According to Diamantis, Alumni Lot will become a faculty parking area during the daytime because construction will prevent faculty members from parking in the lot behind Fayerweather Hall and along Barrett Hill.
Director of Physical Plant Jim Brassord explained that those areas currently have 110 spaces for faculty cars.
"Construction activities related to James and Stearns and the new geology building will displace parking spaces, from the core of the campus. In order to compensate for the loss of these spaces the College plans to assign Alumni Lot to faculty and staff and develop a new parking lot for students," said Brassord.
Diamantis said that the new parking lot will be closer than it seems. "The thought is that with the new dorms, the new lot won't feel as though it is so remote. This is the best arrangement Physical Plant could come up with," said Diamantis. "Other plans such as multi-story car garages or underground parking met difficulties with either town or excessive cost."
According to Brassord, both faculty and students will have an increased number of parking spaces as a result of the change in parking lots.
"The capacity of Alumni Lot is 140 spaces, which is sufficient to absorb the displaced core-campus spaces and will result in needed buffer capacity that we are projecting will be fully utilized," Brassord said. "The 140 student spaces displaced from Alumni Lot will be more than adequately addressed by the 180 spots planned for the new parking lot," he added.
Brassord said students will still be able to park in Alumni Lot at night, in compliance with standard parking regulations for the main campus. "Students will not be allowed to park in Alumni Lot during the normal business hours of the College, but will be allowed to park there on nights and weekends per the regulations that ... apply to the upper campus," he said.
Some students were concerned about the security problems which might arise from having to walk in the dark to dorm rooms on or near the main campus. "I don't think it's safe for students to walk at night from a far-away parking lot," said Sara Elkins '04.
Elkins also expressed concern that cars might be broken into more frequently, particularly because the new student lot is in a substantially more remote area than Alumni Lot. "The farther away cars are, the more likely they are of getting broken into," she said.
Students' predominant concern, however, is about increased inconvenience. "It will be very inconvenient for students living on the hill to walk all the way to the new Millikens," said Sam Maurer '06, referring to the two new dorms currently under construction near the tennis courts. "The Alumni Lot is a central location on campus."
Bill Unsworth '05 expressed a similar sentiment. "I don't see any point in pushing students farther away," he said. "The Alumni Lot is the closest students can get to the main campus."
For students living in the Triangle, where there are a shortage of parking spaces for residents, the new lot will increase the distance they must walk.
"It will be almost a 15-minute walk from the Triangle because [of] the limited number of parking spots there. [It is] also [inconvenient] for students living in Cohan," said Wendy Brill '04. "The reason [for] having a car on campus is to shorten the traveling time to different places. If the lot is this remote, then it defeats the purpose of having a car."
Brassord said that students with whom he discussed the plan understood the need for the change. "A presentation was recently made to the College Council. The student representatives indicated that they understood the rationale for the new lot and felt that its proximity to the social dorms and the new dorms would work well," said Brassord. "[Some of the students] had minor comments on lighting and blue[-light] phone placement but in general seemed pleased with the design details."
However, Senator Ethan Davis '05, a member of the College Council, said he did not like the new plans. "I am concerned that the new parking plan eliminates any student parking close to the center of campus," he said. "I would have hoped that another, fairer option, would have been considered."
Due to the small size of the campus, not all students oppose the change.
"I don't think that it's going be such a huge problem," said Emily Callahan '05. "The campus is small enough so that people can get around."