examining transportation sustainability at the university of kansas

Examining Transportation Sustainability at the University of Kansas - Lawrence Campus

Craig Jauch, Sarah Ogden, Anna Betzen, Cecilia Stumpff, and Ryan Bigley

Environmental Studies Program

University of Kansas

Report submitted in partial fulfillment of EVRN 615

Spring Semester 2009

Examining Transportation Sustainability at the University of Kansas P a g e | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………ii

Figure 1. Factors that affect campus transportation policies and practices………………4

Figure 2. Map of the Oregon and Santa Fe Trails through Kansas………………………5

Figure 3. Elevation and Slope maps of the University of Kansas – East Campus………6

Figure 4. Total annual ridership for KU on Wheels……………………………………16

Figure 5. UBC Bike Kitchen Repair and Rental Services………………………………21

Figure 6. Location of bike racks within the boundaries of the University of Kansas’ east campus…………………………………...22 Figure 7. Correlation between a building’s weekly classroom enrollment and the building’s bike rack capacity………………………...….22 Figure 8. Correlation between a building’s weekly classroom enrollment…………..…23

Figure 9. Factor pair-wise comparison used within the bike rack evaluation………..…24

Figure 10. Concluded results of the GIS bike rack evaluation…………………….……25

Figure 11. KU Park & Ride Lot Sustainable Features…………………………….……31

Figure 12. University Master Plan (1997)………………………………………………32

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..ii

Table 1. National Summary of Work Transportation Modes………………………..……9 Table 2. Student Survey Results……………………………………………….……..…13 Table 3. University of Kansas KU on Wheels Fuel Analysis Jan 2009…………………17 Table 4. Typical Bioretention Costs……………………………………………….……30

Table 5. Removal Performance of Bioretention Practices …………………………..…30

Examining Transportation Sustainability at the University of Kansas P a g e | iii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………1

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………..2

1.1 What is sustainability and why is it important?......................................................2

1.2 Environmental Impact of Vehicles......................................................................2

2. DETERMINING FACTORS OF CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION………………………..3

2.1. City and Campus Geographical Terrain…………………………………………..4

2.2 Cultural Perceptions of Campus Living and Motor Vehicle Use…………….……7

2.2.1 Off Campus Living- Urban Sprawl…………………………………….……7

2.2.2 Motor Vehicle Dependence………………………………………………….7

2.2.3 Public Transportation vs. the Personal Motor Vehicle………………………8

2.3 Lack of Incentives to Utilize Sustainable Transportation Programs……………..………9

2.3.1 Capital for Infrastructure Upgrades and TDM Programs……………….…10

2.3.2 Loss of Automobile Associated Revenue…………………………….……10

2.3.3 Potential Benefits of a Sustainable Environment…………………….……10

3. PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………........11

3.1 Decrease Ecological Footprint Through Reductions in Passenger Vehicle Use………………………………………………11

3.2 Analyze Current Commuting Services and Propose Alternatives…………….…12

4. CURRENT SCOPE AND SCALE OF VEHICLE SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS…..…14

4.1 KU Biodiesel Initiative…………………………………………………………...…14

4.2 KU Center for Sustainability………………………………………………………14

4.3 KU on Wheels…………………………………………………………………….…15

5. ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS…………………………18

6. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES……………………………………………………….…18

Examining Transportation Sustainability at the University of Kansas P a g e | iv

6.1 Campus- wide Bicycle Programs and Infrastructure……………………….……18

6.1.1 Development of a Central Biking Authority and Registration Program………………………….…………....19

6.1.2 Expanding Bike Maintenance Services and Rental Programs..….............20

6.1.3 GIS Evaluation of Bike Rack Placement……………………………..……21

6.2 Public Transportation: Biodiesel Conversion of Busing System………...………26

6.2.1 Biodiesel Evaluation…………………………………………….…………26

6.2.2 Potential for Other Alternative Fuels………………………………………27

6.3 Updating Current Campus Features………………………………………………29

6.3.1 Evaluating Sustainable Parking Lot Features……………………...………29

6.3.2 Roadway Restrictions…………………………………………...…………31

6.4 Incentive and Disincentive Programs: Carpooling and Parking…...……………32

6.4.1 Transit Passes………………………………………………………………33

6.4.2 Car Sharing: Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT)...….………...33

6.4.3 Ride Sharing Programs: Cornell University………………………….……34

6.4.4 Parking Restrictions: New Hampshire and Maryland………………..……34

6.4.5 Cash-out System: Stanford University………………………………..……35

6.4.6 Parking Costs………………………………………………………………35

7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUDING STATEMENTS…………………...……36

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………...………37

9. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….37

Examining Transportation Sustainability at the University of Kansas P a g e | 1

Examining Transportation Sustainability at the

University of Kansas - Lawrence Campus

Craig Jauch, Sarah Ogden, Anna Betzen, Cecilia Stumpff, and Ryan Bigley

Environmental Studies Program

University of Kansas

ABSTRACT. The focus of this report is to convey environmental stewardship through the examination of sustainable transportation on the University of Kansas campus. Many alternatives to current operations are available that would decrease the number of vehicles on campus and consequently reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental concerns. The increased amount of vehicle miles traveled across the University of Kansas community and consequently their impact on the environment can be related to a variety of determining factors including: (1) city and campus geographical terrain; (2) cultural perceptions of campus living and motor vehicle use; and, (3) lack of incentives to utilize sustainable transportation programs. The objectives of this study include a comprehensive report on the current campus-wide initiatives, and an identification of potential alternatives and suggestions for future action. Recent improvements to the University of Kansas have considered the implications of a sustainable campus community including projects through the KU Biodiesel Initiative, the KU Center for Sustainability, and KU on Wheels. In addition to current campus projects a variety of alternatives can be examined to enhance the sustainability of transportation at KU. While implementing new transportation programs and restrictions it is necessary for KU to also expand bicycle infrastructure. To accomplish this, the university should establish a campus bicycle committee to oversee future campus programs, infrastructure demands, and to provide necessary services. A GIS project was produced that examines the locations of additional bike racks on campus. Fossil fuel alternatives were analyzed that can help the University of Kansas become more sustainable. One of the first steps KU can take toward a better infrastructure is a revitalization of Jayhawk Boulevard that would change the parking lane along the North side to a two-way bike lane. Due to their impervious surface, traditional parking lot designs create a great deal of storm water runoff that contains heavy metals and other vehicle pollutants. Vegetative inlets and bioswales provide a way for this runoff to be cleansed of pollutants. Ridesharing and carpooling are key solutions to reducing the number of single occupant motor vehicle trips to and from campus. The University should incorporate car rental and ridesharing programs to meet student demand for transportation. This should be done in conjunction with raising the cost of campus parking and providing students with carpool parking permits. Finally, the university should place on campus parking restrictions on students based on their living proximity to campus and encourage alternative travel methods. KEY WORDS: Transportation, Sustainability, Campus, Alternative Fuels, and Incentive Programs.


1. INTRODUCTION

The heavy reliance on vehicles as a primary mode of transportation has serious ramifications for the health of the environment. Vehicle use largely impacts the shape of our cities, neighborhoods, and schools and continues to structure our way of life. Universities are in a unique position to address the challenge of mitigating their impact on the environment through education and outreach. They can by example, be a model for other universities and influence the actions of the surrounding communities. (Uhl and Anderson 2001, 37) This study explores the existing cultural perceptions that influence the usage of motor vehicles, the impacts motor vehicles impose on the environment, and how this affects the current transportation situation at the University of Kansas. Finally, this study attempts to provide a comprehensive report on the current campus-wide initiatives, and identifies potential alternatives and suggestions for future actions. The University has a number of on-going related programs and projects directed toward transportation improvement and vehicle sustainability. This study identifies the current and future direction of planning and funding in the campus transit system, bicycle infrastructure, campus design, and incentive programs. 1.1 What is sustainability and why is it important?

What is sustainability? Sustainability is the ability to meet one generation’s needs

without hindering another generation’s ability to meet their own needs. One of the goals the members of this group proposes for the campus is to demonstrate environmental stewardship that enables a better environment for student health, academic studies and provide reassurance for future generations of students to be able to attend a campus without substantial amounts of environmental degradation. Recent improvements to the University of Kansas have considered the implications of a sustainable campus community. With the development of KU's Center for Sustainability, the Environmental Studies Program and environmental issue related student organizations; questions over the university's immense resource usage have become an integral part of both student and faculty agendas. The primary focus of this group is to improve the sustainability of the campus vehicles and the transportation system options for the KU Lawrence campus. 1.2 Environmental Impact of Vehicles Petroleum fuel consumption in American society and on university campuses is a norm for everyday activities that involve transportation. Petroleum fuel is used in mopeds, cars, motorcycles, buses, and just about every type of transportation in which the vehicle is not powered from energy produced by people. Today, nearly 97 percent of the vehicles in the world burn petroleum fuels in combustion engines. Gasoline engines are highly inefficient, wasting nearly “two-thirds of the fuel they burn and emitting nearly 20 pounds of CO2 into the air for every gallon of fuel burned” (Sperling and Gordon 2009, 13). Also, over the past few years not only has population increased, but our fuel consumption has increased also. People are driving further and our roads are getting more congested, increasing our use of petroleum based fuels. Each year the average automobile emits enough pollution into the atmosphere to equal its


own mass. (Department of Environmental Quality 2004) People regularly commute to and from campus and some individuals commute several times each day. The burning of fossil fuels from commuter traffic remains “one of the largest impacts a typical educational institution imposes” on the natural environment (Tour 2003, 131); The University of Kansas is no exception to this. A recent study done by Pennsylvania State determined that each full-time student, faculty or staff consumed nearly 7,000 pounds of coal annually, resulting in emission of about ten tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for each person (Uhl and Anderson 2001, 37). Automobile usage burdens the environment with a continuous discharge of pollutants into the air, water, and soil. Some of the discharge pollutants include, transmission and brake fluids, lubricants, heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and cadmium, used motor oil, gasoline, degreasers, solvents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Freon, lead, (battery) acids, and antifreeze (Department of Environmental Quality 2004). Non-point-source pollution accounts for the greatest amount of pollution in Kansas. Non-point source pollution includes all pollution that does not come from a single discharge point, but is a product of several unregulated sources. Water runoff from streets, parking lots, sidewalks, soils, and lawns drains a mixture of toxics including motor vehicle discharges into the local river systems. The waterways are regularly exposed to pollution because the water moving through storm drains does not go through a treatment facility before it is released. Motor oil is recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the “largest single source of oil pollution in lakes, streams and rivers”. It takes only one quart of oil to contaminate one million gallons of water in a way that is damaging to aquatic life (Environmental Protection Agency 2008). The University of Kansas directly and indirectly remains a major contributor to the local trends in vehicle use which have developed as a result of a variety of determining factors that will be discussed further.

2. DETERMINING FACTORS OF CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION Along the streets of the University of Kansas and the City of Lawrence, there has been an increasing trend in motor vehicle use as a primary mode of transportation for both students and faculty. The environmental impacts, previously discussed, coincide with these increases, and have a demanded reform of transportation practices. The campus' buses cover more vehicle miles traveled (VMT) than in the past, commuting from distances outside of campus boundaries has widened, and the population of campus and Lawrence has grown. All of these items are the result of specific factors that are directly related to transportation trends; as examined in Figure 1, the authors of “Transportation & Sustainable Campus Communities,” have detailed a comprehensive list of factors that affect campus transportation policies and practices.


Figure 1. Factors that affect campus transportation policies and practices (Toor 2005, 18)

Specifically, in the case of KU, several factors have contributed to the domination of the motor vehicle, including: campus and city geography, related cultural perceptions, lack of incentive and disincentive programs, and resource limitations. 2.1. City and Campus Geographical Terrain A significant factor contributing to motor vehicle usage on campus is geographical terrain which influences the placement of facilities, transportation routes, and parking lots. Historically, the City of Lawrence and the University of Kansas have been a prime transportation route for individuals traveling west. In 1843, a wagon train, dubbed "the great migration" kicked off a massive move west on the Oregon Trail (Trinklein 2002). Over the next 25 years more than a half million people went west on the Trail. Lawrence has a rich history with migration routes as it contained a portion of the Oregon Trail and was situated near the Santa Fe Trail. The Oregon Trail ran through what is now the city and University of Kansas campus (Figure 2), while the Santa Fe Trail ran just south of the city, along what are now county roads and farmland. Founded in 1854 by the Emigrant Aid Company of Massachusetts, Lawrence offered various services and supplies to trail travelers. Mount Oread is what remains of a limestone cuesta impacted by Kansas glaciers about half a million years ago and has proved to be a substantial obstacle to those traveling west along the Oregon Trail (Charlton 2002, 1). Throughout the history of Lawrence, the terrain has continued to be a concern for urban development and transportation routes.

1. The physical layout of the campus as driven by campus growth, the campus master plan, and aesthetic considerations. Aesthetics and the value of campus green spaces influence parking and transportation programs

2. The philosophy about transportation priorities as determined by the governing body (regents, trustees, etc.) or students initiatives and implemented by university administration.

3. Resources available, both staff and funding, to create efficient campus transportation options.

4. The physical transportation options.

5. The physical transportation infrastructure in the surrounding region. Urban campuses differ from suburban and rural campuses.

6. Residential campuses differ from commuter campuses.

7. The trend of more students and employees living further from campus in order to achieve rent or homeownership savings

8. The cost of parking.


Figure 2. Map of the Oregon and Santa Fe Trails through Kansas (Arnold 1914, 28).

The University of Kansas opened on September 12, 1866 and was granted its foundation

under charter from the Kansas Legislature. Shown in Figure 3 on the following page, the campus resides primarily on the ridge of Mount Oread, which creates a drastic difference between elevations and therefore a significant sloping effect. The difference between the highest elevation on east campus with that of the lowest elevation is around 40 meters. The cuesta of Mount Oread has had a substantial impact on the arrangement of roadways and facilities, in addition to altering the emphasis of certain modes of transportation. The described geographical terrain of the campus limits specific modes of transportation, which require human energy, specifically cycling and walking. Sloped roadways such as 15th St., Naismith Dr., and Sunflower Rd. inhibit the use of bicycles across both the university campus and the city of Lawrence. Students have come to refer to the byproduct of walking on campus as “KU calves” because of the arrangement of classroom facilities at both high and low elevations. The development of motor vehicle modes of transportation have also been effected by the geographical terrain of campus. In order to maintain the parking demand, parking lots must be constructed which require complex designs to mitigate slopes of the campus or placement of lots at lower elevations on the margins of the campus. Several times throughout the last four years, the campus has had to cancel or limit classes during inclement weather due to the buses’ inability to traverse icy or snow-covered sloped roads. But, Mount Oread has become an important symbol for the University of Kansas, which presents a dilemma between the image of the campus on a hill and the frustrations presented by its relation to campus development.

The geographical positioning of campus in relation to the City of Lawrence affects the

travel methods of students and faculty alike. In the urban/suburban environment, cities such as Lawrence are geographically arranged into sectors of interests. For instance in Lawrence, the city is divided into areas of residence, business, education facilities, medical services, etc; but not necessarily within proximity to one another. Businesses are located along specific roadways (e.g. Iowa, Massachusetts, and 6th St.), the university resides in the city’s center, and residential


Figure 3. Elevation and Slope maps of the University of Kansas – East Campus

neighborhoods are scattered throughout. The spatial division of places of interests is more accommodating to individuals who own a motor vehicle. As an urban environment, the same principle applies to the University of Kansas' campus. “The historic or traditional American college campus was designed around the pedestrian, and up until the 1940’s most students lived


on campus” (Toor 2005, 18). But, the number of students who live off campus has drastically increased within recent decades, due to campus expansions and the need to supplement those expansions with student housing. The number of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at the University of Kansas - Lawrence campus during the fall 2008 semester was 26,999 compared to that of the enrollment fifty years past (9,241 during the fall 1958 semester) there has been an overall increase of ca. 292 percent in student enrollment. The University of Kansas has a limited amount of land to provide housing facilities for the student population, and as larger groups of incoming students are accepted, living arrangements must be made for current students. The problem has been solved by local realtors who have provided off-campus apartments. This process has created a student population density which is concentrated in the residential areas of Lawrence rather than within the campus. According to an article published in the Berkley Planning Journal, “many studies dealing with the impact of urban form on travel have found the density measure to be, by far, the strongest predictor of travel behavior amongst all of the other built environment measures” (Leck 2006, 39). In the same context, the distal positioning of student residence to campus has also been a development of both the cultural perception of a preferred off campus living and motor vehicle dependence.

2.2 Cultural Perceptions of Campus Living and Motor Vehicle Use 2.2.1 Off Campus Living- Urban Sprawl The cultural perceptions of student living arrangements and motor vehicle use are other contributors to the amount of total campus VMT, and, therefore, environmental impact. As discussed by Daniel Sperling in a lecture to KU’s Engineering Dept. in 2009, there has been a cultural shift in past decades towards vehicle dependence and urban sprawl. Specifically, in urban environments, citizens have come to expect more spacious accommodations and, therefore, are seeking suburban or more distant living environments. Household income in Kansas rose from $42,050 in 1985 to $47,341 in 2007 a change of ca. 12.2 percent and the total population has increased ca. 12.6 from 2,427,405 in 1985 to 2,775,997 in 2007 (US Census Bureau 2007). Similarly, students have come to expect off campus living as being the norm after their initial freshmen experience of dorm life. 2.2.2 Motor Vehicle Dependence Associated with the trend in sprawl, the perceived dependence on motor vehicles has become prevalent in the urban/suburban environment of the U. S. “Over time, we’ve abandoned any number of transportation modes that failed desirability tests — horsecars, trolleycars, and pullmancars, among others; and we’ve kept those that passed the tests — most notably motorcars, airplanes, and ships” (Webber 2006, 183). The motor vehicle has become equivalent to the magic carpet; allowing one to go anywhere he or she pleases including access to distant jobs, medical care, and recreational services. The average individual in the U.S. travels to work with the use of a motor vehicle, which comprised 87.9 percent of all transportation in 2008 (Table 1). Accordingly, "nearly everyone of driving age has a license in the United States, and virtually every licensed driver owns a vehicle. Amazingly, there's now more than one vehicle for every driver and more than two per household" (Sperling and Gordon 2009, 13). The dependency perception has enabled a cycle where the relative ease of travel associated with automobiles


allowed cities to expand and, as previously mentioned, divide urban centers in areas of differing purposes. Within recent decades, media and academic sources have outlined the environmental and health risks associated with automobiles and the potential outcomes with it as a primary mode of transportation. But, due to the layout of urban centers individuals have “feelings of helplessness which lie in the fact that the types of neighborhoods and municipalities in which people live simply do not lend themselves to modes of travel other than the automobile – in part because businesses, places of work and residences are located in different areas” (Turcotte 2008, 22). The conveniences of automobile transportation, which led to dependence, have been escalated by the customization and status symbolization of the motor vehicle as an expression of the individual.

The same dependence can be analyzed at KU and campuses across the nation. “Though schools discourage students from bringing cars, today's applicants view a parking space as nearly as essential as a dorm room; at schools that restrict cars, kids find ways to hide them off campus” (Crowley 2005, 60). The ownership of a vehicle is as much as status symbol as it is a mode of transportation. Vehicles have become extensions of the student and are utilized for social networking. In 2005, 86 percent of college students said owning a car was crucial, which was up from 77 percent two decades previously (Crowley 2005, 60). In addition, with students and faculty living greater distances from campus, weather related events have become important in increasing vehicle use. To avoid uncomfortably warm or cold temperatures and precipitation events an individual may drive or ride public transportation to university facilities. Overall, the byproduct of pro-self and convenience imagery related to the personal motor vehicle has created the motor vehicle dependence an in part, masked the advantages of public transportation.

2.2.3 Public Transportation vs. the Personal Motor Vehicle

Stephen Stradling and additional authors examined the limiting factors that individuals perceive when qualifying Bus Transportation Systems. Specifically, within “passenger perceptions and the ideal urban bus journey experience,” respondents living close to a Quality Bus Corridor in Edinburgh, UK indicated which of 68 items were “things I dislike or things that discourage me from using the bus” (Stradling 283, 2007). Among the most common were feeling unsafe, problems with service provision, cost, crowdedness, and self image. From personal experience, when applied to the University of Kansas’ transportation agenda, problems with service provisions (time limitations) and crowdedness have contributed to diminished student participation in the busing system.

In regards to public transportation and the use of personal motor vehicles, individuals may construe the decision situation as either an environmental issue or an accessibility problem and, moreover, it is assumed that such construals may vary as a function of the individual’s social value orientation (Van Vugt and Meerteens 1995, 259). In the study by Van Vugt and Meertens, the authors analyzed what social orientations effected the decision to utilize public transportation, and they, specifically, examined its relation to a N-person Prisoner’s Dilemma Game and an individual’s travel time, ride continuity, and accessibility. The authors concluded that one of the remedies to the massive problem of environmental pollution should primarily focus on changing the behavior of individuals with proself orientations in regards to public transportation. In order to advance sustainable transport programs, the information and advantages must be targeted to the individual.


2.3 Lack of Incentives to Utilize Sustainable Transportation Programs Another determining factor of transportation at the University of Kansas is a lack of disincentives for motor vehicle use, and incentives to utilize the university’s current Transportation Demand Management programs (TDMs). As previously, detailed the automobile became the primary mode of travel for individuals commuting to work due to its popularity and efficiency. Without incentives, both faculty and students exhibit less appeal towards TDM programs utilizing sustainable methods and, therefore, will chose to utilize their own means of transportation (most likely motor vehicle use). The university has made some progress to in creating incentives for KU transportation, including allowing all students to ride KU on Wheels and the Lawrence Transit buses for free with the use of a KU ID (current incentives discussed further in Section V). Currently, the TDM at KU provides incentives in the form of financial means such as individual fuel cost reductions. But overall, the university lacks major incentive programs to encourage use of modes other than faculty and student motor vehicle use. This is in contrast to Cornell University, where the campus provides incentives for those who regularly

YEAR ALL CARCAR -

ALONE CARPOOL TRANSIT2000 128,209,622 112,736,101 97,102,050 15,364,301 5,867,569Market Share 100.00% 87.90% 75.70% 12.00% 4.60%

2007

139,259,684

120,442,188

105,954,656

14,487,532

6,800,512 Market Share 100.00% 86.50% 76.10% 10.40% 4.90%Change 11,050,062 7,706,087 8,852,606 -876,769 932,943Share of Change 100.00% 69.70% 80.10% -7.90% 8.40%Change in Market Share -1.60% 0.50% -13.20% 6.70%

YEAR BIKE WALK OTHERWORK AT

HOME2000 488,497 3,758,982 1,243,856 4,184,223Market Share 0.40% 2.90% 1.00% 3.30%2007 664,859 3,954,210 1,721,293 5,676,622 Market Share 0.50% 2.80% 1.20% 4.10%Change 176,362 195,228 477,437 1,492,399Share of Change 1.60% 1.80% 4.30% 13.50%Change in Market Share 25.30% -3.20% 27.40% 24.90%

Table 1. National Summary of Work Transportation Modes (Source: Demographia 2007)

utilize carpool services including providing occasional free parking permits, preferred carpool specific parking, amongst other incentives (Toor 2005, 208). In part, the inability of KU to provide incentives to facility and students to utilize current TDM programs is due to resource limitations, including both investment capital and human capital implications.


2.3.1 Capital for Infrastructure Upgrades and TDM Programs With current economic conditions, the major priorities in any TDM program at the University of Kansas are to maximum benefits and minimize costs. The primary inhibitor of any efforts for sustainable transportation in campus communities is the restricted amount of investment and human capital for expansion. The fiscal year of 2008 produced total operating/nonoperating revenues of $991,056,659, but incurred expenditures totaling $957,885,485, providing $33,171,174 as potential capital for all university investments (University of Kansas Office of Institutional Research and Planning). Even though this amount seems to be more than adequate for dealing with a transition towards sustainable transportation, the university must deal with more pressing issues such as addressing student enrollment, and facilities operation and construction. In addition, sustainable TDM programs are normally more costly then there non-sustainable counterpart. For examples, when examining hybrid buses versus the standard diesel, “Orion VII (electric-diesel hybrid) buses cost around $488,000 apiece, where a standard diesel bus might cost $250,000 to $280,000, according to the Daimler representative” (Kanellos 2006, 1). The expensive qualities of sustainable transportation programs are due to underdeveloped technology. In addition to investment and human capital, land availability limits expansion of all university aspects. The University of Kansas campus is surrounded by residential and business areas. If the university is seeking to expand its student enrollment it must maximize its usage of land. The problem of land management can be solved in part by expanding areas outside of east campus, but this only contributes to the total VMT and a less cohesive learning environment. 2.3.2 Loss of Automobile Associated Revenue In correlation with the problems associated with investment capital, the potential loss of current sources of revenue that would either diminish or disappear with the onset of TDM programs contributes to continued motor vehicle use. As with the University of Kansas and most campus communities that potential loss develops from the revenue generated from the parking department. KU currently holds a parking space inventory of 14,698 spaces and raises significant revenue from the price of parking permits. In addition, the Parking and Transit Department makes significant revenue from parking tickets, and the student/faculty utilization of the parking garage and parking meters propagates revenue. When considering current trends towards TDM programs very few include the expansion of automobile services and rather steer universities toward more sustainable modes of transportation. 2.3.3 Potential Benefits of a Sustainable Environment

The final portion of the resource limitations factor deals directly with the proposition of sustainable TDMs. The question is normally raised in regards to environmental disputes as to how do campuses economically quantify the potential benefits of environmental sustainability. This inquiry is the most significant factor holding environmentally conscious decisions from being made. In the context of automobile use when examining the benefits of reduced emissions, chemical contamination of soil and water, and human injury, it is difficult to assign a dollar value


to these environmental improvements. The valuation of human life can be substantially debatable and difficult to determine as the following suggests:

The loss of human life resulting from environmental contaminants generally does not occur contemporaneously with the exposure to these contaminants. Some environmental problems produce harms with a latency period whereas others affect future generations. One of the most vexing questions raised by the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulation is whether discounting, to reflect the passage of time between the exposure and the harm, is appropriate in these two scenarios (Revesz 1999, 941).

In part, this debate is determined by the complexity and heterogeneous quality of environmental problems. Overall, the process of designing a sustainable TDM program for a campus represents a substantial endeavor, but a necessary one. The following portion will outline the objectives that this proposal seeks to convey to the University of Kansas' administration, faculty, staff, and student body.

3. PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES

In order to mitigate the human health concerns and environmental problems associated with motor vehicle use, a TDM must be produced for the campus that focuses on more sustainable modes of transportation. Several steps can be taken by KU and its affiliates to ensure that transportation practices become more sustainable. The university can decrease its environmental impact through a reduction in passenger vehicle use and improvement of campus features that contribute to localized pollution. A reduction of passenger vehicle use can be achieved in several ways, from biking, carpooling, and public transit. In the remainder of this report are analyses of current and alternative commuting services. From there, proposals are made for what would be best for the University of Kansas.

3.1 Decrease Ecological Footprint through a Reduction in Passenger Vehicle Use

The overarching goal to improve campus sustainability in the transportation realm is to decrease the ecological footprint of campus. According to dictionary.com, ecological footprint refers to the impact humans have on ecosystems created by their overuse of land, water, and other natural resources. Examination of transportation measures alone proves the magnitude of KU’s ecological footprint, ranging from carbon emissions of motor vehicles and buses to pollutants leaked from cars and transported to our storm water system.

These issues have both local effects, such as pollution of our waterways, as well as global effects with the contribution of carbon dioxide emissions that are the driving force of climate change. With technological advances, cars have become smaller and more fuel efficient over the years. As a result of these advances, cars today emit less carbon dioxide and other pollutants. However, in the given economy, it is not feasible to expect individuals to buy new cars in order to reduce emissions. Additionally, taking action to reduce one’s carbon footprint by merely driving a more efficient car will not have a great effect. In an article accessed from the World Resources Institute website, Duncan Austin and Amanda Sauer state that “while CO2 emissions can be reduced at the assembly stage…potentially much greater reductions are possible in the ‘use phase.’ For example, a 5 percent reduction in use phase emissions per vehicle on a 1996 Toyota Camry rated at 28 miles per gallon will save 3.75 metric tons of CO2 over the vehicle’s


lifetime—3 metric tons from avoided gasoline combustion and 0.75 metric tons from avoided fuel production. A 5 percent reduction in assembly-related emissions will save only 0.1 metric tons of CO2 per vehicle (EarthTrends).” Therefore, it is more economical and feasible to expect for people to counteract the ecological damage created by making small changes in their day-to-day life. On campus, this can be done in a collective effort to reduce the number of cars driven to campus. There are 14,698 designated parking stalls for all the various permits that can be held. One cannot assume that each parking stall will be filled on a typical day. However, many students, faculty, and staff do not factor into this number because many choose to park on the various streets that surrounding campus rather than hold a parking permit. Some of the common streets to park on include Illinois, Alabama, and Maine streets both North and South of campus. Assuming that many of these parking stalls are utilized each day and that hundreds of other drivers park elsewhere, there would be at least 15,000 cars traveling around campus each day, accounting for a large amount of pollution.

3.2 Analyze Current Commuting Services and Propose Alternatives

As discussed in the previous section, the cultural view of the American people is that individual cars are necessary for an optimal lifestyle. In some cases an individual car is essential. However, this often does not apply in a campus setting, where many people are traveling from similar areas and often have similar schedules as their peers. For those with similar starting points and destinations, it is unnecessary for each person to travel alone. This is costly to the environment as well as costly to drivers who must assume responsibility for purchase of gas, vehicle maintenance, and a parking permit. Therefore, one option to decrease the number of vehicles on campus is for KU to establish a user-friendly system for finding carpooling groups. The system would allow users to input information such as where they live, their on-campus schedule (work, class, or both), personality traits, whether they smoke, and other preferences to ensure a positive match. The system could be incorporated through the existing Kyou system, the online system available to KU employees and students, or could be a separate social network. The logistics and further attributes of the carpool system, as well as case studies of successful programs, will be discussed further in this report.

Another means of reducing the campus ecological footprint is to shift how students and staff get to campus altogether. KU on Wheels provides thousands of students a ride to campus by visiting the major apartment complexes and central areas in the city. While providing a huge service, they also attempt to do so in an efficient manner. Each bus driver tracks the number of riders on their route. KU on Wheels officials evaluate these numbers to ensure the most efficient routes and pick-up times. However, while striving for efficiency, the buses make hundreds of trips each day to provide a reliable service, and with that, large amounts of fuel are required. Using more sustainable and environmentally friendly fuel would lessen the impact these buses have on the environment. KU on Wheels buses are currently fueled by a 5% biodiesel mix and the department is exploring higher fuel grades. This “Biodiesel Initiative” will be discussed below.

Biking is another means of transportation to campus. Some students and staff choose this option because it provides an eco-friendly, emissions-free ride, others do so for health benefits, and many do so because they do not own a car. However, the daunting hill that central campus sits atop scares many people away from choosing bikes for their travel. With buses and cars all


around, the traffic of a busy campus can also be dangerous for bikers. For these reasons, we have identified the need for more bike racks, installation of bike lanes, and possibly even further restrictions on cars driving on campus. A student survey was provided to volunteers in order to assess student opinion on modes of transportation and the potential for alternatives. Of the fifty students polled, the majority said they would ride a bike to campus if more bike racks were installed (Table 2). A thorough investigation and discussion of these projects will be discussed at more length in following pages.

Student Transportation Survey: 50 Students Conducted on Wescoe beach 3/25/09 Own a car Do own 44 students Do not 6 students # of trips driven 0‐2 5 students each week 3‐5 17 students 6‐8 4 students 8+ 18 students Prominent reason Groceries 18 students For driving Work/Class 17 students Restaurants 6 students Hometown 7 students Going out 9 students All 5 students

Would ride Would 20 students City bus after Would not 20 students bus merge Maybe 7 students Own a bike Do own 25 students Do not 25 students Would use bike Would 9 students Rental service Would not 12 students Maybe 6 students Would ride bike Would 26 students if more bike racks Would not 15 students Installed Maybe 8 students

Table 2. Student Survey Results

Lastly, to combat the issue of pollution, transformations can be made to current campus features. For global pollution, a combination of improving transit systems, biking networks, and carpooling options will have a positive outcome on the carbon dioxide emissions of KU’s transportation system. For localized pollution, such as car runoff that ends up in our streams and rivers, updates can be made to parking lots designs. For each of the alternatives examined in the remainder of this report, feasibility evaluations and cost analyses will be provided. With the inclusion of cost analyses, KU will be able to gradually integrate options as the budget allows, with hopes that all alternatives will eventually be adopted. Through individual and institutional changes, the University of Kansas has the ability to achieve the goal of reducing its ecological footprint.


4. CURRENT SCOPE AND SCALE OF VEHICLE SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

Currently, the University of Kansas has many student-run organizations and campus programs that work toward sustainability on campus and in the community. These organizations and programs include KU Biodiesel Initiative, KU Transportation Research Institute, KU Sustainability, KU on Wheels and the Lawrence Transit campus services. Also, the KU campus and the community offer bike lanes and bike racks to help reduce traffic numbers and vehicle emissions among other goals.

4.1 KU Biodiesel Initiative

The University of Kansas has incorporated biodiesel fuel to its transportation fleet, but these vehicles are only using B5 (5 percent Biodiesel) blends for buses and this fuel is purchased from an outside vendor. KU does provide used cooking oil from Mrs. Ekdahl’s dining hall to make B100 (100 percent Biodiesel) that is blended into lower blends, such as B20 and B10 for use by some of the landscaping vehicles and some construction equipment in spring, summer, and fall. KU buses can increase their biodiesel blends to B20 during colder months and could possibly use blends up to B100 during warmer months. Biodiesel has cleaning effects, for the engine but on average has 7-9 percent lower energy content (BTU per gallon) than B20 (National Biodiesel Board 2009). KU is currently underway with a project for the summer of 2009 to use higher blends of biodiesel in campus buses. As for emissions from biodiesel fuels, research shows, that biodiesel have reduced fume emissions compared to diesel and other petroleum based fuels.

The KU Biodiesel Initiative is one of the student-run operations that seeks to have a more sustainable campus by working “to promote knowledge of sustainability and alternative fuel sources such as biodiesel to the student body and community.” This is a grassroots group whose principal purpose is to produce biodiesel from used cooling oil generated on campus. Their goal is to have renewable fuels being used as a requirement for all KU’s buses, landscaping and maintenance equipment and power generators on campus. The Kansas Soybean Commission, KU School of Engineering, KU Dinning Services, Transportation Research Institute, Environmental Health and Safety and the KU Senate sponsor the University of Kansas’ KU Biodiesel Initiative. 4.2 KU Center for Sustainability

Sustainability on campus is promoted through the KU Center of Sustainability an initiative that developed on January 29, 2007. The Center was the result of nearly two and a half years of work by the Sustainability Task Force, a dedicated organization of students, staff, faculty, and administrators with a common interest in a sustainable future for KU (Center for Sustainability). The center promotes sustainability through research, outreach, learning opportunities and campus integration. Mr. Jeff Severin heads the center, and has facilitated the initiation of several research and development programs. In addition, the Center for Sustainability has produced a proposal for Campus Sustainability Assessment (CSA) (Severin, 2007) According to the author, “most institutions of higher education (IHE) have chosen to base assessments on a select set of indicators, focusing on what they view as the most important to


their specific campus, and more comprehensive assessments include a checklist of systems (transportation, energy use, water use, etc.) evaluating measurable indicators within each system” (Severin 2007). The Center for Sustainability is currently conducting research on several sectors within the boundaries of campus activities that could become more sustainable, including energy, food, green building, landscaping, and waste reduction/recycling. However, not as much research has been integrated that concerns transportation management.

The particular area in which the Center has dedicated time and resources is KU’s adoption of the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) program through the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). Under the STARS program, the “AASHE is leading a collaborative effort to develop a formal classification system for campus sustainability, with guidelines by which institutions may measure themselves and qualify for different levels of recognition of accomplishment” (AASHE). The intentions are to have KU be a leader in sustainability efforts on higher education campuses, in order to attract students, faculty, research, and most notably prevent environmental degradation. According to the most recent version of the classification system, universities can earn credits by adopting certain shifts and research programs within their transportation programs. The STARS program pinpoints four transportation areas in which universities can become more sustainable: (1) inventory and reduction of campus fleet emissions; (2) modal shifts towards public transportation and active forms of commuting; (3) offering a substantial range of transportation options and incentive programs; and, (4) calculating emissions from institution-funded air travel. As previously mentioned, this report specifically examines the university’s qualification of modal shifts towards public transportation and active forms of commuting and its ability to offer a substantial range of transportation options and incentive programs 4.3 KU on Wheels

KU on Wheels and the Lawrence Transit System are currently working together in a connected effort for campus and community, public transportation. KU on Wheels is governed by the Transit Commission and is contracted through MV Transportation. Funding for KU on Wheels comes from mandatory student fees and has 38 buses running as of 2008. Currently, the KU buses and Lawrence Transit System are offered free to all KU students, faculty, and staff as well as those paying for the Lawrence Transit system. Others are allowed to ride for a $1 fee (KU on Wheels). KU on Wheels and the Park and Transit Department can be a major portion of the sustainability effort on the KU campus and should be due to the reduction in the amount of vehicle use on campus and the emissions that come along with them. At a recent hearing on 11 March 2009 at the KU Burge Union about transportation, the KU Parking and Transit Department was quoted to have said that they currently have a “task force looking at sustainability as a goal”. While this is a good start and fundamentally public bus operations help reduce total car emissions this group wants to see a firmer stance by KUOW on sustainability efforts. The process of acquiring new buses and boosting ridership has taken priority.

Below is Figure 4 that depicts total annual ridership for the past ten years. Ridership has decreased steadily over the last decade, Jessica Mortinger transportation coordinator explains that this is because the fleet was downsized. However, for this school year (FY08-09) there has been a ninety-two percent increase in overall ridership in one year; including KUOW, SafeRide,


SafeBus, and JayLift. This is a direct result of making the bus system free. Another twenty percent increase is projected for the 2010 school year. This would put total annual ridership back at around two million passengers.

Total Annual Ridership

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

F98-S99

F99-S00

F00-S01

F01-S02

F02-S03

F03-S04

F04-S05

F05-S06

F06-S07

F07-S08

School Years (1998-2008)

Total Annual Ridership

Figure 4. Total annual ridership for KU on Wheels

Currently, KU on Wheels has ten scheduled routes, which range in operation from around 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays with stops every 30 minutes with alterations in schedule and stops for holidays and finals week. These schedules have recently been updated by the Transit Committee to help eliminate unneeded routes and make the system more efficient. Also associated with vehicles on campus and KU on Wheels are Park and Ride, Safe Ride (vans, cars and disability vehicles seven days a week during regular semester), K-10 Connector (one bus five days a week), Safe Bus (six buses on Friday and Saturday nights) and JayLift.

KU on Wheels has incorporated biodiesel to their transportation fleet. However, they are only using B5 (5% Biodiesel) blends for buses. These blends are purchased from an outside vendor. KU is currently supporting some of the biodiesel used on campus by providing used cooking oil from Mrs. E’s dining hall to make B100 (100% Biodiesel). B100 is then mixed to make lower blends of biodiesel such as B20 and B10 for use by some of the landscaping vehicles and some construction equipment in spring, summer, and fall. In winter months biodiesel blend use drops down to B10 due to the freezing point of biodiesel that causes the fuel to “gel” within the makeup of the engine and the engine itself. KU currently has a total of 38 buses on their


fleet: five 2008 models (#339-344) that are more environmentally friendly with 0% inefficiency and a 2.9 average GPH, eight 1994 40’ Phantoms (#326-333) that currently has 16.3% inefficiency and 3.3 average GPH, twenty 1990 40’ Phantoms (#306-325) with 44.1% inefficiency with a 4.1 average GPH and five 1987 35’ Phantoms (#334-338) with 21.8% inefficiency and 3.3 average GPH (Committee Review 2009, 27). GPH stands for gallon per hour; a Gillig model bus has a one-hundred or one-hundred twenty five gallon fuel tank.

KUOW has a plan to replace older models every other year with newer more efficient bus models. KUOW will incorporate twenty-one new buses into their fleet over the next ten years. By 2019 thirty new buses will have replaced the thirty-three used buses that are currently being used, starting by replacing the older ones first. The total projected purchase of this is $17,450,386 (Committee Review 2009, 4). A majority of this money comes from student and parking fees that totals to 1.5 million dollars annually. A more descriptive breakdown of the student fees is below. While this is a good step towards sustainability, it is our suggestion that some of this money be allocated to make the buses more efficient primarily with alternative fuel choices discussed below.

Table 3. University of Kansas KU on Wheels Fuel Analysis Jan 2009

Funding for the buses and operation costs come from student fees of $64.90; $44.90 of this is for operation. An ongoing effort to “green” the KU on Wheels fleet is by allocating $20 from the $64.90 in student fees for bus acquisition for 5 new and environmentally friendly buses every year. New buses cost around $380,000 and will only get more expensive in time. (KU on Wheels). The projected cost of a new bus in 2019 is around $600,000 (KU on Wheels 2009). Further investigations should be looked into to understand the economic benefits associated with switching to B20 for the fleet versus replacing inefficient buses by buying several more new buses in the coming years. Also, this study should include the environmental costs and benefits of older inefficient buses running on B20 versus new buses continuing to run on B5. Overall, the current projects being developed by members of the KU community will aid in the development of a sustainable TDM. But, there are some alternatives and further study that


could be researched in regards to transportation methods. As previously mentioned, the alternatives and further study examined by this paper will involve biking networks, alternative fuel systems, updating campus features, and incentive programs. All of these alternatives will be examined on the basis of a set of criteria to be discussed.

5. ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Each alternative will be assessed with the utilization of four criteria: Reduction of environmental impact, cost effectiveness, feasibility, and potential student and faculty support. In addition, methods of analysis will include cost-benefit analyses and case study evaluations.

(1) Reduction of Environmental Impact -Since the major proponent of this report is to advance the potential for sustainability at the University of Kansas, the first criteria that each alternative should obtain is a reduction of environmental impact.

(2) Cost Effectiveness - Each alternative will be evaluated for potential cost reductions, revenue streams, or variance in current revenue

(3) Feasibility -The ability of the university to easily and efficiently implement an alternative represents another criterion.

(4) Potential Student and Faculty Support -The final criterion upon which each alternative will be considered is the its potential for student support.

(5)Corresponding Case Study Evaluations - In addition to cost-benefit analyses, the feasibility and potential for student support can be detailed with the comparison of case studies. Major case studies will include TDM programs at the University of Colorado, Stanford University, UCLA, and other universities.

6. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Campus- wide Bicycle Programs and Infrastructure The United States became a bit more accommodating towards the active commuter at the beginning of 2009. Attached to the bailout plan that passed on October 3rd, the Bicycle Commuter Act went into effect January 1st. Under the Act, employees could receive $20 per month incentive to ride their bicycles to work. Lawrence businesses are now working to take advantage of the act (Thompson 2009). Although the act does not apply to state employees, it shows a shift towards cycling as an formidable alternative to motor vehicles. Encouraging bicycle commuting at the University of Kansas could potentially be beneficial because this implementation potentially alleviates traffic congestion and the demand for parking spaces on campus. In addition, bicycles provide an important alternative to the primary modes of transportation, which contribute to environmental degradation due to air pollution and the deposition of fuels, chemical substances, rubber and metals. Finally, a major factor that sets biking apart from other TDM programs is that it provides individuals with an opportunity to engage in healthy physical activity. Physical activity (PA) research shows that health benefits


can be accrued from several 10 minute bouts of moderate physical activity throughout the day (Pate 1995, 403). DeBusk also found that multiple short bouts of moderate-intensity exercise increased aerobic benefits. The opportunity to incorporate short bouts of exercise for health benefits may help individuals meet PA recommendations (DeBusk 1990, 1010). In 2006, the League of American Cyclist awarded the City of Lawrence a “Bronze level” for being a bike-friendly community. This award was primarily based on the community’s initiative in bicycle safety education and encouragement. With the highest level being platinum, Lawrence still has room for improvement within the city and on University‘s campus. According to the 2000 Census, 1.3 percent of the city’s population regularly uses their bike to get to work and this is nearly three times the national average. Because the increasing popularity of bicycles as a primary mode of transport is heightened with the current fluctuating gas prices and economic pressures, it would be beneficial to students, faculty, and staff members for the University to implement related programs and expand infrastructure for bicycle use on campus. Furthermore increased bicycle use will bring the University closer to meeting it’s sustainability goals. A case study of student, faculty, and staff commuting was accomplished at our rival university, Kansas State that established an online study of active commuting (AC) patterns on campus. The study concluded influential factors towards modes of transportation and the following:

Respondents were asked about current PA, influences on commuting habits, and geographic characteristics related to commuting. RESULTS: 835 respondents participated. 54.7% were female and 44.5% were students. Self reported distance from home to campus was the most powerful determinant of active commuting. Individuals living within a self-reported twenty minute walk from campus walked twice as often as those living further, while those living within a twenty minute bike ride biked seventeen times more frequently than those reporting a greater distance. Students were six times more likely to actively commute. The three most influential reasons for mode of commute were: time constraints, weather, and traveling to other points before or after school. Safety from crime and traffic were positively associated with AC. (Wittman 2009 Lecture).

The authors detailed a series of implications that the study would bring towards TDM programs and campus sustainability. Specifically, they concluded that with the increasing importance of environmental and economic concerns, biking and walking should be considered viable transportation options amongst university faculty, staff, and students. In addition, as a measure of campus initiative, they concluded that “to combat barriers to biking, KSU could make environmental improvements such as additional bicycle parking, racks and trails/lanes, facilities for showering and changing clothes, and adding amenities such as air pumps and covered bicycle parking” (Wittman 2009 Lecture). In regards to the University of Kansas, the university does allow students to utilize changing facilities within the student recreation center. 6.1.1 Development of a Central Biking Authority and Registration Program Due to the escalating use of PA modes of transportation, we recommend that the university establish a campus bicycle committee to oversee future campus programs and to facilitate campus services, a central KU Biking Authority. Currently the University is providing


educational services through the Kansas University Transportation Center, a Self-Service self-service bicycle repair shop through KU Recreation Services, general bicycle security and safety information, and is looking into installing more bicycle racks in high-use areas. The University would benefit to combine and expand these initiatives into a centralized program that provides information for the general public. In order to provide awareness of a biking program at the University of Kansas, the program should provide maps and directions about how to best get around campus and the city without a car. These maps should detail the location of specific parking zones, roads with bike lanes, and other safe riding areas on campus and in the city. Further, educational information about local bicycle safety and laws should be available to all students upon enrollment and readily available to the public through the university program. This information should include basic information on what to look for when purchasing a bike, how to lock up a bike securely, general safety tips, local regulations, and how to develop positive commuting conduct. Finally, the University should provide information about its provided programs and services to university community. Members from the campus bicycle committee should be available to answer questions, address student concerns, and develop suggestions that will continue to strengthen the program. As a way to successfully promote bicycle use on campus the University needs to adopt the use of bicycle licenses through the central authority. Licenses provide the university with a way to keep track of bicycles parked on campus and the number of students that plan to use them to commute. Several universities such as Colorado State and UC Davis are successfully using this strategy to prevent theft through bicycle registration records and also help to prevent bicycle abandonment on campus. The registration allows the University of Kansas to recognize who the bicycle belongs to and provides a means of contacting the owner before it is removed. The University can decide when licenses should be renewed, either yearly or every four years. Students, faculty, and staff who buy licenses might be more likely to use their bikes as primary travel to campus.

Also, the University can provide extra benefits for the students who purchase licenses and use their bikes as a primary transportation. For example, UC Davis in California provides students with a Bicycle Commuter “A” Permit Option, which allows for students who use their bicycle to commute to purchase as many as 12 class “A” daily parking passes each semester. This allows students to use there vehicles on campus in special parking areas if for some reason they need to drive. The class A permits are only made available to bicycle commuters. Finally, the UC Davis provides registered commuters with summer bicycle storage. Increased bike use on campus will help to alleviate traffic and the lack of parking spaces. Licenses help to identify and remove abandoned bicycles that are often an eye-sore to campus. The bicycle licenses will generate revenue for the University and allow it to expand the bicycle services provided through the campus. However, this alone will not be sufficient in increasing the number of bicycle commuters on campus. The University should also take steps toward making the campus more bike-friendly by providing necessary infrastructure to accommodate the increased bicycle numbers. 6.1.2 Expanding Bike Maintenance Services and Rental Programs Several campuses have taken the initiative to not only provide friendly transportation


Figure 5. UBC Bike Kitchen Repair and Rental Services

networks to their active commuters, but also a comprehensive maintenance, upgrade, and rental service. As mentioned above, the University currently runs a self-service maintenance program through Recreation Services, but a further expansion should include a full service bicycle shop owned and run by the university. The implementation of a full service bikes shop has been successful at other campuses. The University of British Columbia has made substantial movements toward a sustainable transportation system in their TREK program. UBC has its own infamous hills, but the measures that they have taken have provided a increased number of cycling commuters, as they say at UBC, “the infamous UBC hills (riding in from below 41st Ave or the 8th/10th Ave hills west of Alma) aren't that bad after the first few rides. And what goes up must come down - think of the ride home! If you still find the thought a little daunting, try putting your bike on the bus on the way to campus, and cycling home” (Cycling Programs at UBC).UBC has a central biking authority known as the Bike Co-Op which was initially a student run organization that was adopted by the UBC Alma Mater Society (student senate) to run and manage biking services. They have a full service nonprofit bicycle shop on campus known as the Bike Kitchen (Figure *). Services include the ability to purchase a fully refurbished used bicycle, which was left on campus at the end of a semester, self service tools, bicycle maintenance lessons, expert repair and maintenance, and a wide selection of new and used parts. They charge $7.50/hr to utilize tools and $15/hr for maintenance lessons (Cycling Programs at UBC). The University of Kansas has a substantial amount of abandoned bikes left over each year, and a wise use for those bicycles would be what UBC has implemented. In addition they utilize the abandoned bicycles left over after each semester in a bike rental program and a CanCart trailer loan program. All this information and more about UBC's TREK program can be found at http://www.trek.ubc.ca/ in order to provide students, faculty, and staff with clear and concise program benefits. As detailed by the KSU study and UBC’s TREK program, the authors proposed an installation of showering and clothes changing facilities for bikers on campus in regards to a biking TDM. Weather plays an important role in deciding an individual’s transport method, specifically the process of active community can cause the individual to perspire and feel uncomfortable throughout their daily routine. In order to mitigate this discouragement of active commuting the University of Kansas should provide showering and clothes changing facilities across campus that are near bicycle parking areas. UBC utilized recreational facilities as sources for public showers, and allowed faculty and staff to utilize specific showers in some institutional buildings. 6.1.3 GIS Evaluation of Bike Rack Placement

Currently, the University has a capacity to hold 2,333 bikes on its eastern campus.


Locations of each bike rack are noted by a blue circle (Figure 6). As the figure shows, the bike racks were constructed within close proximity to buildings utilized by students, faculty, and staff. During the Fall 2009 semester, the University of Kansas held weekly enrollments of 125,469 classroom seats for buildings on east campus for 26,999 undergraduate and graduate students. Outlined in Figure 7, a scatter plot was created that details the correlation between a building’s weekly enrollment and the capacity of bike racks around that building.

Figure 6. Location of bike racks within the boundaries of the University of Kansas’ east campus.

Figure 7. Correlation between a building’s weekly classroom enrollment

and the building’s bike rack capacity


GIS has become a substantially helpful tool in tackling transportation management. In recent years, a number of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other public and private organizations are using GIS in preparing bicycle master plans as GIS is extremely powerful tool for data analysis, management, and presentation, and it can reduce the level of effort and time (Meenar 2001, 1). Within the context of this proposal, the intended topic of GIS study is an evaluation of current bike racks on campus and optimum areas for placement of additional racks. Regarding improvements to biking networks, at first the major generators and destinations for bicycle traffic should be mapped; in addition roadway designation is important, and public lands, railroads and utility corridors can be evaluated to determine the suitability of constructing road bike structures. GIS was utilized to examine the trend of bike rack capacitates across the eastern portion of the Lawrence campus (Figure 8). As the figure shows, the majority of high capacity bike racks are focused near the residence halls and along Jayhawk Blvd.

Figure 8. Correlation between a building’s weekly classroom enrollment

Specifically with regards to the project, locations within the boundary of campus will be dissected into a 2mx2m cell-size grid. Then cell will be evaluated on six different factors including elevation, slope, proximity to roadways, proximity to buildings, and distant away from current bike racks. In order to perform this evaluation ArcMap developed from ESRI Software will be utilized. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) extension developed by Dr. Xingong Li from KU's Geography department will be utilized to assess each factor to determine their weight in the placement analysis. The AHP organizes factors into a tree structure, an innate model of operation of human mind, and by doing this it helps complex decisions by decomposing the problem; in addition it determines factor weights by comparing the relative importance between


two factors using pairwise comparison. Figure 9 displays the intended pair-wise comparison and weight of each factor.

Figure 9. Factor pair-wise comparison used within the bike rack evaluation (LidarR –

Elevation; SlopeR – Slope; Bldg_DistR – Proximity to Buildings; Brack_DistR – Current Bike Racks; and, Roads_DistR – Proximity to Roadways).

Overall the intention of the project is to make the biking services on campus more

accommodating to students and faculty in order to encourage use. By encouraging the usage of bicycling as a primary mode of transportation, the campus' contribution to environmental sustainability will increase with the reduction of motor vehicle use.

The results of the AHP showed that the regions indicated by a red or orange color were the

most prominent locations for placement of additional bike racks (Figure 1.6 on the following page). The dataset containing the reclassified results of the evaluation was limited to a 50m buffer from campus buildings. This was done due to the fact that individuals are more likely to utilize bike racks if they are within a close proximity to building entrances. As the evaluation suggests, a few of the optimal locations for additional bike racks include: (1) the west side of the engineering complex; (2) the southern side of Lindley Hall and the Art & Design Building; (3) the eastern side of Bailey Hall; and, (4) the eastern and southern sides of the student athlete complex. Although the model does take into account several factors, further study could be concluded. Data was collected on the total weekly enrollment of students within each building, but due to time limitations and computation errors were not incorporated into the model. This factor of spatial and temporal patterns of students would be a valuable addition to further research. Also, bike rack capacities could be identified in relation to the KU community spatial and temporal patterns. For more information regarding the GIS project please refer to the correspondence of Craig Jauch noted at the end of the paper. GIS has substantial implications past those just analyzed. UBC has utilized access GIS maps on their website in order to encourage students, faculty, and staff to suggest locations of bike racks on the campus. In addition, further research can be concluded with the use of GIS in examining the efficiency of ridership trends and transportation routes of campus bus systems.


Figure 10. Concluded results of the GIS bike rack evaluation (Non-buffered and Buffered)


6.2 Public Transportation: Biodiesel Conversion of Busing System

Changing vehicles toward alternative fuels, rather than using petroleum, is beneficial for air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and can help the United States become less dependent on foreign oil. However, it still does not alleviate parking or lessen traffic congestion and the hazardous conditions connected with vehicles on campus. It is a start though; the following fuel alternatives can help the University of Kansas become more sustainable and less reliable on petroleum fuel.

6.2.1 Biodiesel Evaluation

Many universities have introduced alternative fuels into their bus and vehicle fleets. The majority of the schools altering their fuel away from petroleum products have turned to biodiesel blends. Some universities have also invested in electric and hybrid vehicles, but on a smaller scale due to the cost. Biodiesel is made by chemically combining used vegetable oil with an alcohol, such as methanol or ethanol, in a process known as transesterification. The biodiesel produced is an alkyl ester of fatty acid. Biodiesel is an effective fuel source due to the ability of the fuel to be used in any vehicle already using diesel. Biodiesel contains 88 to 95 percent as much energy as diesel. It has been proven that biodiesel blends up to B20 have little effect on the engine itself and can actually improve engine performance by loosening and dissolving sediment in storage tanks. Vehicle that runs of diesel can run on biodiesel without any conversions as long as the hoses and seals are made of synthetic rubber or components made of aluminum, steel, fiberglass, Teflon, Vitan, and Nylon, not natural or nitrate rubber compounds (National Biodiesel Board). This drawback is due to the ability of biodiesel to break down natural rubber and this breakdown occurs at a higher rate in biodiesel blends higher than B20. Currently, national average costs of B20 blends run about 15 to 30 cents above diesel and B100 blends run about 50 cents to $1 above diesel blends, both depending on the current food prices and the amount of biodiesel available on the market (Toor and Havlick 2005, 226-227). In 2006, the U.S. alone produced 225 million gallons of biodiesel amounting to only 0.5 percent of all diesel fuel use (Gordon et al 2009, 102). These prices can make the transformation from diesel to biodiesel in the current vehicle fleet slightly pricey. The possible downside to biodiesel use is that with increasing use of this fuel across the nation and globe as an energy source there may be a decrease in the availability to everyone wanting to use it. For example, a typical fast food restaurant generates about 10 gallons of waste oil per day, not nearly enough if there is an increasing demand for this resource across the globe, that is if biodiesel is being strictly produced from the food industry (Gordon 2009, 103).

Biodiesel is a biodegradable, nontoxic and has a lower emission rate of CO and sulphur compared to diesel (Worldwatch Institute 2007, 226). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tested biodiesel to quantify emission characteristics and health effects. The study performed showed that B20 biodiesel “reduced total hydrocarbons by up to 30 percent, carbon monoxide up to 20 percent, and total particulate matter up to 15 percent (National Biodiesel Board),” compared to petroleum fuel. The study also showed that B100 biodiesel hydrocarbon emissions, which have high ozone forming potential, were nearly 50 percent less than petroleum fuel. In comparison to petroleum-based diesel, biodiesel produced 80 percent less CO2 emissions, according to the Department of Energy. When studying NOx emissions the EPA study produced results of a two percent increase by B20 blends but reduced particulates by ten


percent (Worldwatch Institute 2007, 226). The reason for concern about NOx is that this type of emission because NOx increases acid rain, is a precursor to ground-level ozone or smog and NOx emissions can lead to reduction in lung function. In quantifying biodiesel exhaust emissions for health reasons, it was shown that B20 biodiesel, compared to petroleum-based diesel, had a 75-85 percent reduction in cancer causing compounds such as nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (nPAH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). However, due to the very small increase of NOx compared the great reduction in many other emissions; biodiesel still has a very high standard in a positive environmental way for fuel (Worldwatch Institute 2007, 227-28). It should be known that the EPA studies did show that the results of emission rates varied according to the type or feedstock of biodiesel and the petroleum diesel that it is mixed with (Worldwatch Institute 2007, 226)

One university that has successfully introduced biodiesel blends of up to B100 into their bus fleet is Colorado University. They introduced B100 into three buses in spring and summer, B20 into thirteen buses and ten trucks and other biodiesel blends into two recycling vehicles. Annually, Colorado University uses about 9,315 gallons of B100 blends and 30,000 gallons of B20 blends. A large percentage of the biodiesel produced comes from the campus cafeterias and consists of used vegetable oil and fats (CU Biodiesel).

6.2.2 Potential for Other Alternative Fuels

When looking for potential alternative fuels the campus needs to also look at the current vehicles it owns that are internal combustion engines (ICEs). Because these engines are unable to use biodiesel there needs to be some alternatives the campus can look into to move away from petroleum gasoline. Alternative fuels are a useful approach in altering vehicle fuel use from petroleum gasoline to a cleaner more sustainable fuel source. Below is some useful information on three possible alternative fuel sources. These options include natural gas, ethanol and hydrogen. These are not the only sources of alternative fuels but are a scientific look into some viable options. Two last viable options within this section that do not contain ICEs but are alternative vehicles, and will entail the campus the cost of buying new cars completely, are hybrid electric and electric vehicles and will also be discussed below.

Natural gas is another option for alternative fuel use, although an unlikely option for a replacement of petroleum gasoline currently. It is one fuel source that costs about 15-40% less than gasoline and diesel and produces fewer carcinogenic and toxic gases emissions than petroleum and diesel fuel. One positive aspect of natural gas is that 85% produced annually is from the US, while the rest is from Canada. This solution can help reduce the US dependency on foreign oil. Natural gas can also reduce carbon monoxide is decreased by 90%, nitrous oxide over 50%, carbon dioxide by 30% and can reduce benzene emissions compared to petroleum and diesel fuels (Ryan et al 2009, 40). Another positive aspect is that natural gas has a higher octane than both diesel and petroleum fuels and can prolong the life of vehicle engines (Toor 2005, 224). However, there are some drawbacks to using natural gas. Fuel storage is a tricky aspect of the fuel because of the need for the gas to be stored in cylinders as compressed gas (CNG) or as a liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the cost to modify a vehicle for the fuel storage can cost upwards of $2,000. The average natural gas, however, costs about two thirds as much as petroleum fuel which is a definite plus, but natural gas reserves are about the same as petroleum reserves (Gordon 2009, 94) and actually increase methane produced when using natural gas,


which is a potent greenhouse gas (Toor and Havlick 2005, 224). Lastly, due to the transition of hoses and parts to alter the vehicle, costs can add up to $3,000-6,000 and low energy efficiency of natural gas causes refueling to occur more often (Gordon 2009, 93).

Ethanol is another option that is currently being used by the campus in ICEs and deserves a deeper look into. Unlike biodiesel, ethanol cannot be used in diesel engines as a replacement fuel, but gasoline engines can be altered to use flex fuels, which could be an option for campus vehicles which do not have diesel engines. The production of ethanol fuel and the use of it in vehicles is not new idea. Henry Ford’s first car ran off of ethyl alcohol and during WWII ethanol was used to stretch supplies. So ethanol isn’t a new idea. So why use it now? Ethanol, which is currently produced mainly by corn due to tax cuts and subsidies, may or may not be a substantial alternative for fossil fuels. There are two sides of the story. The down side of ethanol is that the energy used to produce corn ethanol through petroleum gasoline outweighs the energy that ethanol produces for a fuel source, requiring 1.3 times as much energy to make than it is actually useful for. Sugarcane ethanol is a different story, but since the US uses corn ethanol for the economic impact, sugarcane will not be addressed. Another issue is that the use of corn ethanol as a fuel source combats corn as a food source (Toor and Havlick 2005, 225). Corn prices per bushel increased to four dollars in 2006 and popcorn prices rose 40% between 2006 and 2007. The amount of ethanol made from corn to replace half the gasoline consumed in 2006 would require seven times the land area that the US has planted with corn (Johansen 2009, 72). Also, a study by the University of Minnesota estimated that if all the corn in the US were converted to ethanol it would only replace one eighth of US fuel consumption (Johansen 2009, 77). However, even with the downside with the use of corn ethanol there are some positive aspects as a fuel source. The by-product of producing corn ethanol can be used to feed cattle. Also, ethanol decreases carbon monoxide by 40% and NOx is reduced by 10% than that of petroleum and diesel fuels. Also, increasing the use of ethanol can promote production of more ethanol, mainly produced from corn, thus increasing jobs, paves the way for continued research into more flex fuels and thus can increase the production of flex fuel vehicles, converting the US stance from petroleum gasoline to alternative fuels.

Another ICEs fuel option is hydrogen as an on-board fuel. Hydrogen is a very abundant resource but has to be harvested from chemical compounds. It is produced either through the steam formed from natural gas, from oil, from coal or from water electrolysis (splitting water molecules using electricity). Hydrogen fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity, water, and waste heat. This fuel source emits very small amounts of tailpipe emission, such as NOx, no direct greenhouse gas emissions and will reduce oil use (Gordon 2008, 107). Also, this type of alternative fuel does well in cold temperatures, unlike biodiesel. However, hydrogen as a fuel source currently has to be used in a fuel cell, such as fuel cell vehicles (FVCs), but is still very hard to store (Ryan et al. 2007, 46). One option of storage, not limited by batteries, but by the amount of fuel in the storage tank called "carbon-adsorption" systems. This system is composed of refrigerated and pressurized tanks that can store large amounts of hydrogen. It has been estimated that over 7 gallons of hydrogen could be stored in a single gram of this new material, which could mean about 5,000 miles from a single tank and be refueled in about 5 minutes (Hill 1996, 20). Another storage source is high-pressure tanks that store gaseous hydrogen compressed at up to 10,000 pounds per square inch (Ryan et al. 2007, 46). These vehicles that are fueled by hydrogen are very efficient, more so than petroleum gasoline, but are still not readily available due to the fact that there is no consumer distribution


system currently set up and research is still underway with different fuel cells. This is due the fact that these vehicles are still in its testing stage and not many hydrogen FVCs are on the market right now due to the availability of the fuel source and the cost of producing these types of cars.

The two alternative vehicle approaches are electric and hybrid electric. These would be the costliest of all the options presented but would be the best choice when trying to become more sustainable. These vehicles can be pricey ranging from $20,000- $40,000 and with the need to replace vehicle batteries every three to six years there is concern for the safe disposal of these batteries (Toor and Havlick 2005, 224-226). Conversely, these vehicles eliminating all tailpipe emission that will improve air quality and increasing fuel efficiency. These vehicles could limit or possibly eliminate dependence on foreign fuel sources and can be a push toward more sustainable energy such as wind, solar and hydroelectric (Ryan et al 2009, 44). However, the downside is that the battery these vehicles use can only run 40-120 miles per charge and charging the vehicle can last anywhere between 4 to 16 hours, making these vehicles impracticable for long range trips. Currently, research is being done to try and make the charges last longer and take less time when charging. Hybrid electric on the other hand will use fuel such as discussed above but have the potential toward a more sustainable vehicle fleet with the dual power of fuel and electric stored in batteries. Like electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles are quite pricey. Hybrid vehicles tend to run between $3-5,000 more than the equivalent petrol vehicle due to the complexity and weight of the battery used in the vehicle (Ryan et al 2007, 49).

6.3 Updating Current Campus Features

The layout and characteristics of campus have a large effect on how sustainable our campus can be. Therefore, improvements and updates can be made to create a more sustainable KU. Parking lots are a large source of impervious surface that leads to increased runoff of vehicle pollutants during precipitation events. In Filter the Water: Bioswales offer a green option for parking lot run-off, Elaine Watkins-Miller identifies the problem of parking lots. “Traditional black-top parking lots prohibit water from absorbing into the soil, which filters pollutants.” Watkins-Miller outlines these pollutants, which include petroleum, oil, hydrocarbons, and herbicides. (Watkins-Miller 1997, 74) Updating parking lots is a cost effective measure the university can take to reduce impacts from non-point source pollutions.

6.3.1 Evaluating Sustainable Parking Lot Features

Bioswales are advanced designs of the typical fescue lawn inlet. Bioswales act to “treat storm water using a combination of microbial soil process, infiltration, evaporation, and appropriate plantings” (Quigley and Lawrence 2000, 1-3). Vegetative inlets throughout parking lots are beneficial because runoff is diverted to them and the vegetation can clear the water of pollutants before it travels to the storm water system. Intermittently converting parking spaces into an inlet can benefit our waterways because water from campus parking lots travels straight to the Kansas or Wakarusa rivers via the storm sewers. It is in everyone’s best interest to minimize toxic inputs into these rivers because ultimately we receive our water from them as well. With over 100 parking lots, it would be best for responsible storm water management if KU retrofitted existing parking lots to include bioswales. In conjunction with a campus-wide initiative to carpool and bike, the reduction of vehicles on campus, would allow for the removal


of some parking spaces in each lot to create a proper runoff control system.

In a document titled Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide Volume 2 Vegetative Biofilters the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency extensively describes bioswales and how to design and manage one. They also include a table, seen below, outlining the costs of bioswale installation for a new parking lot and as a retrofit (EPA 2004, 174).

Task/Activity Residential Rain Residential lot Single Commercial Retrofitting Description Garden Subdivision Residential Lot New

Total Cost $ 1075 $ 3790 $ 7775 $ 10357 $ 12355 Planning Phase $ 25 $ 95 $ 200 $ 845 $ 350

Design Phase $ 100 $ 340 $ 875 $ 3600 $ 2410 Construction $ 950 $ 3225 $ 5750 $ 5237 $ 7943 Close Out NA $ 130 $ 950 $ 675 $ 1652

Table 4. Typical Bioretention Costs (Winogradoff, 2001)

It is cheaper to install bioswales in new lots rather than to retrofit. For this reason, it would be best for KU to set a policy that all new parking lots have bioswales installed rather than conventional inlets. As budget allows, retrofits should also be constructed, starting with the largest lots that deal with the most storm water, for example the Recreation Center parking lot, the east Memorial Stadium parking lot, and the Lied Center parking lot. As the Recreation Center parking lot is used often for official KU athletic events, it may be possible to receive partial funding from KU Athletics. While bioswales do cost more to design and install, there are several areas in which they save money, potentially having a short payback time for the university. With the plants utilizing water that would otherwise be directed to the storm water system, KU will pay less for storm water system use, which is a large portion of water charges. The bioswales are often planted with natural vegetation that only needs natural rainfall for sustenance. Natural bioswales rarely need the attention of a landscaping crew, typically only when plants overgrow safe boundaries for traffic. Therefore, maintenance costs will also be lower than a typical inlet that must be mowed or watered often. Finally, the environmental savings of utilizing vegetation for storm water maintenance rather than a traditional parking lot design are tremendous, as can be seen in Table 5 below (EPA 2004, 157).

Cu Pb Zn P TKN NH4 NO3 TN

Table 5. Removal Performance of Bioretention Practices (% Removal Rates) (Davis et al., 1998)

One of the most recent parking lot additions happens to already have bioswales and a detention basin for excess storm water to collect and be treated. The Park and Ride parking lot on

Upper Zone 90 93 87 0 37 54 -97 -29

Middle Zone 93 99 98 73 60 86 -194 0

Lower Zone 93 99 99 81 68 79 23 43


West Campus opened to the public in 2006. It was designed and built to effectively treat parking lot runoff by means of parking rows sloping towards bioswales that filter out pollutants. This parking lot is designed for flood control as well. Excess water than cannot be managed by the bioswales during high flow storms is diverted to a detention basin. The structure of the bioswales has openings cut into them to intake the lot’s runoff. Matt Bond, storm water engineer for the City of Lawrence said that this parking lot design is one of the more environmentally friendly lots in the entire city (Figure 10). He states that the lot “is a good example of how to use both flood control measures as well as best management practices in concert. Bioswales collect sheet flow from the parking lot and these lead into several fore bays before ending in the detention basin. The bioswales and fore bays will help water quality while the detention basin’s primary objective is to temporarily hold flood volume.” (Bond 2009) As the campus continues to expand and buildings are erected, it would be ideal if the new parking lots were designed and built with this same, runoff-effective design and old parking lots were retrofitted in a similar manner.

Figure 11. KU Park & Ride Lot Sustainable Features (Left: Bioswale and Right: Runoff Filter)

6.3.2 Roadway Restrictions

Each day, thousands of students, faculty, and staff pass through Jayhawk Boulevard, the half-mile arced street that many of KU’s most prominent buildings stand upon. They make their way on foot, bike, bus, or personal vehicle. With so many travelers each day, the street and bordering sidewalks become very congested. It can be stressful and dangerous with cyclists, motorists, and bus drivers sharing the road. Unlike some surrounding campus streets, such as Sunnyside Avenue and Naismith Drive, people do not need to access Jayhawk Boulevard to reach a parking lot. The street provides a limited number of parking spaces and merely a through-way for most destinations. Therefore, it is proposed that the layout of Jayhawk Boulevard be adjusted. KU’s Office of Design and Construction Management has a database of


extensive plans for the campus. One such plan is the 1997 plan that included a revitalization of Jayhawk Boulevard. A transportation consulting firm, BRW, Inc. designed the plan with a focus on addressing “pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.” (KU DCM) The main feature of their plan was to restrict vehicle travel to buses and service vehicles, prohibiting personal vehicles from accessing Jayhawk Boulevard between the Chi Omega fountain and Bailey Hall. Travel for permissible vehicles would be eastbound only. The area of the former parking spaces would allow for additional sidewalk space and a designated two-way bike lane. The remaining space of the former westbound lane would allow a right-of-way area for vehicles to pass stopped buses (See Figure 11 below).

Figure 12. University Master Plan (1997).

For unknown reasons, this plan was not adopted by the university. We feel it is in the best interest of the entire campus to resubmit and adopt this plan. With a designated bike lane and prohibition of vehicle traffic, the plan would encourage more environmentally friendly travel. Jayhawk Boulevard is essentially the heart of campus. The more cyclist and pedestrian friendly style of the roadway would only add to the sense of community felt to those that travel through. Coupled with the updates suggested for campus features, incentive and disincentive programs can drastically alter methods of transportation within a campus community.

6.4 Incentive and Disincentive Programs: Carpooling and Parking

The City of Lawrence and the surrounding area provide the community with a variety of carpooling service options including, Rideshare, AlterNetRides, and a carpool service through the City of Lawrence Bus System. However, the University of Kansas does not directly provide carpooling services to students, faculty, and staff. The University can act as a unique ‘vehicle’ for providing the community with these services and incentives because of the high densities of “employment and residents on or adjacent to campus” (Tour 2003,134) Carpooling and incentive programs not only work to decrease commuter-vehicle emissions, they also provide students and employees with a needed service. Several universities have adopted programs with the goal of reducing pollution, traffic congestion, parking demand, and commuter stress (Grasso 2008)

This section presents case studies of successful programs that are currently implemented in other universities as a sustainable way to address the increased demands for commuter access to the university. While it is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate all of the potential alternatives examples of successful initiatives are briefly identified to aid in future research. The


ultimate goal of these alternatives is to feasibly decrease the number of “trips taken in single-occupant vehicles” and, consequently, to reduce the negative impacts of vehicle travel. (Tour 2003, 134)

6.4.1 Transit Passes

As mentioned above, the University of Kansas has already taken steps toward TDM by providing students with transit passes. As of fall 2009, students and employees are able to ride the bus without paying a fee or purchasing a pass. Instead of the traditional option, students voted for a small increase in their student fees so that this service is provided to everyone. This change has drastically increased the transit use and has shifted people away from driving cars to transit riding. Prior to the change KU transportation services had a reported a total ridership of 1,224,323 in 2008 and in 2009 ridership increased significantly to 2,300,000. Ridership trends are expected to continue to increase and reach 2,755,800 by 2010 (KU on Wheels Presentation 2009, 23) This change provides an example of the potential influence that implementing university transportation services can have on people’s commuting habits and also exhibits the demand in place for transportation services.

6.4.2 Car Sharing: Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT)

There are several carpool programs designed specifically for university use and to lessen the number individually owned vehicles brought to campus. These programs make available shared vehicles to commuters or vehicles for individual single trips. For example, MIT, Pomona College, University of Michigan, and Smith College, all have contracted with the Zipcar Company. This same company has approached the University of Kansas through the center of sustainability office. Essentially, the company requires a initial student membership fee for involved students and then allows for students to reserve a vehicle appointment by phone or internet. The company provides rental cars located near the campus, gas cards, insurance, and up to 180 miles of travel each day for long distant commutes. A single “Zip Car” at a university can reduce individually owned car numbers by 15 to 20. The company has also measured that users reduced the number of miles driven each year on an average of 5,500 miles (ZipCar 2009). Recently, Zip Car has partnered with Zimride, an online carpooling service that matches rideshares through the use of social networking sites such as Facebook. The partnership allows for the users looking for a ride to see the time and destination of Zipcar rentals so that Zimride users can schedule a rideshare (Nassauer 2009, D6)

Stanford University also has contracted with a company that offers a similar rental service for students without cars called Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Flexcar, yet another car-sharing program that has also contacted the University of Kansas, is currently contracted with the University of Washington. These programs reduce dependence on individually owned vehicles for incoming students and employees, relieve a huge financial burden for students, and provide a support network for those who do not have transportation. Finally, the programs relieve the University of motor vehicle parking demands on campus.

A survey held specifically for this study at the University of Kansas suggests that there is little student support for car rental services (Table 2). The majority of the students who already own cars explain that they did not have any need for this kind of service and would be reluctant


to use it if it was provided. However, this demand might change in the future if the KU decides to change its parking availability and provides commuter-incentives. Also, if the University increases the price of campus parking the student demand will decrease thus making car rental services more valuable. (Toor and Havlick 2003, 8)

6.4.3 Ride Sharing Programs: Cornell University

Ridesharing is a key solution to reducing the number motor vehicles located on campus, and the number of motor vehicles traveling to and from campus. Many students and faculty already carpool. However, the numbers of rideshares can be dramatically increased if the university implements the necessary incentive programs. People should be provided with a useful means of scheduling a ride as a way to offset the hassles associated with carpooling. This can be done in several ways including:

(1) Reducing the rate of parking for those who participate through price markdown or repayment. The reduction rates should be dependent on the number of people included in the carpool. For instance, the cost of a parking permit can be divided by the number of riders in the car.

(2)Accommodate “full cars” with preferential parking spaces near central campus locations.

(3)The university can also supplement those participating in the carpooling services with a ride home option.

(4)Finally, the university can develop a dedicated carpooler program which requires a membership for obtaining a parking permit.

Cornell University provides a good model of a successful campus-wide carpooling system. The system allows applicants to have a 30 day trial period for their permit. This program is highly utilized by students and faculty because inner campus parking permits can cost up to $600 and carpooling can divide these costs into a joint fee. Parking permits are designed to include up to six different licenses plates for members of the carpool. The University makes available an on-line staff to help individuals in coordinating their carpool. The University also has an “occasional parker” permit package that is available for students who might need to take an individual trip to campus. This package allows students to park in a specific lot for a limited number of days each semester and can be used along with the carpooling program (Commuter and Parking Services 2009). With the use of these programs, Cornell University has successfully cut the amount of vehicles located on campus by 26 percent each day. (Toor and Havlick 2003, 210-211)

6.4.4 Parking Restrictions: New Hampshire and Maryland

Some universities do not allow new students to bring their vehicles to campus because they do not have the available space. Many students living on or near campus do not need to have vehicles if the university has an effective transit program. At KU many students already choose to not use or bring their vehicles to campus. This is not difficult for many students within the city of Lawrence because the majority of the City’s amenities are centralized not far from campus.


Parking restrictions can be decided on based on the students’ proximity from the campus. For example, the University of Maryland chooses to use its parking restrictions for first and second year students. Similarly, The University of New Hampshire will only allow students living within ½ a mile of campus to have access to parking (Toor and Havlick 2003, 89). However, in conjunction with this restriction, the University also provides faculty, staff, and students with other services such as carpooling, ride matching, bicycle rentals, and a guaranteed ride home (University Transportation Services, 2009). The University of Kansas could implement similar restrictions for either students living on or near campus. These restrictions should be implemented while simultaneously providing car rental service programs to students without vehicles and as a way to reduce the parking demands on campus.

6.4.5 Cash-out System: Stanford

Cash-out systems are created primarily for employees on campus as a way to buyout their parking demand. Simply, the university pays the individual not to drive. The cost of the university’s parking permits will be equivalent to the amount the individual is paid not to park.

The Stanford University operates a similar program called the Clean Air Cash program through their commuter club. Those eligible for the program are employees on campus, post-docs, or registered students (registered students are only eligible for registered quarters). Currently, eligible individuals can receive up to $282 annually if they decide not to drive. With this incentive program, Stanford also supplemented the payout employees by dedicating $4 million to updating and improving the bicycle infrastructure. (Toor and Havlick 2003, 87) The investment pulled more employees into participation in the commuter-buyout or Clean Air Cash program. Investments in driving alternatives are also significant to the success of implementing these kinds of incentive programs (Balsas 2006, 370).

6.4.6 Parking Costs

Increasing the cost of parking tends to decrease the demand of parking on campus and consequently, the environmental impacts caused from commuting to these locations. Universities have been able to successfully balance the increasing demand for parking by increasing the costs of parking. This strategy provides a disincentive for single-passenger travel. In order to strike the proper balance of parking cost amounts, the university should develop an idea of the “elasticity of demand” on campus and project it into the future based on population increase.

The University of California, met with the challenge of increased enrollment and need for parking, has also identified that “there’s a possibility that extremely high parking fees will lead to a substantial exodus to alternative transportation, a plus for an environmental standpoint”, but can lead to a “death spiral, in which high rates reduce permit demand leading to even higher rates”. For this reason, it is important that this option be a “combination of investment in new parking and in transportation alternatives” (Tour 2003, 137). This strategy would work best in conjunction with carpooling similar to the ones mentioned above. Carpooling programs would make parking costs more affordable for those who chose to participate. The utilization of incentive and disincentive programs can change the substantial number of faculty, students, an staff that rely on the motor vehicle, in addition the other proposed alternatives.


7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

The focus of this report is to convey environmental stewardship through the examination of sustainable transportation on the University of Kansas campus. Many alternatives to current operations are available that would decrease the number of vehicles on campus and consequently reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental concerns. The increased amount of vehicle miles traveled across the University of Kansas community and consequently their impact on the environment can be related to a variety of determining factors including: (1) city and campus geographical terrain; (2) cultural perceptions of campus living and motor vehicle use; and, (3) lack of incentives to utilize sustainable transportation programs. The objectives of this study include a comprehensive report on the current campus-wide initiatives, and an identification of potential alternatives and suggestions for future action. Recent improvements to the University of Kansas have considered the implications of a sustainable campus community including projects through the KU Biodiesel Initiative, the KU Center for Sustainability, and KU on Wheels.

In addition to current campus projects a variety of alternatives can be examined to enhance the sustainability of transportation at KU. While implementing new transportation programs and restrictions it is necessary for KU to also expand bicycle infrastructure. To accomplish this, the university should establish a campus bicycle committee to oversee future campus programs, infrastructure demands, and to provide necessary services. A GIS project was produced that examines the locations of additional bike racks on campus. Fossil fuel alternatives were analyzed that can help the University of Kansas become more sustainable. One of the first steps KU can take toward a better infrastructure is a revitalization of Jayhawk Boulevard that would change the parking lane along the North side to a two-way bike lane. Due to their impervious surface, traditional parking lot designs create a great deal of storm water runoff that contains heavy metals and other vehicle pollutants. Vegetative inlets and bioswales provide a way for this runoff to be cleansed of pollutants. Ridesharing and carpooling are key solutions to reducing the number of single occupant motor vehicle trips to and from campus. The University should incorporate car rental and ridesharing programs to meet student demand for transportation. This should be done in conjunction with raising the cost of campus parking and providing students with carpool parking permits. Finally, the university should place on campus parking restrictions on students based on their living proximity to campus and encourage alternative travel methods.

Specifically, we recommend the following: (1) Increase biodiesel blends from B20 to B100; (2) converting facilities vehicles to ethanol flex fuel; (3) restriction of Jayhawk Blvd.; (4) implementation of sustainable parking lot design; (5) central biking authority and bike registration; (6) placement of additional bikes racks and bike rack expansion; (7) carpooling incentive programs; and, (8) parking restrictions. In regards to the proposed alternatives, further study can be conducted on a campus emissions inventory and a quantified impact of motor vehicles on the environment.


8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Matt Bond, Storm Water Engineer, City of Lawrence, KS Public Works Department

Christopher Depcik, Professor, Department of Engineering

Xingong Li, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Kansas

Jessica Mortinger, Transportation Coordinator, KU on Wheels

Lisa Rausch, Capstone Teaching Assistant, University of Kansas

Jeff Severin, Director, Center of Sustainability, University of Kansas

Susan Williams, Professor, Department of Engineering, University of Kansas, Director of KU Biodiesel Initiative

Williams I. Woods, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Kansas

9. REFERENCES

AA1Car. 2006. Alternative Fuels. (Last date accessed 5 May 2009) <http://www.aa1car.com/library/alternative_fuels.htm> Arnold, Anna E. 1914. A History of Kansas. Topeka, KS: State of Kansas Publishing. Balsas, Carlos J. L. 2006. Transportation and Sustainable Campus Communities: Issues,

Examples, Solutions. Journal of the American Planning Association 72(3): 369-370. Bond, Matt. Personal correspondence. Storm Water Engineer, City of Lawrence, KS Public Works Department. 22 April 2009.

Commuter and Parking Services. 2009 Transportation: Student Rules Cornell University (Last date accessed 4 May 2009) <http://www.transportation.cornell.edu/tms/parking /commuting/sharetheride/occasional/student_rules.cfm>

Crowley, Patrick. 2005. Cruising on Campus. Newsweek July 22 Issue. Debusk RF, Stenestrand U, Sheehan M, and Haskell WL. 1990.Training effects of long versus

short bouts of exercise in healthy subjects. American Journal Cardiology 65(15): 1010-3. Demographia. 2007 Journey to Work Data United States, 2007. (Last date accessed 5 May 2009) <http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-commute2007.pdf>


EarthTrends. 2007. Car Companies and Climate Change: Measuring the Carbon Intensity of

Sales and Profits. World Resources Institute. (Last date accessed 5 May 2009) <http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=5&fid=53>

Gordon, Deborah and Sperling, Daniel. 2009. Two Billion Cars. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Grasso, Samantha. 2008. DIVE INTO A CARPOOL. E - The Environmental Magazine 19(6):

11-11. Hill, Stephen. 1996. Green Cars Go Farther with Graphite. New Scientist. Hultine, Donna. 2009. KU on Wheels. (Last date accessed 5 May 2009) <http://www.kuonwheels.ku.edu/> Jaffe, Josh. 2004. CU Biodiesel. (Last date accessed 5 May 2009) <http://www.cubiodiesel.org/> Johansen, Bruce E. 2008. The Global Warming Combat Manual: Solutions for a Sustainable

World. Greenwood Publications Group, Inc. Kanellos, Michael. 2006. The greening of the city bus. CNET News. (Last date accessed 5 May

2009) <http://news.cnet.com/The-greening-of-the-city-bus/2100-11389_3-6079090.html> Lawrence, Timothy, Martin Quigley. 2000. Multi-Functional Landscaping: Putting Your Parking

Lot Design Requirements to Work for Water Quality. Ohio State University Extension Factsheet. (Last date accessed 1 May 2009) <ohioline.osu.edu/cl-fact.1000.html>

Leck, Eran. 2006. The Impact of Urban Form on Travel Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Berkeley

Planning Journal 19: 37-57 Meenar, Mahbubur. 2001. Developing a GIS-Based Model and an Interactive Web Site for a

City-wide Recreational Bikeway Network: an Application for Buffalo, New York. ESRI Conference Proceedings 2001: 1-5

National Biodiesel Board. 2009. Biodiesel. (Last date accessed 5 May 2009) <http://www.biodiesel.org/> Sarah Nassauer. 2009. Zipcar Plans Partnership With Zimride. Wall Street Journal, April 8,

Eastern Edition. (last date accessed 4 May 2009) <http://www.proquest.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/>

Office of Design and Construction Management. The Transportation Plan. The University of


Kansas Campus Plan. (Last date accessed 30 April 2009) <www.dcm.ku.edu/cmpuspln/etransp.htm>

Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al. 1995. Physical activity and public health: A Recommendation

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA 273(5): 402-407.

Revesz, Richard L. 1999. Environmental Regulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Discounting

of Human Lives. Columbia Law Review 99(4): 941-1017. Severin, Jeffrey R. 2007. Applying the Campus Sustainability Assessment to the University of

Kansas Lawrence Campus. Urban Planning Graduate Program, July. Severin, Jeffrey R. 2009. KU Sustainability Center of Sustainability. (Last date accessed 3 May

2009) <http://www.sustainability.ku.edu/> Stradling, Stephen. 2007. Passenger Perceptions and Ideal Urban Bus Journey Experience.

Transport Policy 14(4): 283-292. Suppes, Galen J., Ponnachath, Parshanth, and Doris, Jeff. 1998. Alternative fuel options and

costs for use in Kansas and surrounding states. University of Kansas. Thompson, Amanda. 2009. Bicyclists gain benefits from bailout plan. University Daily Kansan.

Feb. 12. (Last date accessed 3 May 2009) <http://www.kansan.com/stories/2009/feb/12/bicyclists_benefits/?news>

Toor, Will and Spenser W. Havlick. 2005. Transportation and Sustainable Campus Communities.

Washington, DC: Island Press. Trinklein, Michael. 2002. The Oregon Trail. Idaho State University. (Last date accessed 3

May2009) <http://www.isu.edu/~trinmich/Introduction.html> Turcotte, Martin. 2008. Life in Metropolitan Areas: Dependence on Cars in Urban

Neighborhoods. Statistics Canada 11(008): 20-30 Turto, Hal and Ryan, Lisa. 2007. Sustainable Automobile Transport. Northampton, MA: Edward

Elgar Publishing, Inc. UBC TREK Program Centre. Cycling Programs at UBC. University of British Columbia. (Last

date accessed 3 May 2009) <http://www.trek.ubc.ca/programs/cycling/index.html> Uhl, Christopher, and Amy Anderson. 2001. Green Destiny: Universities Leading the Way to a Sustainable Future. Bioscience 51(1): 36. University Transportation Services. 2008. Programs: Transit and connector parking. University

of New Hampshire (last date accessed 4 May 2009)


<http://www.unh.edu/transportation/programs/index.htm> U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Historical Income Tables – Households. (Last date accessed 3 May

2009) <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08b.html> U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Kansas Quick Facts. (Last date accessed 3 May 2009) <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20000.html> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Stormwater Best Management Practice Design

Guide Volume 2: Vegetative Biofilters. (Last date accessed 3 May 2009) <www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04121/600r04121a.pdf>

Van Vugt, Mark and Ree Meertens. 1995. Car Versus Public Transportation? The Role of Social

Value Orientations in a Real-Life Social Dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(3): 258-278

Watkins-Miller, Elaine. 1997. Filter the Water: Bioswales offer a Green Option for Parking Lot

Run-Off. Buildings 91: 74. Webber, Melvin. 2006. Sustainable Transport. Berkeley Planning Journal 19: 183-184. Williams, Susan, Tabakh, Ilyad. KU Biodiesel Initiavitve. University of Kansas Biodiesel

Initiative. 2008 Wittman, Pamela & Melissa Bopp, Ph.D. 2009. Active Commuting at a Large

UniversityCampus. Department of Kinesiology & Community Health Institute Kansas StateUniversity, Manhattan KS. (Last date accessed 3 May 2009) <http://krex.kstate.edu/dspace/bitstream/2097/1250/1/wittman_P_presentation.pdf

Worldwatsh Institute. 2007. Biofueles for Transportation: global potential and implications for

sustainable energy and agriculture. Sterling, VA: German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.

Correspondence: Craig Jauch. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. e-mail: [email protected] Maggie Ogden. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. e-mail: [email protected] Anna Betzen. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. e-mail: [email protected] Cecilia Stumpff. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. e-mail: [email protected] Ryan Bigley. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. e-mail: [email protected]

examining transportation sustainability at the university of kansas

Documents