Received May 10

Name: Howie Bonnett, University/Community Liaison Committee
Comment: I commend the Working Group for their courage to affirm the use of parking program monies to promote use of alternatives to single occupancy automobile commuting. The most striking finding cited in the BRW, Inc. report is that the demand for parking permits has increased dramatically when there has been no increase in the university student or faculty/staff population. To take steps which would deteriorate the University environment and promote the usage of cars, in order to accommodate a step backwards in people's lifestyle choices, would be a grave error. I am not swayed by appeals of faculty that their having to ferry kids around constitutes a need for parking on campus. This is a self-serving argument and is simply the result of lifestyle choices they are making. We raised a child here in Eugene with both parents working without needing a permit, using bicycles. The true cost of parking and using the automobile needs to be assessed, so that automobile costs are fairly and accurately represented in people's choices. At present, the automobile is so highly subsidized through our city expenditures, through university fee policies, and through costs which are sustained by all society members, that people decide the private automobile is the best solution for them. Clearly, an increase in parking fees of a significant amount is needed, and comparisons with other universities in the BRW, Inc. report show that the U of O and OSU fees are much lower than other institutions determined to be comparable.

I have several specific comments on the 4/29 draft of the Working Group. (1b)--Good idea, but it must be monitored, obviously, requiring some kind of entry kiosk. (1c)--Car pool permits are easy to abuse, because people who are dedicated to the car round up bogus folks to make up the pool. I know this happened a lot and leads to reserved spaces or reduced fees for individual car users. I can't think of any way to properly regulate this. Only 1b is an effective way, and that should be the extent of using pooling--people must arrive on campus in a pool, not just get a spouse of another accommodating bicycle rider or bus commuter to sign on. The ability to drive into the center of campus and park should be an incentive to pool.

(3b)--I think the current prohibitions on bicycle use on campus are far too restrictive. For example, I regularly use the wide sidewalk running east-west between the parking lot at Streisinger and the small parking lot north of Oregon Hall. Also, as repeatedly testified, a north-south route is needed between 15th and 13th, located between University and Agate. I suggest bicycles should be allowed on all sidewalks wider than 4 feet, except at times during class changes, so long as they are operated in a reasonable and safe manner. In addition, 13th Street between University and Kincaid is still a mess. More needs to be done to channel the pedestrians away from wandering or standing and conversing in the middle of the street. Good plans have been promoted to accomplish this. Why haven't they been implemented? Finally, under part 3, I still believe we desperately need a good bicycle overpass over Franklin Blvd. in order to promote the usage of bicycles. Of course, it would have numerous other benefits.

(III)--This section is not strong enough. I would suggest that students who do not bring a car to campus should have a cheaper dorm fee. There should be a charge for parking overnight. Permits should be issued which enable an individual to park at Autzen but do not entitle that individual to park in any campus lots, and these should be very cheap. I don't think too much of the reverse ticket idea, since I don't see how it could be implemented without spending a lot of money relative to its worth. Why is there so much thought given to rewarding drivers monetarily, while there isn't any mention of rewarding bicycle riders? It is a commitment to maintaining the quality of life that accounts for most people to don their raingear and get on their bicycles in the middle of the winter. Why not offer an incentive to these people who make the commitment to commute without a car? They save the spaces for those who aren't willing or able to make a similar commitment. The same is true for bus riders.

Finally, there could be some more effort to increase parking availability without adversely affecting the campus very much. I mentioned earlier the idea of park and walk, which didn't get considered. For example, contract with the church on 19th and Harris to pay them for their unused parking spaces on weekdays, and sell them as reserved spaces to commuters. I have always thought that the small lot south of the music school is so poorly designed that few cars can park there even though that particular corner of campus is used up for automobiles. I think the lot could be expanded to the east and changed in dimensions so that it functions better in terms of the number of parking spaces relative to pavement area. In its present configuration, it stores few cars relative to its impact on space. In addition the practice of spreading reserved spaces all over the place makes more cruising in the parking hunt. For example, there are only 7 or so parking spaces for the permit holder in the entire lot north of Onyx Bridge, so there is a lot of hunting for a few spaces. I marvel at how the expansion of this lot was billed as a help for parking, and then it was nearly entirely consumed by reserved parking, physical plant spaces, state vehicles, etc. Give some consideration to minimizing cruising for parking places when assigning parking spaces. I think the small lot north of Oregon Hall could be expanded in order to accommodate a number of reserved spaces. This would not significantly increase the in and out traffic, but could increase the number of reserved or handicapped spaces without too much deleterious effect on the environment.

Finally, I am an emeritus professor, so now I have a free parking permit for the first time in 31 years at Oregon. Don't worry, though, I rarely, if ever, use it. How many of these are issued and how much are they used? If a person is fit and comes to campus daily, I see no need to provide him or her with a free permit. If it is just an occasional trip, then perhaps these trips can be absorbed in the parking mix.

Keep up the good work!

Name: Amy McConnell
Comment: I am writing to you to express my concern over the proposed parking solution. for the 96-97 school year. This is not intended to be directed at you personally, I just wrote to let you know my opinion. I was unable to attend the meeting schedualed for 4:30 in the Knight Library due to conflict of classes. However, I would like to express my opinion anyway.

I feel that a ban on overnight parking in the Bean lot is not the solution. As a current resident of the Carson Complex and a car owner, I feel that this is an extremely unsafe and wasteful project. Since parking spaces are such a scarce resource, it would be a waste of such a resource to impose an overnight ban on the Bean lot. I also think the shuttle buses and added security will be extremely costly! I know residents will take the risk and walk the unmonitored Autzen path at night to their cars if a bus is not available and I also know how unsafe that area can be.

Next year I will be living off campus and probably riding the bus or biking to school, and I still do not agree with this plan. The added costs that will be incurred have to be funded from somewhere, and quite frankly I do not want to pay for them via tuition increase. If the U of O does not want a commuter school, then they shouldn't make it easier for commuters to park. I do think the Day Only Autzen parking plan is a good idea for commuters, but not residents. Not only will there be added costs and safety risks, residents will be bothered with having to move their cars back and forth during Autzen Stadium events as well. Well I think I have made my point. I don't mean to be so wordy, I just wanted to let you know that we students who aren't even going to live here next year think this idea is not the best. I am sorry I could not attend the meeting but consider my vote AGAINST the overnight ban.

Name: Steven Hackstadt, Jenifer Skidmore,
Computer & Information Science Department
Comment: As two people who ride the bike path between Autzen Stadium and the University on a twice daily basis, regardless of the weather, we would like to express serious concern over the "People Mover"/Autzen Stadium parking proposal. In particular, we feel that a motorized tram on what is otherwise a foot and bike bridge poses several significant problems.

1. Path and bridge width

From a purely logistical point of view, the idea of running a "People Mover" along the winding and rolling bike paths between the stadium and the bridge -- not to mention under the train tracks on the other side -- is almost comical... unless hidden in the proposal is a Army Corps of Engineers approach to leveling, straightening, and widening those paths. We would hate to see this happen, as it would completely destroy the already-threatened natural and open space in that area.

And that's just the paths. What about the *foot*bridge... we're not talking about a freeway overpass here. Has the Transportation Review Working Group taken a walk along the *foot*bridge recently? It's not that wide! We're curious to know what kind of people mover they plan on using. The ones we've seen wouldn't fit on the bridge... which leads us to our second point.

2. Existing traffic

At peak "commuting" times, particularly when the weather is nice, the Autzen *foot*bridge is loaded with people crossing the Willamette River to reach the trails and paths on the other side. Their modes of transport range from walking and jogging to cycling and rollerblading. On numerous occasions, we have seen large groups of joggers or cyclists that completely occupy the width of the bridge. Furthermore, at any given time, any number of those people crossing the bridge may stop along the way to admire the river, ducks, herons, trees, swimmers, and kayakers. What effect, do you suppose, would this wide motorized tram(s) zipping back and forth across this *foot*bridge several times a day (hour?) have on people's ability to enjoy that area? We think it will be noisy. It will have the effect of "flushing" people off the bridge just so the tram can get by. It will, in effect, ruin an area that many Eugene citizens enjoy.

3. Safety and Security

From a safety point of view, the idea of mixing a motorized tram with foot and pedal traffic on narrow trails and an even narrower bridge (of all places!) is undesirable, if not downright dangerous. We doubt the intended effect is to make those people that currently use the paths and bridge find an alternate route to campus. After all, one of the best advantages to taking the paths and bridge is that we *avoid* all the traffic on Centennial and Franklin Blvds.

The relatively remote location of Autzen Stadium will deter many people from leaving their vehicles their during the day unless good security is provided. The proposition of making students park their cars there overnight is even worse in this respect. We certainl wouldn't feel comfortable parking our car there for any extended period of time, especially if we were a mile or two away from it on the other side of the river.

And this raises another very important point. Does the tram run 24 hours a day? If it does, then people would have a presumably safe method for getting to/from their parked car. However, running a motorized tram through this area TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY would not only be horribly expensive, but it would be destructive to the wildlife in the surrounding area.

So, we're guessing the tram *won't* run at all hours. This means that students who have jobs in the evenings would potentially be walking to their vehicles parked in Autzen Stadium. They would return from those jobs even later in the evening and then have to walk back. These students would be forced to take unnecessary risks in getting to and from their vehicles. In the fall and winter, it can get dark quite early, at times before 5pm. In this case, anyone leaving the University during regular business hours may be at risk while walking the path to Autzen.

And finally, with all the concern over security, we can only surmise what the Office of Public Safety might propose. How about OPS minivans using the bridge and path, too? After all, it takes a good 10 minutes (much longer in traffic) to get from the University to the stadium on existing roads (Franklin, Ferry St. Bridge, Centennial). Like the proposed "People Mover," OPS could use the *foot*bridge and be there in less than 5 minutes.

Conclusion

We appreciate the parking problem on campus. Recently, for medical reasons we had to drive to campus for a week and were shocked at the number of cars -- and more specifically, the lack of spaces. Clearly the problem needs to be addressed, and the Working Group has, in fact, identified many viable options. But the "People Mover"/Autzen Stadium combination is NOT one of them. Sure, Autzen Stadium has a lot of potential as a "campus" parking lot, but the costs involved make it an unrealistic, poorly conceived, and dangerous option. Not only are the paths and bridge too narrow and difficult to navigate, adding a tram places existing pedestrians, bicyclists, and the environment in danger. In addition, the safety of drivers walking to/from campus and the security of vehicles parked at the stadium have not been adequately addressed.

Our school mascot may be a Disney character, but let's not bring the rest of Disneyland to campus.

Received May 12

Name: Frank Hillman
Comment: The subject of eliminating overnight parking in the Bean Lot is lunacy. There is no conceivable way to protect ours lives when walking to the Autzen lot, let alone our cars. And if this is not enough reason, there would also be the price of increased security, which could not effectively work. Then there is the loss of efficiency in the Bean Lot by having it totally empty at night, and a good part of the day.

I understand that the Commutors and some faculty are having a hard time finding parking spaces. I sympathise with them, but I don't think they would ask us to make the sacrifice of our safety that this proposed policy offers.

I would like to know why this drastic measure has been brought to the table, so to speak. I have been told, by reliable sources, that the parking situation has not been good here but it was worse a few years back. So, it is not good now but it is better than before and now the fuss is being made. Why is that?

My sugestion would be to make the Autsen lot available to all students and faculty. There would be a shuttle going back and forth every fifteen minutes or so, that would run through school hours and more when needed. Mind you, I do not think this is all that great of a place to park, but it is the better option. It would cost less to have a shuttle than it would to have enough security to guarantee our well-being and the safety of our cars 24 hours of the day. Also, the safety of the cars would be much better than leaving them overnight. Plus, it just makes sense to drive to the lot if you are driving here anyway. This is the safest way to go and the most cost efficient.

I doubt I will hear back from you, but if you could please respond I would be most grateful.

Received May 20

Name: Susan Fagan, English
Comment: In response to the draft of the Transportation Review Working Group's report, I'd like to point out that bicycling, walking, and taking the bus work for a lot of people; however, insisting that these options will work for everyone shows a lack of sensitivity to the needs of parents and women.

In my pre-children years, I did bus to work at least some of the time. I have also car-pooled and walked. I assume I will do so again at some future date. Since the arrival of my children, however, my time is at a premium, and right now I do not have the luxury to use some of these alternate transportation options.

To bus to work, I would have to leave my house at 6:30am--assuming I had some place to leave my children that early. I already get up at 5:30 so that I can get to the University to teach my 8:00 clas; I don't choose to get up any earlier, especially since most of my days don't end until close to midnight. Let me also point out that on many days I must carry (and don't see much other way to do it other than by auto) 3 sets of soccer gear and/or other equipment for my children's after school activities. I frequently have to carry snacks and/or drinks for anywhere from 1-3 teams of anywhere from 5-16 people. I do not have time to leave work and walk, bicycle, or bus home to get this stuff before getting my children at school and taking them to wherever they need to be. All I'm saying here is let's recognize that all of our needs are not the same. Also, no one knows how many people who show up in a car alone for work started out in a car alone. I frequently have to make 2-3 stops on my way to work dropping people off.

The Autzen Stadium option and People Mover idea would work only if the program runs efficiently enough not to cost users in terms of time.

Additionally, I am frequently on my way to work in the morning when it is still dark, or on my way home when it is already dark. While men are not free from worry, let me point out that a lone woman walking, bicycling, or even standing at a bus stop out in the dark has a lot of reason to worry. Our administration even notes that this campus is not safe in the dark. On some mornings, given some of the strange kinds of people who hang around this campus and on 13th Avenue, I worry just about walking from the parking lot to the building. I'm often the only person around.

I would be happy to pay more for a parking permit, if the University would only provide the service it is selling. Why should we be expected to pay for a product that isn't available? And not available is a precise description for parking during most of the daytime on this campus.

As I note above, I have used alternate transportation modes in the past, and I'm sure I will again in the future. Right now, though, these alternate modes would be a serious detriment to my ability to fulfill both my work obligations and my family obligations. The University must provide adequate parking for those who need it. I've been hearing about a parking structure for the 30 years I've been on this campus. The time has come simply to build it.

Return to Transportation System Review Home Page