Highlights of the College Park Senate meeting
on November 12, 2007
- Report of the Senate Human Relations Committee (Willie Brown, Chair)
- Proposal to allow Graduate Assistants to designate 1 partner to allow access to campus-based privileges
- Some discussion on who should be allowed under definition of "partner". Measure was sent back to committee for clarification.
- Update on Strategic Plan by Provost (Nariman Farvardin)
- Strategic Planning Committee has been meeting regularly.
- Has completed survey of landscape of university according to several metrics with 5 peer institutions.
- Forming subcommittees for each of 4 major initiative. Each subcommittee charged with tasks.
- Starting to request feedback from the campus committee, starting with questionnaire on website.
- Presentation on Purple Line by Vice President for Administrative Affairs (Douglas Duncan)
- Purple line intended to connect suburban job centers that ring DC ("subway beltway").
- Championed by Glendening in mid-90's
- Conflict between Campus Master Plan and State of Maryland on role & location of Purple Line on College Park Campus.
- Campus Master Plan
- Goal to improve public transport, pedestrian traffic in campus
- Commuters would come to edge of campus, and internal campus shuttles move people around campus
- Campus would be reserved for shuttle buses, bicycles, pedestrians
- Mass transit would bypass center of campus and follow Paint Branch Pkwy along edge of campus.
- Maryland Purple Line Campus Segment Plans
- Minimize conflict with existing traffic, coexist with pedestrians
- Pass through campus as fast as possible (cheaply!)
- Lower travel time = more riders, leads to lower cost per rider (needed to qualify for federal funding)
- Ridership between Silver Spring and New Carrollton is questionable (UMD would be principal customer)
- Stations planned at at East Campus, Main Campus, and UMUC
- Route will try to minimize grades & curves (portion going through main campus likely underground)
- State measured 25K pedestrians crossing campus drive, 7K vehicles traveling along campus drive
- State considered 4 possible routes: Paint Branch, Stadium Drive, Field House Drive, Campus Drive
- Campus Drive route preferred by State. Fewest engineering obstacles, most direct route.
- Plan will provide 3-lane restricted road for both trains and buses along Campus Drive.
- Reduce pedestrian crossings from 8 to 4 to reduce pedestrian traffic.
- Concern that Campus Drive route will not be able to handle amount of pedestrian traffic.
- State will be motivated try to strongly reduce pedestrians to minimize trip times.
- $90 million for campus segment would increase to $250 million if completely underground through campus.
- Campus proposed alternative Stadium Drive route to State. State examining options.
- Want to avoid "Campus Drive or nothing" offer from State.
- Question and Answer Session
- Dean Halperin mentioned that research instruments near Stadium Drive are sensitive to vibration & magnetic fields.
- Many faculty expressed concern that students would be adversely affected (noise, injuries, more time required to walk between classes) by Purple Line traffic.
- Student representative expressed desire for Purple Line to pass through Campus Drive, in order to provide most access to students. States pedestrians currently deal with many shuttle buses just fine.
- Faculty expressed sentiment state should make the investment in additional money needed for underground route. More expensive upfront, but reduces costs in the long run, and improves campus.
- City of College Park refused to have Purple Line pass through downtown College Park.
- Mentioned state feels it has final say on route, since UMCP campus is on state land. UMCP trying to find compromise more acceptable to campus community.
- State will be trying to have proposed route ready by spring to apply for federal funding.
- Wrapped up discussion by stating Purple Line is considered an overall plus to campus, and has support of administration.
Clyde Kruskal and Chau-Wen Tseng