4) All bike spaces fill up completely once a day proportionately by faculty, staff, and student ratios. 5) The same percentage of faculty and staff walks and bikes to campus. 6) Students hold 5% of all permits and fill up 4 times all metered spaces in a day. 7) Faculty holds 50% of all permits, and staff holds 45% of all permits. 8) Only staff carpools and vanpools. 9) The remaining portion of each population rides a bus to campus. Although some of these assumptions may grossly generalize the different Pitt populations’ commuting behaviors, they provide a relationship between some of the known numbers from Table 15 and estimated modal distributions in Table 16.
Students
Table 16 – Summary of Calculated Commuting Distributions FY08 FY11 FY14 Bike 3.2% 4.9% 4.7% Walk 38.3% 36.2% 40.2% Drive Alone 3.3% 2.8% 2.4% Carpool 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bus 55.3% 56.1% 52.7%
FY17 3.3% 40.2% 2.3% 0.0% 54.2%
Faculty
Bike Walk Drive Alone Carpool Bus
3.2% 3.2% 71.0% 0.0% 22.7%
4.9% 4.9% 63.4% 0.0% 26.8%
4.7% 4.7% 49.4% 0.0% 41.1%
3.3% 3.3% 47.5% 0.0% 45.9%
Staff
Bike Walk Drive Alone Carpool Bus
3.2% 3.2% 29.5% 9.6% 54.6%
4.9% 4.9% 30.0% 5.2% 55.0%
4.7% 4.7% 24.7% 4.6% 61.2%
3.3% 3.3% 23.6% 4.0% 65.9%
Attempt was made in holding the same assumptions as in the previous inventories; however, some of these assumptions have changed in an effort to incorporate all the known data shown in Table 15. Inventories for FY08 and FY11 were based primarily on assumptions and incorporated only a portion of the Pitt provided data shown in Table 15. This approach used in FY14 and FY17 is expected to give a more comprehensive evaluation of the different factors influencing Pitt’s commuter choices and provides a firm and quantitative framework for the assessment. These results seen in Table 17 show an overall increase in miles, which can be attributed to an increase in total community members. Although the percentage of those who take the bus rose while personal driving fell, the overall increase in total community members offset this shift.
21
