Christina Hughes
Grant Parks
Sergio Jaramillo
Alex Wu
Executive Summary
Our group was tasked with enacting a pilot bike sharing program on Rice University campus with the intent
of gauging the student body’s receptiveness to such a program; in doing so, we examined the viability of a
campus wide program. We began the project by examining data compiled and discussed in a previous group’s
report. The results from the report were encouraging and affirmed our initial hypothesis: Rice was long overdue
for a bike-sharing program. After reviewing the previous research on the subject, we developed a plan for
implementation of the pilot program.
a.) Select one residential college at which to base the program
b.) Procure five bikes from RUPD’s impound, have RUPD’s in-house bike mechanic perform a cursory
diagnostic and paint the five bikes in outlandish colors
c.) Liaise with the Chief of RUPD, the liability coordinator and the college’s president to discuss the details
d.) Implement by the first of November
Our group accomplished all of the aforementioned goals expeditiously and the Will Rice-McMurty Bike Share
Program was implemented.
We created a program which made use of the available resources on campus, provides students with a
free alternative to cars, buses and walking, as well as providing students with an environmentally conscious
program. These factors, coupled with extensive advertising at Will Rice and McMurtry, garnered an unexpected
level of support for the program. Unfortunately, it proved to be more of a boon to students’ quality of life then
their desire to reduce carbon footprints, but nonetheless we consider the project to be a success. In a short
period of time, with limited resources, we created a viable bike share program which has the potential to be
implemented campus wide. Furthermore, we believe that this program has the potential to introduce students to
the positive aspects of bike ownership and riding. We envision a campus wide bike share program as a method
by which to coax students to eschew the use of fossil fuel burning transport for the environmentally friendly
alternative of bike ridership and ownership.
Introduction
Global warming is a worldwide problem that is affecting our climate conditions and resulting in an
increase in the global temperature. Global warming is caused in part by the emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases which build up in our atmosphere and result in the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse
effect occurs when radiation from the sun reflects from the surface of the Earth and is trapped by greenhouse
gases, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere (Energy Information Administration 2009a). The alarming
effects of global warming on our planet include increasing severity of storms, rising global sea levels, and the
melting of polar ice caps (Energy Information Administration 2009b). The rising sea level is particularly
alarming because as the sea rises, many locations where humans live will be flooded and made inhabitable.
Many cities, such as Houston and New Orleans are already under the sea level, and any drastic change will
place these locations at great risk. The main source of these carbon dioxide emissions comes from burning
fossil fuels for electricity generation, transportation, and industry. Global carbon dioxide emissions rose from
23,497.3 million tons in 2000 to 28,962.4 millions tons in 2007 (International Energy Agency 2009a). The
problem of global carbon emissions is only getting bigger with projected global carbon dioxide emissions of
42,325 million metric tons in the year 2030 (Energy Information Administration 2008).
Road transportation is a major contributor to these carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for 15.9% of
global emissions (International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 2007). This is a major concern
because the number of vehicles worldwide has been increasing by about 16 million each year since 1970
(World Resource Institute 1999). Americans are responsible for a large portion of the global warming problem,
accounting for 5,769.3 million tons of carbon dioxide out of the global 28,962.4 million tons in 2007
(International Energy Agency 2009a). Most people in the United States drive their automobiles and trucks
throughout the day. This is an issue because according to the EPA (2009a), transportation accounted for 29% of
total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 and close to two thirds of these emissions come directly from
automobiles and trucks (EPA 2009b). The number of vehicles in America has grown, from 225.8 million
registered vehicles in 2000 to over 254.4 million in 2007 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2007). The
increase of vehicles on the road also leads to the issue of oil supply. Oil is a nonrenewable resource that we rely
on to fuel our cars. However, as the number of vehicles continues to increase, the rate at which oil is used up
also increases. Oil demand has increased and is projected to continue doing so, “rising from around 85 million
barrels per day in 2008 to 105 mb/d in 2030, an increase of around 24%” (International Energy Agency 2009b).
This increase in demand for oil drives the oil prices up. From 1947 to 1973, the monthly average price of oil
was about $20 in June 2009 dollars, and in June 2008, the price of oil had gone all the way up to $124.52 in
June 2009 dollars (InflationData 2009). As oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, it will be harder on the
nations of the world to depend on oil as the primary fuel of cars.
Oil is a big part of business in the city of Houston, Texas, which is home to many oil refineries. Houston
is also home to Rice University, as well as home to one of the nation’s most congested traffic systems. Traffic
congestion results in commuters spending more time in their cars waiting, and this extra time means fuel is
wasted and more carbon dioxide being emitted. In 2007, Houston was found to be ranked 9th in the nation for
travel delay, excess fuel consumed, and congestion cost (Texas Transportation Institute 2007). Houston is a city
with a heavy reliance on the automobile. In 2006, the Houston-Sugarland-Baytown metropolitan area had a
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita value of 5,721, had a total VMT value of 31,508.6 million, and was
ranked 5th in the nation for total vehicle miles traveled (Puentes and Tomer 2008). In a city where public
transportation is usually an afterthought, Houstonians are often forced to rely on personal vehicles. At Rice
University, the alternative form of transportation is a shuttle system provided by the university, which, in theory,
should provide students with a convenient schedule. In practice however, the system has clogged the inner loop
and provides students with an erratic schedule, as well as engine exhaust and traffic. Furthermore, an infrequent
schedule curtails students’ ability to make routine shopping trips to places such as Target. As a result, students
tend to rely on their personal vehicle, which is evidenced by the fact that out of an undergraduate student body
of over 3000, “1,300 undergrads are registered to park on campus at this time” (Morgan 2009). The increase in
personal vehicle use has led to an increase in parking lots on campus. These unsightly parking lots have taken
up a considerable amount of space especially in the western part of campus where the Greenbriar visitors’ lot is
located.
The use of bikes as a mode of transportation would be an eco-friendly alternative that could potentially
lower carbon emissions. There exists a myriad of successful bike share programs across universities in the
United States and Canada. There are several different kinds of bike share programs that have been used. The
anarchic program involves refurbishing recycled bikes for use by any of the students on campus1 (Davila,
Jackson, Kim, Ricondo 2008). The co-op bike loan program entails loaning bikes to a certain group of people
who may pay fees to keep the upkeep the program 2(Davila, Jackson, Kim, Ricondo 2008). The non-automated
hub program involves checking out bikes from an attendant 3(Davila, Jackson, Kim, Ricondo 2008). The
automated hub program involves using an ID to check out a bike from an automatic bike rack 4(Davila, Jackson,
Kim, Ricondo 2008). As recommended by the previous year’s bike project group, the best way for a bike
program to be established at Rice would be to start with a pilot program at the residential colleges (Davila,
1
This type of program been implemented at Hampshire College, University of Calgary, Davidson College, University of British
Columbia
2
This type of program has been implemented at Middlebury College, University of Alberta, University of Ottawa, University of
Toronto at Mississauga, University of Wyoming, and University of Toronto Scarborough
3
This type of program has been implemented at Emory University, Duke University, McGill University, University of Waterloo, Ohio
State University, Rhodes College, Saint Michael’s College, University of Kentucky, University of Washington, and the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill
4
This type of program has been used at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Jackson, Kim, Ricondo 2008). The present bike situation on campus at Rice is that there are too many bikes and
not enough bike racks. After review of the data, we feel that Rice’s community would benefit greatly from a
bike sharing network; now is the time to implement a residential college bike-share program. We hope that it
will serve as a model that, in the future could be built upon, which will help improve students’ quality of life, as
well as impact students’ overreliance on the campus shuttle and personal vehicle.
Methods and Procedure
We sought to create a working bike-share program that could be enacted with little to no overhead or
initial capital. Furthermore, we sought to enact a program that reduced the need to procure additional resources.
Not only would a low-cost version of the project appeal to university administrators and other staff we would be
working with, but also, we saw it as an environmentally friendly alternative to purchasing a set of new, off-theshelf bikes. Besides implementing a pilot program, we sought to measure its effectiveness as well as its real
environmental impact, excluding the factor of convenience.
Thus we turned our attention to the sizeable collection of bikes that the Rice University Police
Department had impounded. The group determined that procuring used, but refurbished, bikes from RUPD was
aligned with our concept of a low-cost bike sharing program. Ideally, obtaining and performing a safety
diagnostic of the bikes would be at no cost to us. Furthermore identifying an on-campus source for the bikes
allowed us to incorporate a sense of sustainability in our project; that is, we were making full use of the
resources presented to us by the university as well as contributing the university’s suitability commitment.
Access to RUPD’s repository of bikes allowed us to meld our priorities of sustainability (and by extension,
environmentally friendly development) and financial viability. After a discussion with Captain Hassell of
RUPD, our bike liaison within the police department, we were able to establish an agreement which gave us
unfettered use of bikes obtained from the department. We were also provided with our own bike rack to secure
the bikes. Our first meeting was fruitful and yielded a number of positive developments:

First and foremost, we received CAPT Hassell’s approval as well his encouragement and
enthusiasm for project; however he did caveat the latter by informing us of a previous bike-share
venture that had failed

Secondly, CAPT Hassell was willing to provide us with safety related accessories for the
bicycles; sold by RUPD at cost to them, we were provided with 5 Bell helmets to be used by
participants in the program. Using this safety equipment, we were able to address the liability
issues.
CAPT Hassell also briefed us on RUPD bike regulations and how certain steps had to be taken by our group in
order to ensure that we were in full compliance:

All participants would be required to have a working knowledge of the Bike Policy; this issue
was solved by providing a printed copy of the Bike Policy to all participants in the program.

Secondly, all bikes would be required to display the RUPD bike registration decal
We felt encouraged by CAPT Hassell’s assistance as well as his enthusiasm for the project. Following our
meeting, we set up an appointment to consult with Renee Block, the university’s liability coordinator. She was
our point of contact regarding the liability disclaimer that the group had presumed we would be required to
present to all riders. After thoroughly discussing all the aspects of our proposed project, we received her consent
and began to do the leg work involved in enacting the program; meanwhile, Ms. Block created a liability
disclaimer for our use, which was provided to the project participants before using the bikes.
Next, we created a survey to measure the effectiveness of the program, and allow us to determine its
positive environmental impact. For this we used the survey collection tool provided by
www.surveymonkey.com . We sent out an email message politely requesting program participants to fill out the
survey; all questions within the survey were made mandatory to ensure a response for all questions. Within the
survey, we asked questions to determine if students were using the bikes to forgo walking (convenience) or as
an alternative to driving (environmental impact). Furthermore, we also intended to determine if students were
willing to not buy their own bikes or not bring their cars to campus if the bike sharing program was expanded to
provide full service to all of Rice University Students. Once all the results were collected, survey monkey
allows one to analyze the data for free using its own built in data analyzer. We compiled the responses to the
survey to get an idea of the effectiveness of the program, the feasibility of an expansion, as well as the
environmental impact of the program.
Finally, our project was implemented on Friday, November 6th 2009.
Survey Results and Analysis
Our results were measured via two surveys. The first survey (before-survey) was provided by the college
coordinator at Will Rice/McMurtry for students who were checking out a bike to fill out prior to use of the bike.
(see Appendix B.) This survey was designed to be very brief and consisted of four multiple choice questions
about ownership of a car or bike on or off campus, what this service was being used in lieu of (taking the shuttle,
walking, etc.), and planned destination(s). In addition the survey recorded the name, date, and contact
information of the student and required them to sign their consent to be contacted later with a second more indepth evaluation survey.
The second survey (after-survey) was created online in two parts using the website SurveyMonkey.com
and was sent to students who had already checked out and returned a bike. (see Appendix C.) This survey
consisted of both multiple choice and short-answer questions and was designed to evaluate the program in terms
of environmental benefits (distance travelled, choosing this program over bringing a personal car or bike to
campus, etc.) and convenience/enjoyment. We also asked students to give their opinions about a larger scale
program in order to gauge the feasibility and recognize potential obstacles to future implementation.
Besides the two surveys, we also had a “Check In/Check Out” sheet where students recorded the date,
time, bike number, and condition of the upon checking out a bike and then again upon checking it back in. Also
recorded were the students names and netIDs incase they needed to be contacted about returning a bike. From
this information we were able to evaluate whether or not there was a trend in number of bikes checked out per
day that could potentially correspond to popularity of the program.
The following graphs represent the data collected from both surveys:
The following tables contain direct quotations from the after-surveys:
Strengths of the Program
# of times
mentioned
“The fact that the students can rent bikes to do different activities is itself the programs
main strength. I myself used the bike to go to Target, which was about 1.5 miles south
of campus. I know a few people who have used the bikes to go to Academy and Taco
Bell and other places. These bikes allow students to become mobile on their own and
not rely on cars to go places.”
1
“You can check out a bike for free.”
“I like that there is a fixed maximum time for which you rent the bike (24hours). This
way, bikes can be rotated amongst college members.”
“Convenience.”
“It allows students another means of transportation for on- or off-campus travel.”
2
1
4
1
Weaknesses of the Program
Solutions
“Limited hours.”
Possibility of a semester-long rental period in the future.
(Would require more bikes though).
A larger scale program would require more bikes which
would make it easier to get bikes of more variety.
“Need more variety of bikes (dirt for trails,
low/high resistance, etc.).”
“Not that many bikes”
Expansion of program would require increasing the
number of bikes in use.
Bikes in the future would be chosen from RUPD by
“Bikes’ quality is low.”
college members to ensure quality. Also the bikes would
be inspected and fixed by a paid employee of Bicycle
World rather than an RUPD officer who is just doing it in
his spare time.
In the future there will be no need to fill out before“Inconvenient check-out process. If a
student is in a hurry, they have to go through surveys since we will not be measuring anything.
the entire sign out process before being given However the sign in/out process will have to continue
until a better method (automated hub perhaps) is
a key. Also, I don't know what students do to
instituted in order to keep track of the bikes.
check out a bike on weekends or after the
College Coordinator's work hours.”
“The bikes were too small for me
The bikes were broken down. I had to fix
both the handle bars and the seat post.”
Additional response: “No weaknesses”.
More variety of bikes could include more bikes of
different sizes. Also if Rice were to engage in a retainer
with Bicycle World, a bike maintenance expert would
come to campus often to check up on the bikes and make
repairs.
Biggest Obstacles to this Program Being Solutions
Implemented on a Wider Scale
“The biggest obstacle to this program on a
wider scale could be the misuse of the bikes
and irresponsible handling of the bikes.”
“Complication on larger scale, hours of
operation.”
“Off-campus safety (theft, assault, rules of the
road, etc.)…”
“Awareness.”
“Costs of bike maintenance.”
“The process of signing out a bike becomes
more difficult, and also ensuring the bike's
return at an appropriate time.”
College owned program – college pride and
sense of ownership of bikes
Colleges have personal responsibility for bikes and have
incentive to take care of them and use them properly.
More bikes would facilitate more use. Also, there is the
potential of creating an automated-hub system in the future
where the bikes are checked out via ID card so bikes can be
checked out and returned 24/7 rather than just during the
college coordinators’ office hours.
“…Perhaps a (short) education component to the program
could address safe biking practices. Could be in the form of
a presentation that must be attended previous to renting or a
comprehensive flyer...”
Perhaps a bike sharing info session during O-Week to
explain the process and rules.
If implemented at the college level everywhere, bike share
program could be introduced during O-Week. Also seeing
painted bikes around campus would increase awareness.
There is the potential of creating an automated-hub system
in the future where the bikes are checked out via ID card so
bikes can be checked out and returned 24/7 rather than just
during the college coordinators’ office hours.
Analysis
In total, 30 people were recorded as having checked out bikes during our trial period (November 6 to
November 25). 25 people filled out the before-survey, 10 responded to part 1 of the after-survey, and only 7
responded to part 2.
The number of bikes checked out per day was recorded from information gathered from the Check
In/Check Out sheet (see Appendix A). We were hoping to see a positive trend in the number of check outs per
day as people became more aware of the program. Our data, however, actually shows a decline in the number of
check outs toward the end of our trial period. We attribute this primarily to fact that our trial period ended right
before the Thanksgiving holiday so there were many end of the year exams and projects due that week and
students were probably more focused on schoolwork and preparing for the break. We were overall pleasantly
surprised by the number of students who used this program. Although the majority only used it once, about 10%
of the people who checked out bikes checked them out three or more times which shows us that there were a
number of people who enjoyed this program enough to use it multiple times.
Since this program’s primary focus was to offer an alternate form of transportation for students, we were
interested to find out how many of the students using our service owned their own bike or car. Although we
found that the majority of students owned neither a car nor a bike on campus, we are hoping that in the future
this program would discourage students from bringing their own cars and bikes to campus and hopefully reduce
the amount of bike waste (broken down and abandoned bikes), overcrowding of bike racks, need for more
parking lot space, and amount of CO₂ emitted by Rice students.
Although 100% of respondents recorded having travelled less than a total of five miles during the period
of their bike loan, a significant number recorded having taken the bikes to various off-campus destinations that
are often travelled to by car or shuttle bus (for example: Target, Old Spanish Trail, someone’s home, etc.) The
fact that a majority of students travelled off campus with the bikes displays the usefulness of the bikes in
facilitating mobility and offering an alternate, zero-emissions means of transportation. This was further
emphasized by the number responses that recorded intending to use one of our bikes instead of a private vehicle
or the shuttle system. In addition, the people who responded that they would have forgone going to their desired
destination at all if it weren’t for the bike service allows us to safely assume increased mobility was a desirable
outcome of our project.
The majority of students, however, considered convenience and quick access to their destinations to be
the primary benefits of the program. We were not surprised by these results since we had originally tried to
make the program as convenient as possible for students at Will Rice/McMurtry since convenience is often a
driving factor in a student’s choice for transportation. In addition a number of students recognized that the
program was beneficial in offering an alternate form of transportation besides driving or riding in a carbonemitting vehicle. Although this is a relatively small percentage, it shows us that there are a number of students
who understand the environmental benefit of using bikes and would potentially continue to use them for that
reason. Our previous conclusion about increased mobility was also supported by the 13% of students who
responded that getting off campus was a primary benefit of the program.
Implication for Future Implementation
From an environmental standpoint, one of the main goals of our program was to offer an alternate means
of transportation for students other than carbon-emitting vehicles like cars and buses. As a long term goal for
the program, we hoped that it would eventually discourage students from bringing personal vehicles to campus.
From our survey we gathered that although the majority of students would still bring a car to campus in the
future, 40% responded that they would not. Currently at Rice there are about 1,300 undergrads are registered to
park on campus (Morgan, 2009). If 40% were to forgo bringing a car in the future, it would decrease the amount
of cars on campus by about 520, a number we can consider to be pretty significant. Also in the future we can
assume that as the program grows in size and popularity, the number of students who take advantage of it will
also grow. If we can create a “bike culture” on campus in the future it could ultimately cause an even more
significant decrease in the number of cars brought to campus than what we estimate now based on our results.
As far as facilitating a larger program on campus goes, we can look at some of our results from these surveys to
determine the feasibility of implementing such a program and factors to consider if such a program were to be
implemented.
The majority of people responded as to having heard about the program primarily from Joyce Courtois,
the Will Rice/McMurtry College Coordinator, although word-of-mouth among students at the college, flyers,
and announcements at the Will Rice Diet meetings proved helpful as well. In the future if this project were to be
implemented at additional colleges, more emphasis should be placed on advertisement of the program
throughout the college and not just through the college coordinator. More posters, flyers, and listserv emails
would help promote the program as well as maybe an informative meeting prior to the start of the program.
However, the fact that there was communication about the program through word-of-mouth shows a level of
excitement about and anticipation for the program that we can expect at other colleges as well.
In general students appeared to like the program, as it received an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 (5 being
the highest score possible) and an average rating of 4.4 out of 5 in terms of how it fulfilled students’
expectations. This was further emphasized in the fact that 100% of respondents would consider using the
program again and would support its implementation on a wider scale, despite some obstacles pointed out by
the respondents (see Table: “Biggest Problems to this Program Being Implemented on a Larger Scale”). We can
determine that our project was ultimately successful in creating a somewhat sustainable program of recycled
bike because students who responded to the survey unanimously asserted an interest in using the program again
in the future.
Recommendations
Our group was surprised by the pace at which students began to use our pilot program at Will Rice and
McMurtry. Furthermore, we gathered much more data than we had expected to. This unexpectedly large
quantity of data allowed us to reach conclusions with greater certainty. Nonetheless, when examining the
strength of our group’s program, the time allotted must be accounted for. We had one and a half months to
design and enact a bike sharing program, collect data, compile this data into a report and judge the success of
our pilot program. Thus time was our greatest motivator, but also greatly influenced the quality of our program.
More time would have provided an even larger pool of data from which to draw conclusions and assess trends.
Time also allows for adaptation; in our case, an increase in the number of bicycles available for use.
Furthermore, our response to issues ranging from a broken chain to lost keys would have been less pressured.
Issues such as these would have been given proper attention, rather than ignored by the group for the sake of
time. Aesthetics would be elevated in priority. The time allotted for painting the bikes was greatly truncated due
a slower than expected receipt of the bikes from RUPD. Most disappointingly, we were unable to invite Will
Rice and McMurtry students to help paint the bikes simply because time was not on our side. Nonetheless, it
must be noted that the end results gained from the pilot program exceeded expectations. Those delays that we
did experience were the result of less than expedient responses from college presidents and members of the Rice
staff with whom we were coordinating our efforts. In light of the considerable time constraint that accompanied
the project, our group contends that the aforementioned recommendations would serve only to strengthen an
already successful program.
Beyond recommendations for future projects of this nature, ample discussion must be reserved for the
continued implementation of the Will Rice and McMurtry Bike Share Program. We found that by maintaining
the bike share program as a college-specific program, it increased the popularity of the program and made it
more manageable. There is a collective feeling that the program is unique to one’s college and thus there is a
feeling of college pride associated with the program. In addition, in order to allow uninhibited access to the
bikes, the college coordinator mustn’t be the sole person with access to bike keys. A system involving swiping
student ID cards would be ideal, but costly. Finally, make it free; college students are drawn to all things free of
charge. More specifically, there are three areas which are vital to the continued success of the program and for
the success of a campus wide program. These are: personnel, budgeting and mechanics.
With regards to personnel, continued implementation cannot rely on the continued involvement of the
four members of our group. A campus wide program must involve residential college-level and Student
Association-level involvement. Much like the Eco-Rep program, there would be a member of the Student
Association who would act as the coordinator for a campus-wide program. Not only would this individual keep
the SA abreast of issues and events regarding a bike sharing program, but he or she would also be informed of
budgeting issues. In turn, a Bike-rep would act as the college-level coordinator. This individual would be aware
of any mechanical issues with the bikes or other minor issues such as missing parts. This information would
then be passed along to the SA-level bike program coordinator who would keep a tally of all major issues. As
with all student government positions, the incumbent would remain in the respective capacity for one academic
year. The SA-level bike program coordinator would be selected, or elected, by the Student Association’s bike
committee. The bike-rep would be a position open to all interested applicants. The final selectee could be
appointed by the college president. The system ensures that undue burden is not shouldered by one individual.
Budgeting would involve two pools of money. The college-level bike-rep would have purview over a
smaller pool of money. This could be used for smaller expenses such as the purchase of spray paint to cover a
scratch or give a bike a new paint job. This money would be part and parcel of the college’s budget. This money
would have to be requested at the respective colleges’ government meetings. The SA-level bike coordinator
would in turn have a budget allotted from which mechanic payments could be drawn, as well as more costly
items such as helmets and bike locks.
In order to ensure the continued safety of the bikes involved in the program, regular diagnostics as well
as ad-hoc repairs would be needed. Unfortunately, the RUPD’s in-house bike mechanic would not be available
due to other departmental commitments. However, Bicycle World, in Rice Village has voiced in an interest in
acting as the sole provider of mechanics for a bike-share program on campus, no matter the cost. Were a bikesharing program to be implemented campus-wide, Bicycle World would paid a monthly, deeply discounted
retainer. In turn, a mechanic would visit campus once a week to ensure that bikes are operating properly and
conduct repairs as needed. The SA-level bike coordinator would liaise with Bicycle World on this issue and
would provide the money for monthly retainer payments.
The most important factor for success, be it for the Will Rice-McMurtry Bike Share Program, or for a
campus-wide bike share program, is enthusiastic involvement. If there is a lukewarm response to the concept, or
if an individual shirks his or her duties, then the program will not survive.
Conclusion
We sought to discover a way in which we could expose students to the positives of bike ridership while
reducing their reliance on Rice University’s shuttle network and personal vehicles. Furthermore, we envisioned
a bike-sharing program, no matter how large or small, as an opportunity for students to go beyond the hedges.
While our group had visions of grandeur in the form of a gratis, campus-wide bike sharing program, we
understood the importance of focusing our efforts on a college-level pilot bike share program. From this first
step, we could assess the viability of a larger project.
We were astounded by the success of the Will Rice-McMurtry Bike Share Program which we created.
Not only were bikes being used, but students were using them to go beyond campus. A handful travelled as far
as the Target Superstore on Main Street. This receptiveness was an encouraging confirmation of our initial
hypothesis: Rice is ready for a bike share program and a program will receive a positive response amongst the
student body. We were confronted with many issues to be sure, nonetheless it is our group’s belief that Rice is
the perfect environment for a larger program.
The question of the environmental impact of the program, or an imagined larger one, proves to be more
elusive. Not only can we not confidently identify an amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide reduced because of
our program – although, given the scale of the program, it is undoubtedly a small number – but we cannot state
the reduction of cars as a result of a campus-wide bike share program. Through our analysis of the project, we
have found that a bike share program of any size acts as an improvement for students’ quality of life. However,
one must realize that a bike share program provides exposure to bike ridership for many who would never have
had the opportunity. Thus there is a real potential for such a program to, over time, convince one, or many, to
chose riding a bike over personal vehicle ownership. This may very well decrease the need for the dedication of
so much land on campus to parking lots.
While our Will Rice-McMurtry Bike Share Program may not have provided a measurable environmental
impact, we feel that it was an overwhelming success. Furthermore, we have reached the conclusion that Rice
University provides the ideal setting for a bike-share program; a program which would serve to greatly increase
the quality of life of Rice students and decrease their reliance and fossil fuel burning transportation.
Bibliography
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2007. “BTS| Table 1-11: Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and
Other Conveyances.” Retrieved November 27, 2009.
(http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html).
Energy Information Administration. 2008. “World Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1990, 2005, and
2030.” Retrieved November 26, 2009. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/cde.pdf).
Energy Information Administration. 2009a. “Greenhouse Gases- Energy Explained, Your Guide To
Understanding Energy.” Retrieved November 26, 2009.
(http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg).
Energy Information Administration. 2009b. “Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate- Energy Explained,
Your Guide to Understanding Energy.” Retrieved November 26, 2009.
(http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate).
EPA. 2009a. “Basic Information | Transportation and Climate | US EPA.” Retrieved November 26, 2009.
(http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/basicinfo.htm).
EPA. 2009b. “Carbon Dioxide- Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide| Climate ChanceGreenhouse Gas Emissions| US EPA.” Retrieved November 26, 2009.
(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html).
InflationData. 2009. “Inflation Adjusted Oil Price Chart.” Retrieved December 4, 2009.
(http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm)
International Energy Agency. 2009a. “IEA Statistics CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion
Sources Highlights 2009 Edition.” Retrieved November 26, 2009.
(http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf).
International Energy Agency. 2009b. “WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 Fact Sheet. Why is our current
energy pathway unsustainable?” Retrieved December 4, 2009.
(http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/fact_sheets_WEO_2009.pdf).
International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. 2007. “OICA>> Climate Change and CO2.”
Retrieved November 27, 2009. (http://oica.net/category/climate-change-and-co2/).
Personal communication with Michael Morgan through E-mail, December 3, 2009.
Puentes, Robert and Adie Tomer. 2008. “The Road… Less Traveled : An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled
Trends in the U.S.” Brookings. Retrieved November 27, 2009.
(http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1216_transportation_tomer_puentes/vehicle_miles_tr
aveled_report.pdf).
Texas Transportation Institute. 2007. “Table 2. What Congestion Means to Your Town, 2007 Urban Area
Totals.” Retrieved November 27, 2009.
(http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/national/table_2.pdf).
World Resources Institute. 1999. “The global commons: Proceed with caution: Growth in the global motor
fleet.” World Resources 1998-1999: Environmental change and human health. Retrieved November 27, 2009.
(http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8467).
OUT
Appendix A.
Name
Bike
#
net ID
Date
Time
IN
Condition Initial
Date
Time
Condition Initial
Appendix B.
Name
Student ID
Date
Time
Bike #
Email
Completion of the following brief survey is required before each use of this service.
Please check any and all that apply:
Do you own a car?
On campus
Off campus
No
Do you own a bike?
On campus
Off campus
No
You are using this service in lieu of:
Private vehicle
Own bike
Walking
Where are you planning to go on this bike?
Around campus
Medical Center
Other (Please specify)
Shuttle/metro
Not going at all
Surrounding Area (Rice Village)
I ___________________________________ hereby give consent to release the above contact
information to Bike Program coordinators and agree to participate in a follow-up
survey and possible interview* in relation to the Bike Program.
*details and links to an online survey will be emailed to participant following return of the bike
(signature)
Appendix C.
After-Survey Part 1:
< http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qcFIdrC59thkeRPbvoOLjQ_3d_3d>
After-Survey Part 2:
< http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qcFIdrC59thkeRPbvoOLjQ_3d_3d>
Appendix D.
Budgetary concern:
All bicycle helps and “U”-bolt locks were sold, at cost, by Rice University Police Department to the CSES by
way of an interdepartmental transfer
The bike rack was from the university Housing and Dining department.
$15.86 at the University Copy Center for posters advertising the program
$71.34 at G&G Model Store for spray paint
$139.15 at Bicycle World of West U for bike lights
$110.97 at The Home Depot for painting supplies
Our sincerest thanks to the teachers of the Environmental Issues course ENST 302 for guidance, the Rice
University Police Department for providing the bikes and accessories, Ms Renee Block of the liability office
and Will Rice and McMurtry Colleges for providing a testing ground for the pilot program.
We have neither given, nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.