Parking fees increase, proposal changed

By Alex Dinur     5/15/08 7:00pm

Last week, the University Standing Committee on Parking sent President David Leebron its proposal for next year's parking fees and policies. The main points of the proposal included returning to a tiered-fee system depending on seniority and reducing the fee for the Greenbriar Lot. For the first time since Leebron has been in office, he rejected the committee's annual recommendations; instead, Leebron offered his own suggestions to the Parking Committee.The committee had proposed a change to the undergraduate student surcharge, which is an additional charge on top of the original parking fee. The committee proposed a tiered-fee system, which was in place from fall 2002 to the 2006-'07 academic year, in which student parkers pay different surcharges according to their class year. The committee recommended that freshmen pay $300, sophomores $250, juniors $200 and seniors $150.

The committee had also proposed a cheaper student parking option by cutting parking costs in the Greenbriar Lot. The proposal recommended students pay 50 percent of their tiered surcharge on top of the original Greenbriar Lot fee. The committee hoped this move would enable more students to bring cars to campus and would keep less students from having to park in the lot illegally.

Leebron rejected the tiered system, and instead suggested that freshmen still pay the most at $300 while sophomores, juniors and seniors all pay a $210 surcharge, a $10 decrease from this year's surcharge. This year, all undergraduates paid the same surcharge of $220.

---

---

Leebron rejected the committee's proposal for the Greenbriar Lot.

Next year, all parking lot fees will increase by 4 percent.

Hanszen College senior Eric Max, who served on the Parking Committee, said the committee had observed considerable support from students in their plans to lower Greenbriar Lot's fees and reinstate the tiered-surcharge system when he presented the plans at an Student Association meeting earlier this semester.

Max said parking rates have increased dramatically in the last five years but these changes have been masked by the phasing out of the tiered-surcharge system. Max also said if seniors pay the least and freshmen pay the most, this will lower the average student's cost in parking fees, since the demand for parking increases with increased seniority. Thus, if seniors pay the least and demand the most parking spaces, the average cost of parking in the lots will decrease. The committee calculated that last year's parking demands, given a tiered-surcharge system by class, would have reduced the average student's cost by 5 percent.

Leebron, however, said the changes in surcharges would give the upperclassmen a break and would make fee calculations more simple. He said he understood the necessity of an increased fee for freshmen but not a tiered system for upperclassmen.

"[The tiered system] went away from the direction we had been moving," Leebron said.

Leebron said he made few changes to the proposal. He said parking fees are a minor cost to students in the context of the total yearly costs of maintaining a car.

"The truth of the matter is that, for the average car, parking [costs] represent, at best, 10 percent of its yearly cost," Leebron said. "There are maintenance costs, inspection, insurance and depreciation. We understand everyone would like everything to be cheaper, but someone has to bear these costs [associated with providing parking]. The question is, 'should non-parkers pay for people parking on campus?' We want to keep the campus open and accessible."

Parking and transportation via the campus shuttle service together run a deficit each year. Director of Administrative Services Eugen Radulescu said parking barely breaks even each year from parking fee revenues, while the shuttles are paid for mostly from a subsidy from the university. However, parking has recently generated some profit, which has been used to cover the yearly costs of shuttle operation.

Max said student parkers should not have to bear the costs of shuttles.

"Just as the university pays for bathrooms and sidewalks, they should pay for the shuttles," Max said.

However, Leebron said he disagrees because if the parking rates do not cover all of the costs of parking, the university then has to pay the difference. He said the university's endowment and tuition fees, which could be used to cover these costs, are meant for all students and that non-parkers, who do not use the facilities as often, should not have to pay for these facilities.

Leebron also said Rice's parking fees are inexpensive compared to other urban universities and to the surrounding area, notably the Texas Medical Center. He said the current level of parking rates makes students think seriously about whether or not to bring a car to campus.

Will Rice College junior Andres Pichardo said while parking fees next year do not exceed the average costs of parking at other universities, they may be unfeasible for those students without a steady income.

"The price is about average compared to other schools, though I can see how the rates are enough for some students to feel that it's still overpriced for those with no income," Pichardo said.

For students who might have financial burdens with parking costs, Leebron said Rice also provides its students avenues to alternative modes of transportation. These include a free Houston Metro pass, on-campus bike racks and future Zipcars, rental cars available on campus by the hour, which are still in the planning stages.

Max said that despie the rejection of its proposals, this year marks a victory for the Parking Committee because the 4 percent increase in all fees established by Leebron's parking fee decision is one of the smallest year-to-year fee increases in recent history.

Leebron also approved the committee's proposal for a 30 percent parking discount for Rice employees who make $35,000 or less per year. Last year, there was a discount only for those who made $25,000 or less per year.

One unresolved parking issue for the committee centers around construction workers parking in the Greenbriar Lot. Radulescu said the workers pay a nominal fee for the year but cause a great deal of wear and tear to the lot by lugging heavy equipment around in trucks, which causes the soft concrete in the lots to crack. These damages place the brunt of the cost on the students, faculty and staff who then pay for lot maintenance. Radulescu said the problem has escalated, as 250 additional spots were recently requested for the workers.

Max said if demand for Greenbriar Lot parking increases, the north part of the West Lot resident parking area, which borders Rice Boulevard, could be chained off for the construction workers, since this area is frequently empty.

Max said the committee had considered student opinions in its proposal.

"Historically, student opinion has not been well represented on the parking issue, but this year, with great help from Eugen Radulescu and Dr. Phil Bedient, I think we've made great progress and student interests have been heard," Max said.

---