To: Jonathan Brand, Vice President for Institutional and Budget Planning Mark Godar, Director or Facilities Management

From: The Campus Advisory Committee on Environmental Concerns (a.k.a., the EcoCampus Committee). Vince Eckhart (Biology, Committee Chair), Gail Bonath (Library), David Ellison (Political Science), Monty Roper (Anthropology), and Royce Wolf (Mathematics and Computer Science); staff Mike Burt (Facilities Management), Steve Larson (Student Affairs), and Brian Turner (Facilities Management); and spring-semester students Katie Casas (2004), Shelby Hayhoe ('04), Josh Rosenbluh ('05), and Eli Zigas ('06).

Subject: Comments on Campus Parking Plans

Date: 23 May 2003
________________________________________________________________________________

We regret that the time window available for commentary about parking development closed before the Committee could meet (in early May) and prepare formal comments. The EcoCampus Committee appreciates being invited to provide input on the Campus Parking Plan, a draft of which was first made available to the College community in April, 2003. An April comment period followed by June construction was too short a period, however, to allow careful input from our committee or from other stakeholders and advisors. We feel it would have been more appropriate (and effective) to invite our committee's comments as the parking plan was developing, rather than after it had been drafted. In future parking plans, we would like to be invited to the table sooner.

Surface parking lots have several negative environmental impacts that should receive careful consideration. Among these impacts are:
-reducing green space
-increasing local temperature (i.e., creating heat islands)
-increasing snow-removal requirements (and consumption of fossil fuels and employee time)
-increasing storm-water runoff (from surfaces that may have concentrated pollutants)
-encouraging automobile use

We acknowledge that contractors and designs may already have been selected, but we recommend that one of more green-design elements (e.g., pervious concrete, storm-water filtration systems, solar-powered lighting or shading systems) be implemented in at least one new parking lot. This could be considered an experiment, as well as a good-faith gesture in favor of sustainable practices.

We appreciate that proposed new lots are, in the main, peripheral rather than central, and, except for the "fifth dorm" lot, small, rather than large. Meanwhile, like the Parking Committee, we recognize that some parking must accompany the facilities that have large staffs and that will attract visitors to central campus (i.e., the very large campus center). Thoughtful landscaping can help soften the visual impact of central parking.

We are concerned by a larger pattern of increased parking development and automobile transportation at the College. The College is increasing its overall parking "footprint" substantially. The draft of the plan on the web includes approximately 150 new parking spaces, which, after the loss of the Darby Gym lot, will mean approximately 30 new spaces. This accounting, however, does not include recent parking development associated with the Chrystal Center and the Glove Factory.

We endorse the specific "Governing Parking Principles" that assign value to mitigating negative environmental impacts, though we see no evidence that the current plan encourages alternative methods of transportation. "The College should seek to preserve as much green space as possible (i.e., not overbuild)." "The College should encourage alternative methods of transportation, including biking and walking." "All parking lots should be tastefully landscaped and adequately/properly illuminated."

Of the remaining Principles, we make the following comments.
-"The College should seek to minimize the number of College-related cars that park on neighborhood streets." Great. This is good-neighbor policy.

-"The College should attempt to accommodate the College's parking needs."

-"There is no solution that will satisfy everyone, so the answer will likely be somewhere in the middle. (Incremental growth is better in this case because it will ensure that we don't overbuild.)

-"Over the course of a career, parking impacts people's lives and how they feel about the institution and so we need to think seriously about how parking influences people's lives and how they feel about work at Grinnell College."

The College should first identify its parking needs. The starting assumption of the Parking Plan seems to be that the College needs more and more parking, the only questions being how much more, and where to build more. "Incremental growth" is less desirable than no growth. We recommend that the College actively attempt to reduce its parking needs. Automobile use and parking construction are costly in terms of personal and institutional finances, in terms of personal and public health, and (often) in terms of esthetics. The Committee offers to research ways of reducing parking needs by facilitating an audit of the number of autos on campus, whether they are driven by commuters or student residents, and what distances commuters drive. In addition, it will be important to learn what financial or other incentives might persuade people to park on lots farther away, to carpool, or not to drive at all.