Diamondback Online - The University of Maryland's Independent Daily Student Newspaper

Issue date: 4/1/08 Section: Opinion

Media Credit: Shai Goller The Campus Drive Alignment is shown here in black. The Preinkert Drive Alignment is shown in gray.

The people have spoken: They want the Purple Line to run down Campus Drive. The alignment would be the most accessible for commuters, least disruptive for students in dorms and most easily incorporated into the overall layout of the campus. A Preinkert Drive alignment would destroy the tranquility of Memorial Chapel, leave many members of the university community with long walks to their classes and would require reduced speed as it traversed the campus to make the sharp turns necessary to weave between buildings.

Three of the representative bodies on the campus - the Student Government Association, Graduate Student Government and Residence Halls Association - have all made the right choice by endorsing the Campus Drive alignment. The views of these groups are consistent with those of many faculty members and the Maryland Transit Administration's engineers. This debate should be over. The administration has been categorically wrong in its stance, and embracing its position would require an unapologetically delusive character of mind.

The controversy surrounding the struggle to agree upon a route has uncovered a few fundamental choices the university community must make in the future regarding the character of the campus, the administrative structure governing it and the role of student advocacy in deciding crucial issues.

The physical character of the campus

A Purple Line on Campus Drive would, by necessity, reduce the university's heavy reliance on automobile traffic for its daily functioning. While this might be a painful sacrifice for many commuters, it is complementary to the reason for building a Purple Line in the first place. In addition, a reduction in dependence on vehicles would be consistent with the university's support for environmentally sound policy. Reduced cost parking permits for low-emission cars are good in spirit but really have minimal impact practically. A total overhaul of vehicular movement through the center of the campus could drastically change the university's environmental impact for the better.

The need to ensure federal funding

University President Dan Mote has had a pessimistic view of the MTA's ability to accomplish the project, saying in a previous article, "I will be long dead by the time this thing gets built." His pessimism isn't entirely unwarranted: Construction of the Purple Line would require massive amounts of federal funding. Somehow, though, the role of the federal government in funding the project has been almost entirely overlooked in the debates here on the campus. It shouldn't be. Every five years, the federal government redefines its priorities for funding transportation projects. Congress is evaluating the current bill, which will expire on Sept. 30, 2009, and is planning on condensing programs to form one that focuses solely on congestion. Though this is auspicious news for proponents of mass transit, funding for infrastructure projects is hard to come by and cannot be taken for granted. If the university is concerned about the aesthetic impact of the Purple Line on the campus, it should stop raising a ruction about the specific route and start lobbying for federal funding so the MTA can afford enhancements such as the streetscaping upgrade that would attach the line's catenary wires to lampposts to minimize their visual impact.

A critique of administrative structure

Mote and Vice President for Administrative Affairs Doug Duncan have taken micromanagement to new heights with their politicization of the facilities master plan. While their passion for shaping the future of the university is admirable, their approach to governance is not and may ultimately stifle our ascent towards becoming a nationally prominent university.

It simply does not make sense for the President's office to be deeply involved in the details of transportation planning.
The approach takes decisions out of the hands of experts who are trained in their fields and puts it in the hands of individuals who are guided not by facts but by their predispositions. History, as we know, is littered with the catastrophes created when ignorant old men draw lines on maps.

The role of student advocacy

One of the more direct implications of the outcome of deliberations on the Purple Line is that it will demonstrate the ability of the administration to listen to and take seriously the views of student groups. Three major representative groups at the university have thrown their support behind the Campus Drive alignment plan. Even if the desires of these student groups were unreasonable, or somehow mistaken, they would merit serious consideration by the administration, not the sort of entrenchment that has been endemic in the Purple Line debate. The administration has made it clear that it will not budge on its opposition to the Campus Drive alignment. When so much of student opinion is against them, one must ask for whom the administration is advocating?

While the administration is flatly disregarding student opinion on the issue, many student groups have been less than stellar in serving as advocates for the student body. The primary power of any elected body on campus lies in its ability to speak for the voice of students, but the SGA and RHA have both been overshadowed on this issue by Rob Goodspeed and David Daddio, the editors of Rethink College Park, who collectively have written 52 blog posts on the subject. Goodspeed and Daddio have embraced the meritocratic power of the Internet to grant a voice to individuals who are consistently prepared and diligent in promoting transparency while the SGA and RHA have failed to capitalize on using the Internet to voice their opinions. Does anyone even know the SGA has a blog?

Probably not, since Andrew Friedson has only made eight posts on it during his tenure and hasn't made any since November. The RHA hasn't updated the legislative history on its website since 2005 and relegates itself each day further into obscurity. The face of advocacy is changing, and the SGA and RHA are missing out.

What the future holds

The Purple Line issue, regardless of its outcome, is central to the future of the university. For the administration to continue to ignore the views of student groups will be a terrible result for relations between the university community and its leadership. The MTA's Purple Line plan, as it stands, would be constructed right through the heart of the campus. Regardless of which alignment is ultimately chosen, there is negligible philosophical disagreement on the fundamental purpose of the Purple Line - to promote the use of public transportation and to improve its quality and accessibility.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools