GENERAL COMMENTS

(Karyn Schleicher, Knight Library)
I live on 40th and Potter and work in the Knight Library Sunday-Thursday 11 am-8 pm. Two buses go past my apartment complex--#25 to 28th & Willamette and downtown; #28 to campus. Because of my work schedule and the fact that bus #28's last run from campus to my apartment leaves at 5:46 pm, I am unable to get home quickly, conveniently, and in winter, warmly and safely. If bus #28 were to extend its run to at least 8:15-8:45 pm, I would be delighted to ride the bus.

(Matt Thorne)
How are you going to do the tram? How are you going to sell it to financiers? Great ideas.

This plan SUCKS.

(Amy Gould, PPPM)
What the hell to these people (Transportation Review Working Group) know about asphalt? PLEASE consult a Public Planning, OPS, or Housing official on this parking matter.

Your planning has oversimplified matters and ignored important issues and groups (i.e. Housing). This plan is very poor.

(Len Cornet)
While you have some good, valid ideas about carpooling, it is incredulous to expect Housing Residents to park at Autzen. The reason residents have cars on the most part is to drive home on weekends, which at 2-3 hours usually is more of a drive than any commuting student. Focus on cutting down the number of commuters, not moving the cars that are already here.

(Kelly Matchett-Morris)
The parking issue is not as simple as you make it appear. Parking is an issue that people are generally not satisfied with regardless of effort put forth. I want the convenience and ease of a definite space so I pay $400 (approximately) for a designated space. If other faculty or staff want this service they should pay for it--not penalize the students for it.

(Sally Smith)
I'm very concerned the effect of this plan will not be positive on the South University neighborhood--the students will surf the streets, looking for a place to park/store a car. Statement in "Choices" is not correct--neighborhood residents are always complaining and just wear out when more and more cars use the neighborhood streets. Having worked on campus 20+ years, I know students will resist leaving their car at Autzen, as well they should. It is not safe, convenient, or efficient plan. Please consult/discuss this drastic change with us and get our input. It is amazing that your office has not thought to do so.

Does this include accounting for the interest free loan given to the Athletic Dept. that was supposed to go for a parking structure?

(Chris Chung)
Clearly this isn't a problem solvable by only one solution. The current approaches of promoting the use of mass transit, biking, car-pooling. I think many are disillusioned that one parking garage would solve everything. In short, educating everyone about all options is still the best approach. You are doing the right thing by making many options available and not mandating any kind of policy. A verbal session would be nice. Make sure the Emerald gets their information correct. I came to the discussion today believing that residents were mandated to move to Autzen. However, I now see that there is more going on.

PROCESS COMMENTS

Your public forum format was less than ideal. It serves as a worthless venting session to cardboard cut-out people with tape recorded responses and a lack of compassion or concern for Housing.

(Jason Van Handel)
I am appalled at the fact that there is only one student on the Transportation Review Working Group. This proves that student concerns were not addressed by this project--resident housing concerns especially.

I am just curious what your standards were for who can be on the committee? I noticed the people who are on it have no experience or qualifications. Molecular biology? English? How about someone in Economics of PPPM? What about Housing?

(Amy Stoner)
If you want to be fair, allow us to have an open SPEAKING forum. Don't keep our voices silent.

I am a student from the dorms and came to the meeting to find out what the deal was and if I was going to have to move my vehicle from Bean Parking Lot. This was a bogus meeting.

DORM RESIDENT CAR STORAGE AT AUTZEN

(from residence hall posting)
1. How are safety issues involving walking or biking to and from Autzen going to be considered?
2. What safety measures are being taken to insure the safety of the cars parked in the Autzen Parking Lot overnight?
3. What is being done to make sure that the Autzen Parking Lot is a safe place to wait for a ride back to campus in the middle of the night?
4. How much student input is being asked for and utilized in this decision?
5. Why do we have to move our cars on game day or be towed at our expense?
6. How convenient and timely will transportation between Autzen and campus be?
7. How much is this going to cost?
8. Why is it resident hall students who have to park at Autzen?

(Sean Williams)
I am opposed to the ban of overnight parking in the Bean Lot for a number of reasons. First, I believe the safety issues involved here to be nearly insurmountable and do not think that there has been enough firm commitment to establishing security at Autzen and a convenient means for students to get to and from Autzen. Secondly, the cost for all of these proposals seems to be quite extreme, and if these proposals are to be implemented next year (or any time soon), some serious fundraising will have to take place.
I think there are much better ways of solving the parking crisis. How about putting commuters at Autzen? That way, security and transit would only be needed 1/2 time, there would be no hassle on game days, etc. Additionally, why not ban the sale of permits to freshmen? This would solve several problems; first freshmen represent 75% of RH students, and banning them from bringing cars would eliminate around 2-300 cars being stored in the Bean Lot; secondly, many incoming freshmen expect to be able to use their cars as a result of their upbringing, and banning their cars would give us a chance to instill new mindsets and get those students used to using LTD, etc.
Overall, I admire the proposals for increasing awareness, etc. But I object quite strongly to implementing policy changes before the necessary infrastructure is in place (i.e., security and transit).

(Carrie Gorospe)
I find this proposal to be unclear, confusing in parts, and far-fetched, and too optimistic in others. The implementation of a car parking lot far from campus, accessible only by walking through an unsafe area is an unacceptable plan. I believe that, yes, we should discourage people from 1 person/car commuting to campus, and discourage people from bringing cars to U of O and depending on this mode of transportation. BUT, to put students' safety and personal security in jeopardy is unacceptable as an alternative to the existing system. 24-hour FREE shuttles around campus and to Autzen (if used as a parking lot) would be the only solution to this problem. This option exists at UC Santa Cruz and is extremely well used and well operated. This would still be flawed as students/faculty waiting alone in this unpopulated area for the shuttle to arrive would be at risk. Please be an advocate for student safety and security. It seems too easy for this bureaucracy to be anti-students and pro-business!

(Courtney Hedberg)
Please don't ban overnight parking entirely in the Bean lot. Either charge a price for residents to store their cars in lot, or give residents a special permit to have their cars there overnight. Bean is one of the only lots left on campus where residents can park overnight, and it's one of a few lots left that hasn't been turned into a faculty/staff only lot. As a woman, I cannot imagine what violations of personal safety I would be setting myself up for if I came back from Target at 6:00 p.m. during Winter Term and had to work my way back to the Earl complex from Autzen. It is a terrible scenario to me. The committee MUST understand the residents cannot have the Bean lot taken away--and if that means overnight permits/higher price, fine. I would be willing to pay that.

(Aleena Kliever)
It doesn't make sense that we should move our cars to Autzen, move it by (who knows when) Sat. of games and then after the games move them back!?! Wouldn't it make sense to have Autzen as day-use (w/shuttle) and allow the residents to park where it is more safe and close to where we live! P.S. What is it going to take--a rape, a lawsuit? It is common knowledge (apparently not to you) that the river area is not safe! Whose jurisdiction is it--EPD or OPS? How will they patrol on the path?

I have problems with the New Resident Parking at Autzen Stadium. People who live in the residence halls are really being ripped. Despite the implementation of "shuttles," Autzen Stadium is NOT A SAFE PLACE AT NIGHT! All it takes is one incident for the parking to become an inconvenience to the university legally. Number two--you want all of the residents to move their vehicles on game days? That's ridiculous! We pay $60.00 a year for permits--we deserve close, safe parking. This plan will also be an increase of revenue to the U of O vis-a-vis parking meters in the old lots. You all want money again and it's not that subtle.

I know you have already heard the many good reasons why the parking for residents should NOT be moved to Autzen Stadium. Along with safety concerns and unfairness of the plan, I would also like to appeal to you personally. I can see why university staff would need extra space for parking; however, if you were a resident or your own daughter/son were a resident of the U of O Housing, would you really feel comfortable to know that your daughter/son would have to wait in the dark at the Autzen parking by their car for a shuttle. Would you be willing to wait for a shuttle at night in order to give you a ride back to your home? Remember, we faculty and staff wouldn't be here if it were not the support of the students and their parents. We are here for the students; we are here to provide them a good education and to provide a safe and stimulating environment for learning. We are here for them. It is the students and Oregon citizens (who send many of their children to school here) that pay our salaries so when you do make a decision, ask yourself is the decision you are making benefit the students of the U of O, especially those that are paying lots of $ to get a good education. Let's stick to our commitment--to provide the future generation a safe environment to learn.

Please do not enact this current plan as it will endanger many of our residents. They will be forced to cross large streets, walk near bridges where illegal activity often occurs. It will make residence hall residents be treated as second class citizens, especially during football games. The cost to shuttle people and beef up security is an impossibility. If one sexual assault or forced robbery will occur, this whole idea will be to blame.

(Jason Jennaro, Caswell Resident Assistant)
OPS patrols of Autzen lot? This lot is in an area of high transient population and low visibility. Thefts and damage will be extreme. If OPS has an extra "high maintenance" lot to cover at night they will be stretched too thin. I am currently an RA this year and have trouble getting a hold of an officer at night in an emergency as it is. If the officers are busy patrolling this new lot with new responsibilities, safety will be an issue in the residence halls.

Do you have a car? Do you have a home? I bet you park your car in your driveway when you've home don't you? You'd probably be upset if you had to store your car on campus when you were at home. The residence halls are our homes for those of us that live on campus. We pay big money to do so. We should keep our right to transportation, and you should keep yours. P.S. I don't count on OPS (yeah, those fat guys in van/wheelchairs) to keep anyone safe on a well-lit highly populated campus. How can we trust them off campus?

(Paul Breton, Carson Resident Assistant)
I am extremely dissatisfied with the way the Ad Hoc and Planning Committees and, for that matter, the entire university administration is handling the proposed parking changes. I feel that there are many issues that are being overlooked, and I do not think it's fair that Housing residents and employees have not been invited to participate in the discussions to this point. At the very least, I think students who live on campus and who will be directly affected by these changes (i.e., those living in the residence halls during the 1996-97 academic year) should be allowed to be involved in the committees that will make the parking decisions.
Some of the concerns I and many others have about the proposed changes are the safety issues (will there be reliable security in Autzen Stadium 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?) and the practicality issues. To my way of thinking, it would make much more sense for people who work on campus during the day and then leave in the evenings to be shuttled to and from Autzen Stadium during regular business hours. Most of these employees will probably not be traveling to and from their cars late at night as students typically do. Also, the Ad Hoc committee is proposing to offer incentives for university employees to park in the new lot, but residents will be pushed out of the Bean lot without any compensation. I think the proposals as they stand do not reflect the best interests of the student body, without whom there wouldn't be a University of Oregon. On-campus residents need to have a voice in changing the parking system before any changes are implemented. I appreciate your concern on this issue and look forward to further discussion this year and next year.

(Hawthorne Resident Assistant)
My biggest concern is safety. The one option I think goes against the philosophy of Housing to provide a safe learning environment for residents is the proposal to move resident hall parking to Autzen Stadium and ban overnight parking in Bean Lot. While there is a lot of "car storage," this observation overlooks the fact that many of the residents of housing work off campus. They too are commuters, many of them work at night and their safety would be compromised, even if a shuttle system is provided. A shuttle system does not guarantee safety. Rather, it guarantees the students will be waiting, "sitting ducks" at certain intervals all night. What the committee has not been made aware of is that housing residents live in Eugene, not just campus. If the parking must be moved, please do not abolish overnight parking at Bean Lot, or come up with some way to accommodate the needs of students who live on campus and work off campus. Thanks.

(Jason Van Handel)
Concerning parking storage at Autzen: It would behoove the university to encourage commuters and employees to park at Autzen during the daylight hours (8-5) which is the normal workday for both. If residents of University Housing had to get car after 5 pm and it was stored in the Autzen lot, probabilities of vandalism and personal assault are greater. Also, it would be possible for the university to lower parking permits for commuters/employees who park in the Autzen lot. In regards to safety, any women storing their cars at Autzen would not feel comfortable walking/waiting for the "People Mover" in order to return to their home on campus. By moving commuter parking to Autzen, the university would insure the safety of students and their cars.
As a student who lives in ParkGrove, near Autzen, I would be very angry to find University Housing students moving their cars into my spaces. This is what will result if (A) student car storage is moved to Autzen; (B) stored cars are forced to move during Autzen events (football games, etc.). These problems can be avoided through having commuters/employees park at Autzen.

What about using Autzen for overflow day parking. This eliminates security and 24-hour transportation problems. Please DO NOT eliminate overnight parking at Bean.

(Amy Jahnke)
Overnight parking should not be banned from lots near the dorms. If students have to keep their cars at Autzen Stadium overnight, the rate of car theft and vandalism will go up considerably. As it is, these factors are high due to lack of patrolling by OPS. My car was recently broken into while parked in the Bean parking lot. I feel this had a lot to do with the fact that I had not checked on or driven it in a week. If students have to park farther away they will check on their cars less, leaving a better likelihood for car theft. Not to mention the danger of late night walking to and from Autzen Stadium.

(Matt Walker)
I LIVE HERE! Why should I have to go all the way to Autzen to get my car? I also have to work right after my classes. How do I get to work on time if I have to get to Autzen to get my car first? Sometimes I don't get home until 3:00 a.m. Are you going to give me a ride to my dorm? Make the commuters park at Autzen. At least it's during the day and they won't get mugged or raped.

(Holli Cresto)I feel that it is ridiculous that students living in the residents are almost being punished for keeping their cars in Bean lot without moving them. These students pay 3 times for that lots. Once through housing fees, 2nd through incidental fees, and 3rd through a parking sticker. Also, if you need more parking for other staff, students, and faculty who are not on-campus residents, have them park at Autzen. This would keep security costs down, less rape opportunities, and you would only have to run a shuttle during peak hours. The students who live on campus work late and come home late a lot. So it would cause more rape opportunities, costs, security, and you would have to have a 24-hour shuttle to have residents of on-campus housing park at Autzen. With these risks, why are you even considering it?

(Valerie Church)
I personally think this proposed plan is absolutely ridiculous. First off, the students were NOT adequately informed of this plan, nor were we given a chance to express our opinions. Not only is parking or "storing" cars at Autzen stadium ridiculous, it's very inconvenient. Being in the Greek system, I sometimes stay at my house until 11 or 12 at night or, on nights that we have functions with other houses, I'm rolling in about 1 or 2 in the morning. It almost sounds as if this plan is somehow implemented to impose a curfew on STUDENTS WHO LIVE ON CAMPUS. Personally, I would not want to be walking down those dark paths alone late at night.
And where does this plan expect the cars to go on game days? If you want to talk about a parking crisis, that would be a giant hassle for students who live on campus that have jobs or any other commitments to attend to.
If you want a cost-effective plan, why don't you review your "proposed plan" again and check out the security costs of students' cars. The People Mover tram would cost almost $69,000 a year! How cost effective is that?

(Robin Retherford)
I have two main concerns about moving Bean resident parking over to Autzen Stadium. The first is safety of the students. People come and go at all hours of the day. If someone comes home late at night and there isn't a ready taxi or bus for them, they may have to walk through the woods to get home. My other concern is for the extra amount of pollution which will be created, not only from the extra trips back and forth between the university and Autzen Stadium but also I fear that, for security reasons, the bike path will be developed more and will no longer remain the (somewhat) natural setting it is now. Lastly, implementing this new system will be a major inconvenience for all residents who are left with no other choice but to use it.

Why punish infrequent car users. This is going to affect university life and learning in a negative way because it is unsafe and it will make living on campus an unattractive notion. The residence halls pay a $390,000 premium to the university. How's that for paying for a parking spot.

I believe that moving the student parking to Autzen is absolutely ludicrous. The danger level is too high as is the cost. Believe it or not OPS can't help. They take 10 minutes to respond NEXT DOOR to their office. In ten minutes I could be beaten, raped, and dead for the nine minutes it would take them to respond to a call for help. Frankly, I don't think this situation appeals to any of us. Why not use Autzen for commuters who could make the trip during the day, where those people would be less likely to be assaulted. And they could plan it into their schedules. Please, no student overnight parking in Autzen--the risks are too great as are the costs (which would be charged to students anyway). Students are already going to lose; don't make them double losers.

The 3-tiered Alder parking structure should be considered as the #1 solution, NOT the Autzen lot!!! Students are the first to get gypped and make the sacrifices. What about safety??? Walking there and while in the lot itself. Also, CAR THEFT! Furthermore, the tram system is not going to work.

(Josh Hanselman)
Throughout discussions w/committee personnel the concerns about safety and dissatisfaction of Housing residents was downplayed as concern focused on appeasing commuters. It appears as though little thought has gone into placing commuter vehicles at Autzen and when the point was addressed we were given "I doubt" or "Probablies" in reference to commuters at Autzen vs. lack of safety and hassle for Housing residents.

(Ryan Kivett)
I cannot believe the thinking that went behind banning the overnight parking in Bean. First of all is security; second is convenience. Who would want to live somewhere that took at least 30 minutes to get to your car. The security of both people getting to their cars and the cars themselves is going to be impossible to implement!

(Matt D'Elia)
Thank you for the publicity stunt. It is completely impossible for the university to create this kind of atmosphere between the students and the administration. What is it going to take in order for you to realize that you are making a big mistake. A lawsuit because someone was assaulted? You decided to make the changes without equal representation of the students in the residence halls, Greek system, and those who live off campus. The only reason that the students in the halls would know about this is because Jan Oliver stuck up for us. If you go through with your proposed changes you are putting out the very life blood of the university, the Housing students.

(Megan M. Craig)
It really makes me angry that the residence halls were not included in this little escapade. Our opinions and suggestions were not asked, and no one was told what was going on. I feel the best solution would be to make the Autzen lot the commuter lot. That way safety would not be as big of an issue because you would only be talking about daytime hours. Taking away parking from the residence halls is unfair. The campus is our home and we have a right to parking.

(Emily Yurcheshen)
(1) What's good for the goose is good for the gander--how about the administration parking by Autzen for a month? Also, this is not safe for residence hall members returning late at night.
(2) The residence halls are peoples' homes. It is not fair to take away their driveways. In addition, there will be more pollution with this system because there is a tram constantly on the go and if there is an increase in commuter parking, you are increasing the number of cars coming into UO. This is not a valid argument.
(3) What about building the Law School in another place?

By taking away the Bean parking lot structure and designating that space for commuters only, you are obliterating the residence halls residents' rights to have accessible parking near their homes. Not only is it inconvenient to ask residence hall students to store their cars at Autzen, but it is also very unsafe. OPS and shuttles cannot monitor the Autzen lot 24-7, and residents who park there and live in the residence halls still need to get back. To run a shuttle with large gaps of time between loads or expect students to pay up front for cab fare and be reimbursed when the business office gets around to doing the paper work is totally inappropriate. The proposal is a farce. I recommend re-evaluating the current plan.

If overnight parking must be reduced at least offer permits at increased price for people who basically have to park on-campus.

As an RA in Bean, I find it terrible that they are wanting to move all overnight parking to Autzen. Not only will it be terribly unsafe, but the reason you have a car is for convenience. It would not even be worth owning a car if you could not have it accessible. I believe that there NEEDS to be a better idea [than] having everyone have to overnight park at Autzen. NO OVERNIGHT AT AUTZEN.

(James M. Brown, Carson Resident Assistant)
I have a couple of concerns in regards to the findings of the Transportation Committee, especially Sec. III-1: Discouraging overnight parking in the core campus lots (e.g., the Bean Lot) and encouraging overnight parking in the Autzen Lot. Residence Hall students who need overnight parking are already concerned about the quality of security and the number of break-ins on the Bean Lot--which is near campus and to the Office of Public Safety. These problems will be vastly increased if overnight parking at the Autzen lot is implemented. Residents who are returning home after dark (and there are many of these) will have to walk about a mile to get back to campus through a section of town that is poorly lighted, far from existing law enforcement agencies, and is home to a large number of transients, drug dealers, and other questionable characters. Even building call boxes and increasing OPS patrols will not necessarily increase safety, and will add enormously to cost. A tram system will also add to cost, and in order for it to significantly increase safety it would have to run almost constantly, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week because of the number of Housing residents that commute after dark to jobs or for other reasons.
In my opinion, a far better option would be to continue to allow overnight parking at core campus lots, while having daytime parking at Autzen Stadium. The safety problem would be minimized because commuters would be using the Autzen footbridge during daylight. Also, overnight parkers would not have to move their cars for football games. I think this would be a much cheaper, safer, and more efficient alternative than the recommendations of the committee.
Also, why wasn't a Housing official included on the committee?

(Anna Beth Grimes)
Why are students being punished for the commuters' fault? Instead of giving kids condoms, tell them not to have sex. Instead of building a lot at Autzen, tell commuters not to drive. Or cooperate with the city and make better bike routes. Don't put students and their cars in danger by building a lot at Autzen!

Don't pass this plan. It is not right for students to have to move their cars over to Autzen. Especially for California residents who drive up here, it is our only way of getting around. You can make sure that if something like this occurs, out-of-state students are going to complain, and our parents are going to be down your throats.

(Amy Stoner)
Where would all the student cars to at Autzen during game. I live at ParkGrove across from Autzen. I don't want them in my places. They pay enough $ to be able to park in Bean. I'm sick of hearing staff whine that they can't find parking. What will it take to show you that Autzen is a bad idea? A girl being raped when she has to get her car at Autzen at night? Two? Three? When are you going to see that if it isn't for students there would be no university. And, I can assure you that once a girl is attacked, lawsuits will follow. If you took all the $ that you'd spend on OPS, shuttles, these damn snacks here, and other options, and built a parking garage, the $ would be better spent in the long run. Just pushing tuition--paying students off campus will make you lose $ and business. Remember, most Housing students with cars are Californians who DRIVE UP AND PAY THE MOST TUITION.
Why didn't the parking structure get built on Alder? You allotted money for the program, had plans drawn up...but oops we wasted all the money. Before spending $ on bureaucracy, snacks at these "forums," and other administration goodies, use the $ for what it was intended for--A PARKING GARAGE!
Also, the committee needs more students on it. All you have are staff who single out Housing students with cars as evil PARKING PLACE-snatching losers. I am not even a Housing student. I AM A COMMUTER, but I would rather go early to get a space or park farther away so I can feel safe knowing my fellow women don't have to risk RAPE to get to their cars!!! You need to use Autzen for staff, employees, and commuters. It is cheaper, SAFER, and more readily available than kicking students off campus. Also, during game days, on weekends, you wouldn't have to kick all U of O Housing students out.
No where on these posters is there the idea that staff/classified workers/or commuters park in Autzen. This would bottle the complaints by workers about expensive permits because you could offer lower rates.
OPS is so lame that having them patrol Autzen is a farce. Why don't you just issue assault rifles to freshmen for protection.

(Gerald R. McCloud)
The most reasonable suggestion I have heard is to open up Autzen Stadium's parking area to everyone who buys parking permits. It doesn't make any sense to force people to pull their cars out of Bean parking at night. We would just be trading one empty parking area for another. We should avoid forcing people who have to use their cars at night to walk so far in the dark. If we do this, many commuters will still try to park on campus; however, some commuters and some dorm residents will willingly move to Autzen. This is fair.

(Matthew Porter)
* This is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution. Your current solution is not a long-term solution. With the expected increase in student population in the next few years, there will be an increased demand for parking as well. Moving dorm students to Autzen stadium will "fix" this problem in the short term, but will not solve the problem. If you implement this proposal you will be back here in 3-4 years with the same problem. What are you going to do at that time?
* Regardless of what you might think, some students choose to live on campus. Contrary to popular belief, there are also dorm students who live on campus 12 months of the year. Their dorm room is their permanent residence. It is unfair to expect these students to hike all the way to Autzen stadium rain or shine, light or dark, to get to their cars. Those students who choose to live in apartments are able to park their cars within a reasonable distance from their homes. Why can't we? In addition many dorm residents have jobs or internships that require them to drive their cars. Is it reasonable to make them walk 15-20 minutes to get to their cars? I have left during the day and I admit I have had to search for a parking spot at times, but I always was able to find a parking spot in the Bean lot. It was just a matter of how far I had to walk.
* If you think dorm residents are going to park at Autzen you are mistaken. They are going to park on all the side streets in the University Neighborhood. Making them park at Autzen is not going to solve the parking problem; it is just going to shift it from a University problem to a University Neighborhood problem. What happens when the nearby residents complain that their parking spots are being taken up by dorm residents? Are you going to do anything about that, or since this no longer takes place on campus are you going to say that is no longer your problem?
* There are solutions to this problem, some of which are mentioned in your report. Of course the best long-term solution to this problem is a parking structure, but there seems to be little or no effort going into this solution at this time. If you just want short-term solutions you could also try:
* charging more for overnight parking
* SELLING less parking stickers
* have lottery drawing for all parking spots
* Instead of making the dorm residents park at Autzen, why not have the students who are daily commuting to campus park down there. They are the ones complaining about not finding a parking spot. These are the people who have the privilege of walking out their front door each morning and getting into their car that is parked in their driveway (unlike dorm residents would have under this plan). Why not have them park at Autzen and provide a shuttle service to campus. This would require only a shuttle service during the day and is not nearly as costly as the increased security and shuttle service that is required for the dorm residents proposal.
* By far and away the most important concern here is the safety of life and property. My car was vandalized within the last month in the Bean parking lot--one in which there are a fair amount of students walking around at all times of the day. How can you convince me that you can keep my car safe in a deserted parking lot at Autzen when it is not safe on campus? In addition we have the personal safety issue. Who on this board is going to stand up and say "this was my idea" when the first person is mugged walking back from Autzen? Who on this board is going to assure the campus community that your parking plan is safe when the first person is assaulted walking back from Autzen stadium? Who on this board is going to take personal responsibility for the first person that is raped walking back from Autzen stadium? As a man I am even reluctant to walk back from Autzen. Saferide is only an option for women. OPS will not have the time nor resources to come pick me up in a timely fashion.
* This solution is ultimately about money. How can the U of O sell as many parking stickers as possible. Is the added cost of shuttle service and security going to offset the money from the few hundred extra parking stickers you will sell? If you say this decision is not driven by money then why are you proposing to make the dorm residents move their cars on game days? There is only one reason, money. How far will you go to make an extra buck before you unfairly punish those of us who choose to live on campus?

(Aaron J. Louie)
Let's face it. The People Mover will never be built. The quality of safety on campus will not improve. Bicycles will continue to be stolen as soon as they are bought, and University Housing residents will continue to be treated like second-class citizens. Commuters should park at Autzen, as they won't be affected by game day complications. LTD will probably pick up the responsibility for shuttling students from Autzen to campus and back. This will simply be the same sort of two-faced bureaucracy we've come to expect from the Administration.

(Andy Byerly)
Two areas of concern. If moving so many residents' (on campus) cars to Autzen was such a large part of the solution, why wasn't a resident of housing (or employee of housing) on the committee? Also, since many people that may possibly be denied parking in the Bean lot will park on the streets surrounding east campus, what have the area residents had to say? I did not see anyone on the committee from off campus. I like the ideas of looking at increasing bike usage, bike storage, finding enticing ways to increase use of public transportation or car-pooling. You have a good start, but I think you have failed in not having the major groups involved represented.

We in the residence halls share concerns with our off-campus counterparts, but there is an obvious problem with the Autzen plan. Expand Bean. OPS makes a lot of money off of tickets, there is revenue from the parking meters and permits. We find it hard to believe that far away, unsafe, unstable (game-day) parking is the only viable solution. If there ends up being a lack of parking spaces for commuting students, they will have Bean. They should be able to park behind the Natural History Museum (I find plenty of spaces there). Off-campus students can buy permits to park there, thus funding the Bean expansion. Bottom line: we do not believe you cannot afford this, or that it's inconvenient. Reflecting on inconvenience, getting raped at night at Autzen is inconvenient, moving every resident car on game day is inconvenient, paying more money for the spaces on campus is inconvenient daily. Facilitating the increase and absorbing the cost is your responsibility, not ours.


Return to Transportation Systems Review Home Page