Parking plan is exclusionary
Insight into the classism of USD’s proposed new parking permits
Imma Honkanen / Op-Ed Contributor / The USD Vista
On Sept. 25, the Office of Parking Services at the University of San Diego posted a draft of a new “USD Parking and Mobility Plan” on their website that would take effect next school year. This plan includes major changes to the current parking system, like not allowing first-year students to park on campus, and creating a tiered parking structure that sets several boundaries on where each tier is allowed to park.
For students specifically, there are three parking tiers that would be offered: Student Convenience ($375/year), Economy ($225/year), and Fringe ($125/year). Right now, regular commuter parking permits are $280/year, so the Convenience pass would be an almost $100 increase.
This $150 difference between Student Convenience and Economy is evident; Student Convenience permit holders would be able to park in the Main Parking Structure and multiple smaller lots around main buildings on campus, while Economy holders would be restricted to only the West Parking Structure and Lot. Fringe parking would be the same as it is now, where permit holders are only allowed to park on the bottom two floors of the West Parking Structure and in the gravel lot. Currently, all regular commuter passes (excluding Fringe) allow access to main campus spots (Main Parking Structure and smaller lots around main buildings) on a first come, first served basis, so this difference is drastic. In order to park in the same, currently available main campus spots, students would have to pay for the highest parking tier.
Though the tram system does help in transporting students from the West Parking Structure to the main campus area, it is often a tedious process to park and wait for the next available tram, which is not always timely and reliable. For students, this often means planning for the unpredictability by arriving to campus at least thirty minutes before class or other commitments begin. Unfortunately, due to the lack of available parking on campus, many students will still have to park in the West Parking Structure, but money should not be the only factor for which particular students will need to do so.
Not only are students adversely affected by these parking regulation changes, but faculty are as well. In order to park near their offices or the classrooms they are teaching in, full-time faculty need to pay $875/year for a Proximity parking permit, which is more than double than their other option (paying $425/year to only be able to park in the Main Parking Structure and other lots not on main campus). For professors with busy schedules or a general need to be close to where they teach or work, this Proximity permit is a necessity, but the steep price may adversely affect many professors who cannot afford this.
As many aspects of the campus are changing in response to USD’s Renaissance Plan, it is understandable that parking regulations and policies would also need to be altered to accommodate these changes and the growing student population in general. However, by creating these parking permit tiers based on price, the new Mobility Plan excludes students who could not afford to pay for the Convenience permit from being able to take advantage of the proximity to campus.
Easy access to campus can mean several things for students. For some, this may mean being close to their professor’s office hours for a quick question, or being close to various resources on campus, such as the Student Health Center, the Counseling Center, the LGBTQ+ and Allies Commons, etc. For others, this may mean having less stress in traveling from work to class efficiently, or vice versa. Overall, students who are able to park on main campus can best maximize their time to complete schoolwork, among other activities, instead of spending sometimes close to 30 minutes parking in a gravel lot and waiting for a tram system that is not always reliable. I know if it was me, I would only put in that effort and time if it was absolutely necessary for me to be on campus, and this would probably mean missing valuable office hours or other useful campus opportunities. For instance, if Torero Program Board was hosting an event with free food and activities, or if a sorority or fraternity was hosting a philanthropy event to fundraise for an organization and I did not have class before or after, I would not be inclined to go if I had to spend 30 minutes just to find parking.
For many other universities, different parking permits are allocated by the number of total completed credit hours, a daily first come, first served basis, or a lottery system. For example, one of my friends attends George Mason University, and parking permits are priced relatively the same, but restrictions on which specific lot a student is able to park in are based on the amount of credit hours that the student has completed. Upperclassmen students are typically allowed to park in lots closer to the main campus than students with fewer credits. Any one of these solutions, though they all have their pros and cons, would be less exclusionary than USD’s plan which is based on money alone.
All commuter students should have the same potential access to the same spaces on campus, and no student parking permit should cost more than any other. I understand it is difficult to allocate these spots efficiently throughout the day as they fill up fast, and that some system needs to be in place to keep roads and lots organized, but this allocation should not be based solely on money. There is no reason why someone who is able to afford these spots should automatically have these unearned advantages of main campus proximity.
Ultimately, the ability to afford paying at least an extra $150 should not be the sole determinant on whether a student can park close to their classes, professors’ offices, and valuable on-campus resources. USD possesses the power to not harm students who cannot afford this steep increase in parking permit prices and change the way these spots are allocated.