Charging now for Parking, $5.....

[Chairback]

Vu has started to charge for parking for men's basketball games.  The lot behind the football field they are charging $5 per car.  It's on the far end by the old parking garage.

Parking is already atrocious and hard to find and it makes NO sense to charge for parking in any lot except for the designated parking pass holders who prepaid. The goal is to get people in the doors and we make it more difficult.  So we make people walk even farther to get in.

In the lot they are charging I counted a total of 9 cars in there and the rest was empty.  Used to be filled every game.

Fan experience is important and you start doing this stuff and you will turn off people.  Attendance is weak and this just baffles me.  Poor decision makers.

[agibson]

Wasn't someone on the board arguing for exactly this?

A priced-per-game premium parking option?

There were spots available in the softball lot, where I usually park, after tip-off. Consistent with a decent, not great, crowd. (3,000? 3,500?) No cost, as usual.

I don't know if I like the expansion of paid parking. But, it makes a certain amount of economic sense. Those who want free parking can walk a bit further. Those who want to pay for a better spot can, even now on a per game basis.

>The lot behind the football field they are charging $5 per car.  It's on the far end by the old parking garage.

I saw the signs for it, but didn't actually drive by. Was it on the south side of Laporte, adjacent to the empty field where the hospital sat? Or was it on the north side, next to the mostly demolished parking garage?

The lot on the south side was freely available for basketball a few seasons ago. But, last year, wasn't it already for pass holders?

[wh]

Wasn't someone on the board arguing for exactly this?

A priced-per-game premium parking option?

There were spots available in the softball lot, where I usually park, after tip-off. Consistent with a decent, not great, crowd. (3,000? 3,500?) No cost, as usual.

I don't know if I like the expansion of paid parking. But, it makes a certain amount of economic sense. Those who want free parking can walk a bit further. Those who want to pay for a better spot can, even now on a per game basis.

>The lot behind the football field they are charging $5 per car.  It's on the far end by the old parking garage.

I saw the signs for it, but didn't actually drive by. Was it on the south side of Laporte, adjacent to the empty field where the hospital sat? Or was it on the north side, next to the mostly demolished parking garage?

The lot on the south side was freely available for basketball a few seasons ago. But, last year, wasn't it already for pass holders?

I can't speak for others, but here's what I proposed. Post a sign at the entrance to the lot across the street to the south of the ARC that all vehicles must be removed 2 hours prior to game time. That lot then becomes a paid lot for 200 vehicles. Then - and only then - consider doing the same for the smaller north parking area adjacent to the annex. In combination, this makes available approximately 275 parking spots in closest proximity to the ARC and demonstrates that the university actually cares enough about it's invited guests to accommodate their parking needs.

This said, the only way to make this work to the benefit of game attendees is to charge a nominal parking fee. Otherwise, the students, faculty and staff who vacated these lots 2 hours prior to game time will just move back in once the lots are reopened an hour prior to the game.

One last thing on this. The Administration and Athletic Department need to start listening to specific suggestions being made by posters on this board. The ability to work through the complexities of logistics is part and parcel to business management, which falls in the wheelhouse of several participants on this forum.

[VULB#62]

I view the lot by the demolished structure and the lot that will replace the structure as remote on a par with the lot at the SB field and should not warrant a fee. I could see an expanded LeBein lot, closer to the ARC along with the two lots WH mentions as close enough to charge.

[wh]

To chairback's original point, what the university did is take the worst athletic venue parking situation I have ever seen at any level of sports and make it worse. We have the same completely inconvenient, totally discombobulated cluster f we always had, only now a piece of it has become a pay zone. Are you kidding? 

If the person responsible for this is reading this post, I'm pleading with you - stop trying to fix things! You are turning devastation into total mayhem. Just go off somewhere and rest.

[valpopal]

I usually park in this lot, but just parked across the street instead, which meant an extra two hundred feet of walking in the chilly weather for my family. As I passed the lot, I noticed two other cars pull into the lot, find out there was now a fee and leave for the lot across the street as well. As one driver said out his open window to the attendant: "Screw this." The university made about $50 minus what it cost to have an attendant collecting the $5 fee, but lost an undetermined amount of goodwill in the process.

[bbtds]

To chairback's original point, what the university did is take the worst athletic venue parking situation I have ever seen at any level of sports and make it worse. We have the same completely inconvenient, totally discombobulated cluster f we always had, only now a piece of it has become a pay zone. Are you kidding? 

If the person responsible for this is reading this post, I'm pleading with you - stop trying to fix things! You are turning devastation into total mayhem. Just go off somewhere and rest.

I would suggest we get two guys who are already involved in the VU athletic department involved in this situation of ARC parking issues. They certainly have the right names for the job. Parker Hazen and Parker Gatewood.   

[Chairback]

I view the lot by the demolished structure and the lot that will replace the structure as remote on a par with the lot at the SB field and should not warrant a fee.

100% agree.  You are right, it is a remote lot.  Our games are barely half full most of the time.  The last thing you want to do is make it more difficult to park. Cater to the fans so they come and buy more tickets and concessions.

[4throwfan]

Last year, we parked in that lot for the games.  Because of the "seasoned" nature of some of our group, we may need to continue to park there.  The extra 200 feet is worth the $5 for us.  Others with small children or seasoned members of their group may need to do the same for those crisp January games.

ML, I think highly of you and the department, but this is a HUGE mistake, and one that is easily corrected.  Our group will pay the $5 if it is needed that much so that the University can net an additional $10-$15 total for each game.  But I think there are better ways to make that money.  In the grand scheme of money made and spent for each game, I can't believe that the money made on that lot moves the needle nearly as much as it moves the needle in enticing people not to come.

We all make mistakes. 

[wh]

While it's true that the $5 pay lot has made an intolerable situation worse, we shouldn't lose sight of the real culprits here. This whole parking fiasco is the direct result of shortsighted decisions made by university leadership (mh and the board) as part of enacting its facility master plan.

A few reminders of how we got where we are:

• Soriety row - eliminated dozens of parking spots. Soriety members park on the streets, reducing street parking availability. A double whammy.
• New track - eliminated a hundred or more parking spots
• No parking zones along Monroe, Union and McIntyre. This was technically a city decision, but I'd bet my bottom dollar tha Heckler and team were fully complicit in it. Consistent with its "walking campus" pipe dream, the plan was to force people at that end of campus to begin using the old hospital parking garage and adjacent parking area. Of course, we all know how that turned out. 

The bottom line is this. Mark Heckler knows exactly what we're dealing with - he's responsible for it. He knows the inconvenience it has caused and the ill will it has generated, yet chooses to do nothing to mitigate it. At any time he could have made the decision to restrict south lot game time parking to attendees only, but he hasn't. He could call John Costas tomorrow and get the parking restrictions lifted along Monroe and Union during game times, but he won't. He could spend the money to put in a long term temporary parking area as '62 suggested, but he won't. Nope, he has a plan and nothing is going to get in the way of delivering on it, no matter how much it inconveniences any of us or how much ill will it creates.

[agibson]

This said, the only way to make this work to the benefit of game attendees is to charge a nominal parking fee. Otherwise, the students, faculty and staff who vacated these lots 2 hours prior to game time will just move back in once the lots are reopened an hour prior to the game.

It seems to me they have done something rather like this. The message board just doesn't seem to like the lot they chose.

The university *does* partially clear the lot south of the ARC. But it's not pay-per-game it's for season parking passes.

"The Staff and Commuter parking spaces located along the west side of the lot (near Heidbrink Hall) must be cleared 2 hours prior to game time."

I've actually been surprised that they leave some resident, commuter, and staff areas in this lot alone. I'd assumed they *did* clear the whole lot. I guess the demand for season passes is finite, and the desire to make eg Guild Memorial residences park across campus small enough to give us the status quo.

I suppose the LeBien lot north of Brown field is plausibly the next closest. Even if it's not full, if there's a desire for prioritized parking, it seems reasonable to charge a nominal fee. It sounds like the members of this board just don't like the several price/proximity combos offered.

I'm personally content with my present solution - often dropping some family in front of the ARC, and walking myself from softball, or Union, or worst case Neils.

Maybe if I was mobility challenged (ask me in 20 years maybe) I'd also want a closer/better/cheaper option.

[valpopal]

This issue with charging for parking at a distant lot causing a resulting loss of goodwill among some fans reminds me of the annoying Family Express commercials played during timeouts last year. The commercials probably served to help to some degree financially, but the unintended consequence was an immediate dampening every time of the crowd enthusiasm, especially when the timeout was called by an opponent because of a scoring run by Valpo. The crowd would stand to cheer and chant while the pep band began to play, and then all of a sudden the momentum dissipated and stopped completely while the silly commercial everyone had grown tired of seeing blared on the screen above. I was pleased to note those commercials gone thus far this season. As in all businesses, the benefits must be weighed against drawbacks, even considering unintended consequences.

[vu84v2]

I was another that argued for charging for parking, but this recommendation was directly in line with charging $5 to $10 for premium parking (i.e. you pay for value). I was specifically referring to the lot south of the ARC (which I believe is also what wh is referring to). Charging for a lot that is further away is just sort of foolish.

[agibson]

I was another that argued for charging for parking, but this recommendation was directly in line with charging $5 to $10 for premium parking (i.e. you pay for value). I was specifically referring to the lot south of the ARC (which I believe is also what wh is referring to).

You can already pay to park in the south lot. It's more than the $5 to $10 a game you mention (i.e. you can buy a season pass). The university seems to have decided that $5/game isn't worth displacing the other people (e.g. residents of Guild and Memorial) that use that lot.

[M]

You can park in that lot, just buy the season parking pass. If you don't want to pay $5 go park elsewhere, just don't park in my secret spot 

[VUBBFan]

Hey Good News! The $5 sign disappeared. Hopefully it doesn't come back. There must have been a pretty big Backlash about it.

[EddieCabot]

Hey Good News! The $5 sign disappeared. Hopefully it doesn't come back. There must have been a pretty big Backlash about it.

Are we sure the $5 parking charge was university sanctioned and not just some students trying to raise beer money? 

[M]

LOL, that was my thought too 

[agibson]

Hey Good News! The $5 sign disappeared. Hopefully it doesn't come back. There must have been a pretty big Backlash about it.

Maybe it's a weekend thing?

[VU2014]

Some passion about this $5 parking. I have no problem with them charging for parking very close to the ARC but charging for parking further away while there already isn't a great parking situation is just asking for disgruntled fans. The University needs to figure out the parking situation and stop kicking the can down the road.

I personally don't mind walking from the parking lot near the softball field but I can see why others get tired of that. I wish you could still park on the streets around the ARC but that's not an option with the city anymore.

I heard one of the Universities top priorities is building a new business building and then moving the psychology department into Urschel Hall. Maybe then they'd tear down the psych & art building and pave new  parking lots over there which would definitely bring much needed parking relief. Also if they ever can find that donor for the 'student rec center' they'd be able to tear down the very tiny student fitness center that is located right next to ARC and pave a parking lot there. It sounds like the University wants a few dominos to fall first before they address this issue, which makes sense, even if it may be frustrating for the fan-base.

I also think its possible to pave parking spots around the track (near the endzone) on the side where the houses are. I'm not sure if there is a zoning code that prevents that but I know the University owns most of the homes on that street and many professors live in those home. They may not appreciate a parking lot in back of their house but it would be one nice solution to the parking problem.

Check out the google earth image of the surrounding the ARC: https://earth.google.com/web/@41.4642298,-87.0483582,253.81272672a,767.9521735d,35y,0h,45t,0r/data=Cl4aXBJWCiUweDg4MTE5YTEzNTRlYjllZGY6MHhmN2IyMmI4OGQ3YzNkYTdiGRBq0OFru0RAIZTf_UwYw1XAKhtBdGhsZXRpY3MtUmVjcmVhdGlvbiBDZW50ZXIYAiABKAI

[bigmosmithfan1]

No parking zones along Monroe, Union and McIntyre. This was technically a city decision, but I'd bet my bottom dollar tha Heckler and team were fully complicit in it. Consistent with its "walking campus" pipe dream, the plan was to force people at that end of campus to begin using the old hospital parking garage and adjacent parking area. Of course, we all know how that turned out.

Well, let's place the blame for this one where it correctly belongs: with the handful of jerks who'd consistently block driveways when parking on that street during evening games. Residents on that block rightfully complained to the city about this for several years, hence the action taken.

McIntyre used to be my go-to parking for home games, too, so I understand why people hated losing it, but a few bad apples spoiled it for everyone.

[talksalot]

so a guy I work with had a son "attend an institution south of here about 120 miles who's gym name rhymes with Finkle... and in his senior year, he rented a house one block away... using game nights he paid for his books by charging $10 to park on his lawn (it wasn't his lawn, but it was his $10 !)

[valpo64]

That's the Butler way!     

[talksalot]

That's the Butler way!     

Now Now... there will be no profanity on this board

[VU2014]

the Butler way