2008 Woodie Awards
Editorial's goal is selfishness, not environment
Issue date: 11/1/07 Section: Opinion/Editorial
- Page 1 of 1
I am writing to address the Oct. 25 editorial entitled "Shuttles to MetroLink would benefit students, environment." The editorial calls for the university to provide transportation to the MetroLink station to help the environment. There already is transportation from Webster University to the MetroLink station via Metro bus #56. This bus runs every 30 minutes and takes students directly from campus (on Lockwood Avenue) to the Sunnen MetroLink station.
If the university were to do what the editorial suggests, we would be contributing more environmentally harmful emissions, using more gas, and gobbling up more of students' tuition dollars for a service that is redundant. This would not decrease emissions or the amount of gas used. Adding a university shuttle would be wasteful.
Additionally, a university shuttle would not necessarily get someone to the MetroLink station any faster. If one student made an appointment to be picked up at 4 p.m. on campus, the shuttle would not be back to pick up the next student until around 4:30 p.m. So, having a shuttle does not mean that it would be any quicker or more convenient for students to get to the station.
The editorial paints itself as being environmentally friendly. In reality the editorial calls for more waste (fuel, emissions, and dollars) in return for the perception of more convenience. At least be honest about it. Just say you want to be catered to by having a shuttle pick you up whenever you want, because you don't want to wait 30 minutes and pay to ride a Metro bus. Don't try to fool us that you're really interested in the environment. If being environmentally friendly was your primary cause, Metro bus #56 provides the better solution. Or you could just ride your bike to the MetroLink station.
Ted Hoef
Associate Vice President and Dean of Students
If the university were to do what the editorial suggests, we would be contributing more environmentally harmful emissions, using more gas, and gobbling up more of students' tuition dollars for a service that is redundant. This would not decrease emissions or the amount of gas used. Adding a university shuttle would be wasteful.
Additionally, a university shuttle would not necessarily get someone to the MetroLink station any faster. If one student made an appointment to be picked up at 4 p.m. on campus, the shuttle would not be back to pick up the next student until around 4:30 p.m. So, having a shuttle does not mean that it would be any quicker or more convenient for students to get to the station.
The editorial paints itself as being environmentally friendly. In reality the editorial calls for more waste (fuel, emissions, and dollars) in return for the perception of more convenience. At least be honest about it. Just say you want to be catered to by having a shuttle pick you up whenever you want, because you don't want to wait 30 minutes and pay to ride a Metro bus. Don't try to fool us that you're really interested in the environment. If being environmentally friendly was your primary cause, Metro bus #56 provides the better solution. Or you could just ride your bike to the MetroLink station.
Ted Hoef
Associate Vice President and Dean of Students
Be the first to comment on this story