Unfortunately, it's not obvious from the public statement whether we actually got more space for parking or will relying on cramming more people into the same space. Let's hope it's the former...
Football Parking Update
- Thread starter brodo
- Start date
Unfortunately, it's not obvious from the public statement whether we actually got more space for parking or will relying on cramming more people into the same space. Let's hope it's the former...
according to someone in athletics... The extra parking will come from unused lots and added to the current lot colors available.
What lots have been unused?
And what new color will they use? The maroon lot? The gold lot? The mauve lot?
And what new color will they use? The maroon lot? The gold lot? The mauve lot?
No new colors. They will be added to current lots. I am assuming it's purple, black, tan, silver or light blue. Those lots have other paved areas near them.
Seems crystal clear to me...
In an effort to enhance the game day experience, Athletic Director Pat Hobbs has acquired additional parking to guarantee renewed ticket holders a space on the campus of High Point Solutions Stadium.
Asked my rep this question this morning. The Blue and Silver Lots are being expanded. Hobbs went to the University and asked for more parking, and he got it.
Rutgers can "suggest" Piscataway/Middlesex Cty do something but they can't force them to change anything.
I know River Road is a County road but the idea things can't be done is absurd....no commercial traffic on game day for one. Just redirect starting at Hoes Lane W on the one side and Landing Lane on the other. But I would prefer both even further back.
Said it for years now, the buses are fine where they are for the ride in but on the way out they should stage on the eastern part of Sutphen Road and line up towards the White Lot. This in turn makes Scarlet Knight Way open it's full width to the circle. That would be it much easier for the crowd to exit en mass to the Blue, Yellow, Black and beyond.
I would route all buses from the RAC down Cedar Lane to Johnson Park Drive. They would drop off/pick up in Johnson Park just like the buses to College Ave.
Can't tell if serious. His statement is the epitome of obfuscation. All that is clear is that "renewed ticket holders" are guaranteed a "space on the campus." "Acquired additional parking" doesn't specify how that translates into more spaces - could be more actual land set aside for parking or could be the same exact land used more efficiently.
I would do this too. Plus I would close Landing Lane from River Rd, across the bridge to George St (except for buses). This way there is no traffic tie up with buses crossing Landing Lane from one side of the park to the other. People who previously would have headed across Landing Lane can now cross the river on Rt 18.
What? Are you really saying that he is trying to confuse or mislead people in a parking press release? You think he's going to present parking cars closer together as acquiring additional parking?
I was being slightly hyperbolic, but it wouldn't surprise me if the athletic department took the approach of shaving a foot off the space between each row of cars in a lot - that adds up to 9-10 extra feet in a lot with 10 double rows of cars, which should be enough to add another single row, which would allow them to fit another 30-50 cars in a lot (depends on the width of the rows in the lot).
Multiply this times the 10 lots we have and that could be an extra 300-500 cars or maybe 1200-2500 more people, ballpark. Would most of us care if we had an aisle between rows of cars that was one less foot? A few would, but I don't think our group would care much. Let me flip the question around: if they've actually acquired more physical space by expanding certain lots, why wouldn't they simply say that, explicitly?
I think they - like most people - probably assume "acquired additional parking" is pretty explicit. They acquired more parking. They didn't reconfigure parking.
Do you mean in calculating the amount of cars in each lot? In this way they increase the lot size, however, whatever arrives to park somehow fits or is redirected?
2015 was B.S. Herman manipulated season ticket holders to parking at RAC by artificially inflating priority points to generate additional revenue. There was plenty of parking spaces on bush for the season ticket holders that go pushed to RAC. In 2014 there were same amount of season ticket holders as in 15 and they all fit on Bush. In 14 all you needed to be was a season ticket holder and you parked on Bush.
As I said above, my rep told me Hobbs went to the University and asked for more spots in the Silver Lot and got them. Also, they recognized that there was more room in the Blue Lot and alloted more spots in Blue. There was some sort of inference that the previous AD could have done this, but did not. It was also indicated that they were comfortable with the number of people who were booted to the RAC would get back onto Busch.
Is that clear?
Didn't see your post. If they got more real estate, they could've easily said that instead of being imprecise.
Hobbs is trained as a lawyer. Lawyers hate precision (sometimes).
The information posted in this thread indicates that acquiring more parking means there is more actual real estate, not just more parking spaces squeezed into the same lot.
But in answer to your question, there is a point where narrowing the aisles becomes problematic.
NJ code sets the size for Parking lot spaces to be 9 feet x 18 feet, and there to be a 24 foot aisle between rows, when cars are parked at a 90 degree angle to the aisle. That gives each tailgate group 12 feet behind the parking space for tailgating. Standard tailgate canopies are 10 feet in size. So if you set up the parking lots according to code, each tail gate group has 1 foot additional space front and back of their canopy. As you reduce the size of the aisle, you reduce the amount of space each group has to tailgate. Once the size of the aisle is less than 20 feet, you don't have enough room for groups to set up their canopies.
Last year, Rutgers painted orange lines on the grass, to show the parking attendants where to park the cars in each row. If those lines are less than 60 feet apart, then the parking lots are not up to code. If those lines are less than 56 feet apart, there is not enough room for tailgating.
That also means to gain another row of cars, you'll have to reduce the aisles by more than 1 foot. The yellow lot is the longest lot, at about 800 feet. That means about 13 rows of cars (each row containing 2 cars front to back plus an aisle) with 60 feet between rows. To even add a half row (just one car plus tailgate space) of feet, you would need to cut more than 2 feet off each of the existing aisles.
Good post, considering that your math suggests that 10' canopies butted against their host vehicle on either side of the aisle would leave 4' between opposite canopies, which is the precise amount of space that the gendarmes insist on having for their Tactical Parking Lot Vehicles.
This is a problem. They make you agree to buy parking without any idea where you will be assigned.
I dropped from Black in 2014 to Tan in 2015; that is a THREE lot demotion.
There are several lots that were not previously used for football parking that could easily add more parking on Busch
Also they had handicapped parking in two lots between Blue and Tan that usually had about 12 cars parking there.
This wasted hundreds of spaces.
I'm not sure that temporary event parking lots such as the Green, Yellow, and Blue lots fall under that code. Also, Rutgers, as an instrument of the state, is often exempt from codes like this.
Having said that, the orange lines have been used in the yellow lot where I parked my RV for many years. At the edge of the lot RV's are instructed to pull up precisely to one of these lines. The next RV behind pulls up to the next orange line, and so forth. My RV is 34 feet long. I would estimate that a 25 foot gap is behind me before the next RV (orange line). That seems to add to about 60 feet between orange lines.
Maybe you lucked out and found a "free" spot, but I've been to games at the Swamp before and pretty much all of those random parking lots and lawns come with a price tag.
I wasn't suggesting that Rutgers could get fined for not adhering to the code for football parking. I just referenced the code because that is a reasonable starting point for the size of parking spaces. I wouldn't expect Rutgers to exceed code dimensions, giving 60 feet between orange lines. If Rutgers wants to go smaller they can't go below 56 feet. But as @RU4Real points out, less than 60 feet does not allow enough room for the safety carts to patrol the aisles, so there is a safety advantage to Rutgers exceeding the code dimensions.
As I said earlier those roads are either County or NB/Piscataway roads.
I would like to do a lot of things like this but all the stakeholders have to be on board for any change to happen. If we start to do that a lot of our ideas could be implemented.
The bus route in is fine. It's the way out that cause the pedestrian snafu.
Good info - never really thought about how they laid things out. And holy crap, I had never looked up the average length of an American vehicle. My Civic is a svelte 14' or so, but many SUVs are 18', so yeah, I can see why they have 36' per double row of cars (would've thought it was smaller), which, plus 24' of aisle space, is your 60'. Also, not sure the codes apply to temporary parking.
Of course, being an engineer, I now have to contemplate redesigning for optimum space utilization, lol. I never really looked, but I wonder if they start the first row with 12' of space (on the stadium side of the car, which is only used by that first row of cars), then do a double row of cars, then 24' of space, then a double row and so on until the last double row, where they'd then need to add on another 12' of space at the end for the last row of cars (again, not shared space).
Or do they start with a single row of cars up against some barrier or very close to the road and then have 24' of space shared between that single row and the first row of the first double row and so on until the end, which would be a single row of cars sharing the last 24' aisle with the last double row of cars.
Guess it doesn't really matter, but in either case you'd have to add on 12' of space and 18' of car length (30' total) to add a single row of cars with tailgate space. However, if there is 800' of space and 13 rows takes 780' at 60' per double row, including aisle space, then you have 20' extra, so all you need to add another single row of cars (18') and tailgate space (12') is 10 more feet. You can certainly squeeze 10 more feet out of 13 rows, by cutting the aisles down by less than a foot per aisle (10/13th of a foot, actually). Instead of having 4' between canopies, you'd have 3.3' roughly, which I think people could live with.
In the yellow lot, I'd guess less than half of tailgates use canopies, so I think they could get by with squeezing down a little less than 1' per aisle, leaving 23'. I know we'd have no problem with that, since we almost never use a canopy (I hate them, unless it's pouring rain). Of course, a few folks wouldn't be happy when they're canopy to canopy and only have 3'3" of aisle space between the canopies - and the tailgate SWAT teams might not be happy either but f them, lol.
Fun with numbers (pun intended)...
Latest posts
-
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Softball Returns with Youth Movement This Season- Latest: rubaseball78
-
-
-