Traffic ond Parking
Committee Reccomendations
(Editors note: The following is
the full report of the Traffic and
Parking Committee to the
Chancellor, opposing the
construction of the new parking
lot and the recent increase in
parking fees.)
Because of the University
community's concerns about the
construction and location of a
new parking lot, as well as
resulting parking fee increases, the
Traffic and Parking Committee
has unanimously decided to
publish their recommendations on
these issues. The Traffic and
Parking Committee, appointed by
the Chancellor, is advisory to the
Vice Chancellor of Business
Affairs on all matters pertaining
to traffic and parking on the
UNCC campus.
On October 12, 1973, a report
was presented to our committee
concerning a proposed parking lot
housing 800 cars to be
constructed behind the existing
amphitheatre at an estimated cost
of $340,000. It was estimated
that parking fees would have to be
increased 66% from $12.00 to
$20.00 per car.
The members of our
committee recommended that the
lot not be built until it could be
shown that there is a need for a
new lot at that location. The
committee was concerned that
enrollment growth at UNCC is
primarily in the evening and late
afternoon programs when there is
more than ample parking space
available. The committee
recommended that the UNCC
math department's operations
research classes submit a report
showing the number of existing
empty parking spaces during peak
hours. In December of 1973, the
results were submitted to our
committee showing that after
parking spaces at the Smith
Building were eliminated by the
new Earth Science Building, there
remained between 525 and 575
empty parking spaces during peak
hours.
In December of 1973,
representatives from the Traffic
and Parking Committee and the
math department's operations
research team, realizing the
urgency of the matter, met with
Vice Chancellor Moelchert. At
that meeting the committee's
concerns were reiterated.
On January 8, 1974, Vice
Chancellor Moelchert reported to
our committee that the Board of
Trustees had approved the plans
for the new lot and a parking fee
increase from $12.00 to $20.00
per year. The operations research
class made an additional study on
empty parking spaces to verify
their previous findings. The study
showed that there were 700
empty parking spaces during peak
periods. Of course, at other times
empty parking spaces were
substantially in excess of this
amount.
Of equal concern is the
location of the new lot. If a need
exists, it would appear to be in
the dormitory - gymnasium area
of our campus.
The committee again
recommended that any plans for
the construction of new parking
facilities and parking fee increases
be held in abeyance for the
following reasons:
1. In light of present and
projected enrollment trends,
there is no demonstrated
need for additional parking
facilities in the near future.
2. The Traffic Consultants
retained by the University
have not had an opportunity
to express their views on this
matter. 3. The energy crisis
and recent car pooling
arrangements can only
lesson the need for parking
facilities at this time.
On February 1, 1974, Vice
Chancellor Moelchert met with
our committee and following a
discussion of this matter. Vice
Chancellor Moelchert informed
the committee that plans for the
new lot were proceeding. We
believe that In the best interest of
the University community that
the actions proposed for the new
parking lot are premature and
have not been supported by
analysis or tangible evidence.
Houston Planners Hired
A Houston planning firm was
on campus last week to meet with
students, administrators, and the
Long Range Planning Committee
and formulate a plan for meeting
the university's goals and
expectations for enrollment.
Representatives of the firm of
Qaudill, Rowlett, and Scott (CRS)
met with students Tuesday night
to go over the projected goals of
the university, the concepts of the
school, and how to meet them as
the university grows.
During the meeting, the
students had an opportunity to
review the goals of the university
and make comments on the
university's concept of the
direction of the institution.
One of the major points of
contention was the student's
assertion that the university goal
of expanding Into the community
should be put off as a nice Idea
until problems on the campus are
taken care of.
Students also asserted that the
university's goal of being an urban
institution was a bit far fetched,
given the consideration that all
appearances of urbanity are quite
a few miles away.
The CRS representatives
listened, took notes, and promised
to review the situation.
After a week of discussion, the
*-RS planners met again with
members of the Long Range
^^mmittee to give a rundown of
the final operation objectives they
had formulated.
The institutional goals included
orientation of the university
toward an urbanizing society, to
prepare students for careers as
well as continued education, and
internationalizing studies. The key
institutional goal reflected the
concerns of the students who had
met with the planners - for the
university to establish its roots in
undergraduate education before
moving elsewhere.
The mission statements were a
reflection of what the university
should keep in mind while striving
for accomodating a projected
enrollment of 20,000 full time
equivalent students.
Mission statements included an
by charlotte porter
involvment of the community and
undergrad education as the first
priority. The planners have given
undergraduate education the
number one priority, followed by
service and, finally, research.
Project goals included
establishing the importance of the
individual student and helping
him realize a sense of self,
developing services conveinient to
the students (altering the zoning
laws to allow businesses to move
into the campus area), centralizing
the colleges for efficient student
movement, helping with faculty
Interaction, and putting the
library as the center of campus.
both for the dormitories and the
academic buildings.
Project concepts include the
idea that if dorm students leave
the campus on weekends, why not
bring In the community at that
time?; interface between all
students; space for a
faculty/student interation;
establishment of a United
Religious Department; to establish
a home base for commuters on
campus, someplace where the
commuters can relax, nap, etc; to
hide parking but make it as
convenient as possible; to develop
a community atmosphere which
would include drugstores,
foodstores, and entertainment
near campus; to use the dorms as
learning centers; and to develop
housing alternatives, including,
faculty and married students
residences.
All the information the
planners gathered during their two
weeks here will be compiled Into
book form and sent to the
university for further review.
The planners will return in a
few weeks with some studies of
what the physical imiications of
the goals and concepts may be.
Fees
A rise in student fees has been
proposed and accepted, and
students can expect this increase
next fall. Dr. Doug Orr, Vice
Chancellor for Student Affairs,
emphasizes that each of the
increases is in response to
increasing costs or improvements
in service.
The health service fee rises
from twenty dollars a year to
thirty five. This increase will go
toward another full time doctor in
the infirmary, and several
additional nurses. Many students
have discovered the health
facilities, putting a heavy load on
Dr. Davis. Students, in a survey,
were offered the choice between
longer waits in the infirmary,
versus a raise in fees, and the
latter was preferred. This fee is
among the lowest in the area. The
additional persons will join the
staff this July or next fall.
The food service fee has been
raised from 525 to 540 dollars for
the seven day plan, and from 475
to 490 dollars per year for the five
day plan. The price of a dorm
spot increases from 400 to 425
dollars per year. These increases
were made on recommendation
from the Director of Resident
Life and the Dean of Student
Life, together with Dr. Orr's
office. The rising cost of food,
and more significantly utilities,
has necessitated this price
increase.
The price of a parking sticker
will increase from twelve to
twenty dollars, as recommended
by the budget office. Most of the
fee goes toward maintenance of
the present facilities, although
part will contribute toward a new
parking lot to be built below the
ampitheater.
Finally, the commencement
fee will go from ten to fifteen
dollars.
THIOABWLIBSA liOliRBBikL
volume ix,
number 21,
march 12, 1974