes to traffic flow and circulation, street capacity and traffic signal timing and design. 10 Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan, Rockville, MD. Joel contributed to this vision -led redevelopment plan fora maturing suburban commercial corridor by coordinating transportation impact analysis and recommendations for enhanced street network, safety -based bicycle andpedestrian improvements. M Livable Claiborne Communities Plan, New Orleans, LA. Senior Planner for this plan that explored potential transportation futures for a principal thoroughfare corridor in New Orleans, Louisiana and linking these futures to economic and community development opportunities. RESUMES RON PETRIE, PE Public Involvement; Roadway Design Ron Petrie is a senior project manager with 24 years of engineering Education experience. His responsibilities include managing the local government Bachelor of Science in transportation team, which involves team member management, project Civil Engineering quality control, and client representation at public meetings. His previous Professional Registrations experience includes serving as the City of Fayetteville's City Engineer, Professional Engineer AR, 9113 managing a staff of 22 employees with an operating budget of $1.2 OK, 24233 million and an average yearly capital improvement budget of $10.2 Affiliations million for transportation, drainage, and water and sewer infrastructure American Public Works improvements. His responsibilities included representing engineering Association issues at the council, street committee, and water and sewer committee Arkansas Society of meetings as well as to the public and local media. Professional Engineers The Arkansas Academy of Civil Ron interpreted and enforced drainage regulations and drainage criteria Engineering for the installation of public drainage systems by private developers, managed FEMA floodplain regulations within City limits, and administered NPDES MS4 Phase II Stormwater permit acquisition and Stormwater Nutrient Reduction Plan creation. Ron's responsibilities also included supervising the City trails coordinator position that provided design, land acquisition, and construction management of an average of four miles of multi -use trails per year, including portions of Scull Creek Trail, Frisco Trail, Lake Fayetteville Trail, Hamstring Creek Trail, Clabber Creek Trail, Town Branch Creek Trail. and the St. Paul Trail Fayetteville Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Fayetteville, Arkansas City engineer during the development and implementation of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, resulting in an actionable Capital Improvements plan for short and long-term improvements. The plan also provided policy recommendations that resulted in implementation of a city-wide traffic calming program. Responsibilities included management of the consultant, assistance in data collection, and presenting the study findings at public meetings. Responsibilities for implementation of the plan included developing the transportation bond program for constructing all identified short-term improvements. Cato Springs Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas Senior project manager responsible for supervising the project design team providing roadway widening and reconstruction improvements. This project also included designing water/sewer line relocations and coordinating with all franchise utilities to accommodate the improvements. Utility coordination included holding joint meetings with all affected utilities at the conceptual, preliminary, and final stages of design; developing a relocation corridor; and preparing a general utility easement for the corridor. Mount Comfort Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas City engineer responsible for developing the project scope and cost estimates and managing the City's staff and the consulting firm (Garver) as well as the design, surveying, and construction phase services. Responsibilities also included serving as a representative for engineering issues at the public involvement meetings, city council, and street committee meetings. RESUMES JEFF WEBB, PE Roadway Design Jeff Webb is a transportation engineerwith 15 years of engineering Education experience. Jeff's responsibilities include project design, coordination, Bachelor of Science in review, cost estimation, and oversight. His project experience includes Civil Engineering new and reconstructed roadway, drainage, site, airport, water, and Professional Registrations wastewater design. Professional Engineer AR, 12051 Jeff has served as interim city engineer and staff engineer for cities in Arkansas and Texas and has worked on major projects involving numerous city street and drainage improvements. Jeff also leads a team that manages Garver's CAD standards, including development and implementation of best practices and new procedures to automate or improve work flows. Jeff is also responsible company -wide maintenance and implementation of Newforma, a software -based project management tool. Cato Springs Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas Transportation engineer responsible for the conceptual design phase of this project. Responsibilities included reviewing all horizontal/vertical geometry, grading, and major drainage. Johnson Road, Springdale, Arkansas Transportation engineer responsible for overseeing the design of the roadway and drainage improvements, creek channelization and box culvert crossings, and sidewalk and multi-purpose trail provisions. Responsibilities also included developing technical specifications and contract documents; coordinating with the City of Springdale, utility companies, and state and local review agencies; and overseeing the bidding and construction phases, 26th Street, Rogers, Arkansas Transportation engineer responsible for developing the final plans. Responsibilities included setting horizontal and vertical alignments; overseeing drainage calculations and storm drainage design, pavement markings, and utility relocations; developing technical specifications and construction cost estimates, and coordinating with utilities, 26th Street Multi -Use Trail, Rogers, Arkansas Transportation engineer responsible for designing and converting a 5 -foot sidewalk to an 8 -foot trail during the construction of the 26th Street improvements, including the design of grading and drainage to accommodate the trail, coordination and checking for conflicts with utility companies, checking for additional need for right-of-way and easements, and coordination with the City of Rogers. McClure Avenue, Lowell, Arkansas Transportation engineer responsible for overseeing the design of street and drainage improvements, including coordination with the owner and geotechnical engineer. 131 NIM TINER, PE, PTOE Traffic Analysis/Design Nicci Tiner is a senior project manager who is responsible for managing Garver's Traffic Team. She has 26 years of engineering experience. Her project experience includes traffic signal design; planning studies to determine existing and future needs for cities and to prioritize improvement projects for short, mid, and long term; traffic studies that include intersection analysis, weave capacity, trip generation, interchange justification analysis, and signal warrant analysis; and maintenance of traffic plans for bridge, interstate, highway, and urban street construction. Cato Springs Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas Lead traffic engineer responsible for a traffic study at the intersections of Cato Springs Road at Razorback Road and at School Avenue The objective of the study was to evaluate the need for traffic signals at the two intersections and to recommend geometric improvements at the intersections Mount Comfort Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas Lead traffic engineer responsible for the traffic study for six intersections and the signalization plans for four intersections. The study included trip generation calculations, geometric analyses, and signal warrant analyses. Norman Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Norman, Oklahoma Senior project manager responsible for reviewing the existing conditions with regard to the adequacy of the roadway system, traffic signal system, sidewalks, and parking within the City of Norman. RESUMES Education Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Professional Registrations Professional Engineer AR, 8141 MS, 15025 TX, 97087 MO, 2008025196 TN,106896 OK, 20572 KS, 16904 AL, 24001 Professional Traffic Operations Engineer, 520 Affiliations Deep South Institute of Transportation Engineers Institute of Transportation Engineers Missouri Valley Institute of Transportation Engineers, President, 2004 - 2005 Oklahoma Transportation Engineers Association West Little Rock Rotary Club Bentonville City -Wide Traffic Study, Bentonville, Arkansas Project manager responsible for a city-wide traffic study in Bentonville. The study included evaluating city standards, performing a preliminary analysis to identify 14 intersection projects, performing a detailed analysis of these 14 intersections, and providing recommendations for future long-term corridor projects. Additional duties included presenting the results of the study to the Planning Commission and the City Council, Program Manager for AHTD Connecting Arkansas Program, Statewide, Arkansas Lead traffic engineer responsible for traffic forecasting for all projects. Additional responsibilities include overseeing the review of IARs from other consultants and review of signal and signing plans, RESOLUTION NO. 221-13 A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO FUND A TRANSPORATION PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.00 TO $500,000.00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its intent to fund a Transportation Plan in the amount of $250,000.00 to $500,000.00. PASSED and APPROVED this 5t` day of November 2013. APPROVED: ATTEST: IONEL . AN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer ti'041iltilliji r • .01 Y 0 �aUr�•, .`� En aYE7 r wIZI_r�x'= 4 Peter Nierengarten Submitted By Gity of Fayetteville Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items and Contracts, Leases or Agreements 11/5/2013 City Council Meeting Date Agenda Items Only Division Action Reauired: Sustainability & Strategic Planning Department The purpose of this resofution is to express intent to fund a Transportation Plan for Fayetteville in the amounl of approximately $250,000 — $500,000. N/A Cosl of this request N/A Account Number N/A Project Number Budgeted Item DeparlrnenE Dir'or City Attorney 4== N/A Category / Project Budget NIA Funds Used to Date NIA Remaining Balance Budget Adjustment Attached N/A Program Category / Project Name NIA Program / Project Category Name N/A Fund Name t y GI /�, Previous Ordinance or Resolution # bate/ / p Original Contract Date: Original Contract Number: Date `Pa„_�` 10 Z1-2[713 Finance and Internal Services Director Date Received in City' iJ 1 Clerk's Office Date Received in �T �� Mayor's Office D to Revised January 15, 2009 Ta've N ]i I c R9 nr� sir r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor Lioneld Jordan Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Chris Brown, City Engineer CP Paul Becker, Finance Director N5 From: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability & Strategic Planning Director v) Date: October 18, 2013 Subject: Fayetteville Transportation Plan PURPOSE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE The purpose of this resolution is to express intent to fund a Transportation Plan for Fayetteville in the amount of approximately $250,000 — $500,000. This plan would be developed in partnership with the, i Jniversity of Arkansas. BACKGROUND In 2003 the City of Fayetteville contracted with Bucher, Willis & Ratliff (BWR) in the amount of $222,352 to conduct a Citywide Traffic and Transportation Study. This study included the development of master street plan cross-sections, multi -modal transportation policies, a traffic calming policy, an access management policy, a development assessment policy, a smart growth policy, traffic analysis and project costs and prioritization. Recommendations from this study have helped guide three phases of transportation bonds for street improvements in Fayetteville. The third phase of the transportation bonds are planned to be issued in the fourth quarter of 2013. In 2005 the University of Arkansas contracted with Martin, Alexiou & Bryson in the amount of $520,000 to develop a Campus Transportation Plan. The University's Plan included a parking plan, a travel demand management plan, reconunendations for all modes of transportation (transit, walking, biking and automobiles) and recommended improvements to streets. The University of Arkansas is currently developing a Request for Qualifications for a consultant to update their 2005 Campus Transportation Plan, develop and implement transportation policies, analyze parking fees, site their next parking garage and recommend locations for park and ride facilities. Recognizing the impact that the University of Arkansas has on transportation within Fayetteville; there would be benefits and efficiencies if the University and City Transportation plans were well coordinated. Consulting services should address similar scope items and require coordinating and collaboration on items such as transit, data collection and parking. This arrangement would be spelled in each organization's respective consultant contract. Considering the direct link between transportation and land use in cities, a new or updated Transportation Plan for the City of Fayetteville should serve the land use goals in City Plan 2030. A plan with an emphasis on transit and active transportation (walking and bicycling) would empower the City to realize the six goals of City Plan 2030. In addition this plan could serve as a blue print for future transportation bond funding. THE CITY OF FAYETfEVILLE, ARKANSAS RECOMMENDATION Approve a resolution of intent to fund a $250,000 — 500,000 Fayetteville Transportation Plan. The scope for the City's Transportation Plan could include: ■ An update of the 2003 BWR Traffic and Transportation Study • Review of Pedestrian/Bicycle Limitations and Recommendations for Safety Improvements ■ Public Participation • Transit Route Recommendations ■ Recommendations for Transit Center Locations • Identification and prioritization of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities ■ Identification and prioritization of Redevelopment Opportunities Thoroughfares • The development of a Complete Streets Policy • A review of Minimum Street Standards and Master Street Plan Cross Sections and Traffic Calming Policy + The develop of congestion management strategies/policies and Bond Funding Prioritization The detailed scope and budget for the project would be negotiated with the selected consultant and the completion of the RFP process. BUDGET IMPACT Approximately $250,000 of leftover funds from recently completed street projects is currently available in the Sales Tax Capital Fund. If the cost of the project exceeds $250,000, additional funding could be provided from the Street Right of Way/Intersection/Cost Sharing project within the Sales Tax fund or from other sources. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO FUND A TRANSPORATION PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.00 TO $500,000.00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its intent to fund a Transportation Plan in the amount of $250,000,00 to $500,000.00. PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of November 2013. APPROVED: ATTEST": I3y: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor By:____ SONDRA y:-- SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form (Legistar) Budget Year Division: Engineering Adjustment Number 2016 Dept.: Development Services Requestor: Chris Brown BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION: $100,000 for the parking portion of a Transportation Master Plan - COUNCIL DATE: 3/15/2016 LEGISTAR FILE ID#:� 2016-0104 K.eV6+V SpY%vwd-e,r 2/24/2016 5:22 PM Budget Director Date TYPE: DESCRIPTION: GLDATE: RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE POSTED: ' TOTAL 100,000 100,000 v.20160125 Increase / (Decrease) Pr6ec .Subic Account Number Expense Revenue Prosect Sub AT Account Name 1010.6600.5315.00 100,000 - 14021 1 EX Contract Services 1010.0001.4999.99 - 100,000 RE Use of Fund Balance C.\Users\lsmill \Appl:)ata\Roi7rriinig\L;;\Temp\75efaeb3 25eo-454c-b22d-1912cob4b267 1 of 1 Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc Transportation Master Plan Amendment No. 1 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2017-0225 Legistar File ID N/A City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Paul Libertini 4/21/2017 Engineering / Development Services Department Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of contract Amendment No. 1 to the Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report which requires the Mayor's signature. Amendment No.1 adds the additional. tasks of digitizing and mapping Sunday parking and Wilson Park utilization counts, and a memorandum addressing the development of the West Lot. The cost of Amendment No. 1 is $7,245 which increases the total study cost to $592,223. Comments: BudgeL ITTIPdcL: 1010.090.6660-5315.00 ($4500) General Misc./Sales Tax Capital Imprvmnt.Non 4470.800.8820-5314.00 ($2745) Departmental-Str Imprvmnts Account Number Fund 14021.1 Transportation Master Plan Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? Yes Current Budget $ 259,629.00 Funds Obligated $ 245,544.51 Current Balance $ 14,084.49 Does item.have a cost? Yes Item Cost $ 7,245.00 Budget Adjustment Attached? No Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ 6,839.49 V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution #t 68-16 Original Contract Number: 2409 Approval Date: Comments: CITY OF Taoy6 �, V • 131 Ti ARKANSAS STAFF MEMO TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Paul Libertini, Staff Engineaa�pl-e DATE: April 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report - Contract Amendment No. 1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of contract Amendment No 1 to the Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report which requires the Mayor's signature. BACKGROUND: In 2013, City Council passed Resolution 221-13, expressing the intent to fund an updated Transportation Plan in the amount of up to $500,000. On March 15, 2016, City Council passed Resolution 68-16 authorizing a contract with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates for the development of a Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report in the amount of $584,978. DISCUSSION: Amendment No 1 adds the additional tasks of digitizing and mapping Sunday parking and Wilson Park utilization counts, and a memorandum addressing the development of the West Lot The cost of Amendment No. 1 is $7,245 which increases the total study cost to $592,223. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: This amendment will be funded from the contingency funds set aside in the Transportation Master Plan project budget. Attachments: Contract Amendment No Resolution 68-16 Resolution 221-13 Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 1 — Nelson\Nygaard www.fayetteville-ar.goJ NELSON NYGAARD April 20, 2017 Re: Contract Amendment No. 1— Transportation Master Plan and Downtown and Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Study Whereas Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. and City of Fayetteville previously entered an agreement dated 15th of March, 2016 ("Agreement"), and by this first amendment desire to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement in consideration of the ongoing promises and obligations of the parties and hereby agree as follows: Nelson\Nygaard continues to recognize that the -Parking Study is complex and requires significant education for both targeted stakeholders as well as the general public. To address these concerns, the original scope of the study evolved significantly from what was originally envisioned to necessitate additional deliverables. These additional tasks are outlined below, and a detailed report by hours and cost is attached and incorporated by reference herein. These tasks have exhausted the budget that was originally available to produce a final report and presentation. ■ Digitizing and mapping Sunday parking utilization counts and Wilson Park utilization counts ■ Development of West Lot memorandum The total overage for these additional tasks is $7,245. Exhibit A is expanded to include the services set forth herein, and the amount not to exceed in Article 3 is increased by $7,245.00 to $592,223.00. All other terms 6f the original contract including hourly pay rates remain unchanged. In witness whereof, the parties have executed this amendment by their authorized signatories effective as of the date first written above. NelsonConsulting Associates, Inc. By: Name: Title:._ Attest: _14 Name: r, ve—ry k`4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. n6 New Montgomery Strcet, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Date Signed: L(2-6.Zo P7 - Attest: — 4",/ Sondra Smith, City Clerk Date Signed: �" ��8 -%i .r�!ttj 17R �e��rrr ��'■' �C'\I Y Q'� +`se f AYi<TiEVI LLE ; 77 FRANKLIN STREET 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 617.521.9404 FAX 617-521-9409 www.nelsonnygoord.com FAYETTEVILLE PARKING AND MOBILITY STUDY City of Fayetteville ORIGINAL PARKING STUDY BUDGET: Fayetteville TMP Budget 2/24 Paul Moore Jason Schrieber Lisa Jacobson 1,191sonifilygaard Labor Associatel GISServlces Costs RalphDeNlsco ElizabelhCohon Paul Moore Schrieber Jacobson 1 Services DeNisco Cohen Senior Senior Associate GIS Associate Principal? Principal Associate Asaoclalot GISSecvlcn Principal Associate 2645 Base Rab 89.25 6942 47.93 26.45 49.59 64.46 42.,98 112.81 75 21 Overhead 175.00% 156.20 121.49 83.88 46.28 8&78 112.81 7521 S270.00 $210.00 $145.00 $80.00 _. Prod 10% 24,55 19.09 13.18 7,27 13,64 17.73 11.62 NN Labor 515.5W Total Will" Rate Description 3210A0 6240.00 $145.00 SBO -00 $15000 6195.00 5130.00 I Hours Cost PARKING AND MOBILITY STUDY E.mvv and Fulum Parkin¢ ODIAW Analysis , . `6 5.8.1 A ProjeclManagemen{ Kick OBand Background 25 10 10 12 34 a 48 56,650 .5.8.18 Parking Invenbry and Utilization 6 12 30 24 4 24 96 512,120 8.8.1 C Exising and Futile Parking Denond Analysis 59,700 1007 4 16' 40 8 2 24 86 $9,870 ;5.8.1 D Slakehoder and Pubic Parldpafon 40 .12 16 12 4 24 fib 89,700 5.8 .2 A Document Currenl Managerront Pracices 4 6 a 55,300 55,300 100% 2 24 40 $5,939 .5,8,2 B DocurrenlSupporive Elements Matlmpact Partying Mgrrt 4 _ a 12 4 12 40 $5,308 5,8 .3 A lnifal Perking ManagerrentStralegies 1210 12 16 40 4 4 241 961 S11,940 5838 Pubic Inpulb ReIne Inifal Strabgies 5 8 3 B Pubic input to Refine Ireow Se ag4as 12 12 12 ^ 19 42 $6,600 .58.3 C Dralland Final Strabgies and Desin+Deiverables S6.61M 304444 1 Dial and Final Slralegles and Design 8 3 C 209 4 80� 11778 525,460 5 D01rr0r815j•>'b y 44 IfS Q� :+C� JIf k rf l F r—=1 SZ.460 525,100 100% ■!l i—:` UPDATED PARKING STUDY BUDGET I Fayetteville TMP Budget 212212017 Jason Lisa Associate GIs Ralph Elizabeth 8 Paul Moore Schrieber Jacobson 1 Services DeNisco Cohen i Senior Associate GIS Associate Principal? Princlpal4 Assoclale 1 Services Principal 3 Base Rain 8926 89 42 17 93 2645 49 59 C114ti p 98 I Oeoihead 595+ 15620 121 49 8368 'If. 26 8618 112.81 75 21 Profit 10k 24 55 " ig o9 13 18 7 27 l3 &1 1773 11 82 NN Labor Percent ' Total Billing Rale S270.00 $210.00 $145.00 $80.00 _. $15000 5195.00- 5130.00 Hours Cost Original Comple.l� 5 8 1 A PropFct Management, Kick 03 and 10 10 12 8 8 46 56,850 50,850 100% Background Parking Inventory and U01aa1ion 5 B 1 B (Out of SWMDeng and mapping Sunday parkvvr.0AzoWcwnts and WOCOPark 24 30 28 32 120 515.5W 512,120 128% padorg ublizabon counts) E.mvv and Fulum Parkin¢ ODIAW Analysis S B I C {Ou1 allc4pe- West Lot MBhrD12Ad11nn) iD 25 40 2 34 1 $1 SI3,73 59,870 139% :i B 1 DSlakdhokler and Public Participation 12 16 12 4 24 68 59,700 59,700 1007 5 B 2 A Dlxvrilgnl t of enl Monageme0l Prack " 5 8 2 2.1 40 S5,930 $5,930 100% 5 8 2 BgocumenlS4lPpOtWe.Elemenl3 Thal Impact 4 B 12 4 12 40 55,300 55,300 100% Parkkg Mgrnt S83AInAa� IParwmmariagemiymSeategies 1210 40 4 24 90 511,040 $11.940 100% 5 8 3 B Pubic input to Refine Ireow Se ag4as 12 12 ^ 18 42 S6.61M b6,500 t00% 1 Dial and Final Slralegles and Design 8 3 C 5 D01rr0r815j•>'b 30 44 20 a BO 178 SZ.460 525,100 100% �--�----�•p � ( NelsonlNygaartl Consulting Associates Inc. 12 4 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 Resolution: 68-16 File Number: 2016-0104 RFQ #15-08 NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC.: A RESOLUTION TO AWARD RFQ 415-08 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. 1N THE AMOUNT OF $584,978.00 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION - MASTER PLAN AND DOWNTOWN/ENTERTATNMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY REPORT, TO APPROVE A PROTFCT CONTINCMNC'Y TN THF. AMOUNT OF ,$14,740.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADfUSTMENT WHEREAS, Resolution No. 221-13, which was passed on November 5, 2013, expressed the intent of the City Council to .fund the development of an updated Transportation Plan. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby awards RFQ 415-08 and authorizes a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. in the amount of $584,978.00 .for the development of a Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertaiiunent District Parking and Mobility Report, and further approves a project contingency in the amount of. $14,740.00. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. PASSED and APPROVED on 3/15/2016 Page 1 Prinfed on 3116116 0 File Number; 1016-0104 Resolution: 68-16 Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer .,%1111111 tj 1r,r 'lam l• CRr- rrr� S '�c Page 2 Printed on 3116116 4 -ter City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 3 t Text File File Number: 2016-0104 Agenda Date: 3/15/2016 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: D. 1 RFQ ##15-08 NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC.: A RESOLUTION TO AWARD RFQ #15-08 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $584,978.00 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND DOWNTOWN/ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PARKING AND MOBILITY REPORT, TO APPROVE A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,740.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, Resolution No. 221-13, which was passed on November 5, 2013, expressed the intent of. the City Council to fund the development of an updated Transportation Plan. BE IT RESOLVED BY TAE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section I: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby awards_ RFQ #15-08 and authorizes a contract with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. in the amount of $584,978.00 for the development of a Transportation Master Plan and Downtown/Entertainment District Parking and Mobility Report, and further approves a project contingency in the amount of $14,740.00. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy ofwhich is attached to this Resolution. City o1 Fayeffevllle, Arkansas Page 1 Prfnfed on 3/18/2018 w RESOLUTION NO. 221-13 A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO FUND A TRANSPORATION PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.00 TO $500,000.00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its intent to fund a Transportation Plan in the amount of $250,000.00 to $500,000.00. PASSED and APPROVED this 56 day of November 2013. APPROVED: ATTEST: B 1-- -- B _ IONEL 0 AN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City. Clerk/Treasurer t`oij%11 a Fr►,11s �.��, • C T Y 0 ,3G - - - FAYFTTEVILLE -''- i A w- sV ��•,, z ��dt/'6� ' i�ib1�5C�'��