A discussion on the number of parking spaces needed for an apartment complex on Olive Drive led to the Vanguard presenting data from the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies that found, in terms of mode share of students getting to campus, only 30 percent of the 36,000 who traveled to campus used a car, either driving alone or in a carpool.
While an instructive piece of data, it was correctly pointed out that, just because students are not using cars to travel to campus, it does not mean they do not have a car and thus do not need a parking space at the proposed apartment complex on Olive Drive, Lincoln40.
Wrote one commenter, “The data does not in anyway show how many students own cars or need parking by their residence. I would suggest that many students who own cars do not use them to travel to campus. My experience is traveling to campus is easier and cheaper by bike, so that’s what students do. Cars are more often used for shopping and trips to their home cities. Car trips to campus is not an indicator of car ownership.”
They added, “I have no reason to dispute that fewer students own cars, however, the data used in this article does not demonstrate that.”
Since this is a fair point, and one that is not immediately answered in the 2014-15 Campus Travel Survey report, the Vanguard reached out to Calvin Thigpen, a PhD candidate in Transportation Technology and Policy (TTP) at UC Davis, who is the one who wrote the report and is working on finalizing the 2015-16 report – which he said is not all that different from the previous report.
He pointed the Vanguard to page 51, table 44 of the report which shows that about 47.9 percent of all students have “access to a car.” Breaking it down, just 42.7 percent of undergraduates have “access to a car,” compared with 70.8 percent of graduates and 93.3 percent of employees.
Those who live outside of Davis are nearly all driving into town, with 91.5 percent having access to a car, although it doesn’t break it down by category – student versus employee. Of those who live in Davis, less than half have access to a car – again, across all categories.
Calvin Thigpen noted that having access to a car is not a perfect measure of car-ownership as “some students could be referring to the same shared car.” He estimates that about 14,939 students have “access to a car.” That breaks down to 10,862 undergraduate students and 4077 graduate students. Based on that question, he would guess that the number of actual student-owned cars is an overestimate.
Given the much higher numbers of people who have access to a car who live outside of town, not to mention the likely overestimate of access to a car, due to the number of students who are able to borrow someone else’s car rather than own their own, the real number of undergraduates is probably a lot closer to one-third who would need a parking spot at the new apartment complex.
Factor in the close proximity to campus, the easy bike or walking trip across Richards Blvd. to the bike path and the possibility of the rental complex charging for their parking spots, and students will probably self-select themselves out of any problem with limited parking.
The Lincoln40 complex offers 708 beds but only 239 parking stalls, around one parking spot for every three beds.
As we noted in the initial article, commenters were skeptical that this would be enough.
Another responded, “Good question, and these developers are apparently going to wave their magic wand and reduce the car usage to half. This will result in the cars parking in other areas near this enormous project and imposing those parking impacts there. I’ll bet that they will try to charge a parking fee to increase their profit margin even more while eliminating all affordable housing. It is astonishing that City Staff would even consider any of this.”
Later they added, “Lack of availability of parking on the streets will simply set up a situation of competition for parking spots on the street spilling out beyond to other areas. How does Lincoln40 plan to control the number of cars from its residents when they are providing only half of what is needed for that number of residents?”
However, based on our initial analysis of driving to school and now our analysis with car ownership, we think that the projected parking lot would accommodate the rough needs of the residents. Most importantly, this analysis is based on current behavior and not projected changes to student driving and car ownership.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Again the Vanguard makes a major unsupported leap from data to conclusion. The concluding paragraph sums it up best:
This paragraph equates the “needs of the residents” with “with student driving and car ownership.” But no evidence has been offered that the residents of the Lincoln 40 apartments will all be students. Indeed unless this project is sold or leased to the University, there is no legal ability to restrict renter-ship to students. No part of this article even suggest why the apartment complex would be predominantly students. So like the article from a few days ago, this article cannot make the conclusion it puts forward based on the data it cites.
Not sure why you believe that the article needs to support either conclusion. The more operative question is whether there are 708 people who would like to live in a place like Lincoln40 with the proposed amenities. As an analogy Lincoln40 does not have a pool. It is not necessary to prove that the renters of Davis are predominantly hydrophobic though some of the posters on this blog certainly are, at least in the classical sense. If a complex is build with a very small pool then the question arises will people sneak into the other complexes to use their pool or will the pool be adequate to meet demand?
I think the DV has done a capable job demonstrating that the parking spaces will be sufficient to meet the demand of the tenants without unduly creating problems for the city of Davis.
Grok, Try for a minute to grasp the progressive idea of non-car ownership and use of bikes, public transportation, uber and zip cars as a lifestyle. Many millenials are going this route and not just students.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree if you believe that a facility renting by the bed is not going to end up with 95% student population. Reguardless, anyone who moves there will know there is limited parking and that they may incur additional fees for parking. I see this as a non-issue.
Grok wrote:
> But no evidence has been offered that the residents of
> the Lincoln 40 apartments will all be students.
Then David wrote:
> You and I are going to have to agree to disagree if you
> believe that a facility renting by the bed is not going to
> end up with 95% student population.
How about the “evidence” that EVERY apartment that rents by the bed near a University in America (including University Court across the street from Trader Joe’s) is almost all students (not filled with car owning commuters who drive in and out of town during rush hour)…
Never say “never”, and don’t say “every”… both are always (pun intended) WRONG… except, perhaps, ‘every square is a rectangle’, but one could argue that’s a “definitional thing”…
I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you that the apartments will predominantly house students. I have just pointed out that the data you present in the article does not show that Lincoln 40 will predominantly house students, and that there can be no legal requirement that it house only house UCD students unless it is purchased or leased by UCD.
Please direct me to the source for your claim that Lincoln 40 will be “renting by the bed.”
I am absolutely amazed by the posts here. As I pointed out above, this article equates residents with students but offers no evidence to show that this is true. I stand by this statement. A string of posters have jumped to the conclusion that I am advocating for increasing parking. In no way did I advocate for anything beyond intellectual honesty.
This article does not demonstrate that the Lincoln 40 apartments will be occupied by students. There may by information out there that can prove that Lincoln 40 will be all or mostly students, but it was not presented in today’s article, nor was it presented in the article a few days ago.
No, you are advocating that the project not be built, I think.
I have not advocated for or against the complex. At this point I am willing to take these 3 positions:
1) The better project for this parcel would have been a parking garage for the train station and downtown to help get cars off of I80, provide increased parking for downtown, and do so without bringing cars through the Richards tunnel. Train parking can only reasonably be built in proximity to the train station, but housing can be built in may other locations. The opportunity to build this may have already passed.
2) The need for a grade separated crossing from Olive Drive to the Downtown has existed at least since the railroad built the fence and blocked the informal at grade crossing. That need will be increased by the addition of more housing on Olive Drive.
3) Olive Drive needs better bike lanes now. That need will be increased with the addition of more housing on Olive.
“The better project for this parcel would have been a parking garage for the train station and downtown to help get cars off of I80” Do you have evidence that people would use such a facility?
Grok said . . . “1) The better project for this parcel would have been a parking garage for the train station and downtown to help get cars off of I80, provide increased parking for downtown, and do so without bringing cars through the Richards tunnel. Train parking can only reasonably be built in proximity to the train station, but housing can be built in may other locations. The opportunity to build this may have already passed.”
Grok, the opportunity may have already passed, but it also may not have. What has definitely transpired is a significant reduction in the opportunity to get Federal and State funding for such a garage and grade-separated crossing project, with the end result of that reduction being that the project will have to use its operational revenue stream to cover its costs.
I won’t repeat the self-funding fiscal analysis I did for Ron yesterday. Its details vcan be seen here. The net of that self-funding was that non-Davis residents who are train commuters coming to Davis as a convenience rather than using their home city’s train station (and parking) would have to pay between $30 and $60 a day to park in the garage if (A) the monthly debt service costs of the garage are to be covered and (B) parking in the garage is free for Davis residents using it to conveniently patronize Downtown Davis businesses. The higher the level of non-Davis train commuter parking, the lower the daily price could be in the $30 to $60 per day range. Lower levels of non-Davis train commuter parking would mean the higher the daily price would be in the $30 to $60 per day range.
Grok, that leaves us with the question, Do you think non-Davis train commuters will be willing to pay $30-$60 per day to park at the Davis train station rather than at a different (e.g. Sacramento) train station? In the interests of full disclosure, Ron chose no to answer that question yesterday. With that said, it is the key question that is most likely to address the question of whether the opportunity to build such a garage and grade-separated crossing may have already passed.
Matt,
I think a more formal study would need to be done to really determine how many people would use the lot and at what price. I can say I met a women this morning from Yuba City who was willing to accept a parking ticket she estimated to cost more than $300 in order to park and make her train to San Francisco on time. This is of course only incidental evidence and I think a willingness to pay $300+ to park is an outlier, but this combined with the fact the Amtrak lot is usually filled by 6:30am strongly suggests to me that there is both a demand and there are people willing to pay for parking.
The opportunity to build parking on the Lot where Lincoln 40 is proposed may have past, but my hope is if that opportunity ever does come back around area governments would see the benefit to getting cars off I-80 and regional funding would be able to keep the cost much lower than the $30-60 a day you propose. With regional funding, I don’t think there is a need to draw the distinction between Davis commuters and non Davis commuters thus spreading the cost evenly across all lot users and simplifying the parking fees.
I agree there is a demand Grok. The question is what is the price elasticity of that demand. Right now the price is $0.00, so the existing demand is unfettered.
Harkening back to our prior conversation, charging Davis residents the same rate as non-Davis residents for parking there would not produce the increased sales traffic in Downtown that you were looking for in that prior conversation. The $30-$60 a day for the non-Davis residents assumed they filled 50% of the garage and the other 50% was filled by the Davis residents. That means if you charge all the parkers the same rate, the rate would come down to $15-$30 per day. Do you know any Davis residents who would pay $15-$30 per day to park on Olive and walk through the grade-separated crossing to Downtown?
Unless Federal and State funding miraculously reappears, I’m afraid you are right, the opportunity may have passed.
Matt,
Your suggestion that someone who is going downtown to shop for an hour or two should be charged for a full day of parking is not in line with how these things usually work. Generally a garage like this would have an hourly rate that would be more inline with costs of parking in the down town ( I am not sure what that will be, but my understanding is paid parking is coming to the downtown.) Then there would likely be monthly rates for regular commuters, and day rates for daily commuters. Maybe the first hour would even be free to encourage people to park their cars outside the downtown. The point is there are options on how to price parking besides just a flat day rate on size fits all.
You miss my point Grok. If the lot is 50% full of non-Davis residents and 50% full of Davis residents, all being charged (as you suggested) the same rate, each increment of the 50% from the Davis residents will be equal to the same increment of the non-Davis residents . . . $15-$30 per day. The fact that that $15-$30 is spread across multiple Davis resident users is inconsequential when making the aggregate revenue calculations using your assumption.
Sorry Matt, it is not clear to me what your trying to say. Please elaborate. Please note though that the “pie in the sky lot” I am talking about has regional funding and not just Davis funding.
Grok, the annual debt service for each parking space (supported by a grade-separated crossing to the train station and Downtown) is $7,702 (borrowing $75,000 of capital at a 6% interest rate). There are 260 weekdays in a year, which means each space has to generate $30 per day of revenue for debt service, plus operations costs.
If there are no Davis resident discounts offered then the $30 per day is divided by the percentage occupancy (for example if the space occupancy is 50% then $30 divided by 0.5 produces a daily rate of $60 in order to produce the average $30 per day revenue across all the spaces.
If Davis residents receive free parking then the percentage occupancy is only counted for the spaces filled by the non-Davis residents (for example if 25% of the spaces are filled by Davis residents and 50% of the spaces are filled by non-Davis residents then the daily rate for the non-Davis residents needs to be $60 ($30 divided by 0.5) in order to produce the average $30 per day revenue across all the spaces.
The minimal amount of weekend revenue should be enough to cover operational costs.
In the first scenario, the hourly rate would be the $60 daily total divided by the number of hours a day on average that an hourly space would actually be filled. If that is determined to be 6 hours each day, then the hourly rate would be $10. If that is determined to be 5 hours each day, then the hourly rate would be $12.
While offering no evidence to the contrary, nice work if you can get it. I think my hydrophobia comment was apt.
Grok wrote:
> As I pointed out above, this article equates residents with
> students but offers no evidence to show that this is true.
How about offering some “evidence” that shows the residents will NOT be students (it will be hard since EVERY apartment in America near a University that rents by the bed is full of students).
P.S. The “evidence” that less students will be driving can be found at the DMV “69 percent of 19-year-olds had licenses in 2014, compared to 87.3 percent in 1983, a 21-percent decrease”
P.P.S. Since moving to Davis I have met a large number of students here from overseas. None of them had a California drivers license and I’m sure that someone at UCD keeps track of this with “evidence” that not many students coming here from China to get a masters in plant science are buying cars and driving from their apartments in town to campus every day…
Non-students who live in apartment complexes like this are largely of the same demographic and have similar driving behavior as UCD students. Your argument is basically irrelevant.
The only argument I have made is that this blog post draws conclusions that are not supported by the data presented in the blog post.
Please elaborate on what you mean by “apartment complexes like this” and offer an example of another apartment complex like this.
Don wrote:
> Non-students who live in apartment complexes like this
That is why I wrote above:
“is ALMOST ALL students” above (in all caps this time to make it easier to read).
I talked to someone that worked for University Square across from Trader Joe’s a couple years ago and they told me that ALL their residents were students. I’m wondering if Don (or Grok) can name a single apartment anywhere in America that rents by the bed next to a University that we can call and NOT have the leasing agent tell us that “almost all” the residents are students…
SOD
Can you please direct me to the evidence that Lincoln 40 will rent by the bed?
Without taking a position on who will actually live at Lincoln 40 let me point out that Lincoln 40 and University Square are fairly different apartment complexes. Lincoln 40 is immediately adjacent to a regional transportation hub. University Square is Immediately adjacent to the campus. Lincoln 40 appears to be a higher end new development. University Square is a much older apartment complex.
The scoping report references 708 beds including 227 rooms with double occupancy. Obviously all of that would be irrelevant unless they were planning to rent by the bed.
Chamber, that is not very good evidence that the apartments will be rented by the room. Is there any other evidence?
Grok: Since I’m neither the developer nor the Vanguard, I was just sharing my observation about the beds. I would suggest you ask at the meeting tomorrow.
Thanks Chamber, I appreciate both your original answer and your redirecting the question to the Vanguard. Both South of Davis and David Greenwald have stated as a fact that the apartment will be rented by the room, but I have not been able to find any evidence of that. Hopefully one of them can back up their claim.
Grok wrote:
> SOD Can you please direct me to the evidence
> that Lincoln 40 will rent by the bed?
I know that the Lincoln 40 developers are “planning” to lease by the bed (just like the developers of most other new student oriented developments near major Universities in the last 10 years).
I don’t have any “evidence” of this since the property is just starting to go through the planning process. If you look at other HighBridge and/or Progress Student Living properties you will see that they lease by the bed.
P.S. To the moderator I’m not always correct and if someone wants to link to something proving me wrong I am fine with that (and will apologize) but having someone (like Grok) telling multiple people over and over that they are wrong without posting any evidence gets old (and makes me want to go away again)…
P.P.S. To David any talk to the blog software about the “block poster” that some blogs have (it takes a lot of time to scroll through the hundreds of posts mindless posts Grok makes)…
Pretty funny really. SOD gets caught claiming the Lincoln 40 project will be a rent by the room project but can provide no actual evidence that that is the case, so he claims he knows because he is friends with the developer or something and wouldn’t it be a better world if grok wasn’t here to point out that he made a false assertion. Poor SOD.
Grok said . . . “unless this project is sold or leased to the University, there is no legal ability to restrict renter-ship to students. No part of this article even suggest why the apartment complex would be predominantly students. So like the article from a few days ago, this article cannot make the conclusion it puts forward based on the data it cites.”
Grok, what kind of evidence are you looking for? The proportion of students to non-students at Lexington could be one possibility. However, it would be useful to understand what you believe would be compelling evidence.
Matt,
Thank you for your thoughtful question. I was not seeking information to advocate for any specific position in relation to parking at Lincoln 40. In the interest of helping the author of this blog post prove the point they have now twice tried to demonstrate, here are a couple of suggestions.
The proportion of students to non students that live at the Lexington would not be a useful number because the Lexington is part of the official UCD student Housing. I believe it is a master leased facility. http://housing.ucdavis.edu/buildings/sha/the-lexington.asp
Information similar to the ratio of students to non students at the Lexington apartments that are not part of the University student housing program might be helpful. The comparison would need to be to apartments that have similar proximity to regional transportation like the Amtrak station and downtown amenities, because both could have a significant impact on renter-ship. I am sure there are other types of information that could support the conclusion Lincoln 40 will be rented predominantly by students.
The most car dependent commuters to UCD, according to data David published the other day, seem to be from workers priced out of Davis by the supply imbalance created by the need for the university to grow and the unwillingness of the city to accommodate that growth. In other words, for all of Davis’ talk about sustainability, we have fostered a situation that is exactly the opposite of sustainable when it comes to the biggest environmental threat the world faces, greenhouse gas production.
Grok
I would like to start with the premise that neither those arguing for or against the adequacy of the current parking plan know what will actually happen. I think it is also fair to say that each side is writing as though they do know some things that remain unknowns.
First unknown. What percentage of the units will be rented by students. As was presented to us, the project was being specifically targeted to students. Now while this certainly does not mean that only students will choose to live there, it has been my experience as an apartment renter during all but one year of my education ( 11 years), buildings so planned tend to be almost exclusively students. It might be worthwhile to try to determine what percentage of other so targeted apartment complexes have been inhabited by students.
Lets suppose that not all of the apartments are rented by students. If some are rented by other than students it is actually unknown how many parking spaces would be needed since we do not know who this people would be and whether or not they might be choosing this location specifically because a car was not needed for their chosen lifestyle. So the supposition that twice as many parking spaces are needed than provided certainly does not hold based on anything more than conjecture.
I see this as a genuine concern, but not necessarily a prohibitive one. Hopefully more information will be forthcoming leading to less speculation.
Tia, thanks for your thoughtful post.
I agree that there will always be a level of uncertainty to the future, but there are things we can do to predict behavior. The DV article today and a few days ago would seem to predict student behavior at least by past performance, the articles just have not closed the loop to show that Lincoln 40 will predominantly house students. I have not taken a position advocating for more, less or the same amount of parking as is being proposed. I would however be very interested to see more information about who will likely live in these apartments.
Why does it matter? People will self-select to live where they find the appropriate balance of cost they can afford and amenities they need. Those who choose Lincoln40 will know in advance that parking will be limited and act accordingly as they determine if the facility is an appropriate choice. I see no value in attempting to micromanage what others choose for their own living situation, so it really doesn’t matter who will live there. This complex will simply be one more option for people to consider.
Mark, I don’t disagree with you on this post. My interest stems more from the fact that the vanguard has now twice put forward data and claimed it shows car ownership at Lincoln 40 will be low, but twice the data has not supported the claim.
I doubt it. From your posting history, I think it is clear that your real interest is to create doubt in the public’s mind in an effort to diminish the project. If you really agreed that it doesn’t matter who lives in these apartments, you would not be posting about your ‘concerns’ about the VG.
Uh huh…
Mark, this is just another in a list of bs accusations you have leveled against me. Are you now going to claim that the Davis Enterprise is paying me to try to diminish the integrity of the Vanguard or that someone else is paying me?
I am making no accusations, Groc, I am just expressing my opinion based upon the content of your writing. While I happen to know who you are, I don’t know you, so my only method of assessing you is through your words, both now and in your previous stint here in town. Based on your postings regarding Nishi, Hyatt House and now Lincoln40, I see scant evidence that suggests that honesty, intellectual or otherwise, is a particularly important factor in your commentary. In fact, I would say that your efforts are more consistent with your being a disciple of the approach made famous by Al Davis – “Just win baby.”
This is just my opinion, Grok. Others are free to make their own assessment.
OK Mark fair enough. lets get a beer or something then because we probably have more in common than not. Grab me the next time you see me and we can figure out when.
Since I also know who you are Grok, add me to the list of people to meet in person. Just let me know when might work for you.
I have told you before, the place where I drink beer doesn’t serve imaginary people.
Misanthrop
“created by the need for the university to grow and the unwillingness of the city to accommodate that growth”
This could also be seen from a couple of different perspectives.
1. The “need” of the university to grow could be seen as the “choice” of the university to grow. While I would not limit and would argue for expanding the education of California students, I think that would could make a reasonable case that the choice could have been made to limit the number of out of state and foreign students.
2. One could also make the case the given that it was the university choice to undertake rapid expansion with the city having no say, that the university should have been more proactive in expanding their on campus housing choices. In my view it is not the sole responsibility of the city to house all the students that the university decides to accept and that some balance is needed and neither side has acted responsibly in this matter.
Tia wrote:
> The “need” of the university to grow could be seen as the “choice” of the university to grow.
Just like Kaiser would not be successful today if it did not grow and expand to cover people that worked outside the Kaiser shipyards, UCD would not be successful today if it did not grow and expand and become more than a “University Farm” east of the UC Berkeley campus.
P.S. To Tia if you don’t agree with me on this think about how many medical students were at the “University Farm”…
P.P.S. No adult is forced to live in Davis and everyone that thinks that the city or UC is getting too big they have the “choice” to move to a smaller college town next to a smaller college…
South of Davis
“The “need” of the university to grow could be seen as the “choice” of the university to grow.”
I will stand by the accuracy of my statement that this is choice. I made no statement at all about whether or not I think it is the right choice. But it certainly was the decision of the university and the city of Davis was most certainly not consulted although making the decision surely must have known that a burden would have been placed on the city by their unilateral decision making, and their unilateral choice not to honor previous agreements.
Also, I do not share your apparent belief that growth is necessary for excellence. Some businesses, educational institutions, and communities choose to maintain at a small size for long periods of time without stagnating. Just two examples from my direct experience. In Southern California my two favorite restaurants, one Italian and one Mexican were family owned and operated business handed down through multiple generations without ever expanding their businesses. They had found their niche and were content.
“This could also be seen from a couple of different perspectives”. You could look from different viewpoints however the reality (not perspective) is that UCD is paid for by the people of California to educate students from California though it does have a side business in out-of-state students. Every dollar they spent on housing is a dollar less to educate students. Many of the suggestions here for high rise student housing are very expensive and are unlikely to be seen as worthwhile by the average CA taxpayer. Taxpayers may legitimately ask why they should pay more money to house students in the fashion that certain people in Davis prefer rather than educating more students.
Not sure I have heard a reason to do so that would be compelling to the people who are paying the bill.
quielo: “Every dollar they spent on housing is a dollar less to educate students.”
I recall that “Edison” repeatedly referenced a company that specializes in campus housing which provides all up-front costs, and recoups those costs over time via rent. No cost to the University or taxpayers.
There are several companies that would build housing on that basis. Whether they would build the high-cost 10 story dorms is something that I have no idea about.