Learning Resources

Abstract: Security is personal. It's not a one size fits all solution. Understand the resources available and explore a roadmap to planning security guidelines and a security operations center for your campus. This session provides a framework you can use to develop, implement, and evaluate a security plan. We'll also discuss the role a security operations center plays in campus security and how you can ensure your campus's physical security infrastructure is adequate.

Abstract: FLEXSpace—The Flexible Learning Environments eXchange—and the Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) are tools that can help you plan, design, assess, and improve learning spaces on your campus. In this session, you will learn about the newly released FLEXspace 2.0 along with the LSRS. We'll cover the features and benefits of both tools and how they can be incorporated into the planning process. Come learn how to use these tools to inform designs and support end users from planning through post occupancy.

Abstract: On-campus living has been linked to student success and is a key factor in admissions decisions. As campuses look to expand and improve their housing inventories in a challenging fiscal environment, there are more options than ever available. One institution will share its recent experiences with several of these options. The University of Massachusetts (UMass) Lowell has more than doubled its on-campus housing inventory in the past five years using a combination of P3, real estate acquisitions, and conventional construction. This session will compare the relative benefits and particular challenges in utilizing these types of housing delivery methods. Come learn from campus facilities planning and student affairs officials, who will address the pros and cons of different delivery methods (P3, purchase/renovation, and conventional construction) from the perspective of up-front costs, operating and maintenance factors, student experience, and functionality.

Abstract: Universities need to plan for rapid change physically, fiscally, and curricularly. In this session, we will explore the Campus 2050 survey results and share how 10 institutions are planning and adapting their campuses and built environment for economic, social, and operational changes over the next 30 years. You will learn strategies for mobilizing campus planning efforts at a faster pace and how to initiate, replicate, and improve upon current future-proofing strategies.

Abstract: There is no shortage of hype and technobabble around the promise of shiny new technology trends and their prospect for disrupting the universe as we know it. Twenty-five years ago, the World Wide Web and the underlying Internet did, indeed, change everything. Today the promise of AI, ML, IoT, XR, NGNs and the latest alphabet soup of tech trends promises to impact the campus in all its facets. This session will provide context, insights, and some prognostication on how the campus planning community should embrace its technology future through a ‘trust but verify’ lens.

Abstract: College campuses provide an ideal setting to promote walking. This article reviews best practices for campus pedestrian planning, identifying how campuses have sought to increase pedestrian travel, reduce parking demand, and improve physical activity among students, staff, and faculty. Through case studies of 18 North American universities, we analyze common practices and innovative strategies. We find that while campuses tend to avoid siloed pedestrian planning efforts, there are a range of innovative design, marketing, and analysis strategies being put into place as part of wider campus master planning efforts and programs to support alternatives to the private car. When it comes to innovative treatments, such as shared streets, roundabouts, and pedestrianization schemes, campus projects can provide leadership for the wider community as well.

Abstract: Efforts to create a more sustainable campus need to address issues of transportation. While greater bike use provides environmental, economic, and social benefits, it still represents a small fraction of campus transportation. One way to increase the number of bike riders is through a bike-share system. This article reports on the potential demand for a bike-share system at Kent State University, a fairly large public university (28,000 students) in northeast Ohio. Like at many universities, Kent State students are not likely to use bikes for commuting purposes. Yet our survey indicates that while there is demand, there are also several impediments. An existing second-generation bike-share system has been very popular but has not quite addressed the issue of commuting. A new next-generation bike-share system—with station-to-station renting—may be just the program to promote the more practical use of bikes and help shift the dominant mode of transportation away from automobiles.

Abstract: U.S. transportation data suggest that the number of vehicle miles traveled has far surpassed new capacity, resulting in increased traffic congestion in many communities throughout the country. This article reports on traffic congestion around a university campus located within a small town. The mix of trip purposes varies considerably in this context, with the majority of trips related to student movement to and from classes. The university itself becomes a major traffic generator, but in a complex way. This article describes how congestion in a university setting differs from that in a nonuniversity setting; what components drive this congestion; how best to reduce this congestion while adhering to overall university planning objectives; and how to set a foundation for traffic management strategies that provide environmental, social, and economic benefit to the university and, importantly, to the surrounding community. The information presented here applies beyond the campus setting to any community that contains nontraditional traffic generators and shows why context does matter when analyzing and managing traffic.

Abstract: Universities and colleges across the country are faced with growth in the campus population and the loss of surface parking lots for new buildings. The response of many institutions is to build new garages with the assumption that parking demand ratios will remain the same. Such an approach, however, can be extremely expensive—upwards of $2,000 per net new space annually. In many cases, a mix of parking and demand reduction programs—such as shuttles, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and financial incentives not to drive—can accommodate growth at a lower cost per trip. A balanced approach will also tend to support other goals, from improving town-gown relations to maintaining debt capacity. Demand management strategies have been employed by institutions for many years. However, it is less common for a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken comparing them with new parking construction. Using examples from universities in California and Colorado, this article demonstrates a methodology to inform basic decisions on the amount of parking required to cater to campus growth, which can be incorporated into campus master planning.