Collegiate Times

Football coverage is in the sports coverage. Don't get your facts messed up. It's not sports writers' fault they actually do their job and churn out stories on a regular basis. Other than that, I agree with your letter.

We need that parking though, the number of cars that are on campus goes up every year but the number of parking spots is going down. In 2006 the majority of the parking lots from 10-2 were full. We need more parking to accommodate the the rising number of vehicles on campus. I'm sorry that it doesn't have that colonial Williamsburg feel to it but its more important to have enough parking for our students. I walked everywhere until I had a license and what I found liberating was getting in my truck with the knowledge that I now had the freedom to go where ever I wanted. I didn't have to stick to a bus route or have to go only where I could get rides. That's why most of us live in Northern Virginia instead of those other places, America loves cars and the freedoms they allow us.

No, anon, what parking services needs to do is raise the cost of a parking permit. Parking is always going to a constrained resource, no matter how many new lots and garages are built - there's simply only a finite number of parking spaces available. The demand has to be controlled, then, by either restricting permit purchases by year in school (think 'high school style'), or otherwise by raising the cost so that not as many people are willing to purchase the permits. I graduated in 2008 and now attend George Mason for my masters - I can tell you that I paid more for a one semester pass than you current Hokies pay for a whole year. The situation is different for me, though, since I go straight to class from work, and there isn't as much public transportation catering specifically to GMU students. Blacksburg has a lot of resources to alleviate the parking situation - but more parking spaces isn't really an appropriate solution to the problem.

Kyle you make the mistake of assuming that the number of people wanting to park is infinite, rather it is a finite number. The university simply needs to expand parking as the student body grows. Parking on campus should be encouraged and welcomed because parking fines are how the university makes the majority of its parking revenue. Discouraging parking would drastically reduce the funds the university has available for other transportation services including the buses.

About 90% of students live within 2 miles of campus. This amounts to about a 7 minute bike ride, or a 15 minute walk. It often takes anywhere from 15 minutes to a half hour to drive to campus and find a parking spot, then another 5-10 minutes to walk from the parking lot to class. I routinely wake 20 minutes before my morning classes and arrive in front the necessary academic building with plenty of time to spare on a bicycle. It saves time, it is good for you, and you never have to pay $80 for a "you might be able to find a spot" pass. It boggles the mind that people would rather drive aimlessly around a giant asphalt prison than hop on a bike and quickly scoot to campus. The author was spot on - it is not about laziness as much as it is about ignorance - surely a lazy person (such as myself) would favor a shorter commute on bike. Culturally, many people were raised in areas where cycling was difficult, or in many cases, dangerous. That is not the case here in BB - I implore you to give it a try as I did Freshman year. I am now a graduate student and have never looked back.

Parking should be completely by permit, and the University should charge $600 per semester for a parking permit sold only to a student with a valid ID, with permits fully transferrable. That would create a new market. Students in apartment complexes would pool their resources (and carpool) for one permit, then rent the permit for football games to recoup costs. Create a secondary or tertiary market for parking and make carpool friends in the process. Or try busing/walking/biking for a semester to see if you can stand it. Problem solved. Next!

That is ridiculous, how out of touch are you posters. Yeah MAN! lets bulldoze the roads and make it all bike paths MAN! Then we can all skip to school and ride unicorns MAN! Raising the price of parking permits is an asinine idea and will ultimately lower the revenues Tech uses for things like the bus system while skyrocketing demand for the service. Tell me, how many joints do you have to smoke to make you think that's a good idea?

How many joints? I'm not sure. Perhaps you should be asking the elected officials of the majority of all major European cities which manage to put quality of urban life before motorist convenience, or even cities right here in America, such as New York, or Portland. Again, I believe you are being quite closed-minded. I think that if you made more of a point of traveling and/or otherwise learning about different cities throughout the world, you would see that this auto-centric attitude is quite unique to North America. So perhaps the rest of the developed world should be asking us North Americans, "How many joints do you have to smoke in order to actually believe that the operation of personal automobiles is more important than quality of life?"

I actually have traveled abroad, and if you've actually been to many places you'll find that a love of automobiles is by no means unique to North America. South America loves automobiles as much as we do but many can't afford them. Same can be said for parts of Asia, a large portion of the developing world loves cars but can't afford them. Your New York example is frankly wrong, that city is famous for the amount of traffic it has. It's the "crossroads of the world" after all and one out of touch politician does not change that. My question for you Jeff is how are cars damaging the quality of urban life. Making things hard for motorists hurts the local economy by making it harder for people to access goods and services. A strong local economy is a very important part of having a strong community. Also consider this, America isn't Europe what works for them will not necessarily work for us. Also America is in many ways better than Europe, we have a stronger economy, we are less polluted, we are more tolerant of other cultures, and more immigrants come to our shores than any other nation.

Actually, the nickname "Crossroads of the World" refers to Times Square, not the whole city. And ironically, roughly half of Times Square (Broadway) was recently closed down to traffic in order to create pedestrian promenades. New York is only a bad example in the sense that its pedestrian-friendly nature is mainly out of necessity than design (i.e. huge size and density). And yes, there is a lot of traffic, but the fact is there is simply a lot of everything, as the city is extremely large. The fact of the matter is, roughly 50% of New Yorkers live in a household with a car, and the figure is even lower (25%) for Manhattan. The national average is roughly 92%. Also consider the impressive statistic that one third of all mass transit users in the USA live in New York, and two thirds of all rail users in the USA live in New York and the surrounding areas. Whether or not there is a lot of traffic overall in this city of eight and a half million people is less relevant than the high percentage of the residents who do not live a car-based lifestyle.

@Anonymous at 1:34 pm No one is suggesting we replace all roads with bicycle paths. Not even close. Obviously, the remote nature or Blacksburg does make having a car here a worthwhile pursuit. My point (which you missed entirely) was that there are other very viable options in this town, and in many other places, besides using a car for daily business. With specific regards to the parking situation on campus, there are even advantages of leaving your car at home, as I pointed out earlier. You, on the other hand, seem content to infer that anyone who chooses to walk or bike is some kind of deviant drug user. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Yes and as a result of Times Square being made more pedestrian friendly business has suffered. In your figures did you count the 1.7 million people that commute to New York every weekday. That will change your figures a bit if you hadn't. Of course you ignored my other points so I can only assume you don't have a counter argument for the rest of what I said.

You're conjecture that closing the square will hurt business is not share by all, such as Tim Tompkins, president of the Times Square Alliance, who was quoted as saying: "Having a larger pedestrian space where people are lingering is good for [Broadway's] business"

The fact that business has suffered is not so bothersome. After all, what is more important, a handful of business owners who profit from having our public space remain a traffic artery, or the millions or city residents and visitors who are now able to enjoy that public space? I'm not sure where people get the idea that promoting capitalism and private automobiles above all other interests are somehow fundamental to the American way of life. And of course I included the commuters in my figures about "two thirds of rail users..." Believe me, I understand that the folks out in Jersey and Long Island own and drive cars around their suburbs. Good for them--as long as they keep their cars, along with the parking lots and wide, hostile roads that come along with them, outside of the city, and take the train when they come to work. I apologize that I was not able to address each point in your comment. Unfortunately, there is a 200 character limit for these comments, and it is quite easy to go over!

The Epoch Times also disagrees with you, citing an expected 20% increase in retail sales in Times Square.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/17487/ link to the article I am referencing since the CT does not allow html apparently.

Of course making it almost impossible for delivery trucks and cabs to get to the businesses on Broadway will do wonders for those places.

I would give more serious consideration to some citations from The Onion than I would the Post. The fact remains that I have no pity on these people. Again, all they are saying is that converting a former traffic artery into a pedestrian area may have some negative effect on a small amount of people (i.e. the business owners), while providing millions of city residents and tourists with much-needed public space.

That's what Central Park is for Times Square is a major road vital to many businesses. This has had a ripple effect for New York and it now takes longer to go anywhere in the city because of the traffic being diverted from times square to other roads.

Unfortunately, I can't say I have seen this ripple effect in action. In fact, I have taken many subway lines that go right underneath Times Square several times since it has been closed off to traffic, and my subway trip took about the same amount of time as it did before. In fact, I would say that I can both walk and bike through times square much faster than I used to be able to when Broadway was used as a traffic artery. So in that sense, considering that 70% of Manhattanites do not use a personal automobile as a mode of transport, I suppose you could say that it is marginally quicker to get through Times Square and the surrounding area!

You could say that but you'd be wrong. It's not just people from Manhattan that need to use Times Square. There all the people in the surrounding areas that drive through there everyday. If you talk to people they will tell you that it now takes in some cases twice as long to get where they are going as a result of closing of this area.

Thanks for a great letter Jeff. I did not have a car at all at VT, and was able to walk or take the bus anywhere I needed to go. Most apartment complexes have access to a bus that runs every 15 minutes during the peak time, and takes you right where you need to go.

At the end of the day, though, everyone needs to realize that they chose to come here. Every place has its charms and frustrations, but in this case the frustration comes from those who refuse to buy into the university's take on parking, and rather than even explore alternative means of transportation, decide they will settle for nothing less than a Jetsons-esque tube that personally delivers them to the doorway of every classroom.

The question here is what direction Blacksburg and the university want to take. There is always a balancing act between accessibility and aesthetics. It should come as no surprise to anyone attending Tech that they are living in an area that values its small town feel and beautiful natural surroundings as much as the vitality of its student population. The choices are basic: make more parking, change the availability/price of permits, or do nothing. My favorite option is charging for permits on a graduated scale based on distance from campus, with permits for the closest being cost inhibitive, and declining for those living farther away. I would imagine that longer distance commuters would be most affected by the parking situation, and they also have the most justifiable need for driving to campus. People who live 100 feet from a bus stop but decide to drive anyway are simply in denial. They refuse to admit that, when presented with the option of making things easy on themselves by walking, taking the bus, or biking, they are so enamored of their cars that nothing else will do.

I read all of these comments something else to consider is a student who may have classes all day and at the conclusion of the day, their bus route has stopped running. Yes, there are buses the come close to the same route before, but some people are less comfortable biking or walking a long distance at night or even early in the morning. While the buses and biking are more cost effective, it just may not work in every situation.