I appreciate Travis Bott’s interest with regard to “sustainability vs. parking,” (“‘Tangible benefits’ are superficial appeals,” ODE, April 6) but he seems to be willfully misunderstanding Reality Check’s views on this — views that are openly available to the public. In the future, please read our plans before making an assertion. I will abstain from making an assertion on 3C or Amelie Rousseau’s parking ideologies for this reason.
There are multiple kinds of sustainability (fiscal, logistical, green), but you seem to have entirely focused on green sustainability for your argument. Reality Check is concerned with all three types. I argue that just as much anthropogenic carbon is emitted into the air by cars driving around for 10 minutes looking for a spot. And while you propose the better resource for driving is to buy a bike or move close to campus to walk, we recognize that we cannot require this financial and logistical strain on all students. Reality Check is about providing resources to all students however they decide to commute to school. Reality Check is not about telling students how to commute, as opposed to your quote “… tell kids to get out of their cars and ride a bike.” I can’t ride a bike, Travis; I have terrible knees.
The University has a very high live-off rate and also sells thousands more parking passes than it has spaces. We are not making an argument in favor of more lot development, nor more parking permits. If we did, I would not be a part of this campaign. We’re talking about opening up pre-existing parking lots for students who wish to drive to campus. You may commute however you please.
Thank you for your views. See you on the streets.
[email protected]