The Solution to the Parking Problem is...

Wouldn’t it be nice if more people carpooled? I almost had a conniption the other day at the intersection at 23rd and Hilyard. It was a total mess, and I was already late for class. The LTD bus had blocked the entire right lane of traffic while picking up a student on the corner, and anxious drivers were trying to push their way into the left lane and detour around the lumbering behemoth. I cursed the dozen drivers piled up around me for not sparing me the indignity of gridlock by utilizing some other form of transportation. Carpool, hop on the bus, ride a bike; just find the decency in yourself to do something other than inconvenience me. In this sentiment I am not alone, and therein lies the problem with any proposed “solution” to the campus parking problem other than producing more parking spaces.

A few weeks ago, the Emerald ran an editorial called “Solution to Parking is Not More Spaces,” which seemed like an odd deduction. After all, wouldn’t the obvious solution to parking be more spaces? The reasoning behind the Emerald’s argument was more ideological than practical. They offered the clichÈd argument that Eugene “offers many alternatives to driving to school, including bicycle lanes en route to campus, bus service straight to the University, and park-and-ride lots for further destinations. More students should embrace these options instead of contributing to traffic congestion, road rage and air pollution.” Of course less people in cars means more parking, but that argument is little more than hollow talk. It’s the same talk we’ve getting since the University considered building a parking garage back in 1988. And talk is all we’ve been getting since.

Even if you set aside the hassle of parking, driving isn’t always a luxury. There are always the factors of insurance, gas and rush hour traffic to consider. There are 19,000 people enrolled at the UO for fall term, and the majority of them aren’t parking on campus every day. Witness the hundreds of bikes you see chained to poles in the street and next to buildings, and the flood of students pouring out of LTD busses every day.

However, there are also those students— and let’s not forget faculty as well— who simply have to drive. Perhaps they live out of town or far away from a bus route. Maybe they have a job to go to after school, and can’t afford to lose an hour of their day getting on the bus and heading home simply to turn around and drive back to work. Certainly there are exceptions to the strident rule that alternative transportation exists for everyone. These students deserve a realistic chance at finding a parking spot.

The Emerald addresses this in their argument: “How about a permit system based on address, in which the students who live farthest away get permits first, and then the remaining permits are bestowed by lottery?” This proposal suffers from the same dubious thinking that the first one does, a poor excuse offered as a seemingly obvious solution. It would certainly be nice if a perfect system were put into place that could issue out permits based on merit of proximity to campus alone. But is this really feasible? It’s very hard to verify someone’s home address. If you ever try to get a library card from the Eugene Public Library, you’ll see this to be true. The EPL insists upon a bank statement or property lease that verifies your real address. But getting this verification is no easy feat. I myself had to go in three times with three different forms of identification before they finally gave in and issued me a card. This sort of bureaucratic hoop jumping is totally inefficient. To begin with, it wouldn’t be that hard to lie about your home address. Perhaps you’ve moved into a house somewhere on Kincaid, but you still have your mail sent to your parents’ place out in Cottage Grove. Or maybe you just get the permit issued in someone else’s name. Such an untested system would present a rather daunting challenge to a small institution like the DPS.

In fact, the DPS is really not the culprit to blame here. Although they weigh in on campus planning, their main job isn’t to build parking spaces; it’s simply to delegate the ones we have. There are currently 3200+ spaces available for parking, of which students may park in about 1500. This doesn’t figure in the metered spaces available away from lots. By the end of the year, somewhere around 6000 students, faculty, and service vehicles will have applied for permits. Obviously there are more permits than spaces, which may seem a little odd, until you consider that generally not everyone is looking to park at the same time. It’s rarely the case that a parking spot simply cannot be found, though drivers usually have to settle for something far away from campus. This marathon parking can grow tiresome, but it’s a fairly self-equalizing system.

Some students seemed miffed by the amount of parking lots reserved for faculty only, especially the posh lot behind Johnson Hall. But can you really ask Dave Frohnmeyer to park in the ghettos behind the Law School? Again, not really a reasonable request.

This all leads to one seemingly obvious solution: a parking garage. A parking garage would create a lot spaces while utilizing comparatively little space. As previously mentioned, the University did propose a parking garage way back in 1988, when Alf was in its first season and Britney Spears didn’t even have a cup size. The proposed parking garage would have been placed near the School of Music. However, the $170,000 that had been set aside for the parking garage was loaned to the Intercollegiate Athletic Department for the development of the Moshofsky Center. The interest-free loan was not paid back until it was discovered as outstanding in the 1995-1996 school year.

The University used a number of excuses at the time for not building the garage, arguments that are still used today. Number one, they didn’t want to unduly aggravate their relationship with the residents living around the area. This argument is shaky at best. First, most of the “residents” living around 18th and Alder are students who move in and out every year. Not exactly a demographic that would have the gumption to complain to the City Council. Those residents who did live there full time would have reason to be upset about all the extra traffic coming in and out, but the traffic there in the morning is already steady. Many of these streets have public 2-hour parking already, so congestion is abundant. A parking garage may very well alleviate that parking spillover. Another complaint was that 18th, and Alder weren’t ready to handle the traffic rush. Alder was and is a narrow one-way street and 18th isn’t exactly an interstate. Logistically, a parking garage there might cause a lot of traffic flow problems. Is this reason enough to totally write off a parking garage? No. But other locations exist as well that might be better fit to handle the traffic. The lot on the corner of Franklin and Agate is certainly an appealing location, as is the parking lot adjacent to the Knight Library. Finding space for a garage is really a minor problem compared to the ardous task of finding the money to build one.

A parking garage comes with a rather hefty price tag. Building a two-story garage would cost upwards of $12 million and may only provide 300-400 more parking spaces. You could up the garage to three or four stories, but that also dramatically ups the cost. Then there’s the matter of city building permits, which might not allow such a large structure to begin with. All in all, a bureaucratic nightmare.

Back to the $170,000 lost and found by the Athletic Department. The money eventually was used to purchase LTD bus passes for students and faculty, and thankfully to generate 700 new parking spaces, most of which occupy the current Bean parking lot. However, at least 200 of these spaces were lost when the Knight Law School was built. Other construction projects robbed more of the spaces away from students. But still, 500 spaces for $170,000 is better than 350 for $12 million. At least an attempt was made to cater to the needs of drivers.

Another problem is the amount of year-round parking required by residents of the dorms. Students with vehicles in the dorms require not only day parking passes, but also night passes. The DPS only issues out some 400 overnight parking passes during the course of the year, and there are currently 3227 students living in the residence halls. It’s unreasonable for that many students to all have their cars parked here at once. 400 spaces seems like a reasonable middle ground.

What’s the real solution to campus parking problems? I’m afraid there isn’t a tangible one available. From the student’s perspective, finding parking on or around campus is an absolute nightmare. From the University’s perspective, finding the money to accommodate all student-parking needs is totally unfathomable. But that doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel and all buy Huffys. Rather, the University needs to be constantly reminded of the predicament that many students face. The parking crisis is a real problem, and the Emerald’s dismissal of it is insulting at best. The University of Oregon is a landlocked university with limited space to work with, but progress can still be made with creative solutions. The meters on 18th by Hayward Field are a good example of this. The University pays a set dollar amount to the city for the meters, and the city allows students with parking passes to park there all day for free, increasing the amount to non-metered parking available. The new Breeze bus system is a nice addition as well, but it’s really nothing more than a Band-aid. Likewise, park-and-ride bus routes are nice but not always practical. If parking was placed on the same priority level as minority recruitment something might be done. But on this campus, parking is considered a luxury, and an environmentally unfriendly one at that.

Final Thoughts: Don’t hold your breath on a parking garage or a cornucopia of parking spaces, but don’t let a bunch of pavement haters tell you that you don’t deserve to park here.

Pete R. Hunt, earner of five parking tickets this year alone, is Editor in Chief of the Oregon Commentator