Within the District, diverse parking customers exist. The Consultant Team met with as many of these customer groups as possible. These groups include Health Sciences administrators and deans, faculty members and Senate leaders, student leaders, and representatives who voiced the needs of Health Sciences patients, physicians, staff, University faculty, staff, students and visitors, as well as community representatives including Campus Partners and City officials. A table of all interviews conducted to date is provided in APPENDIX A located at the end of this report. These interviews identified a number of key issues and goals for parking in the South Campus and Health Sciences District, and they are summarized below.
There was great consistency expressed by those interviewed in the identification of parking, access, and traffic problems in the District. The Consultant Team believes from its observations, data collection and analysis, and knowledge of the campus, that the issues raised are real and serious, particularly for the Health Sciences Center. Potential short-term recommendations for addressing some of these issues are identified in this section of the report. However, some of the issues must be addressed by projects that will take several years, such as the construction of garages or changes in roadways. Building more parking, in particular, will solve many of the issues expressed during the customer interviews. Section V of this report evaluates potential garage location alternatives, and Section VI contains an implementation plan for longer-term solutions.
The administrators and physicians who were interviewed from the Health Sciences all agreed that patients and visitors should receive priority for proximate parking. The degree to which this sentiment was expressed varied between departments, but all thought that patients should be given access to the most convenient parking. The list of those interviewed includes, but is not limited to, the following:
The perceived inadequacy of the patient parking supply, difficulty of vehicular circulation, and inconvenient pedestrian access were identified as key competitive issues for the Health Sciences area. Many administrators interviewed expressed concern that OSU’s patient and visitor parking arrangements compared unfavorably with nearby hospitals, such as Grant and Riverside. Unless these conditions are improved, the Health Sciences Center will continue to lose patients, degrade its competitive position in healthcare, and ultimately see severe financial effects from these outcomes.
At present, most patients (with the exception of those going to the Hospital Clinics) are instructed to park in Parking Garage K (12th Avenue), which has an overhead walkway that connects it to the junction of the James Cancer Hospital, Rhodes Hall, Doan Hall, Postle Hall, the Dental Clinic, and the Dentistry Family Practice. However, in many instances, patients arrive at Parking Garage K and find that it is full. To get to the second recommended location – Parking Garage F (9th Avenue) – they must back out of the entrance to Garage K and access 9th Avenue via Cannon Drive or Neil Avenue. For patients and visitors unfamiliar with the OSU campus and with driving in urban conditions, this situation is confusing and frustrating.
To remedy this situation, several Health Sciences representatives identified the need for a dedicated patient and visitor garage located adjacent to primary patient and visitor destinations. Currently, faculty members are instructed to avoid parking on patient and visitor levels of Garage K, Garage F, and Garage J (South Medical Garage). However, it is extremely difficult for T&P to enforce violations of this regulation, since faculty can just remove their hangtag and pose as patients and visitors. Also, there was concern that students are entering the garage, taking a ticket, and then paying a daily fee when they exit. While this practice does not result in decreased revenue for T&P, it does limit the number of parking spaces available to patients.
In addition to a dedicated patient garage, those interviewed thought that the supply of parking for patients and visitors should be increased. This sentiment echoed the T&P Plan, which advocated that a plurality of the new spaces to be constructed in the District be dedicated to patient and visitor parking.
The Consultant Team also reviewed patient survey comments that were provided by the Health Sciences Center. The issues mentioned most frequently, in addition to paying for parking, included:
A comprehensive analysis of access, signs, and wayfinding is currently being conducted under the University Architect and Physical Planning Office and is not in the scope of this study, but these factors must be considered in any discussion of parking in the District. Perhaps even more than the need for additional patient and visitor parking, the view was expressed that the Health Sciences area is confusing for occasional visitors. While the SR 315 off-ramp will improve access, it will also force those exiting to make decisions quickly about where they should go once they cross Cannon Drive.
There was also concern that once patients and visitors arrive at their parking locations, there are inadequate and unclear signs to lead them to their eventual destinations. For instance, if a patient parks in Garage F (9th Avenue), he or she is unable to see the front door of Rhodes Hall, and is unable to see any portion of the James Cancer Hospital. This situation presents the need for clear direction, which, in the opinion of those interviewed, does not currently exist.
An issue that was cited by nearly all of the physicians interviewed was difficulty in finding convenient parking spaces if they have to leave and return to the District during the day. The number of these physicians has increased dramatically as OSU has established new offices throughout the Columbus metropolitan area. Since these physicians often are pressed for time, they would like guaranteed access to a certain pool of parking close to their work locations. While some spaces are provided currently, the sentiment exists that more spaces of this nature are needed, and that demand will continue to increase.
As with patient parking, there are competitive issues with physician parking. There is concern that the perception of inadequate physician parking will hinder the ability of the Health Sciences Center to attract and retain top physicians.
With the construction of the Life Sciences Building and the pending construction of the Psychology Building, Larkins Hall expansion, and the “river of trees,” a substantial number of faculty and staff parking spaces will be displaced in the area north of 12th Avenue and west of Neil Avenue. Since the new buildings will likely bring additional parking demand – or at least relocate it from other parts of campus – employees who work in this area are concerned that their access to proximate parking will erode even as their parking fees are increasing significantly. A similar problem exists on the South Oval Drive area, where proposals to remove the existing parking and vehicular access will displace faculty and leave them few proximate parking alternatives. Both faculty and staff are also concerned that there are not enough short-term spaces in the South Campus area where individuals may park if they come across campus to meetings, affairs at the Faculty Club, to deliver materials, or to teach classes in buildings other than their primary office location. Staff members are also worried that their parking options are likely to decrease, while costs will continue to rise, and that their access to the heart of campus will be even less.
The students interviewed acknowledged that the current situation, in which they are given lower parking priority than faculty and staff, is unlikely to change soon. Their main concerns related to the equity of the current fee structure. For instance, they expressed concern that “C” garage permits were not significantly lower than “A” garage permits, even though “C” access is limited to certain hours and specific garages. Also, there was concern that few medical students are allowed to buy “B” hangtags, even though they are working for the University.
Parking related to future graduate and professional housing was brought up by students. Students feel that parking must be convenient if campus housing of this type is able to compete with similar housing on the private market.
A number of the customers interviewed expressed a desire for more short-term parking to serve all members of the University community, as well as patients and visitors. Some of the short-term parking needs identified included:
Recommendations made previously in this section address short-term parking provision.
A main traffic issue cited by nearly all of those interviewed is the interaction of pedestrians and vehicles at the intersection of 12th Avenue and Neil Avenue. Because 12th Avenue does not align evenly at this intersection and no signals are utilized, the most aggressive drivers are typically the ones who go first, creating a potential safety hazard. Pedestrian traffic at this intersection is intense, and it is not likely to decrease as other campus changes occur.
Another point of pedestrian and vehicle conflict was identified at Garage K (12th Avenue). Although the overhead walkway from this garage is used by many patients and visitors, some still cross at grade, where they must rely on alert drivers to slow down at the appropriate point.
Finally, as was identified in the SCDP, the curve at 9th Avenue and Belmont is a source of problems and confusion. The sweeping curve does not lead to suitable interaction between vehicles and pedestrians, and this is further complicated by a lack of clear directions for both types.
Two of these issues, the intersection at Neil and 12th Avenue and the 9th Avenue and Belmont Street configuration, cannot be addressed in the short-term. Recommendations for change are made in conjunction with Garage Location Alternatives in Section V.
<Back to Section II | To the Table of Contents | Forward to Section IV>