News

Let It Ride

The grim spectre of parking continues to hover over the head of every student with a car. Last year the Commentator ran several articles that dug into exactly what was going on with both plans to alleviate current problems and the parking program itself. Even though those articles received one of the largest responses in recent memory, indicating that this is a topic of much concern, this year has seen little in the way of improvement.

In fact, this year has seen a rise in cost to students with hardly any immediately discernible positive impact on quality or availability of services. Many students returned to find they are now required to purchase a $24 per term "overnight parking permit" in order to make use of the Bean Lot after dark.

Obviously the people mainly affected by this new type of permit are any of the close to 3,000 students who are on-campus residents. More likely than not, these students will shell out the extra $24 a term rather than park their cars off campus in protest. This also equates to a whole bunch more revenue for the Office of Public Safety, which already hands out thousands of citations for parking overtime at meters and in lots with posted time restrictions and "improper parking."

And be on the lookout, because OPS officers will probably be able to increase their ticket-issuing efficiency this year. Three of the 16-person public safety force have now been dedicated, either partially or fully, to parking detail. Two officers, who will be using the standard OPS vans to patrol the campus for parking offenders, have as their sole priority the enforcement of campus parking regulations. An entirely new program has been implemented as well. The Bicycle Patrol Program is now under operation as another way to nail parking miscreants. This officer, also drawn from the existing OPS staff, will "provide a highly visible, rapid response to incidents on campus," said Rand Stamm, head of the Parking Program, which is somewhat ironic considering very few people have any OPS officers on a bike yet. While one of this officer's duties will be parking enforcement, it is by no means the only thing the Bicycle Patrol will be for, according to Stamm.

However, Stan Reeves, who is the director of the Office of Public Safety, has referred to the Bicycle Patrol as enhancing the ability of his department to "access and respond to parking and other public safety problems."

Some construe this as meaning the officer on the bicycle will be checking for expired meters rather than pedaling through the more remote parts of campus where emergency call boxes aren't as handy and crimes such as assault may very well occur.

Even before the intent and ultimate outcome of the Bicycle Patrol Program is examined, cost must be considered. Fortunately, both the initial outlay of money to get the program on its feet and the yearly cost to run the program are negligible. About $800 was spent on capital (i.e. the bike) and the projected annual expenditure for the program is about $200 which would go to maintenance most likely. All these costs can probably be taken care of with a good week of handing out parking tickets

Obviously, then, the Bicycle Patrol Program's benefits outweigh the objections, as long as it does more than just hand out more citations. The capability to more efficiently and effectively police the campus that the bike patrol provides could be a big step in making a reality of the campus community free of violence and crime that many groups are working toward. Hopefully if this infant program works out, the staff will be expanded so that it can do some real good.

Of course, this praise doesn't mean there isn't tomfoolery occurring within the efforts to reform parking.

First of all, it has taken almost a year to come up with just these few changes to the system. The Transportation Subcommittee of the Campus Planning Committee spent months reviewing possible routes to improve the parking situation. Eventually the group, made up of faculty, staff and students, recommended several new tactics to decrease the number of cars on campus. Those of the recommendations the OPS adopted are rather unspectacular. They begin by leaning on LTD services like Park & Ride and Ride Match which, though certainly aimed somewhat at students, were not put into practice for or because of the University.

Autoparq, an electronic device that allows you to pay the meters around campus without coins, is also a fairly new addition to the parking repertoire. The meter rates, by the way, were raised late last year to $.65 an hour. This has vexed many meter users not only due to the added expense, but because a couple of quarters no longer get you enough time to go to class for 50 minutes and get out in time to beat the constabulary to your car. All the change you have to carry nowadays may make the Autoparq machine look good but remember, you have to buy the damn thing.

Temporary permits, which have almost nothing to do with anybody or anything that really contributes to the current parking congestion are also touted as some sort of solution. All it really means is that for $2 a day they're letting some joker fill yet another spot so that you can't use it.

These, then, were the major steps forward in terms of parking for this year.

Understandably, some people complained.

They complained not only about what basically amounts to an all-around hike in prices, but in how these changes were arrived at and subsequently made public.

Rand Stamm points out that not only were students involved in the actual decision making body but letters were sent to many groups on campus informing them of the changes, new students were informed during IntroDucktion, there was a public hearing last spring, a web site devoted to the changes, several Emerald articles and ASUO participation throughout, everybody in the world should have known.

Of course, taking into consideration that one of the people complaining about not ever having heard about the changes was the ASUO Programs Advocate. That avenue of information dissemination apparently broke down. And while a web site is certainly a legitimate way of getting the word out, it is foolhardy to think students will stumble across the information while searching for information for term papers or nudie pics.

As far as Emerald articles and public hearings, only students are to blame for not acting on the information. But one must take into account that the people most directly hit by changes such as the overnight parking permit are incoming freshmen who have no idea what's going on at college anyway. Those with the voice to speak out last spring when this was discussed probably realized this had nothing to do with them because they were all moving off campus anyway. And how many of you remember what the hell went on at IntroDucktion, if you even went at all?

Perhaps the major culprit here is the monumental bureaucracy that is the University of Oregon. The research that went into this article took over three weeks as I was bounced between bureaucrats, each of which referred me to another phone number where I was assured someone would have an answer. In some cases, I eventually wound up talking to the same person I began with.

Going to the source didn't help as OPS doesn't have it's own budget information or history. I went to the Resource Management office where I was asked for back copies of the Commentator so they could "get a feel for what you're doing." Finally the fifth person in Johnson Hall I spoke with could get me the information I needed. He was very friendly and helpful, even though I did get a little frustrated when he told me that by asking for everything they had on the OPS budget for the last five years I wasn't "specific enough." In the end he promised to get me paperwork from the last two years, none of which I've seen yet.

Interviews were no easier to come by than background information. At OPS, Rand Stamm told me to talk to Stan Reeves who said Mr. Stamm was the man to talk to. Eventually Mr. Stamm agreed to research and answers a list of written questions. He did so and was able to provide a lot of excellent data and contact people to get in touch with to get the answer he didn't know. And he did it all in a matter of hours (which was a refreshing change).

Mr. Stamm was also thoughtful enough to include with the returned questions an assemblage of brochures and pamphlets from OPS and various other programs that ostensibly address parking.

For example, I have no idea what Saferide has to do with the school's parking problem. Saferide is an admirable program, but it provides service only to female students who don't feel safe walking around campus and the vicinity. How this has a bearing on providing adequate parking without putting the squeeze on students is a bit of a mystery, unless Saferide has suddenly decided that ferrying any student to and from his or her car will somehow significantly contribute to a safer campus or raise awareness regarding women's issues. It is highly doubtful that I could call Saferide and, employing my best James Earl Jones impression, say "I'm at the EMU. My car's in the Bean Lot. I'll be waiting at 13th and University; when can I expect you?"

Thinking about this makes one wonder why, if Saferide is somehow relevant to parking, that there was no Designated Driver Shuttle literature included in the packet. Surely everyday there are hundreds of people driving to school and parking who are thoroughly blotto. If the DDS could only reach these people, hundreds of parking spaces could be saved...

In addition, there were four different pamphlets dealing almost exclusively with having a bicycle at the University. Riding to, from and around campus is an alternative to driving that is being pushed heavily by parking officials.

They are quick to point out that a bike is easier and cheaper to own and maintain than a car and that finding a place to lock it up is a whole lot more simple than finding a convenient parking place. They are also fond of mentioning LTD's new bicycle-transportation capabilities. Apparently somebody thinks that busing your bike to campus will strike all those drivers as a great idea.

While more students using bikes instead of cars is a great idea, it really only trades one set of problems for another. Parking a bike on campus is hardly as fun and easy as it sounds. The same thing happens to the hundreds of spots the University provides for you to lock your bike up as with the hundreds of parking spaces: By 10 am, they've all been taken. Riding right up to the building you have class in and quickly finding a safe place to lock your bike is only slightly more likely than finding a spot for your car closer than a ten-minute hike to that same class.

If that weren't enough to discourage you, wait until you realize how horrendous bike theft at the U of O is becoming. According to the OPS Records Department, the number of bicycles reported stolen almost doubled over the last two years.

During 1993, 160 bicycles went missing from campus. Just last year, that number had rocketed to 302 reported thefts. Anybody who uses a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation probably has a horror story about losing a bike. From taking whole bikes to just raping them for parts like wheels and seats, thieves make off with thousands of dollars of equipment every year from campus alone (could this have anything to do with diverting 3 OPS officers into mainly parking attendant duties?).

Although exact figures were unavailable, the Eugene Police Department agrees that bicycle theft is on a sharp rise in the community.

And you haven't even taken into account vandalism yet. We've all seen the derelict ghost bikes that dot campus bike racks. These are the abused carcasses of formerly serviceable bicycles whose owners decided to just leave them locked where they were after coming back to find deraillers snapped off, rims and spokes broken and entire frames bent in half.

It seems that by encouraging students to opt for bicycles over cars the administration is only adding insult to injury by asking us to pedal our property to the place where it will be stolen or mutilated. Perhaps we should just lie down so it's easier for us to be kicked in the teeth. Factor in that through most of the school year you'll be sopping wet by the time you've ridden to campus and it's no surprise people are still fighting for parking spots.

Among the other notable pieces of literature in the packet was a bland-looking pamphlet entitled "Solving the Parking Puzzle: The University of Oregon Parking Rules and Regulations." The title is half right: There were rules and regulations inside and nothing else. Apart from indicating what students could be fined for and exactly how much each offense cost, this had nothing to do with solving anything. And it sure doesn't help that the entire thing is not only printed in a stomach-turning shade of green, but in a font so tiny that reading more than a single paragraph at a time is to tempt severe brain damage.

What this all comes down to is that if you swing at the ball enough eventually you'll hit one, maybe even put one out of the park. The parking program has hit the ball with things like the Bicycle Patrol Program. This hardly means they've got a good batting average; it just means they got lucky.

Andrew Oberriter, a junior majoring in English, is Editor-in-Chief of the Oregon Commentator