2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the Editor
Issue date: 3/14/08 Section: Opinion
DOTS move may bring cars to the campus
The environmentalist within me rejoiced upon learning of the DOTS plan to discount parking permit fees for those students who drive particularly fuel-efficient cars. However, I suspect, especially in light of decreased revenues, this will prove ultimately to be another plan that, good intentions notwithstanding, produces most undesirable consequences.
A quotation from Kellie Woodhouse's fine article exemplifies the fundamental problem underlying the plan: "When I moved, really there was no point in parking here because of the expense," said library science graduate student Amy Jenkins, who primarily relies on taking Metro to the campus. "A green permit would be very beneficial for my financial status."
Perhaps Ms. Jenkins' scenario will be an anomaly; we ought to hope so. Nevertheless, I find the plan's actually causing the addition of an automobile, environmentally friendly or not, to the roads, and that's cause for concern. Any attempt to further improve the sustainability of this university deserves commendation. Nonetheless, any such change requires thorough inspection for such risks. If, as Melissa Maya suspects, the policy will change nothing, enticing those who otherwise would use public transportation to drive to campus should suffice to compel DOTS to put the kibosh on the plan.
Nathan P. Origer
Master's candidate
Community Planning
Green permits ineffectual
In response to Suzie Dundas's guest column "Green theme," printed March 12, I think she misunderstands opposition to this measure. It isn't that students dislike hybrids, but that they see the measure as ineffectual and arbitrarily preferential.
She claims this change will have a "huge impact," but I don't know anyone whose decision on what car to buy is changed by reducing the cost by a few hundred dollars - at most a few percentage points off the sticker price.
So, if the pricing of permits won't actually make eco-friendly behavior more likely, what purpose does it serve? The only effect I see it having is rewarding those who have already made an eco-friendly decision and punishing those who haven't made an eco-friendly decision. While that may seem like a good idea to those already driving hybrids, for those of us without them it doesn't hold the same appeal. Even if I've already decided my next car is going to be a hybrid, I'm taking the eco-friendly route of driving my current car until it's fit for the junkyard (how much copper is in a new car again?). This permit system is unable to consider such decisions.
I also contest the idea suggesting cars that get good gas mileage are simply better for the environment than cars with worse mileage. All other things being equal, perhaps, but all other things are not equal. No sane environmentalist would suggest removing catalytic converters to increase gas mileage. Few environmentalists directly address the question of what tradeoff between safety and mileage we should be willing to accept. It takes a lot of gasoline to lug around the steel frames that reduce human fatalities in accidents. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, increasing gas mileage across the board decreases the cost of driving, putting more people on the road for longer distances and increasing congestion and traffic.
Matthew Graves
Sophomore
Economics and physics
Air Your Views
The Diamondback welcomes your comments. Address your letters or guest columns to the Opinion Desk at opinion@dbk.umd.edu. All letters and guest columns must be signed. Include your full name, year, major and day- and night-time phone numbers. Please limit letters to 300 words. Please limit guest columns to between 550 and 700 words.
Submission of a letter or guest column constitutes an exclusive, worldwide, transferable license to The Diamondback of the copyright in the material in any media. The Diamondback retains the right to edit submissions for content and length.
Letters can also be submitted online here.
The environmentalist within me rejoiced upon learning of the DOTS plan to discount parking permit fees for those students who drive particularly fuel-efficient cars. However, I suspect, especially in light of decreased revenues, this will prove ultimately to be another plan that, good intentions notwithstanding, produces most undesirable consequences.
A quotation from Kellie Woodhouse's fine article exemplifies the fundamental problem underlying the plan: "When I moved, really there was no point in parking here because of the expense," said library science graduate student Amy Jenkins, who primarily relies on taking Metro to the campus. "A green permit would be very beneficial for my financial status."
Perhaps Ms. Jenkins' scenario will be an anomaly; we ought to hope so. Nevertheless, I find the plan's actually causing the addition of an automobile, environmentally friendly or not, to the roads, and that's cause for concern. Any attempt to further improve the sustainability of this university deserves commendation. Nonetheless, any such change requires thorough inspection for such risks. If, as Melissa Maya suspects, the policy will change nothing, enticing those who otherwise would use public transportation to drive to campus should suffice to compel DOTS to put the kibosh on the plan.
Nathan P. Origer
Master's candidate
Community Planning
Green permits ineffectual
In response to Suzie Dundas's guest column "Green theme," printed March 12, I think she misunderstands opposition to this measure. It isn't that students dislike hybrids, but that they see the measure as ineffectual and arbitrarily preferential.
She claims this change will have a "huge impact," but I don't know anyone whose decision on what car to buy is changed by reducing the cost by a few hundred dollars - at most a few percentage points off the sticker price.
So, if the pricing of permits won't actually make eco-friendly behavior more likely, what purpose does it serve? The only effect I see it having is rewarding those who have already made an eco-friendly decision and punishing those who haven't made an eco-friendly decision. While that may seem like a good idea to those already driving hybrids, for those of us without them it doesn't hold the same appeal. Even if I've already decided my next car is going to be a hybrid, I'm taking the eco-friendly route of driving my current car until it's fit for the junkyard (how much copper is in a new car again?). This permit system is unable to consider such decisions.
I also contest the idea suggesting cars that get good gas mileage are simply better for the environment than cars with worse mileage. All other things being equal, perhaps, but all other things are not equal. No sane environmentalist would suggest removing catalytic converters to increase gas mileage. Few environmentalists directly address the question of what tradeoff between safety and mileage we should be willing to accept. It takes a lot of gasoline to lug around the steel frames that reduce human fatalities in accidents. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, increasing gas mileage across the board decreases the cost of driving, putting more people on the road for longer distances and increasing congestion and traffic.
Matthew Graves
Sophomore
Economics and physics
Air Your Views
The Diamondback welcomes your comments. Address your letters or guest columns to the Opinion Desk at opinion@dbk.umd.edu. All letters and guest columns must be signed. Include your full name, year, major and day- and night-time phone numbers. Please limit letters to 300 words. Please limit guest columns to between 550 and 700 words.
Submission of a letter or guest column constitutes an exclusive, worldwide, transferable license to The Diamondback of the copyright in the material in any media. The Diamondback retains the right to edit submissions for content and length.
Letters can also be submitted online here.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Be the first to comment on this story