Paying for your sinful parking

Parking prices at the U of M are justified

JACQUES MARCOUX, VOLUNTEER STAFF

Upon return to class this fall, students were greeted back to campus rather poorly with the onslaught of ever-rising parking fees and, once again, were expected to foot the bill. The most notable increase this year has been felt in the remote SD lot, more commonly known as the toonie lot, where the cost of parking rose from a mere $2 per day to shocking $4 daily — a 100 per cent increase.

The double-toonie lot, as it now stands, has served as a measuring stick for the gradual inflation of the cost of parking on campus. Consider that in the past four years the cost of parking in what was originally branded the loonie lot has increased by over 400 per cent in order to, presumably, account for the increased cost of operating of the self-sustained parking system. Given that the parking network on Fort Garry campus has seen relatively few changes since they added 220 new stalls in the SD lot in 2003, it is difficult to believe that operating and maintenance costs have swelled in proportion to the increased cost at the meter — hence the unending student outrage and mistrust towards the University of Manitoba Parking Services.

This author, however, would like to applaud U of M Parking Services for once again raising the cost of parking for students and staff on campus. Whether the rise in cost is justified due to an increase in operating costs, or is even being utilized as some form of cash cow to fund alternative projects on campus, I extend my kudos to the folks at U of M Parking Services.

With a student population exceeding 28,000, the Fort Gary campus is the third largest city in the province during regular business hours. Many of these students are disgruntled automobile commuters who view the cost of parking as utter price gouging. Instead they should treat the escalating cost as a pollution excision. In other words, students should view the fees as some form of punitive taxation.

Stand on University Crescent on any given weekday and observe how many students commute alone in their vehicles. Simply put, the sheer volume is alarming. Although this does not account for car-pooling, the number is approximately 15,400 students and staff.

According to a study regarding U of M student transportation habits conducted in 2006, approximately 57 per cent of students live within 10 kilometers of the campus. For those who require a visual aid, the average person can cycle 10 kilometres within about 30 minutes. Consider that driving takes about half that time given the traffic, then add the time it takes to walk from your cross-campus parking spot, and finally take into account the gas and parking costs, and most rational individuals will realize that driving to school alone is both a drain on your wallet and the environment.

There are several other alternative methods of transportation such as the transit system, which I will concede is unrealistic for those living in the northerly parts of the city due to its, at times, flagrant inefficiencies. Alternatively, cycling provides zero-cost door-to-door transportation, which the average person can reasonably use year long, with the exception of three winter months. And finally, the UMSU-backed car-pooling program (Carpooling.ca), can reduce a student’s motorized transportation cost fourfold.

Of course, there are the exceptions who need cars: students who live outside the perimeter, those who commute from surrounding towns, those who live at the outermost region of the city limits, and students with disabilities. But for the average student, single occupancy vehicle transportation is simply inexcusable.

Those who feel they are targeted will rebuke with the lamentable excuse of income necessities or an inflexible work schedule, and therefore insist that they must be mobile at all times. According to a report on the true cost of vehicle usage by the Canadian Automobile Association, an average two door sedan costs approximately $10,000 per year (depreciation included) if driven on average 20,000 kilometres. Based on this fact, if most students performed a cost-benefit analysis, they would soon realize that their rush to work after class in a vehicle is actually more costly than if they explored other, simpler alternatives.

Sin taxes, as they are sometimes referred as, are methods by which policy-makers socially engineer habits that bear a high cost for society. Some examples include taxation on tobacco products, alcohol, automobile tires, and gasoline. I endorse and encourage any policy from the university administration that would continuously burden students and staff who live in close proximity and who continue to travel to campus in single occupancy vehicles, provided, of course, they also present reasonable alternatives.

Perhaps as a starting point, parking permits could be distributed in order of priority, starting with students and staff living furthest away from campus, ultimately forcing students in close proximity to consider more responsible alternatives.

Jacques Marcoux is a fourth-year commerce student