2 Table of Contents, Continued. - sustain.ku.edu · IV. Transportation Case Study: Zipcar, by Shane...
Transcript of 2 Table of Contents, Continued. - sustain.ku.edu · IV. Transportation Case Study: Zipcar, by Shane...
1
Table of Contents
0. Introduction, by Shane Johnston 3
0.1 Transportation Alternatives and Sustainable Practices 3
0.2 The Role of Incentives 4
I. Assessing Sustainability, by Drew Wiens 6
II. Walkable Bikeable Roads to Incentivize Alternative Transportation, by Josh Smith 7
II.1 Health Incentives 8
II.2 Walkable, Bikeable Roads & Program Development 9
II.3 Creation and Use of Bike and Walking Paths 10
III. Bikes at the University of Kansas: Historical and Current Student Involvement, by Chris
Worley 10
III.1 Oread Bicycle Club 12
III.2 Mount Oread Cycling Club 12
III.3 Octoginta and Bicycle Week 13
III.4 Critical Mass 13
II.5 Tour de Fat 14
III.6 Scraper Bikes: Oakland, CA 14
IV. Transportation Case Study: Zipcar, by Shane Johnston 15
IV.1 What is ZipCar and How Does is Work? 15
IV.2 How Effective Would ZipCar be at the University of Kansas? 16
IV.3 Financing ZipCar: ZipCar Contracts and Hidden Costs 20
IV.4 ZipCar Implementation at KU: Student and Administrative Perspectives 23
2
Table of Contents, Continued.
V. Sustainable Transportation Planning, by Chuck Haren 28
V.1 Planning for Districts and Scales 28
VI. A Brief Discussion of Disincentives, by Chuck Haren 29
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations, by Josh Smith 29
Sources and Thanks __
3
0. Introduction: Transportation – Alternatives and Sustainable practices
Alternative transportation can be an attractive and effective option for universities
seeking for ways to augment existing sustainability portfolios. But what exactly constitutes
“alternative” transportation and what does it mean to be “sustainable”? Alternative refers to
personal transportation patterns that break from traditional transportation paradigms. At the
University of Kansas, personal vehicle ridership is the predominant mode of transportation. This
trend is reinforced by KU’s historical and cultural heritage and by its suburban setting both
within the city of Lawrence and within the greater Northeast Kansas area.
Transportation that is sustainable can be characterized by two key traits: increased
efficiency and decreased total resource use. Transportation planning in this sense goes beyond
finding the right balance between providing transportation alternatives and expanding existing
infrastructure and parking space capacity (Toor, 2005: 156). Decreased fuel costs and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are two primary benefits of sustainable transportation. Other
characteristics of alternative transportation are shown in table A, on the following page.
4
Table A. Incentives and Disincentives for Patterns of Transportation
Car Driving (The Social Norm/ Traditional means of personal transportation in Lawrence, KS)
Incentives Disincentives Short travel time Traffic congestion Prestige Gas and Maintenance costs Flexibility in arrival/ departure time and route selection
Cost of parking
Privacy Inconvenience caused by limited public parking
Greater cargo capacity Predictability/ Reliability Delayed costs Enjoyment of Driving
Alternative Transportation (walking, biking, KU on Wheels, Lawrence Mass Transit, ZipCar)
Social interaction Greater exposure to weather Often less expensive Discomfort Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
More dangerous
Health Benefits of walking, biking
Unpredictability/ Unreliability
Crowded Limited flexibility Lower prestige Longer Travel time Costs paid more often paid
up-front Inconvenience
Table A, above, synthesizes data from (1) Everett and Watson, 1987: 999 and (2) Toor, 2005: 18. 0.1. The Role of Incentives Supplanting the traditional transportation paradigm with alternatives that incorporate
qualities of sustainability requires the use of incentives, tools for affecting behavior change. This
may be accomplished either directly or indirectly (Gardner and Stern, 2005). Indirect
approaches attempt to generate environmentally-friendly behaviors through changes in attitudes.
This approach, while more difficult to accomplish, targets intrinsic personal motivations that are
most likely to result in behavior change (Levinson et al, 1976, 18). Existing social norms and
cultural perceptions, as discussed later in section III, are critical to indirectly fostering a
sustainable transportation ethic.
5
Direct approaches to affecting behavior changes target the extrinsic motivations of
individuals (Levinson et al, 18). Gardner and Stern note that direct approaches of affecting
behavior change may assume the form of either incentives/ rewards or disincentives/
punishments (see Table A, page 3). Though direct approaches are less effective in persuading
individuals to value a sustainable behavior for its own sake, they are better able to address
barriers to action. A KU student may desire to use alternative transportation, for example, but be
unable to do so for a number of reasons. His or her class schedule, for instance, may conflict
with bus arrival and departure times. Moreover, he or she may not be able to afford a bicycle,
but even if he or she is able to do so, logistical concerns over storage, theft, and transporting it
home at the end of a semester may override perceived environmental benefits. In situations such
as these, modifications to existing transportation programs or the implementation of alternative
approaches are needed to realign student interests with those of the University.
This paper examines ways to incentivize alternative transportation at the University of
Kansas. We begin by discussing the challenges and methods in assessing sustainability.
Afterwards, we examine incentives to biking at the University of Kansas and biking’s historical
role as a cultural resource in Lawrence. Next, we examine ZipCar and its potential to be
implemented at KU. We then discuss the relationship between scales in efficiency as they relate
to sustainable transportation and the role that disincentives may play in fostering student support
for transportation initiatives. To conclude the paper, we offer a series of recommendations to
University administration based upon our research.
6
I. Assessing Sustainability
Assessment is one of the key challenges in discussing sustainable transportation patterns.
One type of sustainability evaluation process has been carefully prepared and applied to many
universities. The institution responsible for the assessment is known as The College
Sustainability Report Card, which uses survey data to acquire and compare information
pertaining to all aspects of sustainability on college campuses (www.greenreportcard.org).
There is a grading scale used to evaluate each of 9 criterion studied.
Biking is one subsection of the transportation criterion. “Points are awarded,” the rules
read, “for campus planning policies that promote a pedestrian- and bike-friendly environment, as
well as for the availability of bike-sharing programs and bike repair services”
(www.greenreportcard.org). Off the 332 universities assessed in 2010, KU received an overall
sustainability grade of a C and a transportation grade of B+. While encouraging, this
transportation score still leaves room for improvement.
There are a few features of biking services which could help improve conditions on
campus for student bikers. The College Sustainability Report Card cites several examples, one of
which is a self-service bike repair shop. Though the Ambler Student Recreation and Fitness
Center offers such a service, the shop could be improved through expanded hours. One
important quality incentivizing ridership through convenience at KU’s Recreation Center is an
experienced bicycle mechanic to assist students free of charge one evening per week.
(http://www.recreation.ku.edu). Another quality that factoring into KU’s Transportation grade
was “a second bike repair shop in Hashinger Residence Hall … available to students who live in
Student Housing” (www.greenreportcard.org).
7
What other incentives are available for students living in the dorms who still choose to
drive? To answer this question, it is helpful to look at how other colleges have addressed this
problem. A New York Times Article from October of 2008 provides one example. “When Kylie
Galliani started at the University of New England in August,” journalist Katie Zezima writes,
“she was given a key to her dorm, a class schedule and something more unusual: a $480 bicycle”
(Zezima, 2008). Similar programs have been instituted at other colleges in order to give students
an incentive to reduce the amount of cars driven on campus. This is done by giving bikes to
those “who promise to leave their cars at home” (Zezima, 2008).
Major promotion is needed for long term change on KU’s campus, and there is a
significant need for large-scale improvements to bike trails and bike lanes. Bike trails are needed
throughout the campus, especially those that branch off to major student housing areas. This will
likely increase the amount of both student and community members using the trails, which can
help promote sustainability the confines of main campus.
Another factor incentivizing bike ridership has been the support of community business.
Promotions of bike clubs have been established in Lawrence for some time now through
Sunflower Outdoor and Bike. More endorsements and sponsorships from bike shops like
Sunflower could also provide students with an economic incentive by offering discounts on bikes
or rental fees.
II. Walkable Bikeable Roads to Incentivize Alternative Transportation
Less than 20% of KU students walk or bike to school; whereas about 50% drive their
personal vehicles. 15% of students already live on campus and that’s not taken into consideration
with the 20% listed above who walk/bike, this means it is unlikely there are many off campus
8
students who commute on foot or bike (KU CAP 2009). One of our goals is to increase the 20%
of walkers/bikers and in turn decrease the 50% of personal vehicle commuters. There are many
reasons to choose to ride a bike or walk to school if you are able to. Lawrence has weather that
favors getting some fresh air and exercise on the way to class rather than driving a mile or two or
perhaps less than that. According to weather underground Lawrence averages a high of fifty
degrees in early March and goes through the beginning of November without getting colder than
fifty. So not including the summer school months Lawrence weather still allows cycling or
walking to campus for over six months of the school year. Acknowledging 50 degrees is quite a
lenient temperature to have on the low end of comfortable weather, you can bike or walk for
even a larger majority of the year by dressing properly. Not only would choosing not to drive
every day save you large amounts of gas money as well as hinder the CO2 emissions coming
from the fuel burning to drive, you would give yourself a great opportunity to lead a healthier
lifestyle.
II.1 Health Incentives
According to a resource guide done by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in
2009 called “Building Walkable Bikeable Communities” obesity rates are about 29% higher in
people who drive to work compared to those who walk to work. This guide refers to something
called lifestyle diseases, which can lead to early death and disabilities, are majorly impacted by
physical inactivity. Some of the diseases which an inactive lifestyle can lead to are
cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis and some cancers. These diseases, when
caused by physical inactivity, result in approximately 200,000 deaths in the United States each
year. So if helping the environment by not driving short distances every day when you have
9
other options doesn’t help you decide to switch lazy habits to biking or walking, maybe the
health incentives will do something for you.
II.2 Walkable Bikeable Roads & Program Development
Now it’s understandable in many cases for biking and walking to campus in Lawrence to
be not comfortably achievable. Let’s face it the roads here aren’t in great shape all the time. I
once heard from a professor that the roads in developing parts of African countries are better
than the roads in Lawrence (some what sarcastically but he was serious). There are potholes
every 10 yards and most roads don’t provide a very large shoulder either. So it’s obvious this
isn’t the safest place to bike around unless you find some alternative routes away from traffic and
potholes, good luck with that.
In order to solve this problem we have come up with two possible solutions. The first of
which looks back into the guide for walkable, bikeable roads, done by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, where there is a step by step manual to help promote walking and
cycling safety in your community. This starts with creating a group, which we intend on
promoting and organizing, to gather data about the community’s transportation systems (which
we have been researching this entire semester), building progressive relationships within the
group and supporting sources around the community, mobilizing action plans, increase public
awareness, develop communication plans with community officials (and the people who can
make decisions) and advocate for sustainable changes. By joining forces to push for a walkable,
bikeable community the chance of succeeding are much greater. Some examples provided in the
guide from MA are appointing safe routes to campus (which ties into my second solution),
creating a road and sidewalk assessment in order to map problem areas and try to push for
10
repairs, and creating a center for pedestrian walking and biking (which can be formed through a
website(s)).
II. 3 Creation and Use of Bike and Walking Paths
The second solution we propose may entail working through some of the process in the
first solution. It would be a project of planning and developing paths around Lawrence,
specifically the Kansas campus, which would be used solely for biking, walking, jogging,
rollerblading etc. This would be a more difficult project to have granted due to planning,
funding, time consumption, and construction, but studies show that if you build it commuters
will come. The University of Central Florida went through the process of creating a bike path
and established many positive results and benefits. The direct benefits created involved using
the path as a safe and easy way of commuting to and from campus as well as recreational
purposes. Some of the indirect benefits include fewer parking spots used, chances for people to
connect with natural areas, and increased property values for neighboring real estate. Now the
cost of the path ran at about $145,000 per mile of 10 foot wide paved pathway and total cost
came close to a total of $725,000 for a 5 mile project. It seems like it could be expensive but
with fundraising, government grants, University funding and more it would be a feasible
achievement. The path could loop around the KU campus and have paths veining outward into
dense student populations through Lawrence. This would provide safety and easy access,
incentivizing use of alternative transportation to personal automobiles as well as buses for some.
III. Bikes at the University of Kansas : Historical and Current Student Involvement
Bicycle ownership is widespread In the United States; there are 0.42 bicycles per person
(www.bikecult.com). There are more bicycles than Democrats, Republicans (Pew Research
11
Center, 2008), cats, and dogs (www.humanesociety.org) A quick aside: Did you know America
has a pie council? We do. A recent study showed that less Americans (only 25%) prefer the taste
of apple pie, than own bikes (www.thefreelibrary.com). Put another way, bicycle ownership is
more American than apple pie.
But, does ownership mean ridership? The short answer is no, or at least not necessarily.
There are a number of barriers and disincentives to riding bicycles. And, for many reasons—
potholes, grates, angry motorists, availability of cheap automobile parking, etc.—ridership
around Lawrence is low. Only 2.3% of people in the Lawrence community regularly commute to
work on bicycle (www.bikeleague.org). Improvements to the bicycle transportation
infrastructure are important in order to incentivize alternative transportation on local scales, but
they are not the only things that influence people’s behavior. Making bicycling fun can also
incentivize ridership.
This idea is not without precedent. In 2009, Volkswagen sponsored an experiment in
Stockholm’s Odenplan subway station. Artists turned the station’s staircase into a giant piano in
hopes of encouraging commuters to take the stairs rather than riding the escalator. Each time
someone took a step, a note would play. The study found that 66% more people than normal
chose the stairs over the escalator (www.thefuntheory.com). The conclusion reached was this:
“fun can change behavior for the better.” (Dubner, 2009).
There remains so much uncharted territory when it comes to communities supporting
bicycling. There are almost limitless possibilities to creative events that can be planned, or clubs
that can be organized, to incentivize bicycle ridership. Included below are a few examples of
incentivizing ridership by making bicycling fun.
12
III.1 Oread Bicycle Club
KU had a bicycle club before it had a basketball team (Kansas Historical Society). The
Oread Bicycle Club was formed in 1890 and promoted “the exploring of the country about
Lawrence” (Oread Bicycle Club Constitution, 1890). Full club rides met at South Park and rode
to the Haskell Institute and returned. According to the group’s founding constitution, on special
occasions the club would “parade to the post-office and return,” but only once “the club had
secured a sufficient amount of practice.” (Oread Bicycle Club Constitution, 1890). Riding
bicycles back then must have been tricky. The list of officers included a pacemaker and a
director of the ambulance corps (gulp!). The club existed as a support structure to its members,
offering advice on how to position the bike seat, clean and adjust the chain, properly care for the
wheels, and ride on rough roads. On full club rides, members were instructed to wear the club’s
colors—crimson and dark blue—attached to their handlebars and were encouraged to wear the
club’s uniform, a white sweater (Oread Bicycle Club Constitution, 1890). The support and
camaraderie that the club provided would have made bicycling more enjoyable in a time when
bicycling was difficult.
III. 2 Mount Oread Cycling Club
The 1960s and 1970s experienced a resurgence in bicycling, at least on KU’s campus.
The bicycle club was renamed and, similar to its 1890s incarnation, wanted to “promote cycling
as a sport, a recreation, and transportation.” (Mount Oread Club Newsletter, 1971). Implicit in
this goal is a fundamental belief that bicycling is meaningful. Bicycling is seen as something
more than just a means of getting from place to place; it is also a fun activity. A quote from one
of the club’s newsletters illuminates this understanding: “not passing through, as propelled in a
car, the bike rider becomes part of the environment, with the time and nearness to fully enjoy it.”
13
(Mount Oread Club Newsletter, 1964). To these ends, the club organized several events whose
aim was having fun: “Break O’Days” were early morning rides and communal breakfast;
“Random Rambles” were rides whose routes were chosen by toss of the dice; “Summer Coolees”
were rides followed by a swim party; and “Moonlight Rides” must have made for great late night
outings (Mount Oread Club Newsletter, 1964).
III. 3 Octoginta and Bicycle Week
Octoginta was a weekend of bicycling activities centered around an 80-mile race. The
race, however, wasn’t the only event of the weekend. In an orienteering event in 1978, riders
were “given maps with locations marked on them. The person who found the most markers in 90
minutes won… Marci Francisco, Lawrence resident, won the women’s category” (University
Daily Kansan, 1978). The weekend of events was co-sponsored by the Mount Oread Bicycle
Club and Student Union Activities. Bicycle Week, organized earlier in the 1970s, was co-
sponsored by Student Union Activities and Student Senate. The week featured guided bicycle
tours, a variety of bicycle races, a picnic and movie screening, and ended with a free concert at
Potter’s Lake (University Daily Kansan, 1971).
III.4 Critical Mass
Critical Mass was first organized as “a peaceful ride to raise awareness of bike
transportation” (University Daily Kansan, 2000). Since its first ride in 2000, it has blossomed
into an important and visible biking event. During Critical Mass, riders form into a pack, steer
through intersections, obstruct traffic and celebrate their love of bicycles (University Daily
Kansan, 2000) The tradition is alive and well today. Riders meet at Wescoe Beach on the last
Friday of every month. Routes aren’t planned ahead of time. Instead, riders travel where the
spirit moves them.
14
III.5 Tour de Fat
Tour de Fat is an annual celebration of bikes and beer sponsored by New Belgium
Brewing Company and is free to the public. The Tour de Fat travels to cities throughout the
western United States and has been in Lawrence four times. The festival features food, music,
beer and a bike-themed Olympics, which includes “the paper boy challenge”, a “Huffy Bike
toss” (where contestants actually try to throw a bike as far as they can) and a half-barrel race in
which contestants ride around kegs while holding a bottle of beer” (University Daily Kansan,
2000). In 2003, Tour de Fat had nearly 1,000 participants in Lawrence alone (University Daily
Kansan, 2003). One of those attending that year was quoted as saying, “There are bikes, beer,
and bands. What more could you ask for?” (University Daily Kansan, 2003).
III. 6 Scraper Bikes: Oakland, California
In Scraper Bike events, participants decorate their bikes with provided supplies; a sort of
“Pimp-My-Ride” for bicycles. An excerpt from the program’s website reads: “The Scraper Bike
Movement seeks to capture the creativity of youth living within dangerous communities. It gives
them a positive outlet that is fun, educational, and promotes healthy
lifestyles”(originalscraperbikes.blogspot.com) The decorations, spinners and spray paint give at-
risk youth an opportunity to showcase their creativity. The goal is to keep youth on the streets,
but in a constructive way. In Oakland, a life changed by participating in Scraper Bikes means a
life saved from violence or drugs.
At KU, events where participants could decorate bicycles in the Scraper Bikes style
would mean increased visibility for bicycling on campus in addition to being a lot of fun.
According to a recent League of American Bicyclists survey, more people ride bicycles for
recreational purposes than for any other reason (www.bikeleague.org). Biking for fun has always
15
been important rationale for ridership trends. Fun should be viewed as a social and cultural
resource to incentivize bicycling, because it has been show to affect behavior in the past. All that
is needed is the initiative and creativity of those who care to organize fun events and clubs to
spread the joy of bicycling.
IV. Transportation Case Study: Zipcar As noted in the previous section, efficiency is one factor incentivizing alternative
transportation by “tipping the scales” of user convenience. Existing transportation programs
have succeeded to different degrees in institutionalizing this quality into established
transportation systems. As previously noted, one opportunity for the University of Kansas bus
system is to incorporate greater efficiency over both daily and hourly temporal scales. Zipcar,
one program characterized by high levels of user efficiency, is being implemented by an
increasing number of universities across the country. Zipcar has the ability to offer prolonged
service that is more individualized and less expensive than University bus systems. The program
also provides reduced capacity transportation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to its members.
IV.1 What is Zipcar and How Does it Work?
Zipcar is a membership-based car rental service providing alternative transportation to
personal vehicles. While multiple Zipcar companies exist, by far the largest is ZipCar, Inc., the
world’s biggest car sharing program (ZipCar.com). Originally established for use in high
density, urban areas for working professionals as a substitute for personal vehicle ownership,
Zipcar, Inc. has recently began adapting and extending its services to college campuses. By
paying a $35 annual fee, members receive access to any campus rental car parked permanently in
reserved university parking spaces. Users access vehicles by scanning membership IDs through
16
a receiving unit mounted to the driver-side door. Access is granted based upon reservations
made through an online database that communicates hourly vehicle availability to all network
members. Car keys are left under the front seat floor mat in order to limit program usage to
paying members. Gas, Insurance, and maintenance fees characteristic of personal vehicle
ownership are provided in exchange for an hourly fee of $7 to $8.
IV.2 How effective would Zipcar be at the University of Kansas?
The purpose of this section is to examine the effectiveness of a potential zipcar program
at KU. In order to accomplish this, the success of ZipCar, Inc. has been examined at four other
universities that use the program. Zipcar1 shall hereafter refer to ZipCar, Inc. rather than the
zipcar transportation model.
The primary targets for a campus ZipCar program are students who reside near or on-
campus and that require only limited use of a personal vehicle for off campus errands (Jeff
Severin). Like KU, the four colleges examined all share key criteria. Indiana University, the
University of Michigan, Towson University, and the University of North Carolina are all four-
year, public, suburban colleges with enrollments surpassing 15,000 students. Each of the
campuses also offers fraternity and sorority living in addition to undergraduate, coed on-campus
housing (CollegeBoard.com, College Search).
On- campus housing availability and access to campus parking spaces are two key
parameters in assessing the effectiveness of a ZipCar program at any college campus. Each of
the aforementioned colleges’ ZipCar programs should be viewed in the context of these
parameters and how well those factors relate to the University of Kansas. On the following
pages, enrollment, on- campus housing availability, and on- campus parking are compared
17
between Indiana University, University of Michigan, Towson University, the University of
Kansas, and the University of North Carolina.
Graph A
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Number of
Students
Kansas Michigan Indiana North
Carolina
Tow son
University
Student Body Composition of Main Campus Enrollment
Graduate
Undergraduate
Graph A, above, shows the total enrollment of the five Universities as a function of graduate and undergraduate status. Large total enrollment acts as an incentive for college administrations to implement ZipCar programs because it provides a larger market for vehicle use. Additionally, large undergraduate enrollment may be particularly important since this population typically comprises a much greater proportion of on- campus housing facilities, for which ZipCar is most suited. This is particularly true for colleges such as Towson University that restrict freshman from bringing vehicles to campus, indirectly encouraging on-campus residence and greater ZipCar use (Kenny West, Towson).
18
Graph B
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Undergraduate 20,550 26,033 32,490 17,565 16,598
Graduate 6,276 15,466 9,857 10,935 4,029
Kansas Michigan IndianaNorth
CarolinaTowson
Graph B, above, portrays the same data as Graph A, except precise numbers of undergraduate and graduate students are given. Whereas in Graph A, a comparison of the total enrollment was most evident, Graph B more conveniently compares graduate and undergraduate subgroups of the student body. As an example, Graph A clearly shows that North Carolina has a greater total enrollment than KU, but Graph B shows that UNC possesses fewer undergraduate students. Another trait evident from the above graph is the comparative size of Indiana’s undergraduate population, which can serve as a substantial benefit to universities negotiating contracts with ZipCar (discussed later). The data for each of the above graphs was supplied by administration officials with each University working in the Department of Student Housing, or its equivalent.
Graph C
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Number of
students
Kansas Michigan Indiana North
Carolina
Towson
University
Composition of On-Campus Student Housing Facilities
Other
Residence Halls
Graph C, above, shows the compositions of on-campus student housing facilities at each of the five universities. The best ZipCar locations on campus are often in the immediate vicinity of residence halls, though representatives of Indiana University, which has the largest student union in the nation in terms of the number of visitors per day, also emphasized the value of utilizing other centralized campus locations for ZipCar placement (Kent McDaniel).
19
Graph D
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Residence Halls 3,820 9,000 10,400 7,230 3,031
Other 1,388 1,100 1,050 1,815 1,469
Kansas Michigan IndianaNorth
CarolinaTowson
Graph D, above, shows similar data as Graph C. “Other” on-campus housing options are all available alternatives to residence halls, most notably apartments. It should be noted that Scholarship Halls, with a total population just under 600 students, are included in the “other” category for the University of Kansas. The data for graphs C and D were supplied by administration officials at each University working in the Department of Student Housing, or its equivalent.
Graph E
A Comparison of Available On-Campus Parking Spaces and Total
Enrollment, Fall 2009
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Kansas Michigan Indiana North
Carolina
Towson
University
Main Campus Enrollment
On-Campus Parking Spaces
Graph E, above, analyzes the stress on available parking at each University. At those Universities with more limited parking availability, ZipCar’s reserved spaces closely located by on-campus housing facilities would serve to incentivize Zipcar through increased convenience and save time otherwise spent searching for places to park. Graph E portrays an above average stress on parking facilities at Towson, a fact that administration has addressed by restricting campus permits to exclude the freshman class. Despite the fact that UNC appears to have a relative abundance of parking, only 48% of faculty possess on-campus parking permits (Claire Kent).
20
Graph F
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Main Campus Enrollment 26,826 41,499 42,347 28,500 20,627
On-Campus Parking
Spaces
13124 24,144 19,970 20,014 7,300
Kansas Michigan IndianaNorth
CarolinaTowson
Graph F, above, shows similar data as Graph E. While UNC appears to possess an above average stress on parking spaces, Michigan and Towson have the greatest access to parking by proportion to total campus enrollment. It should be noted that the above parking figures in Graphs E and F characterize total available parking on campus-
spaces that are permitted, handicapped, and otherwise reserved for maintenance use. The data was obtained from administration officials working in each school’s Parking and Transit Department, or its equivalent.
IV. 3 Financing ZipCar on College Campuses
One of the main potential barriers to implementing ZipCar at KU is the challenge of
financing the program (Jeff Severin). Because of this, many of the questions posed through
interviews of ZipCar program coordinators at each of the model universities related to funding.
IV.3a ZipCar Contracts
The main burden of funding ZipCar stems from the contract negotiated between ZipCar
and the participating University. While patterns in contractual obligations exist, ZipCar is
occasionally flexible in its negotiations. The typical agreement centers around a monthly
financial guarantee made by the University, typically $12001 per month/ per car (Kent
McDaniel) to $15001 per month/ per car (Claire Kent). Monthly revenue is generated through
fees associated with the use of each car. In the event that a university fails to meet this quota, the
college is obligated to pay the difference to ZipCar. In the event that a university exceeds the
21
quota, the college splits the profits with ZipCar and continues to do so until the “break even”
point has been reached. After this, ZipCar assumes all profits from the use of its vehicles while
the University continues to enjoy the benefits of program membership. Those Universities with
longer1 ZipCar memberships have experienced break-even points 3-4 years into program
membership, but college contracts negotiated more recently may be able to facilitate quicker
break-even points1. Still, the addition of a ZipCar program requires time to build productivity
and is perhaps best viewed as an investment to campus sustainability.
Despite the fact that typical contract negotiations involve a set fee per car/ per month,
ZipCar has also proved flexible in negotiating contracts with prospective universities. Michigan,
for example, initially negotiated an annual financial commitment rather than one contingent
upon monthly use (Grant Winston). And Indiana, more than any university contacted, is unique
in its financial arrangement with ZipCar. Because it is one of the largest universities in the
nation by total enrollment, ZipCar proved extremely eager to partner with IU. A state university,
Indiana initially refused on multiple occasions to work with ZipCar unless all financial
obligations were waived, because administration officials were reluctant to use public funds for
private enterprise (Kent McDaniel). The fact that Indiana was able to successfully negotiate
such demands demonstrates ZipCar’s opportunistic management style. Should the University of
Kansas decide to negotiate a partnership with ZipCar, they might benefit by emphasizing KU’s
potential to expand ZipCar’s college market share. At present, no other Big XII University has
such a car sharing program, and a successful partnership with the University of Kansas could go
a long way to encouraging other Midwest colleges to make similar additions to their alternative
transportation portfolios.
22
IV.3b Hidden Costs
While monthly and annual commitments are at the heart of financing ZipCar programs,
there are hidden costs to campus membership. As a whole, ZipCar was given very positive
reviews in addressing operational costs of the program. As an additional incentive to partnering
universities, ZipCar provides all marketing materials. Moreover, they pay to have the vehicles
serviced on a weekly basis at University maintenance facilities and have been known to provide
compensation for a small number of staff or student employees serving campus communities in a
customer service capacity (All college correspondents).
Still, hidden costs are evident and should be kept in mind when negotiating ZipCar
contracts. While ZipCar pays for marketing materials, they do not pay for newspaper, radio, or
similar advertising fees (Kent McDaniel, Kenny West), though contractual compensation for
such fees may be possible (Claire Kent). Other primary hidden costs include management time
spent by university administration. While time will inevitably be required to oversee the
program in addition to time spent in a customer service capacity, overseeing ZipCar has the
potential to require more time than may be expected. There are some tasks that require the
attention of full-time university officials rather than part-time students/ staff whose wages are
paid by ZipCar (Kent McDaniel). Finally, lost revenue from permit fees allocated for ZipCar use
may represent a significant hidden cost. In negotiating with college Parking and Transportation
Departments, ZipCar commonly leverages this loss against parking spaces that the program
claims to save by participating students who would otherwise bring their personal vehicle to
campus and occupy spaces in residence hall lots. Still, the amount of lost revenue cannot be
entirely discounted. Typical agreements allocate four initial zipcars to each campus,1 which
correlates to an annual lost revenue of $760 dollars for 4 annual student parking permits (Parking
23
Regulations, KU). For other universities, this loss could be much more. Michigan currently
hosts 17 ZipCars on its campus while Indiana has agreed to provide spaces for up to 20 vehicles.
IV.4 Should ZipCar be implemented at KU?
While the previous section dealt with how ZipCar has been financed, this section attempts
to answer whether it should be implemented at KU. In answering this question, two perspectives
are considered: that of students and that of the administration.
IV.4a The Student Perspective and the Economic Incentive: Is ZipCar cost effective?
Determining whether ZipCar use is cost effective for students is based upon a number of
variables and assumptions, making a cost analysis of ZipCar difficult and highly individualized.
Tables I and II, below, attempt to predict the cost effectiveness of ZipCar under a number of
different conditions. While Table 1 lists a summary of the costs associated with both ZipCar and
personal vehicle use, it should be noted that costs vary depending upon depreciation rates,
personal driving patterns, and car specific parameters such as vehicle size, model, cost, and fuel
efficiency (AAA).
Table I
Costs Personal Vehicle Use Only (12 / 12 months)
Personal Vehicle Use (4 / 12 months) +
Zipcar Use (8 / 12 months)
Fixed Costs ($/ year) Car Insurance- Personal Vehicle 1200 1200
Car Insurance- ZipCar 0 0
Finance Charges- Personal Vehicle 786 786
License, Registration, Title Fees 300 300
KU Parking Permit 190 0
ZipCar Annual Membership Fee 0 35
Variable Costs
Depreciation- Personal Vehicle 1221.00 1122.33
Operating Costs- Personal Vehicle 826.63 759.83
Operating Costs- ZipCar 0 761.60
Total Annual Cost 4523.63 4964.76
24
Table I, on the previous page, represents a midrange estimate for expected driving patterns and summarizes Model 3 from Table II. Estimates represent a true cost of driving as outlined by AAA’s 2009 personal driving statistics (AAA). The model assumes that ZipCar users maintain a personal vehicle at home and that the fixed costs of ownership coincide with ZipCar fees. The model is based upon estimates of a medium size sedan driven 15,000 miles per year for 4 of 12 months annually (summer + winter, fall, and spring breaks). Over the remaining 8 months at school, it is assumed that students use ZipCar an average of 435.2 miles. The KU Sustainable Transportation Survey conducted by the Center for Sustainability in the Spring of 2010 found that students require the use of a vehicle for off campus errands an average of 6.8 days each month (Sustainable Transportation Survey). That use is paired with estimates of 2 hours per trip at $7 per hour. Depreciation is scaled according to miles driven and therefore analyzed as a function of usage but not time. Annual car insurance was scaled slightly upward from AAA models to accommodate for the increased rates characteristic of individuals under the age of 25. Lastly, cost of gasoline was scaled to account for decreased fuel costs in Kansas. AAA’s annual Fuel Gauge Report states that Kansas gas prices were about 4.6% below the 2009 national average (Fuel Gauge Report, AAA)
Table B
Model Assumptions Personal
Vehicle Cost ($/yr)
Alternative Cost ($/yr)
Alternative Savings ($/yr)
1 Students driving patter is same during school, summer (15,000 mi/ yr); Year- round personal vehicle ownership
8179.50 5182.36 2997.14
2 The ZipCar Model; details not given, but likely assumes student driving pattern is same during summer, school; urban community; ZipCar users either sell personal vehicle or delay buying a new one
8400 1200-1800 6600-7200
3 Year- round car ownership, but driving patterns change between summer (15000mi/yr) and school (435.2 total miles); While in school, students with personal vehicles drive the same amount as those who use ZipCar
4523.63 4964.76 -441.13
4 Same as Model 3, except miles driven while at school is doubled
4689.11 5726.36 -1037.25
5 Same as Model 3, except it is assumed that students with personal vehicles at school drive 40% more than those using ZipCar
4589.35 4964.76 -375.41
6 Same as Model 5, but year-round personal vehicle ownership is not assumed.
4589.35 1096.60 3492.75
7 Same as Model 3, except assumes ZipCar membership is used collaboratively with ZimRide membership; Zimride users carpool 50% of the time and pay a $35 annual membership fee
4523.63 4618.96 -95.33
Table 2, above, shows a cost comparison under a number of changing conditions. It should be noted that each is
based off of AAA estimates for a medium sized sedan and 15,000 miles per year, as applicable to personal vehicle
25
use. ZimRide is an online carpooling program often partnered with ZipCar use. Students benefit from negotiating carpools collaborative with ZipCar use by splitting up the hourly user fee with those with whom they travel.
A few interesting conclusions are evident from Tables I and II. Firstly, ZipCar is cost
effective by several thousand dollars when usage does not coincide with ownership of a personal
vehicle (Models 2 and 6). These users are the likeliest to use a campus ZipCar program (Josh
Foster, KU Center for Sustainability). In order to prove cost effective for the University of
Kansas administration, however, it may become necessary for other individuals to join.
According to KU’s Sustainable Transportation Survey conducted in the spring of 2010, 14 % of
the student population surveyed said they would be "very likely" to use a car-sharing service if it
were offered and 12% said they would be "moderately likely". Of the 14% of students who said
"very likely" only 16% (or 2.24% overall) said they use a car as their main source of
transportation (Josh Foster, Sustainable Transportation Survey). The success of a ZipCar
program at KU will likely hinge on the ability of administration officials to capitalize on this
small subset of the KU population while also attracting other students who, despite relying
primarily on a personal vehicle for transportation, have an economic incentive to use ZipCar.
The reason that ZipCar’s model predicts savings in excess of $6000/ yr (Model 2) as
compared with a more realistic estimated savings of $3400 (Model 6) is that ZipCar likely
assumes that an individual’s driving pattern is consistent year round1. Given this assumption
(Model 1), predicted annual costs of personal vehicle ownership closely aligned with those of
ZipCar.
Perhaps the other most evident feature is the highly variable nature of the cost savings. A
more interactive tool allowing students to more accurately calculate their individual cost savings
would be a very convenient for potential users. While ZipCar was cost-ineffective in a number
of the models, several of those models recorded only slight differentials (Models 3, 5, and 7). If
26
a larger, less fuel-efficient sedan, truck, or SUV was used rather than a slightly smaller one as
used throughout each of the aforementioned models, ZipCar may indeed prove cost effective by
relatively small amounts. Similar changes are likely to result from decreased driving patterns
while at school; increased driving patterns while at home; the use of a car sharing service such as
ZimRide, GoLoco, or WeConnection coinciding with ZipCar use; or a decrease to any of the
fixed costs set forth in Table I in the event that ZipCar use coincides with personal vehicle
ownership. This latter result stems from the fact that fixed costs of vehicle ownership outweigh
operational costs (more behavioral in nature) by an approximate ratio of 3:1 (AAA).
Regardless of the changing parameters and potential cost savings of ZipCar use, if a
personal vehicle is owned simultaneously and kept at home for use during the summer and
semester breaks, the best case scenario for financial savings associated with ZipCar use for 8
months of each year is not likely to dramatically surpass $1,000. This begs the question: Is this
financial incentive sufficient to overcome the increased convenience of personal vehicle use? If
so, is it sufficient to attract enough ZipCar users in order for KU to meet monthly, financial
quotas as negotiated through a ZipCar contract?
IV.4b The Administration Perspective: How can ZipCar address campus needs?
While those students who stand to benefit from increased ZipCar use make up a relatively
small subset of the campus population, universities stand to be benefit in a number of ways-
chiefly through cutting campus emissions, lessening pressure on parking, and decreasing campus
vehicle fleet size. The 2009 KU Climate Action Plan states that 25 % of campus emissions result
from transportation, a significant proportion of the university total. ZipCar claims to decrease
emissions in two ways. Firstly, ZipCar impacts personal driving patters. Users report driving an
average of 43 % less than before participating in a car sharing program (ZipCar.com, FAQ).
27
Secondly, ZipCar decreases personal vehicle ownership (ZipCar, FAQ) and in doing so, fosters
greater reliance on alternative transportation.
Another benefit of campus ZipCar membership is decreased pressure on campus parking
resources. ZipCar claims that every vehicle used by a university takes 15-20 personal vehicles
off of the road (ZipCar, FAQ). While it is difficult to monitor this statistic precisely (Winston,
Grant; Claire Kent; Kenny West), multiple representatives of other college ZipCar programs said
they believed this stat to be true (McDaniel, Kent; Winston, Grant) and significantly influenced
their decision to join ZipCar (Kent, Claire). If this statistic is indeed accurate, then saved
parking spaces may provide an additional economic incentive to administration officials.
Construction costs of a single parking space on flat lots may cost $2000-$4000 while that located
in a parking garage can run as high as $30,000.
While it is also possible that a campus ZipCar program may be able to either decrease the
size of a university’s vehicle fleet or replace it altogether, less research has been conducted in
this area. Of the four universities consulted in the process of this study, none had taken such
measure. However, each of the four universities had considered such a strategy and two
expressed a strong belief that the measure may prove cost effective in the long run by
encouraging more efficient vehicle use and avoiding large fixed costs of purchasing and insuring
each of the vehicles (West, Kenny; McDaniel, Kent). The University of Kansas’ vehicle fleet
currently consists of 22 Motorpool rental vehicles, most of which are Ford and Chevrolet models
with lower fuel efficiency (Campus Vehicle Fleet Inventory Spreadsheet; Jeff Severin). It is our
recommendation that this application for an alternative ZipCar program be examined further at
KU.
28
V. Sustainable Transportation Planning at KU
Truly alternative transportation, that is improvements on existing vehicles or introducing
new transportation types, is an attractive and effective option for universities seeking to create
more sustainable transportation models. However, simple actions taken to maximize efficiency
within the existing transportation system can greatly increase sustainability. Essentially
sustainable transportation planning aims to consolidate and maximize efficiency of a public
transportation system as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption.
This is accomplished through reconsidering the University of Kansas campus in respect to its
surrounding neighborhoods, or districts, and taking into careful consideration the amount and
type of public transportation needed to serve each district. Also, campus transportation must
remain sensitive to the fluctuating transportation ridership due to rush hour traffic. Finally,
consideration must be given to the distance traveled and number of commuters in respect to the
type of automotive transportation. Transportation planning in this sense goes beyond finding the
right balance between building more parking and providing transportation alternatives ( Toor,
Haylick 156). A sustainable transportation system at KU must be sensitive to fluctuating demand
placed on the system in all the areas it services.
V. 1 Planning for Districts and Scales
Addressing the degree to which public transportation to and from campus is utilized by
student commuters living in various areas of Lawrence and considering the unique demands
placed on the system in each area. Allows for the development of transportation scales and
districts. Potential transportation scales at KU range from campus (smallest), the city of
Lawrence (middle scale) to servicing the Kansas City/Johnson County area (largest). (KU on
29
Wheels) Currently each scale is serviced by buses of equal size. Transportation scales are
determined by the distance a bus or other transport must travel to and from campus and the
ridership on the route. Districts occur at the Lawrence scale and their boundaries are set
according to the amount of potential commuters living in an area. Potential, districts are; the
downtown and student ghetto neighborhoods, and all commuters living south of campus and
outside a bike-able/walkable distance. It is important to consider the unique demands placed on
the transportation system in each district it serves. Transport size should be relative to the
demand placed on the system at each scale and district being served. For example the Lawrence
scale could potentially be serviced by the current fleet of blue buses, or if it best suits the needs
of the district, smaller buses. Also, frequency of stops in each district should to be determined by
the frequency of use or how often a commuters in a given district visit campus.
Considering scales and understanding Lawrence as a conglomeration of districts
addresses a mismatch in transport scale and ridership, in other words the easily observable
problem of buses running below capacity. Campus transportation operating at full capacity
minimizes GHG emissions, in that smaller transports can be used in those districts with little
demand. Currently KU services all its districts with 35' and 40' buses, when smaller more
efficient buses could be used and still meet demand. (KU on Wheels)
VI. A Brief Discussion of Disincentives
Providing incentives to alternative transportation is an important and necessary step in
insuring new alternatives will be used by commuters. However, it is important to note that many
of these alternatives only appeal to a small subset of all commuters, for example the small subset
that would likely use a Zipcar program. Rather than just incentivize alternatives to viable subsets,
a truly comprehensive approach to sustainability would also provide a disincentives to the
30
transportation modes that are unsustainable, primarily private car use. By nature the primary
modes of transportation used a KU, diesel buses and personal vehicles, are less sustainable (KU
on Wheels). Thinking extremely, not offering parking on campus at all and running fewer buses
on more direct routes would go along way in reducing emissions. For example, what if one
incentive to bus travel was that it was the only option? Or a major disincentive to driving was
that parking was difficult. Offering disincentives to personal vehicle use is a complicated and
sensitive issue, and requires a deep commitment to sustainability.
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations
In concluding this report it is established that there are many different forms of
alternative transportations and ways of incentivizing them here at the University of Kansas.
Whether we look to develop a more prominent Zipcar program, entice walking and biking to
class through better, safer roads and cheery organizations, or inquire about more sustainable
resource use through bus systems, the biggest task is altering the attitudes of the KU community.
Without changing ourselves and prioritizing our lifestyles in order to positively correlate with
sustainable practices the solutions we have researched and implemented above are basically
meaningless. Therefore we wanted to key in a lot on the incentives to change. Some
recommendations to the University of Kansas in order to look towards achieving sustainable,
alternative transportation start with providing these incentives to those willing to change and
hope for a chain reaction through out the community, but also supplying those unwilling to come
aboard sustainable practices with disincentives. KU could grant the Zipcar program funds or
look to use state grants and donation money in order to move forward. If there was a bigger push
for the Zipcar program it wouldn’t be long before KU would be a national leader among other
31
colleges and universities. Our campus society would be hailed for intense practice in sustainable
transportation systems. There could be a University and city funding for nice bike and walking
paths to create easier commute to, from and around campus. Maybe parking permits can be
cheaper to those who choose to belong to a biking organization. The one major recommendation
for our University is to provide the student and faculty groups who are actively attempting to
help with solving environmental sustainability problems at KU with more accountability,
freedoms, and suitable funding when needed.
32
Sources
AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report. Last updated 21 April 2010. AAA. Last viewed 20 April
2010. < http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/ >
Ambler Student Recreation and Fitness Center: Outdoor Pursuits. University of Kansas. Last
viewed online 2 May 2010. <http://www.recreation.ku.edu/programs/outdoor_pursuits/>
"Americans Say Apple Pie Is Still #1; Survey by American Pie Council." Web.
<http://www.thefreelibrary.com>
"Average High/Low Temperatures for KTOP : Weather Underground." Welcome to Weather
Underground : Weather Underground. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KTOP&Sa
feCityName=Lawrence&StateCode=KS&Units=none&IATA=TOP&MR=1>
Baby Champ. Original Scraper Bikes. Web. <http://originalscraperbikes.blogspot.com/>.
" Bicycle Production, Ownership & Use."
<http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/cycles_stats.html>.
" Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign." League of American Bicyclists. Web.
<http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/bfc_l
awrence.php>.)
CAP: Climate Action Plan Presentation. The University of Kansas. (2009).
<http://www.sustainability.ku.edu/CAP-KU/ >
Campus Vehicle Fleet Inventory Spreadsheet. University of Kansas. 2010.
“College Search”. CollegeBoard. Last viewed 20 April 2010.
<http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/adv_typeofschool.jsp>
33
The College Sustainability Report Card 2010. Results: University of Kansas. Las viewed online
1 May 2010. <http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2010/>
"Concert Ends Bicycle Week." The University Daily Kansan [Lawrence, KS] 15 Oct. 1971: 5.
Print.
Dubner, Stephen J. "Who Will Climb the Piano Stairs?" NYTimes.com. Web.
<http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/who-will-climb-the-piano-stairs/>.
Fewer Voters Identify as Republicans. Rep. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2008. Print.
Foster, Josh. University of Kansas. Center for Sustainability. Email correspondence. 25 March
– 28 April, 2010.
“Frequently Asked Questions”. ZipCar. Last updated January 2009. Last Viewed 15 April
2010. <http://www.zipcar.com/cities?return_url=%2fhow%2ffaqs%2f>
Kent, Claire. University of North Carolina. ZipCar Program Coordinator. Telephone Interview.
15 March 2010.
KU on Wheels. University of Kansas, n.d Wed. 3 May 2010.
<http://kuonwheels.ku.edu/~kuwheels/k/vehicle_fleet.shtml>
“League of American Bicyclists * Facts & Figures." League of American Bicyclists * Home.
Web. <http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#why_ride>.
MA Dept. of Public Health, comp. "Building Walkable, Bikeable Communities." A Resource
Guide for Influencing Local Policy for Active Community Environments (2009). Web.
27 Apr. 2010. <http://http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/mass_in_motion/
community_walk_bike.pdf>.
Merkel-Hess, Matt. "Police Intervene in Bike Ride." The University Daily Kansan [Lawrence,
KS] 22 Sept. 2000: 1a. Print.
34
Mount Oread Club Newsletter (11 Nov. 1971). Print.
Mount Oread Cycling Club Newsletter (1964). Print.
McDaniel, Kent. Indiana University. Transportation Services. Telephone Interview. 5 April
2010.
Newcomer, Maggie. "Cyclists Get Thrills from Bikes, Brews." The University Daily Kansan
[Lawrence, KS] 08 Sept. 2003: 1a. Print.
"Octoginta Activities Attract Bikers." The University Daily Kansan [Lawrence, KS] 18 Sept.
1978: 6. Print.
Oread Bicycle Club Constitution. Lawrence, KS, 1890. Print.
“Parking Regulations.” University of Kansas, Department of Parking and Transportation. Last
Viewed 18 April 2010. <http://parking.ku.edu/regs10.shtml#fee>
"Piano Staircase." The Fun Theory. Volkswagen. Web. <http://www.thefuntheory.com/piano-
staircase>.
Severin, Jeff. University of Kansas. Center for Sustainability. Personal Interview. 3 March
2010.
Sustainable Transportation Survey. Center for Sustainability, University of Kansas (Spring
2010).
Toor, Will, and Spenser W. Havlick . Transportation and sustainable campus communities:
Issues, examples, solutions. Washington DC: Island Press, 2004. Print.
"UCF Campus Bike Paths." Environmental Management System. Web. 08 May 2010.
"University of Kansas' First Basketball Game." Kansas Historical Society. Web.
<http://www.kshs.org/portraits/university_of_kansas_first_game.htm>.
35
"U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics." The Humane Society of the United States. Web.
<http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics
.html>.
West, Kenny. Towson University. Administration and Finance. Telephone Interview. 9 April
2010.
Winston, Grant. University of Michigan. Parking and Transportation Services. Telephone
Interview. 12 April 2010.
Your Driving Costs 2009 Edition. AAA. Last Viewed 28 April 2010.
< http://www.aaaexchange.com/Main/ >
Zezima, Katie. “With Free Bikes, Challenging Car Culture on Campus.” The New York Times.
Published online 19 October 2008. Last viewed 4 May 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/education/20bikes.html>
Special Thanks
DeVries, Margretta. University of Kansas. Transit Commission, Secretary.
Meier, Derek. University of Kansas. KU on Wheels, Director.
Platt, Brian. University of Kansas. Environmental Studies Teaching Assistant.
Rausch, Lisa. University of Kansas. Environmental Studies Teaching Assistant.
36
.