The Rogue Island Jitney — a proposed shuttle between the University of Rhode Island and bars in Narragansett — is eliciting furious opposition from school administrators and local leaders. The Providence Journal's editorial page indignantly asked Feb. 13, "What were they thinking?" of state officials who approved the plan.
But for all their bluster, the jitney's opponents can point to little to support their position. For example, the ProJo's editorial claimed that "the service would funnel young (including underage) patrons into the bar scene." State Sen. James Sheehan, D-Narragansett and North Kingstown, agreed, saying, "Underage students, many without cars, will now be able to frequent pubs up to three days a week." But denying legal drinkers a safe ride on these grounds is completely senseless. Underage drinking at bars should be addressed by ensuring establishments maintain a strict identification policy. And anyone who thinks making it harder for underage students to go to bars will truly diminish underage drinking is dreaming — fake IDs work at liquor stores too.
Opponents also argue that the jitney will lead to more drinking in general. Sheehan asserts that "running a continuous loop from campus to three Narragansett pubs will encourage more on-campus students to drink, and probably to excess." But as URI Student Senate President David Coates pointed out to the ProJo, if students want to go to a bar, "they'll find a way to get there." It is true that some students may drink more than they would otherwise if they know they have a ride home. But do Sheehan and other critics truly prefer the status quo, in which some students will drink too much even though they plan to drive home, to a scenario in which more students may drink but will have a safe way to get back?
Critics further argue that the jitney would be ineffective in actually providing safe transport. The ProJo's editorial speculated that students "would get loaded, buddy up and, instead of waiting for the bus, stuff themselves into the cars of others who might have had just a bit too much." Where the author found evidence that students would not wait for the bus is anyone's guess. Sheehan articulates a more reasonable objection, noting that "passengers are picked up on a first-come, first-served basis, provided seating is available," leaving open the possibility that students could be stranded at the bars. It is baffling that these arguments are used to attack the jitney when they clearly support extended service or a reservation system.
Drunk driving is a serious problem in Rhode Island — in 2008, drunken driving fatalities made up a greater percentage of overall traffic deaths here than in all but four states — and it is one that particularly affects college students. It is concerning that leaders are expending so much effort lambasting the jitney without proposing serious alternatives. Sheehan suggested URI bring back Rhody Rides, a student-run program that gave rides to students who felt too drunk to drive. But it will take more than the ambiguous "minor modifications" Sheehan proposes to make viable a program that ended after suffering from a chronic lack of volunteers, vehicles and funds. The jitney proposal has its flaws, but we expect our leaders to offer constructive criticism — not knee-jerk rejection — of a sensible plan for lessening the impact of drunk driving.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials(at)browndailyherald.com.
