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

.