Received May 3

From: Lara Nesselroad, Knight Library
Comment: I just finished glancing through this on my e-mail, and I am impressed with its thoroughness. I am particularly please by some specific parts:

The one about providing an emergency option for parents or others who come to campus in a car largely because they need to be able to go get their kids in a pinch or other such things. I am glad you saw that this is an important thing to a lot of folks and are willing to consider ways to let it be important and still help these folks use your alternative methods.

The one about getting students in the dorms (and maybe others) who store their cars in parking to mave over to Autzen. Particularly with a peoplemover, this is such a workable thing, I am astonished no one thought of a way to make it work before. Even without a peoplemover system, I have a suggestion: if you encourage dorm residents to use this system by the reverse-ticket method or any other (maybe dorm residents specifically get a special kind of permit that just flat isn't allowed to be in lots overnight?), this might make such a dent in parking on the east side of campus that maybe you could then add to the number of spaces that are available as short-term loading/unloading spaces for those dorm residents to make it easier to pack up for the weekend home or whatever. Incidentally, my youngest brother attended the University of Washington (I'm sure you have looked at their system already) and was astonished by the low parking rates I paid here. His, especially while living in the dorm, was astronomical. So I think you absolutely can make a case for charging a bundle for dorm residents who aren't willing to use Autzen,

I love the reverse-ticket idea. Good plan.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment that I am impressed by this comprehensive list, and I appreciate the efforts of the committee to create it.

Lara Nesselroad
Knight Library
Alumna, too, '92
6-1918

Name: Catherine Leue, Social Science Instructional Lab; Economics
Comment: I would wager the primary reason [for not car pooling] is the inflexiability that car pooling imposes on us as do the alternative modes of transportation. I have kids. I can't work my schedule around someone else's driving schedule as I have to take my kids to soccer practice music lessons, dental appointments etc.. My car pooling buddies probably are not going to let me use their car for these purposes. Until you offer me something that gives me the same flexibility as me driving my own car, I won't use any of the above suggestions. Period. Instead of trying to force us into what experts might think is the "GOOD" way of commuting ie bikes, busses and the like, why not really find out why people do not use these modes. For me it is strictly flexibility.

Just build a damn parking lot.

Name:
Comment: I really think the "people-mover" is the way to go. There are so many available spots at Autzen stadium and more people could use that area if they could conveniently get over to campus. I would use this service. Also, offering a service for people that ride the bus to be able to get a taxi
if there was an emergency at home or school is an excellent idea. Both of these ideas are workable, would encourage people to either take the bus thus eliminating having to build more parking spaces, or parking a long ways away and being transported to campus. Both would help solve the parking dilemma.

Name: Lee Darling
Comment: I would change the wording of the section that 'invites' departments to schedule classes for other than 10 am to 2 pm M-Th to "tell" departments to do so.

Provide an option to buy daily passes at a reasonable rate, so that those who need to drive occassionally would have incentive to choose those times carefully.

Provide a way for full time office staff who must leave campus occassionally to find a place to park on return.

A parking lot attendant could charge non-University people to park -- I paid $6.00 to park at Harvard for 2 hrs.

Name: Mike Hoffman
Comment: I think you are too reticent to raise parking rates. They are very low compared to other locations on the West side of campus. Ok on the East side. The hospital emps pay around $20.00 to $25.00 per month. Twice U of O rate.

If you do not charge market rates you are in effect providing a subsidy. You are encouraging people to use the service.

Is there anyway to make all spaces assigned and sell them to the higest bidder? It might pay for itself.

I noted with amusement the comments on enforcement on campus. After having watched staff park at univerity meters (not CITY) all day and not plugging the meter I have to conclude this is an on again off again item. If this does not provoke better enforcement I think I have my summer
parking problem solved. Who needs a permit.

Name: Paul Jasheway
Comment: Your recommendations look terrific! Making alternative transportation more efficient and attractive is a tremendous service to campus as well as the whole community. These ideas are innovative, yet practical. I think the suggested plans can take us a long way toward reducing the automobile glut that causes headaches for many here on campus.

Good work!

Received May 5

Name: Joe Stone, CAS; Economics
Comment: My main suggestion in reviewing the UO fee structure is to make a relative comparison for equivalent parking at commercial parking lots in the vicinity (e.g., open, reserved, whatever). The relative price of open vs. reserved should, presumably, be consistent with other alternatives in the area. In addition, the "car pool" discounts are obviously open to substantial abuse unless there is an effective, inexpensive method of policing them.

Name: Bill Holmstrom
Comment: I am very concerned with the plan to ban overnight parking from the Bean parking lot. This directly and unfairly affects residents of University residence halls. The alternative- parking at Autzen Stadium- is obviously unsafe for students who need to access their vehicles during evening hours. The costs of creating a 24 hour shuttle service are great, as well as the costs of providing security 24 hours a day in that lot. There are better alternatives to this plan.
-Create space in Autzen lot for *commuter* students. This would prevent the need for 24 hour transportation and security, making it cheaper and safer to operate.
-Do not sell parking permits to Freshmen. 75% of the university residence hall population is made up of Freshmen. When Freshmen do not bring their cars, the problem of vehicle storage in the Bean lot will decrease dramatically.
-Promoting alternative methods of transportation using incentives such as higher parking and citation costs. Also create positive benefits associated with using transit, as the University of Washington has done with U-PASS.
-A mixture of these plans and other ideas.
The financial costs and security risks of placing resident vehicles in the Autzen Stadium lot just do not make sense when such sensible alternatives make so much more sense.

Received May 6

Name: Kenneth Lehrman, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Comment: While it is apparent that the Transportation commitee has done a great deal of work, I would remind the committee that any transportation plan must take into account the University's legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, a People Mover (tram) must be equipped to permit people with wheel chairs to utilize this alternative. I would recommend that the committee submit its final draft to the University's Disabilities issues Advisory Council (DIAC) before finalizing a plan.

Name: Janet Wentworth, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Comment: My experience with attempting to get into a carpool in L.A. was most disheartening. Even thouigh my chair was manual and even though I was able to transfer without assistance I was not well received when I called to try to arrange a carpool group.

If special dispensations are arranged for carppols many people with disabilities will still be locked out. They will still need to pay the larger amount required for a "regular" parking permit.

Also, if trams are used to shuttle people back and forth at Autzen, They MUST be accessible. It is not enough to say that there will be "disabled" parking available.

Name: Sergio Koreisha, Decision Science (LCB)
Comment: What we need is the parking structure on this side of the river that we have been paying for 7-8 years!!!!

Name: Marianne Koch, Management (LCB)
Comment: The one thing I don't see mentioned in the parking proposal draft is the issue for parents who have to get their children to and from school. Parents who have to transport their children (i.e., alternative schools), or leave in the middle of the day (e.g, for breastfeeding or a trip tothe doctor/dentist) have a hell of a time finding parking. I had a heck of a time getting permission to get a reserve spot when I was leaving to breastfeed Mimi in the middle of the day, because I wasn't going out on "official university business."

I think the UO has to address family needs in the parking policy - some of us would LOVE to use public transportation, but are not able to because of family responsibilities. And I don't think we should be made to feel guilty about it -- if fact, we should be helped by the UO.

Name: Carla Meeske, Marketing (LCB)
Comment: I think the list of priorities for fixing the problem is VERY GOOD. Let's hope that people respond to the initiatives. Let me know if you need help implementing programs.

Name:
Comment: Thanks for putting the transportation stuff on the web. It was very helpful.

To begin with, I think the UO community is very wary of changes in the plan now, and resentful of any increases because the basis of tripling the permit fees a few years back was for the purpose of building a parking structure, and the money was then quietly used for other things. We still feel cheated, and raising the fees signficantly again for an even lesser solution just doesn't sit well.

I thought you might find it interesting to hear a devil's advocate on some of your issues and recommendations. . . While I speak in the first person, some of what I say is on behalf of others who don't want to speak up.

While I am wholeheartedly in favor of your expanding on public transport and shuttles, bikes, etc., a very homogeneous population seems to be assumed. We can not all take advantage of these "healthy" alternatives. I live out of town, and am over 50 years old. While I am not disabled and hope not to be identified as unhealthy, some of your alternatives are unrealistic for me. LTD is unlikely to increase trips to my area, and I'm unlikely to take the bus anyway, as I get carsick quite easily (a genetic thing). Also, the most important errands I have to run are to places that close at 5:30 or 6, so I am on the run as soon as it is 5PM. A bus won't get me to those stops, but a flex time would be a great help there as well as to alieviate "rush hour" problems. Like other employees, I find I must get here earlier and earlier in order to find parking, but that doesn't make more parking. An employer that makes it difficult for workers to get to work and park, and then charges them an increasing amount to do so, is seen as uncaring. A bike is out of the question for me of course, but even my coworkers in town are really up to that -- particularly after a rugged day at work. I also don't want to leave my car in an LTD lot, since that is just an advertisement to theives.

Parking spaces seem to keep shrinking in individual size as well, as though we could all go out and buy a Geo just to commute or something. For single parents, usually female, this is certainly unrealistic. I can only have one car, and a mini-van best fits all the things I need my car to be able to do. Yet places are reserved for "compact" cars, and slots along the street are not generally accommodating a mini-van. Some are exactly bumper-to-bumper on the lines. Also, sometimes I really need to lay down at noon, and/or don't feel well. I've made it possible to do that in my mini-van. By placing such restrictions on the kind of car one drives, one doesn't really limit "parking demand", but simply makes life harder. The same is true of increasing permit cost as a way of "limiting parking demand". It is the most callous of limitations, hitting hardest the single wage-earner with least flexibility of time and the lower paychecks. These are the folks who need to get out fast to pick someone up and stop by over there kind of thing, and you may actually keep them from parking in a lot, but you will have made their lives significantly more difficult, while making it easier for the better off people who can take the time to walk to a lot further away and can pay to have some tasks done, or even do them during work hours. Let's not subsidize the better off on the backs of the lower-wage workers.

I have car-pooled to the UO before, picking up people along the way. However, the carpool permit system was so inflexible that we could not use it. The distance between members was so great that we could not pass around the permit as needed. One rider was a student who might go back at night, etc. They would not allow us a duplicate hanger or anything, so we just took our chances. It took a lot of accommodating, since if I didn't run errands on the way home, I would need to come back to town a 6th day of the week (if those places were open on the weekend), etc., however I almost miss it now.

I also appreciate the limitation of cars on-campus for at least freshman, allowing for some exceptions. And for very many other reasons as well, classes should be scheduled over a wider range of times -- into the evenings, and perhaps also on Saturdays. We are not only out of parking
spaces, but large classrooms, labs, etc. And build parking structures.

Name: Larry Tergesen
Comment: Thanks for allowing us to reveiw the transportation plan electronically. It makes it much easier to review and respond.

The committee has done a good job of drafting the plan which we all appreciate. I would like to make three comments, and be as constructive as possible.

1. It seems to me that much had already been done to promote use of bus and bikes. More routes and better service might help a little but that implementing the free bus service plan, for students, staff, and faculty already has made most of the impact it is going to.

2. The suggestion for Autzen stadium parking has a lot of appeal, mostly though, for those coming from North Eugene, or Coburg Road area.

People coming from South or West Eugene would probably not like going over the Ferry Street Bridge bottleneck twice daily.

Could we find some parking areas between Physical Plant and Research Park, or off Garden Ave, or use old McDonalds lot, etc???

3. Specifically, the suggestion to credit somebody .25 every time they use the Autzen lot is not economically feasible as it would mean someone checking that lot fully and then preparing in some way electronic data to feed the OSSHE payroll system in Corvallis on a daily basis. A cheaper permit would be preferable and far less bureaucratic.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to comment and good luck on your assignment.

Name: Bonnie Ullmann, Institute of Neuroscience
Comment: I would like to comment with my approval of the Autzen Stadium option in which parking is provided with the use of shuttle service. Presently, I use Lot 13 every morning and this is convenient for me because I have a walking disablility. I would request that the planning commission take into account the people who are unable to walk the long distances necessary to get to the LTD bus stops from some places on campus. I am reluctant to get a handicapped parking permit if avoidable, as I do not use a wheel chair and feel I do not need to take up an alter-abled space near a ramp. I would hope that the shuttle would be able to let people off at various locations so that the walk wouldn't be too long from any one place. I would also hope that the shuttle would be able to run from early in the morning as well as to later in the evening to be effective. Many of us are not on a regular schedule. In the same vein, I would like to express my concern with using Lot 13 as a reward for car-pooling. It seems to me that these spaces are ideal for employees with disabilities. There are not very many of these spaces available and I assume it is hoped that many more people will car-pool. Thank you very much for your time.

Name: Lee Sullivan & Sandy Vaughn, Club Sports
Comment: Our recomendations for the Transportation Systems Review:

1. Parking @ Autzen Stadium with shuttle to and from campus.

2. Request LTD to run a direct service on Oakway to the UO, rather than requiring a downtown transfer.

3. discount (refund) for people using other means than private auto to get to campus.

Name: Rogena Degge
Comment: I am pleased there is attention being paid to this parking problem which is near a crisis stage.

However, I am extremely disappointed that increasing the efficiency of existing parking is at the end of the several plans and that the problem has largely been passed on by Jan Oliver to a student/user committee. This strategy seems remarkably shortsighted of her given the size of the problem. Where is the plan to study other campuses to see if there are other systems that might work better--such as graduated fees; omission of the very abused and highly inefficient reserve parking space system, etc.? On any day that I must seek parking, I am overwhelmed by the number of empty reserved (non-handicapped) spaces--and they always seem to be the same ones that are empty. There MUST be a better system than to have so few make it so difficult for so many, given the limited parking. Additionally, as you know, the lots are now filled with people in their cars waiting/hoping someone will leave their space. I was just in a meeting where John Moseley said we are aiming at an increase of 5,000 - 6,000 students in less than a decade. Do any of the plans listed address any growth?

Many of us (faculty and students alike) would love to use alternative parking but cannot--we have families, caretaking, etc. that requires that we come to campus after 9 a.m. and we can never find a place to park (and for me the bus takes an hour--for a 6 minute car ride--and biking is only on Coburg road, the unsafest (busiest) road in the city). The university has made a valiant effort with LTD etc. and I commend continued efforts in the alternative-to-car realms--especially the Autzen plan, but it will not be enough without other more innovative and efficient measures looked into.

I will try to be at the meeting Thursday, and I hope there will be some discussion that includes serious effort to research and implement a better use of existing spaces. The incredible waste of faculty time and public money to hunt for parking is certainly an issue in these "productivity" times. Thanks for your efforts.

Name: Cindy Alexander, Asian Studies Program
Comment: As someone who has voluntarily given up their car, I appreciate many points proposed in this review. Specifically, the option for alternative emergeny transportation for those who do not drive to work. I feel that many people who choose to drive to work, do so because they have children and/or want the flexibility allowed by having their car nearby. Knowing emergency transportation is available if needed makes it easier to leave the car at home.

I also appreciate LTD's cooperation with UO to meet our needs. I have often times wanted to attend a Saturday or Sunday evening event on campus, but decided not to because the busses weren't running.

Name: Terri Benedict
Comment: I think the committee has done a good job researching a complicated problem. You have investigated several options to the one person per car choice and if your ideas can be implemented I'm sure at least some parking spaces will be freed up on campus.

My comments pertain to my personal situation and preferences, but when added to other's perhaps it will contribute to your total picture. I am in favor of any of the choices which can enhance our
physical environment by reducing pollution. But I doubt many will be willing to pay more for the privilege of inconvenience.

I choose not to carpool because I do not want to have to depend on someone else's punctuality. I am a "fair weather" bike rider and usually ride my bike or walk to work when the weather is nice. I live on an LTD route that has express service in the early morning and late afternoon, so have used the bus quite often. And I live within easy walking distance of Autzen Stadium and would take advantage of the "people mover" should that plan ever come about.

I would be in favor of some sort of graduated parking fee structure. Autzen Stadium sits vacant all day, everyday with the exception of a few special events (car dealership sales). Park and ride locations in the LTD system are free. I know the people mover would have a cost and the parking lot must be maintained, but I would not think it fair to charge the full on-campus parking fee.

Inconvenience and inflexibility are the two biggest problems I see. If I have a doctor's appointment, riding the bus at least doubles the time away from work.

Name: Neil Wilson, Knight Library
Comment: I fully support the recommendations listed under II.IMPLEMENT OTHER..., 1. Cultivate transportation...

I use LTD almost every day to commute to work. There have been a couple emergency situations the last two years where a guaranteed ride to my spouse's workplace would have helped out a lot. (At the time, I hadn't even thought about contacting OPS.)

I do drive to work about once every two or three weeks when I have business to attend to on my lunch break. I usually end up parking about six or seven blocks away. If a reasonable daily parking pass were available, it would help out.

Finally, I think having the freedom to telecommute (even one day a week) would save a lot of personal time used traveling to and from the workplace.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Name: Mary Gilland
Comment: One of the suggestions made was that there be more interaction between LTD and campus. One of our research assistants, Tom Montgomery, is on the board of LTD and has been for 6 years. Also, Mark Pangborn indicated recently that he thought it was time for them to "get back to the university and see what could be done to facilitate increased bus usage.

Received May 7

Name: Michael V. Hoffman
Comment: If you charge less than market rates for parking you are subsidizing parking on campus. One of the primary results of a cheap price is increased demand. I think the university is reaping those benefits right now.

Name: Vicki Shives
Comment: I like your proposal. Currently, I ride the bus 1/2 - 3/4 of the time and drive 1/4. My reason for driving is either that I have a class in the evening or have to work late, and my last bus home (without having to transfer at the Downtown Station) leaves at 5:45 p.m. As a single parent, I find that transferring downtown is not an appropriate option in the evening. The other reason for driving is errands immediately after work. I appreciate the LTD options, and expanded LTD service would enhance my ability to use the bus more. Thanks for all your work.

Name: Jeanie McCabe
Comment: The recommendations by the committee are good in theory. However, I believe the efforts in the areas they addressed (encouraging alternate modes, etc.) have had very little impact on the transportation problem to date. If this is the case, I would make two recommendations:

1) I recommend increasing the number of express routes by LTD. I liked taking the bus when an express bus stopped a few blocks from my home and took me to the bookstore. It only took a little longer to get to work and I could read the paper on the way. Now I'm in the Research Park and it takes too long to transfer to get there. As long as it is much faster and cheaper to drive, people will use their cars. When it finally gets too expensive or too inconvenient to drive, people will look for alternate modes. This still isn't going to make a huge dent in the problem.

2) I think a parking structure on an existing parking lot is a partial solution.

Return to Transportation Systems Review Home Page