Posted on 05/14/2010 10:10:01 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Although a plan to close Campus Drive this summer has drawn sharp criticism from on- and off-campus groups, administrators have said changing the plan could conflict with the spirit of the trial.
The experiment, which calls for Campus Drive to be closed to traffic except emergency vehicles and two internal bus routes from June 19 to Aug. 13, was formed to allow the university to test the goals of its Facilities Master Plan as it prepares an updated version, Vice President for Administrative Affairs Ann Wylie wrote in an e-mail.
Although Associate Vice President for Facilities Management Frank Brewer said the university is considering community input, changing the plan might dilute the closure’s original intent: to be as in-line with the master plan’s goals as possible, which call for the university to “create a more pedestrian-friendly central campus and significantly reduce the number of automobiles.”
While some have praised closing the road to cars, critics contend the exclusion of several bus routes that stop at the Stamp Student Union will discourage the use of public transportation. At a Student Government Association forum on May 4, students grilled Brewer, Director of Transportation Services David Allen and University Police Maj. Larry Volz about the change.
One student pointed out the closure could hamper other goals in the master plan, one of which is to “maximize [the] use of alternatives to driving to campus.”
But Brewer said in some ways, that’s the point: The goals of the master plan are in competition and the test will help the university to balance them against each other.
Although Brewer said administrators are aware of the community’s concerns, university President Dan Mote said he didn’t think the university was reconsidering.
“I can say that we are listening; we have been listening,” Brewer said, noting he expects the plan would have to be finalized by the beginning of June.
The university will gather data on a number of factors during the summer, including bus ridership, which critics have said they expect to decrease, Brewer said.
“We know what people think will happen, but you know facts are funny things, they don't always correspond with people's speculation,” he said.
Some critics of the Campus Drive closure have alleged the university is trying to torpedo the state’s favored Campus Drive alignment of the Purple Line, a light-rail system that would connect Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. The university has long preferred an alternative Preinkert Drive alignment, which administrators say would be less disruptive to the university’s research efforts.
Brewer said the two issues are “not related in any way.”
Even as the university gears up for the trial, criticism continues to mount.
At Tuesday’s meeting, the city council joined a number of groups — including the SGA and the Action Committee for Transit, a Montgomery County transportation advocacy group — in opposing the move. The council voted to write to Mote to ask that more public transportation be allowed on the road.
The only councilmember to oppose sending the letter, District 2’s Jack Perry, didn’t seem to have much faith in the university.
“Let them fall flat on their face,” he said. “And I think hey, fine, come September it will be opened back up again.”
In one way, the impassioned reaction has already made the test a success, Brewer said. The university has held forums about its master plans before, but they are poorly attended, in stark contrast to the lively discussion at the SGA forum.
“In my heart I was smiling, because it's great that folks are really beginning to engage in the issues and in the debate,” he said. “I'm very optimistic and excited about this whole process this year, because I think it is going to be something that is going to engage the university community, perhaps for the first time.”
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Sadly they are not alone in this. The University of Pittsburgh did something very similar a few years back (again, driven by Green activists on campus) They wiped out several hundred parking spaces that were heavily used by commuter students to create an “urban greenway” and to “encourage the use of public transportation and bicycles”
Of course, it did not work out that way. It just exacerbated the parking problem elsewhere in the neighborhood. And this rather shabby Urban Greenway now contains a Merry-Go-Round and a Tofu stand, giving it the appearance of a Third World County Fair.
I remember going to Maryland (’85 - ‘89). 37,000 students and 14,000 staff on campus, the size of a small city, and yet Campus Drive still moved, even if only intermittently at times. Of course, it helped that most underclassmen weren’t allowed to bring cars on campus.
These people are insane!
Interesting comments. Of course, the big question is: did bikes increase there? How is “pub(l)ic transportation” around there?
I still don’t quite understand this plan. I’m a UM grad of ‘93 and while I read the whole article (this is new to me), I’m still not clear what they really want. Or WHY.
I don’t know what it’s like now, but when I went to school, I was fine crossing traffic both as a literal pedestrian or bicyclist. I went more on campus when I was taking elective courses outside my engineering (located at the corner of campus). The main drag is a huge mall of green. If you are a liberal-arts type person, there is hardly any car traffic to encounter once you start your day unless you insist on going to the Student Union (just 1 street to cross).
These people are imbeciles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.