 |
Green Campus Resources
|
|
|
|
EDITORS
Julie Barrett, Matt Macander
ADVISORS
Walter Simpson, Claude Welch
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
Julie Barrett, John Bates, Justin Brown, Christopher Bonanno, Michael Ford, Brian Gyoerkoe, Matthew Macander, Gregory Malizioso, Kristine Meyer, Timothy Murney, Amy Piehler, Brett Rajkumar, Debra Ressler, Marc Romanowski, Erica Sale, Jay Spano, Andrew Thompson, Nicolle Walsh, Jeffrey Washo, Holly Urrutia
Audit produced: 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
PREFACE
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIVERSITY
2. WASTES AND HAZARDS
|
 |
2A. Solid Waste
Operations (University Facilities Department)
Residence Halls (Residence Life)
Food Service (FSA)
|
|
|
2B. Hazardous Waste
Chemical Waste
Medical Waste
Radioactive Waste
Chlorofluorocarbons
Pesticides
|
3. RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
|
|
3A. Energy
|
|
|
3B. Food
Education and Menu Planning
Food Procurement
|
|
|
3C. Water
Consumption and Conservation Wastewater Treatment
Non-Point Source Pollution
|
|
|
3D. Campus Design and Growth
Landscaping and Naturalization: UB 2025
Planning Future Growth
|
|
|
3E. Transportation
|
4. EDUCATION AND ADMINISTRATION
|
|
4A. Campus Environmental Literacy
|
|
|
4B. Undergraduate Environmental Education
|
|
|
4C. Career Development
|
|
|
4D. Environmental Research Activities
|
|
|
4E. State Procurement Policies
|
|
|
4F. University Investment Policies
|
5. TAKING ACTION
|
|
5A. UB Environmental Task Force
|
REFERENCES
PUBLICATIONS
PREFACE
One of my greatest pleasures in my three-plus decades of teaching at UB came with the group whose work appears in the following pages.
The story of the audit began in early January 1995, when I was called by Julie Barrett, a graduating senior who had taken many active roles on campus. I had served as Ms. Barrett's first-year mentor four years earlier, when she entered UB through the Honors Program. Impressed by her energy and commitment fall 1991, I was even more impressed by her intelligence and concern January 1995. She asked if I would join with her, Walter Simpson (energy coordinator of the University) and several students who wanted to finish their UB requirements in Environmental Studies through reviving "Local Environmental Problems," a course not offered in several years. A special direction could be given, by focusing on UB's environmental programs. A text was even available, Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and Creating Strategies for Change, available through the National Wildlife Federation. But several steps had still to be taken. We had to find time and energy for this volunteer teaching atop our usual University responsibilities, register an appropriate number of able, motivated students in the class, develop a syllabus, and get through the semester!
The 20 men and women who labored on the audit were primarily graduating seniors, all of them majors in Environmental Studies (part of the interdisciplinary Social Sciences programs). For the majority, student life had been somewhat prolonged and a bit frustrating. They wanted to be actively involved in environmental matters, yet had found little opportunity in their crammed schedules of classes and work. They wanted to apply research skills, but enjoyed few opportunities in their "regular" courses. SSC 348 was a course some found initially frustrating, for it required a commitment to research and independence they had rarely enjoyed; but, in the end, all appreciated the result. What made "Local Environmental Problems" valuable for them was the delight of a finished product in the "real world" that might have beneficial impacts. What was closer to the students' concerns than their own campus? What could be a better laboratory for applying their learning?
To be certain, rough spots remain in this audit. The teams that worked on particular sections differed in their skills, fluency in writing, and ability to prepare appropriate recommendations. Walter Simpson and I read through at least three drafts of all sections, as well as advised the teams as they prepared their research. In addition to serving as student coordinator of the course, Julie Barrett spent scores of hours editing the report. She was, without question, the vital sparkplug in getting this audit initiated and completed. Matt Macander did the final polishing. Their contributions were extraordinary.
Proof of value comes in practice. The real test of the report will come in the use the University at Buffalo administration, faculty, staff and students make of its recommendations. I fervently hope--along with other campus environmentalists--that the Environmental Task Force and campus leaders build upon what a group of motivated undergraduates discovered spring 1995 through a vibrant, active process of research and published in this report.
Claude E. Welch, Jr., SUNY Distinguished Service Professor
Growing human population and escalating standards of living are increasing our species' impact on the earth's fragile ecosystems and limited resource base. Fundamental changes in society and the way we live are essential if we are to allow for a decent life for future generations. What are these changes? How will they come about? Who will initiate them?
Colleges and universities have special responsibilities to set an example, serve the public and provide leadership on critical issues. This responsibility applies to many areas of social concern, including environmental protection. Some would argue that colleges and universities have a special mission to respond to the environmental crisis and, in so doing, to educate for and show the way to the sustainable society.
Institutions of higher learning can contribute by developing programs of campus environmental stewardship or campus "greening." A movement to make campuses more environmentally responsible is taking shape and is evidenced by a number of events and developments. For example, in 1994, under the sponsorship of the Heinz Family Foundation, 450 faculty, students and administrative delegates from 22 countries and all 50 U.S. states met a Yale University for a Campus Earth Summit. Over 200 college and university presidents from over 40 countries have signed a declaration committing their institutions to academic programs and operational practices which promote environmental sustainability. A number of recent publications, including Ecodemia by Julia Keniry of the National Wildlife Federation and Earth in Mind by David Orr of Oberlin College, have provided needed intellectual roadmaps toward the green campus of the future. Campus environmental audits, often conducted by students, have started a number of colleges and universities down the path toward environmental stewardship and sustainability.
During the spring 1995 semester, students enrolled in SSC 348 conducted UB's first environmental audit. The course provided a unique, hands-on learning experience wherein the campus itself, as a set of physical systems and as a human community, became a learning lab. These elements produced a course praised by the students despite the heavy work load. The project itself, while research oriented, was intended from the start to "make a difference." It is the sincere hope of the students who conducted the audit that the University will learn from and act on it. The recommendations address both UB's academic programs and operational practices. While UB has a lead in campus greening over many campuses (given the work of its Environmental Task Force and energy conservation and recycling programs), this audit identifies many areas where significant environmental improvements are possible.
Walter Simpson, University Energy Officer
This document is intended to serve as a wake-up call for the University community. By exposing the impact of the University on the environment, the Campus Audit strives to reverse the pattern of reactive, fiscally based decisions that currently characterize University operations. This documents demonstrates that having integrity as an ecological citizen requires that decisions take account of the full social and ecological costs of our actions.
The work of the University at Buffalo has touched communities across the globe, from the development of public policy in third world nations to the beating of a single pacemaker-regulated heart. However, few aspects of the University address how research, teaching and operations here affect the ecological health of those communities. The Campus Environmental Audit attempt to both quantify and qualify those impacts. In doing so, it challenges the University to become an ecologically responsible citizen by minimizing its effects on ecological systems. It encourages the University to respond to the need for scientific research on ecological phenomena and solutions for living within ecological constraints. The document addresses the need for environmentally literate graduates to serve as leaders as the globe faces future environmental challenges. Finally, it empowers the Western New York community to hold the University accountable for both its impact on the local environment and its response to the need for teaching and research support. The Campus Environmental Audit will serve as the benchmark for University environmental initiatives as we enter the 21st century. Both environmental triumphs and crimes will be measured against the level of environmental responsibility exhibited today.
Julie Barrett, Editor
Back to Top 
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIVERSITY
The State University of New York at Buffalo is located in Erie County in western New York State. Buffalo is the second most populous city in New York State, with more than 1,000,000 people in the greater Buffalo metropolitan area. Located on the eastern end of Lake Erie at the mouth of the Niagara River, the region is rich in natural assets including the fresh water resources provided by Lake Erie, inexpensive hydropower fueled by Niagara Falls and rich agricultural land. Together with its strategic location on historic trade routes, these assets have contributed to the rich economic heritage of the Western New York area.
The University of Buffalo was incorporated as a private institution by an act of the New York State Legislature on May 11, 1846. Millard Fillmore was the first Chancellor of the University, a position which he held, while a Senator and the President of the United States, until 1874. In addition to the original medical school, the schools of Pharmacy, Law and Dental Medicine had been added by the late 1800s.
The University was located in the downtown Buffalo area until 106 acres of land on the northeastern limit of the City containing an Almshouse were purchased in 1909. This land was expanded to 178 acres in 1919, when undergraduate degrees in the arts and sciences were first authorized. The University had a relatively stable enrollment of 1,500 students until the end of World War II when the G.I. Bill and other economic factors caused a fourfold increase in enrollment.
In 1962, the University of Buffalo joined the State University of New York system as one of four major university centers. The merger also brought the announcement of a new $130 million (in 1960 dollars) North Campus four miles away in Amherst. The new campus was intended to serve the estimated 50,000 students expected by the year 1980 and transform UB into a "University of the 21st Century". Construction began in earnest in June of 1970 and the first class on the Amherst campus was held in O'Brian Hall on September 20, 1973.
Although the master plan and the enrollment estimate of the original planners has been scaled back, construction of the North Campus continues: as of October 1995 73 buildings have been completed, with a total construction cost of $650 million. The most recent buildings constructed include the Student Union, the Natural Sciences and Mathematics Complex and Fine Arts Center. Hundreds of millions of dollars have also been spent on renovation and construction on the South Campus, which is still utilized for several programs including the Schools of Medicine and Dentistry. See Appendix A for maps of both campuses.
Today, the State University of New York (SUNY) system, under the motto "To Learn - To Search - To Serve," operates 64 campuses and has been responsible for the education of over 1.4 million students. Established in 1948, SUNY is governed by a sixteen member Board of Trustees which appoints both the SUNY chancellor and administrative staff.
The State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) is the largest and most comprehensive of the four SUNY university centers. With an enrollment of nearly 25,000 students, including 8,532 at the graduate and post baccalaureate professional level, the Buffalo center offers 298 academic programs on two campuses. It is the only public research university in New York and New England to belong to the elite Association of American Universities and is the site of the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, the New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management, and the New York State Institute on Superconductivity. In addition, UB has been a leading force in the economic development of Western New York, generating over 14,000 jobs and $1 billion in economic activity annually.
Currently, President William Greiner is the primary administrative officer for the Buffalo center. He is assisted by Provost Thomas Headrick and Senior Vice President for University Services Robert Wagner. Provost Headrick directs the University in matters of public service, research efforts and academic programs such as the undergraduate program in Environmental Studies and the graduate program in Environmental Sciences. Senior Vice President Wagner oversees all aspects of University operations as well as student affairs. His responsibilities include the University Environmental Task Force, Energy Officer, Recycling Coordinator and the Office for Environmental Health and Safety. A copy of the University Organization Chart has been included in Appendix B.
There are numerous student organizations on campus including the Undergraduate Student Association, the Graduate Student Association, the Millard Fillmore Student Association and the Student Bar Association. These groups sponsor 150 student clubs including the UB Environmental Network, the Air and Waste Management Association Student Chapter, Student of Law for Animal Rights, the Outdoor Adventure Club and the Community Action Corps.
Back to Top
2. WASTES AND HAZARDS
2A. SOLID WASTE
Operations (University Facilities)
Dwindling forest reserves and growing demands for landfill space have drawn attention to paper use and solid waste recycling in recent years. Purchasing $150,000-$200,000 worth of paper annually, the University is a major consumer of virgin fiber paper stock. The University also produces nearly 3,000 tons of paper waste annually, not counting waste produced by food service. According to figures obtained from the City of Buffalo's Public Works Department, this amounts to approximately 8% of the entire waste stream of the municipal area of Buffalo.
Modern Landfill of Lewiston, NY has been contracted to remove all non-hazardous solid waste from University owned facilities. According to Gary Smith, President of Modern Landfill, the company presently recycles some of the recyclable wastes that enter the landfill, such as wood, cardboard, tires, and concrete. He noted that most of UB's solid waste is paper waste, with computer paper waste composing a significant portion. All of the solid waste generated by the University is landfilled by Modern at a charge of $52.50 per ton (to be renegotiated June 1996); none is composted or incinerated. At present, landfills that cannot comply with regulatory changes mandated by recent federal legislation have lowered their prices to take in as much solid waste as possible before being forced to close. According to Gary Smith, landfill prices are expected to rise to $60-65 per ton over the next five years. These increases will provide UB with additional recycling incentives as over 75% of its waste stream continues to rely on these landfill services.
The University's recycling program began on campus as a voluntary collection of paper and glass behind the Main Street campus dormitories. The program was reorganized by Walter Simpson and student volunteers with limited support from University Facilities in 1988. Named UB Recycles, the program existed until 1990 when it was incorporated into the University Facilities. An income reimbursable Recycling Account was established to receive money achieved through recycling and by 1991 cardboard was added to the list of recycled products.
In 1993, a full-time recycling coordinator, Matthew Deck, was hired to develop recycling efforts on both the Amherst and Main Street campuses. He reorganized the previously haphazard program, changing the waste stream cycle in many of the University's academic buildings. Recycling bins replaced office trash cans to divert the majority of office waste being generated. Communal trash bins were then placed in appropriate locations in the offices for garbage disposal. Deck also facilitated the organization of the University Building Conservation Contacts (BCC) Network. BCC is a group of 170 volunteers located in offices and departments throughout the University campuses who serve as liaisons between their areas and the UB environmental program. Volunteers toured their office with Deck to identify areas where environmental initiatives would be effective. Follow up support was provided by newsletters, meetings and further interviews. Due to the program's size and scope, it was recognized by the Campus Ecology program of the National Wildlife Federation as possibly the only one of its kind in the United States. Before his termination in 1995, Deck expanded the percentage of paper waste recycled in the University recycling program from 5% in 1993 to 23.7%.
The full-time recycling coordinator position was discontinued last academic year as a response to budgetary constraints. Grounds person Bill Ellsworth has assumed the recycling coordinator responsibilities part-time along with his other responsibilities and hopes to raise the amount of recycled materials to 50% of the University's waste stream. He is in the process of installing yellow 50-gallon containers throughout both campuses to capture recyclable beverage containers, with 44 of these planned by the end of 1995. Currently, these drums are being placed in buildings that have requested them. The units are purchased with the money earned from recycled paper and cardboard.
While paper and cardboard provide the bulk of the items recycled on campus, a variety of materials is now recycled: some metal, asphalt, concrete, car and truck tires, landscape debris, pallets, beverage containers, plastic, truck batteries, and CFCs have been added.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop a written University Facilities Department Recycling Policy that aims to increase reduction, reuse, and recycling and thereby reduce the amount of waste landfilled. Include target dates and quantities.
Recognize that an effective waste reduction and recycling program requires the attention of at least one full-time waste stream professional. Create a full-time Solid Waste Specialist position, to be funded by savings generated by recycling efforts.
Expand, support and publicize the BCC network as the University's environmental ambassadors.
Reduce
Work with the Computer Information and Technology Center (CIT) to move towards paperless offices.
Work with CIT to establish a University Electronic Bulletin Board to reduce the need for printed versions of campus publications as well as the large number of fliers being posted daily.
Restrict outside vendors to posting on the bulletin boards in the Commons. Ban these advertisers from classroom and hallway bulletin boards.
Work with the student associations to minimize the number of flyers being posted.
Replace old copiers with double-sided copiers to reduce paper use.
Enforce existing Campus Newspaper and Telephone Book policies.
Recycle
Aim to recycle 50% of waste stream materials by 2000 (saving a projected $75,000) and 75% of waste stream materials by 2005 (saving an additional $37,500).
Expand the existing recycling program to include metal and glass and incorporate all buildings of both campuses.
Create demand for recycled products by requiring the use of 100% recycled, unbleached fiber paper for all campus business. Restrict the use of virgin fiber paper.
Utilize the offices of key administrators such as the President, Provost, Vice Presidents and Deans to set an example of this new paper usage pattern.
Replace large wastebaskets in University offices with smaller bins and add more recycling bins.
Consider combining the recycling programs of the University Facilities Department, the Residence Halls, student government groups and FSA, in order to coordinate efforts, improve cost effectiveness, and reduce duplication of efforts.
Facilitate recycling with Recycling Kiosks that include disposal bins and informational boards.
Replace current paper stock in library copiers with 100% recycled fiber, unbleached fiber paper.
Replace current paper stock in University personal computer labs with 100% recycled fiber, unbleached paper. Have students who wish to use other paper bring their own or pay to use non-recycled paper, as in the Capen computer labs.
University Residence Halls
Solid waste from the residence halls is collected by the campus collection truck daily. This service is provided by the University Services Department at a charge of roughly $52 per ton based upon the square footage of the Residence Hall areas. Information on annual waste production is not available. However, over 150 tons of waste were collected during the closing weekend of the Spring 1994 semester. While this figure is not representative of typical waste production, it demonstrates the extent to which residence halls contribute to University waste production.
The University Residence Halls recycling program began in Spring 1992 as a pilot project involving one dorm on each campus. Having received widespread support from students, the program was expanded to incorporate the remaining residence halls the following fall. The program has continued to grow and last year approximately 121,000 pounds of recyclables were collected. On a weekly basis, there is an average collection of 450 pounds of newspaper, 1115 pounds of clear glass, 240 pounds of metal, and 110 pounds of plastic.
Currently, recyclable materials are collected in 700 "blue bins" located throughout the residence halls. Student volunteers are responsible for emptying the bins into outdoor collection bins. Later, the bins are picked up by CID Recycling of Lewiston, NY, at a charge of $49.45/ton (as of December 1995). This saves $2.50 per ton over what the University Facilities Department charges the dormitories for landfilling solid waste. In 199495, when the market for recyclables was much weaker, the total recycling cost was $4500. Associate Director of Residential Operations, Edward (Dewy) Bush, believes that the limited participation and high costs associated with the recycling program are a result of the program's dependence upon student volunteers. Mr. Bush also noted that the average bag of garbage from the dorms weighs seven to eight pounds. Of this, half is thought to be the waste from fast food, such as pizza boxes. A possible area of improved waste reduction is in the removal of such items for recycling prior to disposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop a written Residence Life Recycling Policy that aims to increase reduction, reuse, and recycling and thereby reduce the amount of waste landfilled. Include target dates and quantities.
Consider incorporating the Residence Hall Recycling Program into the University Recycling Program. This would allow for greater efficiency and reduce the University's overall landfill expenditures. To manage the increased waste stream of a unified program, a full-time Solid Waste Specialist would be an absolute necessity.
Host a Green Olympic competition between dormitories. Award a portion of the savings in disposal costs to the teams with the greatest reductions.
Reduce
Encourage the use of the University Cable Network's Community Bulletin for announcements as an alternative to massive flyer campaigns.
Minimize waste production in the Residence Hall offices. Work with the Computer Information and Technology Center (CIT) to develop paperless offices.
Ban commercial postings.
Recycle
Incorporate the collection of recyclable materials into the duties of residence hall custodial staff.
Label the large 55gallon trash bins used in Residence Halls for trash as paper, glass, food, and aluminum bins. Color code if necessary. Have a limited number of trash cans available.
Use 100% recycled fiber, unbleached paper for all Residence Hall publications.
Food Service (FSA)
The Faculty-Student Association (FSA) provides dining services to over 25,000 students, faculty, staff, and visitors on campus each day. This large operation generates a significant percentage of UB's solid waste. The composition of waste generated by FSA includes a high percentage of food packaging and disposable food containers, along with food waste.
FSA does not have a written recycling policy or any formal goals to reduce the amount of solid waste landfilled. However, they do recycle corrugated cardboard and steel cans. According to Doug Barry, the Food Service Director also in charge of implementing FSA's recycling program, FSA has reduced its solid waste by 40 percent since the beginning of the program in 1990. In 1994, 148 tons of corrugated cardboard were recycled . FSA receives $95 per ton of corrugated cardboard recycled. The money received from recycling is used to pay the driver's salaries and to continue and expand the recycling program. Recyclables are separated at the source. FSA employs a large number of students and relies on the students and food service staff to participate in recycling.
Barry is currently investigating the feasibility of recycling polystyrene with a company that uses a product called Stryo, a citrus based biodegradable solution which reduces Styrofoam products into a gellike cube which can then be recycled and made into products such as garbage cans. Barry indicated that the recycling of polystyrene is a distinct possibility; the main obstacle is finding a space to place a tractor trailer to house the material until it can be picked up for recycling . Initial costs for equipment to compact the polystyrene is also a consideration.
FSA does not compost any food waste. The feasibility of composting food and yard waste is under investigation. According to Matthew Deck the arguments against composting are economic, mainly labor costs and logistics. Both campuses are located in residential areas and if composting is not done properly it may produce an unpleasant odor. A pilot project is planned for as soon as 1996 under the direction of Bill Ellsworth. Food waste from one dining facility would be composted as a sample to determine how economically feasible a campus wide program would be. Currently food waste generated by the North campus is ground into a liquid form at the waste disposal site and then landfilled. On the South campus the food waste is ground up and disposed of through the Buffalo sewer system.
Reusable dinnerware is used at the large high volume dining centers. At the smaller cash operations disposable food containers are used because they are more feasible and there is a high demand for take out items. Paper food trays are recycled in the student club in the Ellicott complex. In addition, FSA offers reusable mugs for sale and gives discounts on beverages for those customers who use their own mugs; however the discount applies to only UB mugs and for other reusable mug the price is greater. The program is offered throughout both campuses, but receives very little promotion. UB mugs can be purchased at the bookstore but are not visibly for sale at the dining facilities.
FSA has also discontinued some products or pressured companies to change their packaging because it was not recyclable or difficult to recycle. For example, Picante sauce switched its packaging from a 10 pound can to a bag in a box. In this case, the box was recyclable but the bag was not. FSA successfully pressured the company to switch back to the 10 pound can.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop a written FSA Recycling Policy that aims to increase reduction, reuse, and recycling and thereby reduce the amount of waste landfilled. Include target dates and quantities.
Reduce the use of disposable foodware; offer reusable foodware at all locations.
Facilitate and encourage the use of all reusable mugs.
Work with Facilities and the Residence Halls to develop a campus composting program.
Purchase only 100% recycled napkins and urge students to take only as many napkins as they will need.
2B. HAZARDOUS WASTE
Chemical Waste
In 1994 UB generated 24 tons (184 55-gallon drums) of hazardous chemical waste. 77% of the total hazardous waste produced that year resulted from the Acheson chemistry building shutdown, in which there was a great deal of chemical waste to remediate. The cost of disposing of all the hazardous chemical waste was $60,653. 60% of the hazardous chemical waste is made up of lab packs which consist of reagent bottles and vials from laboratory experiments. This share of the total waste is handled by ENSCO, Inc., which transports it from Buffalo to Eldorado, Arkansas and incinerates it. 20% of the total hazardous chemical waste is non-chlorine flammable solvents. This waste is picked up by Northeast Chemical of Cleveland, Ohio, where it is blended into cement kiln fuel. The exhaust from this kiln is then scrubbed when it is released into the air to prevent the pollutants from escaping. However, this material still has to be landfilled. Finally, 20% of the hazardous chemical waste is made up of chlorine based solvents which Northeast Chemical incinerates at high temperature.
The Office of Environmental Health and Safety is responsible for the pick-up and disposal of hazardous chemical wastes from the producing departments on campus. These producing departments must follow stringent handling and packing policies mandated by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Transportation. These policies are monitored by the UB Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) in a publication titled "Chemical Waste Management Guide For Laboratory Personnel." Once the various departments package the hazardous waste, OEHS picks up the packaged waste and delivers it to Sherman Annex on the South Campus where it is held for no longer than 90 days. The 90 day limit is due to the fact that UB is licensed to generate hazardous chemicals, but is not licensed to store these chemicals. To dispose of these hazardous wastes, UB has a contract with BFI, Inc. to haul the waste to various sites to be either landfilled or incinerated.
The "Chemical Waste Management Guide" is very comprehensive and complete. It is a sound approach to dealing with an environmentally sensitive situation. The guide requires strict obedience to federal and state rules for the handling of the waste, including stringent safety measures to ensure proper packaging and disposal. Additionally, OEHS has an extensive employee health and safety education program to protect all personnel handling hazardous chemical waste. To reduce the amount of hazardous chemical waste produced on campus, the guide requests that generating departments adopt a variety of waste reduction techniques: for example, microscale technology in laboratory exercises and recovery of hazardous materials for reuse is proposed. The policies outlined in the guide been implemented in some instances, resulting in a net reduction in production of hazardous chemical wastes on campus.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Maintain pressure on all departments to further reduce the use of hazardous chemicals and find more ways to reuse and recycle hazardous materials.
Move Chemistry labs towards more microscale operations.
Improve training in proper disposal techniques for chemical waste in labs.
Reduce and eventually phase out plastic incineration, especially for PVC plastic.
Phase out use of chlorine and non-chlorine base solvents.
Medical / Infectious Waste
In 1994, the University at Buffalo produced 4,114 lbs. of medical waste. The University has a contract with BFI, Inc. to pick up and haul this waste to an incinerating facility. The cost of this disposal last year was about $2,470. The University has an extensive handling program with regards to medical/infectious waste disposal outlined in Appendix C, "Chapter 12: Medical (Infectious) Waste Disposal Regulated Waste." The policy is a well thought out policy with regard to the safe disposal of medical wastes produced by the UB facilities. However, there are several areas in which the volume of the medical waste being generated may be reduced.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reduce the use of unnecessary disposable medical materials; phase out these items when possible.
Separate and recycle non-infectious waste.
Encourage research on environmentally friendly medical procedures.
Radioactive Wastes
The radioactive wastes generated on campus are produced through biological, chemical, pharmaceutical, tissue and disease studies and fall into the following categories:
1. liquid
a. aqueous
b. organic
deregulated
short half-life [<90 days] (e.g. P32 , P33 )
long half-life [>90 days]
2. dry
a. short half-life [<90 days] (e.g. S35 , I125 , Cr, Mg203 )
b. long half-life [>90 days] (e.g. H3 [tritium] and C14 )
3. animal (frozen storage)
Aqueous waste accounted for 918 gallons in 1994. This type of waste can be diluted with water and released into the sanitary sewer. A computer monitors the isotope and the daily amount of water which is used on campus and determines the proper dilution factor.
Deregulated liquid organic waste contains less than 0.05 microcuries per gram of carbon 14 or tritium. The University produces one 30-gallon drum of this bulk liquid per month. There are also five vials of organic material which are incinerated by a private contractor. The organic vial waste has been decreasing due to disposal expense.
Short half-life liquid waste, consisting of phosphorous 32 and 33, is stored on campus and allowed to decay. One 30 gallon drum is produced about every six months. Long half-life liquid waste is only used by the biology department due to its expense. One 15-gallon drum is produced annually.
Dry short half-life wastes are collected in plastic bag lined cardboard boxes on site. The boxes are about three feet square. These materials are also stored on campus and regulated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). This form of waste is inspected once a week and once the required number of half-lives have expired, they are picked up by a contractor to be incinerated. The campus generates sixteen to twenty boxes a year.
Dry long half-life wastes are collected on site in yellow containers and crushed to compact for storage. These crushed containers are placed in 55-gallon drums and stored on campus in Parker Hall. All of these materials must be dry waste; it includes gloves and empty vials. Due to increasing cost, this type of waste has been decreasing over the past five years.
Radioactive animal wastes are placed in cardboard boxes and frozen to prevent decay of the carcasses. The isotopes used on larger animals (dogs and sheep) have radioactive half-lives of less than three hundred days. They are stored on campus in a freezer for 10 1/2 half-lives, at which time they are scheduled for incineration. The ash will then be stored at the University. There are approximately fifty boxes which contain about 100 pounds of animal waste.
The University holds a permit to incinerate its radioactive animal waste. The animal ash produced through incineration would still contain the radioactive isotopes. A test burn was conducted and was highly scrutinized by the public. To date the University does not anticipate having an active incineration program.
The University is licensed to handle radioactive wastes through the New York Department of Health under the code of regulation 10NYCRR16. The New York DEC regulates the air, ground and water under 6NYCRR380. Personnel in all phases of radioactive waste handling and storage have been trained in appropriate safety measures. To date, the University has not been cited for human, air, water, or ground exposure violations. However, there have been violations for administrative mistakes such as not having the proper papers filed on time. While these violations have not resulted in emergency situations, they remain important due to the nature of materials being handled.
Currently, there are eight 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste stored on campus. It is estimated that another 22 drums will be generated in the next five years. The handling and storage of these materials costs the University $15,000 annually. However, it is estimated that disposal costs will rise to $1,700 per drum by the year 2000 elevating the cost to over $50,000.
Radioactive materials may greatly enhance research efforts. However, the disposal costs and hazards associated with their use significantly undermine their value. The University must strive to minimize radioactive waste generation whenever possible for both economic and environmental benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Move towards microscale operations in all aspects of research.
Continue to move away from longer half-life isotopes in research; eventually phase them out.
Discontinue the use of animals in radioactive research.
Never incinerate radioactive wastes on campus.
Chlorofluorocarbons
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are organic compounds used in refrigeration equipment (e.g. refrigerators, water coolers, compressors). These compounds were widely utilized as coolants because of their efficiency and low reactivity. The low reactivity which makes these compounds useful as coolants also allows these chemicals to pass through the atmosphere and into the stratosphere, where the ozone layer exists. In the stratosphere the chlorine of the CFCs destroys ozone molecules.
When disposing of refrigeration equipment, the refrigerator shop reclaims the CFCs from each individual unit and then the Grounds Department disposes of the unit by recycling and or landfilling.
Currently, the University maintains sixteen large scale chilling units and several small scale cooling units. Two of the chillers use HCFC-123 and two more are scheduled to be retrofitted to HCF-123. HCF-123 releases less chlorine on decomposition and contain 2% of the ozone depleting potential. One chiller is scheduled to be retrofitted with HFC-134a, which is a non-ozone depleting refrigerant. The remaining chillers all use CFC-11, which is scheduled for a total production ban in 1996. These chillers are fitted with contaminant fixtures to prevent accidental venting during maintenance, and to allow for safe purging of non-refrigerant impurities. However, under the Clean Air Act regulations the University must not only contain but replace CFC refrigerants where possible.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop a schedule for the retrofit or replacement of all CFC units for eventual operation on HFCs and/or HCFCs.
Pesticides
Currently, the grounds are managed with an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, which combines scouting areas for trouble spots, improving cultural practices and applying pesticides on a limited basis. Pesticides are less important to management of the grounds than they once were; public concern, budgetary constraints and a desire to improve cultural practices have contributed to this trend. The University holds the necessary pesticide application permits, the current strategy for eliminating "weed" species on the playing fields involves the cultivation of a tight matrix of turf. To date, the University administration has not adopted an official pesticide, herbicide or chemical fertilizer program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt and implement the land use strategy presented in the Environmental Task Force "UB 2025" Proposal. This land use scheme would minimize the amount of land that would require intensive care on the Amherst campus.
Develop an organic strategy for dealing with those lands designated for intensive maintenance under the UB 2025 plan as well as the Main Street Campus lands. Avoid the use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to protect water quality.
Educate grounds personnel and campus community on the hazards associated with the use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
Effectively implement the (Environmental Task Force) Campus Wildlife Policy.
Back to Top
3. RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
3A. ENERGY
The University at Buffalo has been considered a leader in energy conservation among other colleges and universities, especially in the SUNY system. Its project log shows more than 300 energy saving projects, amounting to an annual savings of over $3.5 million. While this is definitely a good start, there is still much to do.
Energy production and consumption involve many environmental considerations. One major concern is air quality. When fossil fuels are combusted, emissions such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, SOx, NOx, and ground level ozone are generated. Some of these pollutants are greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming. Other emissions cause acid rain, which can alter soil pH, disrupt aquatic ecosystems and corrode buildings, statues and landmarks.
The fact that fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are non-renewable resources should be reason enough to be concerned about energy use and waste. Given the substantial environmental impacts associated with energy use, the value and urgency of energy efficiency and conservation should be obvious. Natural gas, which burns much cleaner than coal and oil, is a better fossil fuel alternative and the University should continue to switch to natural gas where fossil fuel use is deemed necessary.
Heating and cooling are two of the main energy uses at UB. The University's heating policy mandates that on weekdays, offices will be heated to 68°F from 8 AM to 5 PM and classrooms will be heated to this temperature from 8 AM to 10 PM. During other hours and on weekends and holidays, the temperature will be allowed to drop to 55°F before heating occurs. During the normal working day, all offices will be cooled to 76°F from 8 AM to 5PM; and all classrooms, libraries, and labs will be cooled to this temperature between 8 AM and 10 PM.
However, UB is a State organization and is supposed to conform to State regulations. The Governor's executive order 132 and budget Policy and Reporting Manual E-060, transmittal number 39 (September 28, 1990), has established mandatory energy conservation practices for State buildings. Among other things, it dictates that energy should not be used in buildings to heat above 68°F, nor cool below 78°F. Our cooling policy does not comply with the state's policy. UB should not cool to below 78°F because that is the state policy and would save energy and money. The savings potential is $50,000-$100,000 per year for each degree in change.
South Campus Energy Usage
Electricity usage on the South Campus was 39,240,000 kilowatt hours for the 1993-1994 academic year. That amounts to $3,306,521.25! The consumption rate of this campus has been steadily increasing over the last few years. This has been due to the addition of new buildings, especially the new medical facility.
Natural Gas(cubic ft.)
1990-91: 36900000
1991-92: 37008000
1992-93: 37116000
1993-94: 39240000
Electric (kwh)
1990-91: 75051
1991-92: 194153400
1992-93: 215278000
1993-94: 259092000
Natural Gas (cost)
1990-91: $287,303.44
1991-92: $675,392.25
1992-93: $823,619.75
1993-94: $995,691.13
Electric (cost)
1990-91: $2454494.00
1991-92: $2579653.75
1992-93: $3074921.50
1993-94: $3306521.25
Total Cost
1990-91: $2,741,797.44
1991-92: $3,255,046.00
1992-93: $3,898,541.25
1993-94: $4,302,212.38
UB's South Campus uses three main sources for its energy: electricity, natural gas, and coal. The South Campus also uses a small amount of oil for heating purposes. Heating during the winter months comes from the MacKay Power Plant. All major buildings on the South Campus are connected by a two and half mile underground network of steam pipes. The pipes go to all the academic buildings as well as the dormitories and provide heat during the winter months (October-April). Limited heating, especially domestic water heating, is done by localized gas heaters in each building during some of the warmer months.
MacKay heating facility 1993-1994 Combustion Control Report:
October
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 30,437,600
Oil: 0
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 76.8%
November
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 26,439,000
Oil: 1,356,839
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 68.3%
December
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 29,910,000
Oil: 1,930,463
Boiler (gallons): 965.23
Efficiency: 66.1%
January
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 39,990,000
Oil: 2,775,554
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 64.7%
February
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 28,657,600
Oil: 2,272,233
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 62.8%
March
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 28,505,000
Oil: 2,092,710
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 66.1%
April
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 24,770,400
Oil: 1,046,63
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 69.6%
May
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 24,102,640
Oil: 0
Boiler (gallons): 0.00
Efficiency: 75.7%
TOTAL
Gas Coal(lbs cu-ft): 232,81
Oil: 11,474,442
Boiler (gallons): 965.23
Efficiency: 2,240
The MacKay Power Plant has five boilers that run on coal, gas and oil. The oldest two boilers were built in 1931, and the newest one was installed in 1973. The plant has a capacity of 140,000 pounds of steam per hour (Simpson, 1994 p. 34). The plant is well maintained, but is well past its life expectancy. A cogeneration plant is planned to come on line some time in the next few years.
The MacKay plant burns approximately 7,000 tons of coal and 240,000,000 cubic feet of gas per year. Today' s coal usage is about half the amount that was used throughout the 1980s. Coal usage was decreased by burning more natural gas; this in turn has lowered the amount of pollution created by the MacKay plant, especially particulates, soot, S02, C02, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and CO. The boilers have an average efficiency of approximately 69%, which reflects positively on the plants operators, and is fairly good considering the overall age of the facility.
North Campus Energy Usage
The energy usage on the North Campus is derived almost entirely from electricity, with only a small fraction from natural gas. With forty fairly large buildings on this campus, almost all of them heated by electricity, the demand for energy is much higher than that of the South Campus. From office buildings to extensive lab buildings, the use of energy is phenomenal. The total energy cost for the North Campus is approximately $12.9 million per year. This figure has been increasing at a steady rate, due to the addition of new buildings to the campus and rising electric rates. During the 1990-91 billing year, the total cost was only $9.6 million.
Natural Gas(cubic ft.)
1990-91: 10,157,400
1991-92: 17,186,300
1992-93: 25,166,800
1993-94: 97,935,700
Electric (kwh)
1990-91: 150,480,000
1991-92: 157,140,000
1992-93: 164,622,656
1993-94: 177,909,184
Natural Gas (cost)
1990-91: $28,908.35
1991-92: $77,338.83
1992-93: $118,074.71
1993-94: $326,990.84
Electric (cost)
1990-91: $9,637,135.00
1991-92: $10,566,149.00
1992-93: $12,522,753.00
1993-94: $12,578,604.00
Total Cost
1990-91: $9,666,043.35
1991-92: $10,643,487.83
1992-93: $12,640,827.71
1993-94: $12,905,594.84
Due to the initial design of most North Campus buildings, heating for this campus is primarily supplied by electricity. The original designers short-sightedly envisioned a future of very cheap, limitless energy. Only in recent years has the University started to move away from electric heat. The only academic buildings heated by natural gas are the Fine Arts Center and the Natural Science and Mathematics Complex. All new buildings that will be built on this campus will be heated with natural gas.
The North Campus' Baker Chilled Water Plant supplies chilled water to every building, mainly for cooling and air conditioning purposes. During the winter, this water is also used to preheat ventilation air being drawn in by some buildings. A series of primary and secondary pumps supply the five mile chilled water loop, a three feet diameter piping network that extends all over campus. The chilled water loop can contain up to 1 million gallons. 14,000 tons of refrigeration capacity is made possible by two York chillers and four Trane chillers. The York chillers can each cool up to 6500 gallons of water per minute by 15°, the four smaller chillers, only 2500 gallons each. A ton of cooling capacity is equal to the amount of heat one ton of ice melting in 24 hours will absorb in one hour (12,000 BTUs per hour). This type of centralized cooling plant has advantages and disadvantages. At peak cooling periods the closed system can run at a much higher efficiency than individual cooling systems could. But if the demand for cooling is low, efficiency is lost in part due to the pumping requirements.
CES/Way Project
The CES/Way project was brought to the North Campus of UB with the help of the CES/Way engineering firm. It involves the implementation of numerous energy conservation measures (ECMs). If implemented completely, the potential savings are projected to be $2-3 million per year (Appendix D: CES/Way International, Summary of Recommended ECMs). The ECMs range from lighting efficiency improvements (all light fixtures will be retrofitted) and gas conversions, to heat recovery and variable speed motor control for fans and pumps. Many measures have already been implemented, such as the gas conversion of heating systems in Cooke-Hochstetter, Furnas, and the Governors dormitory and the installation of the new heat recovery system in Cooke-Hochstetter. Also, the retrofitting of all exterior lights to a high pressure sodium fixture, and the installation of variable speed drives and energy efficient motors on building air handling units were completed by January 1, 1995.
The old lamps and ballasts removed in the campus-wide retrofitting program will be recycled as part of the CES/Way project. However, at this time there are no plans for lamp and ballast recycling to become an integral part of routine maintenance.
The $17 million project will take approximately one more year to be completed and is thought to be the largest demand side management project of its type in the US. Niagara Mohawk, the University's electric utility, is providing $4.3 million in financing to make this project possible. The implementation of this project will have significant environmental benefits in addition to reducing the University's operating costs. Reductions in pollutants such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide will be realized. These reductions will help lessen the University's contribution to acid rain and the greenhouse effect.
Projects of this type are currently threatened at UB. Niagara Mohawk has recently proposed a new electricity rate for the University. The new rate proposal is a two tiered pricing structure with a starting electric rate and a low marginal electricity rate for all energy used above a given baseline. This could destroy future energy conservation projects because energy conservation is evaluated at the marginal rate. With a low marginal rate, payback times on energy conservation measures will be calculated to be much longer than with old electric rates. Thus, projects like CES/Way would not happen. It is our recommendation that the University reject such a pricing proposal because it undermines energy conservation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Negotiate energy contracts which provide appropriate incentives and mechanisms to encourage conservation and efficiency.
Evaluate energy projects on the basis of life cycle costs and benefits as opposed to simple, short term payback.
Identify worst case sources of energy waste (e.g. heat lost through laboratory exhaust vents), and develop projects to eliminate that waste.
Implement a dormitory wide energy conservation competition on the model of Yale University's "Green Cup."
Incorporate the recycling of lamps and ballasts into the University recycling program.
Heating
Enforce existing heating and cooling policies. Minimize fan and other equipment run time, consistent with actual use. These policies should not be compromised!
Construct a new cogeneration plant to replace the MacKay facility. A cogeneration plant would produce the steam needed for heating the South Campus along with electricity to power the South Campus during the heating months or all year round.
Continue converting North Campus heating systems to natural gas to replace inefficient and expensive electric heating.
Conduct a study to see how much buildings are overheated and overcooled.
Implement room or floor level thermostats in the Residence Halls.
Continue research on temperature sensing device usage for better temperature control.
Investigate opportunities for a North Campus Cogeneration plant.
Investigate the possibility of using passive and active solar energy on new buildings.
Super-insulate new buildings.
Other Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)
Maximize cost effective North Campus energy measures introduced by current CES/Way project.
Replace the existing South Campus lighting and heating controls and other energy wasting equipment with more energy efficient models. Utilize a CES/Way-type energy conservation project to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time.
Further implement the campus "green computing" program.
Retrofit lighting fixtures, replacing T-12 fluorescent lamps with more efficient T-8 lights and ballasts. This is a relatively low cost replacement that typically pays back the initial investment in only a couple of years.
3B. FOOD
Education And Menu Planning
Both menu decisions and vendor choices influence the environmental efforts of the campus food service provider, the Faculty Student Association. The environmental impact of eating low on the food chain, i.e., vegetables, grains, and legumes, is significantly smaller than eating high on the food chain, i.e. meats. Two factors in promoting this must be considered: education and convenience. Many students are not aware of the connection between meat consumption and environmental degradation. The amounts of water and grain used to raise cattle and poultry and the amounts of irreplaceable topsoil and forests lost to grazing are stupefying. For example, the production of one pound of beef requires one hundred times the amount of water required in the production of a pound of grain. In addition, eating low on the food chain limits the amount of toxins consumed through biological magnification of pesticides, and encourages the consumption of the vegetables and grains that are believed to reduce the risk of several illnesses. By actively and visibly supporting vegetarianism or a decreased consumption of meat products, the campus is taking a step towards sustainabilty and improved student health.
The campus Living Well Center offers pamphlets that outline the ecological and health benefits of eating low on the food chain and a recent publication of Biocycle Magazine estimated that an average of 15% of college campus inhabitants are vegetarians. However, without sufficient offerings in the dining halls many students find it difficult to follow such a dietary program. In the residence halls, only one vegetarian option is available at every meal. At the Student Union site, Putnum's, approximately 20% of the menu items are acceptable to a vegetarian diet including salad, fruit, yogurt, baked goods, pizza, nachos, burritos, french fries, cheese sandwiches, vegetarian subs and vegetable stir-fry. While other sites will alter menu items to accommodate vegetarian requests, this gesture can be both inconvenient and expensive. One student commented that in order to follow a vegetarian diet without leaving campus she must "constantly mix side dishes and pay a lot more than a comparable amount of non-vegetarian food."
RECOMMENDATIONS
Work with students, the Living Well Center, and campus nutrition experts to develop an educational campaign emphasizing the environmental and health benefits of eating "low on the food chain," particularly organic or pesticide/herbicide free local products.
Actively and visibly promote a de-emphasis on meat consumption based upon the educational campaign. Consider highlighting healthy meatless dishes with an icon (many popular restaurants use a carrot or apple). Also highlight dishes prepared from organic or pesticide/herbicide free products.
Provide nutritional information for menu items.
Actively involve students in the menu planning process to locate opportunities for vegetarian versions of traditional meat dishes and to limit the amount of food waste generated.
Strive to make the purchase of vegetarian entrees more appealing, affordable and convenient.
Encourage meatless menu items when working with catering customers.
Participate in the Great American Meat-Out.
Food Procurement
Meal services on campus are provided by both the Faculty Student Association (FSA) and by private vendors located in The Commons shopping plaza. The private contractors include Sub Shoppe, Pizza Hut and Burger King. While the operations of these businesses are not addressed in this report, the procurement, recycling and environmental records of these businesses are worthy of future investigative efforts. Campus operated food services include units in the residence halls, Student Union, and numerous other locations on both the North and South campus. Menus are planned weekly by the residence hall managers based upon the quality, cost and demand for each item.
FSA currently purchases from several local producers including Kaufmann's Bakery, Sorrento Cheese, Desidario's and the Clinton Market. By concentrating on local businesses, the University limits the amount of energy that will be expended upon the transportation and marketing support necessary in obtaining their supplies. The University does not consider the growing techniques used by farmers when procuring food, however. By purchasing from growers that utilize excessive chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the University adversely affects both soil, water and human health, causing mineral imbalances in soil and non-point source pollution of water systems from run-off and irrigation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plan menus according to the seasonal availability of items.
Expand purchase of food from local producers.
Utilize products from organic farms, or pesticide/herbicide-free farms, whenever possible.
3C. WATER
Water Use and Conservation
In 1986, it was estimated that 1500 gallons of water are used daily to support each person in the United States. When the estimate is applied to those students living in the Ellicott Complex on North Campus, each day approximately 4,950,000 gallons of water are used to just support a small part of the entire university community. Collectively, the population of faculty, staff and students constitute an even greater demand that university facilities must provide for.
Water suppliers vary between campuses due to their geographic locations. The Amherst campus depends upon the Erie County Water Authority (ECWA) and the Main Street campus obtains its water from the City of Buffalo Water Authority (BWA). The water that UB's North Campus utilizes is drawn from the Niagara River at the ECWA Van de Water plant. If the plant becomes incapacitated, flows are augmented from supplies drawn from Lake Erie at the ECWA Sturgeon Point plant. The Buffalo Water Authority uptake station is located at LaSalle Park, at the mouth of the Niagara River. Water quality in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes system has improved considerably in recent years due to strict federal pollutant discharge regulations. Still, contaminated sediments and surface runoff, high turbidity levels, and rapidly growing zebra mussel populations continue to impair the health of this important fresh water ecosystem.
The water supplied by the ECWA and the BWA is subject to numerous tests and treatments before leaving the plants. Water at the uptake point is pumped through a series of traveling screens that prevent large debris from entering the system. It is then pumped to the treatment plant where polyaluminum chloride, a coagulant, is added to cause dirt, clay and bacteria in the water to form floc. The water then moves to the flocculation basins where large paddles gently stir the water causing the floc to increase. The water then goes to the sedimentation basins where the floc settles to the bottom and is removed. The floc is then drained and sent to the sewer authority. The water is then filtered through fine layers of sand, gravel, and coal, where any remaining particles are removed. Finally, the water is again treated with chlorine to kill any organisms that may remain. Fluoride is added to prevent tooth decay and the pH is adjusted for corrosion control. When algae blooms occur, additional treatment is given to the water. The water is then transported to the University at a pressure of 120 p.s.i. Campus water mains are divided to prevent back flow water contamination and are serviced by the four members of the University plumbing staff.
The University is obligated to comply with state legislation passed concerning water use. These laws include Chapter 424 of the Laws of New York State, 1989, which requires all governmental agencies including State Universities, on or after January 1, 1991 to install plumbing fixtures with water saving capabilities. Specifically, they must install fixtures that at a constant water pressure of 60 p.s.i., use no more than three gallons per minute for sink and lavatory faucets, three gallons per minute for shower heads and one gallon per flush for urinals and associated flush valves. These requirements do not apply, however, to fixtures installed prior to January 1, 1991; to fixtures installed prior to January 1, 1991 that have been removed and reinstalled within the same building; to fixtures that have been ordered or are in inventory of contractors or retailers before January 1, 1991; or to toilets in cases where such installation would impair the operation of the existing sewage system. In addition, Chapter 399 of the Laws of New York State mandates that the University formulate a list of appropriate water conservation measures including a survey of water use and conservation.
The University water supply system is monitored for leaks by meter reading. If a meter reading demonstrates an abnormally high water use for the specified period, an investigation for leaks by the plumbing department ensues. Analysis also occurs by monitoring water used and water disposed of in sewage lines. By comparing the input and output, a leak can be identified. Furthermore, users of the facilities are encouraged to report minor leaks, such as faucets dripping water in the lavatories. (Although considered minor when compared to a leak in a water main, the amount of possible water waste can be enormous. A leak of one drop per second wastes 15 gallons per day; a leaky toilet can waste an average of 750 gallons of water per month.) Small blue stickers placed in lavatories ask persons to report leaks or other water problems.
On the Amherst campus, water is used primarily for cooling purposes and personal water use. The Chilled Water Plant [CWP] uses water on a daily basis. The water is cooled and transported from the plant to specific buildings requiring this for air conditioning and the cooling of equipment. Water is cooled at the CWP and is then circulated to the campus. After the water is used by campus buildings, it is then returned to the CWP where it undergoes heat exchange within cooling towers. The water is then cooled and circulated again.
Maintenance of the Chilled Water Plant cycle incorporates both "blowdown" and "makeup" events. Blowdown is water drained out of the system to prevent the buildup of scale, or CaCO3. Makeup is the new water introduced into the system to "makeup" for water lost in the "blowdown" process and evaporation. The water used in these processes is measured by one of the Amherst campus meters and is included in the monthly water billing. Water use is predominantly a function of number of buildings being serviced. As such, water use has grown as the North Campus continues to construct new facilities.
The importance of low-flow water saving devices and water conservation on campus can not be overstated. If water saving devices were installed, uniformly, over the entire campus, a reduction of 15 to 48 percent of water use would occur. Furthermore, retrofitting has been specifically demonstrated to work well in a university setting. Edinboro University retrofitted its residence halls with low-flow showerhead and water-efficient faucet aerators, at a total cost of $11,000, reducing water use by 20 percent. Utility costs, including water, sewer and energy were reduced by $52,000 per year. An initial investment of $11,000 produced a net gain of $42,000 and a rate of return equal to 372.2 percent. Energy savings from faucet aerators and efficient showerhead often repay investment costs in just a few months while water and sewer savings from efficient toilets have payback cycles of under three years.
Water lost to leaks is quite literally money thrown down the drain. It is therefore critical that considerable effort be directed toward the diagnosis and correction of water waste situations like poor fixtures, leaking pipes and high pressure water delivery.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Water Consumption and Conservation
Utilize a CES/Way type program to effect a uniform retrofit of all buildings with the most technologically efficient water saving devices. Include all buildings on North and South campus, regardless of their compliance with Chapter 424 regulations.
Reduce water delivery line pressures. Switching from a line pressure of 80 p.s.i to 65 p.s.i. would result in a decrease in flow of 10 percent without sacrificing service. Reduce on-campus water pressure to 60 p.s.i., or the lowest technically feasible pressure, to enable the University to prescribe to the water savings outlined in Chapter 424. These improvements could easily be accomplished with the modification of the existing pressure equipment.
Reduce the amount of water lost in the "blowdown" process by chemically treating the water to prevent scale formations. The same water could be used for longer periods of time without having to be drained and replaced because the loss or gain of minerals from the pipes would be prevented by the chemicals.
Use savings obtained in water conservation measures to fund a more appropriate number of plumbing professionals to locate water leaks and provide service in water emergencies.
Waste Water
Waste water produced by the University is either released into the Erie County sanitary sewer system or is discharged into Bizer Creek. The majority of this waste entering the sanitary system is untreated. However, an acid neutralization pre-treatment process is used in Cooke-Hochstetter and the Natural Science and Mathematics Complex. Laboratory drains are consolidated into three tanks for each building where limestone is applied to neutralize the water. These wastes are combined with Commissary waste water in 1,500 gallon tanks in the campus Hazardous Waste Storage Facility where they are further treated.
The North Campus Chilled Water Plant discharges 5,000 gallons of effluent daily with a temperature of up to 70 degrees F and a pH ranging from 6 to 9 directly into Bizer Creek without any pre treatment. The Chilled Water Plant needs a permit to do this; the 1990 permit was renewed in 1995 without change. Stricter effluent limits may be imposed with renewed permits, in keeping with the program's goal of eventually achieving zero pollutant discharge into the nation's waters.
A series of meters surrounding both the North and South campuses monitor the quality of water entering the system. Sampling and analysis of our water is performed by an independent laboratory certified by the New York State Department of Health. This sampling process is performed twice a year using grab collection techniques. A grab sample is a sample taken from a waste stream without regard to the flow in the stream and over a period of time not to exceed 15 minutes. For the North Campus this sample is taken from the second manhole east of the intersection of Sweet Home Road and Chestnut Ridge. Samples for oil and grease, pH, temperature, cyanide, phenols, sulfides, and other volatile organic compounds are taken to verify compliance with state and local discharge permits.
Currently, gray water flowing from showers, bathroom sinks, washing machines and nongreasy water flowing from kitchen sinks is removed through the sanitary sewer system. This water can be re-used to flush toilets and if properly treated can be used to water landscapes. Although such water reclamation programs are more popular in the western part of the country where fresh water is less abundant, a case study has shown that an office building in New Jersey with a discharge of 25,000 gallons per day reduced its daily discharge to 2,000 gallons with the implementation of a gray-water reclamation program. Such a program would offer the University decreased disposal costs as well as irrigation opportunities while reducing the amount of energy and chemical resources required to operate the University.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Conduct an education campaign to encourage students to limit the amount of litter, grease, and hazardous chemicals entering the sanitary sewer system.
Develop a gray water reclamation program. Utilize the water to foster a low maintenance landscape design that reduces soil erosion and increases both biological productivity and wildlife habitat.
Non-Point Source Water Pollution
Non-point source (NPS) pollution has been estimated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to be responsible for 80% of the State's water quality problems. With the exception of naturalized or undisturbed areas, almost all land uses contribute to the nonpoint source pollution problem as precipitation finds its way to surface and ground water reservoirs. Pollutants are transported to other water systems or are held in river sediments where they contribute to wildlife illnesses and habitat degradation. Nonpoint source contaminants may be divided into seven categories:
1. Floatables and visual contaminants.
2. Degradable organics.
3. Suspended solids.
4. Nutrients.
5. Bacteria, virus.
6. Toxicants.
7. Dissolved solids.
On the South campus, rainwater collected in storm drains enters a combined sewer system, a combination of industrial, municipal, and storm-water wastes. The effluent proceeds to be treated in a waste water treatment facility before being discharged into Lake Erie.
On the North Campus, non-point source contaminants reach Ellicott Creek in one of two ways. Rainwater that falls on lawn or garden spaces is absorbed by the soil. Here, organic material filters most contaminants from the water on its subsurface journey to the Creek. However, rainwater that falls on impervious surfaces such as parking lots, rooftops, roads and sidewalks follows a more complicated path. In these cases, the water flows across the surface collecting oil, grease, dust, litter, and other contaminants following the gradient of the land to the nearest collection site. There, a series of interconnecting pipes collect water from storm drains and roadside ditches and deposit the water directly to the stream. Hence, even pristine rain water results in concentrated pollutants entering the Creek.
To demonstrate the extent of this problem, the 74 acres of parking lots on the Amherst campus contribute over 73 million gallons of polluted runoff to the Ellicott Creek system annually. The only structured form of pollution prevention are the catch basins found in parking lots and other depressed areas. These structures contain a raised pipe above an impermeable concrete pad which catches sediment and solids only. Yet, due to lack of funding and manpower, the catch basins are rarely cleaned. This results in an "overflow" of pollutants into the discharge areas. The discharge of this effluent is monitored biannually, through the DEC, and if exceeding the permitted allowances, corrected through routine maintenance. Clearly, there is a need for a concerted non-point source pollution prevention program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Sponsor the application of the UB Great Lakes Program GEOWAMS model to locate pollution loading problems on campus.
Completely eliminate the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides on campus.
Maximize the absorption capacity of open space by cultivating meadows and woodlands.
Place a moratorium on the construction of new parking lots.
Repair older lots with permeable paving materials.
Encourage University car owners to have their automobiles checked for fluid leakage.
Promote vehicle maintenance and repair by offering free advertisements in the campus paper for garages that will give reduced rate maintenance checks and tune-ups to the University community.
Ticket cars parked on lawns and non-parking lot areas.
Have outdoor trash bins available year round in high litter areas.
Place Ellicott Creek Watershed Awareness signs at the entrances to the campus.
Sponsor a "Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day" to redirect used motor oil and household contaminants from storm sewer drains.
Conduct a storm drain stenciling project to raise awareness of the end location of surface runoff.
Install trash collection screens at the outfall of Bizer Creek into Ellicott Creek and at the outfalls of storm drains. Clean regularly.
Require all construction projects to have erosion control measures. Enforce this requirement.
Plant grasses or wildflowers on exposed soil between uses to discourage soil erosion from precipitation and illegal parking as occurred on the Natural Sciences Building construction support site.
Increase vegetation along the banks of Lake LaSalle to discourage bank erosion.
Minimize road salt use on campus. Investigate environmentally sensitive alternatives to rock salt.
3D. CAMPUS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Landscaping and Naturalization: UB 2025
The University has recently approved the "UB 2025" plan prepared by the Environmental Task Force Land Use Subcommittee. The plan proposes that the Amherst campus be divided into three regions for landscaping/grounds department functions. The first area, the Urban nodes, would be characterized by dense, highly manicured plantings with minimal lawn space. The areas included in this category are the academic spine and the areas immediately surrounding the residence halls.
The second area, the Park-like region, would be characterized by limited maintenance requirements. These areas include the University's playing fields, the entrances to the University, the sight line areas of University roads, as well as the parking lots. The remainder of campus would be converted to Naturalized Areas characterized by meadows and woodlands. These areas would require some initial investment but would become self-maintaining landscapes within 3-5 years.
The UB 2025 plan offers numerous ecological benefits to the campus. It will reduce soil erosion and non-point source pollution of Ellicott Creek, as well as decrease the need to mow University lawns. In addition, it will raise campus environmental awareness, promote pedestrian traffic, increase biological productivity and diversity, increase wildlife habitat opportunities and increase recreational opportunities on campus.
The plan offers increased economic value for grounds department expenditures. The UB 2025 plan would redirect the $33,354 currently used to maintain the vast lawns to those areas most visible to students, faculty, staff and visitors. A study by the Carnegie Institute indicated that campus appearance played a large role in the decision making of prospective college students. This shift in maintenance efforts would allow the University to present both a more polished and naturalized image to prospective students and conference guests while saving money over time.
Currently, the University has asked the members of the Environmental Task Force to prepare priority lists, budgetary projections and site designs for the implementation phase of the UB 2025 plan. The group, comprised of student, faculty and staff volunteers, is unable to complete these tasks without the professional assistance of a landscape planner. Abandonment of the plan could result in the loss of over $5 million in landscape stock that has been planted on the campus.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt and implement the Environmental Task Force "UB 2025" plan.
Include a landscape maintenance strategy similar to the UB 2025 plan into the Main Street Campus master plan.
Hire a landscape planner for budget development, site design and resource coordination for both the UB 2025 plan and a Main Street campus landscape maintenance strategy. This individual would also be able to prepare landscape designs for new buildings, creating a more coherent campus appearance while avoiding costly design errors.
Planning Future Growth
The University is composed of two campuses: the original (South) campus on Main Street in the City of Buffalo, and the 20-year old suburban Amherst campus. The former is a dense, urban campus with a mixture of neo-classical and modern buildings. A network of walking paths is shaded by large shade trees and manicured shrubs. The campus has limited parking space and to some extent promotes pedestrian traffic. It is connected to downtown Buffalo by the Niagara Frontier Transit Authority Metro subway system. Currently, the University is preparing an updated master plan for the Main Street Campus.
The North Campus is significantly larger than the Main Street location. The academic core exists as a spine of classroom and office buildings connected by enclosed walkways. It is surrounded by vast parking lots with residence halls and service facilities at the exterior. A large area on the perimeter of the campus has been allowed to return to a more natural state. However, the publicly accessible portion of the campus in and around Audubon Parkway is characterized by immature trees and lawns.
A number of construction projects are being considered and prepared by the University's Planning Office and the SUNY Construction Fund. The most advanced of the projects is that for the second phase of the Natural Science and Mathematics Complex. This eight story structure, to be located west of the Computing Center, will house math, geology, chemistry, computer science, and other science departments. However, an absence of state funding has postponed construction indefinitely.
The completion of the North Campus development will also include a student services building, a graduate student housing complex, the School of Architecture and Planning, a third Social Sciences building, an additional engineering facility, and a Biological/ Chemical/ Pharmaceutical Materials Research facility. Construction is largely dependent upon the availability of state funding. With the exception of the graduate student housing complex, all proposed buildings will be connected to the existing spine structure.
Construction on campus offers a number of environmental challenges. All the parking lots on campus are constructed of asphalt on top of a stone base. This type of pavement system is impermeable, thus leading to greater runoff (see 3B. Water, Non-point Source Pollution). One alternative solution to this situation would be to build flexible pavement systems which greatly reduces the amount of runoff. The University has not investigated flexible pavement systems because of anticipated problems with winter snow removal. It is our hope that proactive measures to reduce parking demand will be instituted (see 3E. Transportation), eliminating or reducing the need for new parking lots.
The University uses Styrofoam insulation with HCFCs, containing 5% ozone depleting agents. This is a significant improvement over the previous CFC-11 Styrofoam, which contained 90% ozone depleting agents. However, the new insulation continues to contribute to ozone depletion and may also contribute to global warming. UB also adheres to the minimal State Energy Codes for wall and roof insulation. An alternative solution for wall and roof insulation is to exceed the energy code utilizing innovative new products. CFC foaming agents should be avoided altogether. Other materials such as rigid fiberglass or expanded polystyrene, pentane and sparfil are all less environmentally damaging and are also be available in higher densities. Sparfill makes a wall system combing concrete blocks made with EPS beads and surface bonding cement which can achieve insulation values to R-33. For Sparfill it is important to understand the significance of the density, because a higher density does not always mean better insulation. A new product, called Icynene, was being test marketed as of 1992 in the US. Icynene is an exceptional foam that can adhere to everything it touches and expands to make a draft-free assembly of a wall; it uses CO2 as a foaming agent. The University policy has been to continue the use of HCFC in its insulation; no other alternatives have been taken into consideration as of this time.
For windows and doors UB follows the minimum State Energy Code. For windows UB should be using at least an R- value of greater than 7, which permits more heat gain than loss in winter. An alternative solution is the "Heat Mirror" system which is a sheet of infrared reflecting plastic which is suspended between two panes of insulating glass. This helps reduce infrared transmission, which cuts down on both solar heat gain and night time heat loss. Implementation of this system in areas where there is sufficient sunlight could prove cost beneficial.
For finishing, UB uses tile for the majority of floors. The tiling used consists of a vinyl composition which does not contain recycled material. An alternative solution would be to use rubber tiles which incorporate recycled materials. The type of plaster used is Acoustical grade plaster, which contains no recycled materials. The drywall used is sealing or plain painted drywall which is composed of "virgin" gypsum and paper. Alternatives for both include board made gypsum, recycled paper fiber and perilite. These products provide a high density, smooth finish, as well as reducing resource use by utilizing recyclable materials.
The concrete UB uses is a standard concrete which is comprised of sand and cement, all non-renewable raw materials. Alternative uses would be to use reusable forming systems, which are economically and environmentally sound. Recycling concrete is both time and energy consumptive.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To prevent increased need for vehicular transportation on campus, and to protect pedestrian access to existing green space, establish a zone beyond which future construction will not occur:
North of White Road.
East of Rensch Road.
South of Augsburger Road.
West of Webster Road.
Incorporate environmentally sound urban design principles (e.g. promotion of pedestrian traffic and minimization of commuter traffic) in the development of the new Main Street Campus master plan.
Incorporate energy efficient design strategies and environmentally responsible materials in all future construction.
Use permeable paving materials when repairing existing lots.
Place a moratorium on the construction of new parking lots.
3E. TRANSPORTATION
In 1977 during his dedication of Capen Hall, University President Robert Ketter stated that students would spend an estimated 960,000 hours, approximately 11 years, commuting between the two campuses that school year.
Question:What is a University?
Answer: A group of administrators, faculty, and students held together by a common grievance over parking.
The design and location of SUNY at Buffalo pose an enormous transportation challenge. The inefficient regional transportation infrastructure fails to meet this challenge. The roots of the unsustainable present are these: the University is composed of two campuses spaced four miles apart; the chief campus (North Campus) is at an isolated suburban location; and the currently available options to move, without cars, from the University (particularly the North Campus) to non-dormitory housing and other important regional locations are inadequate and inconvenient. The result is a University community that is unsustainable in its transportation practices.
Our University is currently a monument to the wasteful, polluting, and inconvenient institution of private vehicle commuting. From a bird's eye view, the North Campus of the University at Buffalo has come to resemble not a sanctuary of learning but a stadium or shopping mall. The academic, administration, and dormitory buildings are dwarfed by the far-reaching spread of parking lots built to house the thousands of automobiles that arrive each day. The cars burn non-renewable energy, in the form of gasoline, which adds carbon dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere. The drivers demand ever more parking lots, which spread out further and further, increasing storm water runoff and decreasing green space. Parking available to students ends up distant from the buildings it serves, antagonizing inconvenienced car commuters. Finally, the students, faculty, and staff are atomized and diffused, leaving little sense of meaningful community.
Of the 19,500 students at the University, almost 80% of the total, live somewhere off campus. In addition, essentially all of the faculty and staff live off campus, and must make a commute of some sort. Perhaps Americans are so in love with their cars that, even with extensive mass transit systems in place, all of these students, faculty, and staff would continue to drive to the University as inexorably as lemmings on their periodic commute to ocean bluffs. However, it is more reasonable to suppose that the car commuting problem at UB is a result of the failure of the current transportation infrastructure to meet the challenges that the location and design of the University have posed.
A sustainable University requires a sustainable transportation infrastructure that connects it efficiently to important locations across the region. Efficiency can be measured in terms of environmental impact and economics. A flaw in the present market system, allowing most of the costs of car commuting to be externalized, distorts the reliability of the economic measure. When the externalized costs are accounted for, it becomes evident that the environmentally sustainable answers to the transportation demands of the University community are also the most efficient in economic terms. A transportation infrastructure that minimizes energy consumption, pollution, green space and habitat destruction, and traffic congestion delays would clearly maximize efficiency in both the ecological and the conventional economic sense.
The Unsustainable Present
Car commuters from off campus locations, along with car owners from the dorms, fill the parking lots of UB five days a week. Ignoring, for the moment, the environmental impacts associated with parking lots, roads, and automobiles, there is still the problem caused by an enormous demand for convenient parking--particularly on the North Campus that grows as planned new buildings become operational. Already, student lots are located far from the academic areas and the "the parking problem" is one of the most prevalent student complaints. What most of those involved in transportation issues fail to realize, whether they are working at the University, regional, and national level, is that the real problem is the over dependence on car commuting.
The transportation infrastructure of the University and the region is currently primarily designed for cars. As of May 1995, 8601 parking spaces exist on the North Campus and 3130 exist on the South Campus. Much of the 1200 acres of the North Campus is undeveloped land relatively distant from the concentration of academic buildings on the North Campus. The bulk of open land at reasonably convenient locations for parking has already been turned into parking lots, as reflected by the incessant student complaints about parking.
In 1989, UB biophysics professor Fred Snell and energy officer Walter Simpson conducted a study to estimate the University's annual emissions of carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas. They estimated that commuters burn 5,900,000 gallons of gasoline each year, thereby producing 51,000 tons of carbon dioxide. In comparison, the Blue Bird shuttle buses that provide the vast majority of inter- and intra-campus mass transit produce an estimated 609 tons of carbon dioxide each year.
The excessive carbon dioxide emissions associated with car commuting may contribute to global warming in the coming decades. It has become clear that there is a large human-induced increase in the concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Because global atmospheric science is only partially understood, there is considerable debate in scientific circles as to the exact effect that this will have on global and regional climates. The best consensus is that, depending both on the level of further human-induced emissions and on the little understood mechanisms of climatic regulation, an average global temperature increase ranging from less than 1 degree C to as high as 5 degrees C is expected by 2050. The effects of global warming, even on the order of the more moderate projections, may be severe both for humans and for many important ecosystems: rising sea levels would hasten shore erosion, destroy wetlands, contaminate water supplies, and perhaps flood coastal cities and farmlands; and altered weather patterns could increase the severity and frequency of drought in continental interiors, and of tropical storms and hurricanes in coastal regions.
The University at Buffalo is making massive annual contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, primarily as a result of electricity consumption and automobile commuting. Thus, we are contributing to a phenomenon that may seriously impact humans and natural systems around the world. We are participating in a global experiment in which our only home is the reaction vessel. If those warning of global warming are correct, the proof will come at enormous human and ecological cost. If we choose the prudent course of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, we are less likely to subject ourselves to such trauma. Sustainability in transportation is essential if we are to choose this prudent course.
Automobiles are also responsible for a vastly disproportionate quantity of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and the reactive hydrocarbons that form smog. Waste oil and other chemicals are dumped or leaked onto the impermeable parking lots; when it rains these are washed directly into the watershed along with massive quantities of water, resulting in a storm water runoff problem that is particularly acute on the North Campus. Finally, the massive quantities of salt utilized to maintain the roads and parking lots during Buffalo's infamous winters are damaging the already poor soils of campus and even, through capillary action, corroding the buildings.
Sustainable Transportation Alternatives
It is clear that the private automobile is an extremely inefficient form of transportation in terms of both energy conError! Bookmark not defined.sumption and waste production. When the vehicles are single occupancy, which they usually are, the greatest inefficiency results. Car-pools are better, saving an average of 48% of the energy consumed by single occupancy cars. However, truly sustainable transportation requires a focus on self-propelled travel and mass transit.
Biking and walking save more than 95% of the energy consumed by a single occupancy car, and produce essentially no emissions. Thus, whenever possible, these modes of transportation should be accommodated and encouraged. The demand for housing located within reasonable biking or walking distance of the academic buildings of North Campus provides an excellent opportunity to construct sustainable housing units close to the academic buildings of North Campus.
Even if such housing were to be built, not all members of the University community would live close enough, or have the ability and motivation, to walk or bike to school. Walking and biking also cannot address the need for transportation links to the larger region. For these reasons, mass transit to and from important locations in the region is very important. Buses, vans, and light rail train lines save between 71% and 88% of the energy consumed by single occupancy cars and produce far fewer emissions. The University should be integrated with the region by a regional transportation network utilizing these modes of transit. Light rail, because of its greater capacity, speed, and convenience compared to road dependent modes of transport, should form the arteries of the network. Utilizing these transit arteries along with accessory lines, sustainable and convenient transportation could be provided that satisfy the region's transportation needs. It would transport people between the two campuses of the University; it would also bring people to the University and back from the regional population center and urban hub of Buffalo, from local malls and shopping centers, and from the many suburbs of Buffalo and other towns and cities of Western New York.
The University-contracted Blue Bird buses are the primary providers of intra- and inter-campus mass transit. They are private, and funded by a transportation fee paid by students. Much of the fleet was acquired in 1986 when Blue Bird bought thirty used surplus buses from a Saudi Arabian inter-city fleet. They run regularly during business hours but more sporadically at night, on weekends, and on holidays. The buses are cramped, slow, and often uncomfortably hot and crowded. The Blue Birds are separate from the regional public transportation network; although there is an NFTA rail and bus station on the South Campus, it can not be utilized by the Blue Bird buses. As a result, commuting by mass transit is far less convenient than it could be; and many students have little or no awareness of the regional public transportation network. Thus the Blue Birds, although they provide the major mass transit link from the North Campus to the outside world, by their separateness and undesirability also contribute to the over dependence on car commuting and to the isolation of the University community from the region.
According to the Snell-Simpson study of 1989, an estimated 70,000 gallons of diesel fuel were burned by Blue Birds that year, producing 609 tons of carbon dioxide. Since that study, these emissions have likely decreased, as the Blue Bird runs during business hours between the Ellicott dormitory and the academic buildings on North Campus have utilized buses and vans converted to burning compressed natural gas (CNG). This alternative fuel produces one third the pollution of diesel fuel, is cheaper, and is more abundant domestically. The conversion of vehicles to CNG is expensive, however, and there are currently few places to obtain fuel for these vehicles.
Regional public transportation is run by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA). Aside from the six-mile Metro Rail line, the public mass transit system is based on buses. These buses are more spacious, more comfortable, and faster than the BlueBirds, and at the South Campus connect directly with the Metro Rail. Unlike the Blue Birds, they require a direct payment to ride: as of May 1995, $1.20 one-way between campuses, or $46 for a monthly pass. The NFTA route that runs between campuses does not run nearly as often as the Blue Birds. Local NFTA bus lines from other locations feed into bus loops on both campuses; however, the University, particularly the North Campus, is not well-served by NFTA buses. There is limited ridership by members of the University community on NFTA buses, largely because competition with the Blue Bird system discourages the integration of the University with the regional public transportation network.
The Metro Rail is the region's only light rail transit (LRT) line, and runs from downtown Buffalo to the South Campus. Although only six miles long, and running at only a third of its maximum capacity, it is one of the finest LRT lines in the world--quiet, clean, quick, cheap (as of May 1995, $1.10 for a one-way ticket), and well-ridden. At 30,000 riders daily, its ridership is exceeded only by two of the 25 cities in the US with LRT; by none of the 40 Swiss cities with LRT; and by only 12 of the 54 cities with LRT in densely populated Japan.
The Metro Rail runs until midnight and provides easy access to downtown Buffalo from the South Campus and vice versa. Although the Metro Rail was originally envisioned as a Buffalo-Amherst corridor that would connect downtown Buffalo with both campuses of the University (and add an estimated 18,000 new riders to the line, making it the most ridden LRT in the country), the line has not yet been completed (for details, see Appendix E: A Brief History of Light Rail Transit in the Buffalo Region). Until both Amherst citizens and University students, faculty, and staff--including top administrators--recognize the enormous benefits associated with the completion of the Buffalo-Amherst LRT corridor, and begin to work together towards this goal, the opportunity to connect the North Campus with the region's hub via efficient and convenient LRT will remain unattained. In the meantime, buses and cars remain as the only significant modes of transportation between campuses.
There are environmental impacts associated with both buses and light rail lines--energy is consumed; emissions, oils, solvents, batteries, and other wastes are produced; and, for LRT lines, a certain amount of land is disturbed by construction. However, the net environmental impact of a well-ridden mass transit system is positive because the relative impact of car commuting, in terms of energy, waste production, and disturbance from road construction, is so much greater. Rail lines are preferable to buses in cases where the ridership justifies them because they have greater capacity, they do not contribute to traffic congestion and, most important, because commuters prefer rail to buses and are more likely to leave their cars behind when LRT is available.
The University is not a very friendly place to pedestrians and cyclists interested in utilizing these modes of transport to get to class. On the North Campus there are paved paths through nice country, but most of these are located for recreation, not transportation to the academic buildings. The paths that are designed for transportation exist chiefly along roads, and are exposed to the Buffalo elements and the empty plains of campus. A walk or bike ride along these paths is often much colder and wetter than it would be if the paths were protected by vegetation. There are a few bike lockers available on-campus, and plenty of places to lock one's bike.
The concentration of academic buildings on the North Campus is along a narrow axis known as the academic spine. The spine is quite long, but it is easy for pedestrians to navigate since most buildings are connected by hallways or walkways. It is getting to the spine that can be difficult, even for students who live in dormitories on the campus. The Governors Complex, housing 800 students, is located at one end of the spine, and offers relatively convenient access. The Ellicott Complex, by far the larger of the dormitories with 3200 students, is located about a quarter mile north of the spine, and the path that exists offers no protection from the elements along most of its course.
There is an inter-campus bike route for the ambitious. It is smooth and relatively spacious along most of its course, and the traffic is not nearly as heavy as on the main thoroughfare between campuses. The route could use better and more frequent sweeping, however, particularly on the segment of Sweet Home north of Maple Road.
Commuters, Commuters, Everywhere
The bulk of the academic activity at the University of Buffalo, particularly for undergraduates, is located on the North Campus in suburban Amherst. In spite of the large concentration of academic activity on the large Amherst Campus, only 4000 students live there, or 16.0% of the total. Local non-dormitory housing does exist, but is inadequate for a number of reasons. First, the academic buildings of North Campus are not only isolated by virtue of the suburban location of the campus; they are also isolated within the 1200 acres that comprise the campus. Due to the expanses of wind-swept parking lots, parkways, and mowed lawns between the academic buildings and the edge of campus, the nearest, and most expensive, apartments are a least half a mile away; they are not served by any mass transit. Thus, even these adjoining apartment complexes are part of the car commuter problem. Second, the area of suburban Amherst surrounding campus is justifiably considered to be isolated and sheltered by those who value the diversity, interaction, and activity of urban life as an important corollary to their formal education. Finally, the relations between University students and the Amherst community have been somewhat strained. Although Amherst's economy has benefited enormously from the University's location, the attitude of the community towards University students and their interests is too often not one of welcome. The Town of Amherst has opposed the completion of the light rail line to North Campus; and its zoning policies have essentially precluded inexpensive student housing in the neighborhoods adjoining the North Campus. These factors contribute to the decision of many students, as well as faculty and staff, to seek housing alternatives that are remote from the North Campus.
The South Campus is located on the eastern edge of Buffalo. Currently, most of the academic activity on this campus is in professional schools such as Dentistry, Medical, Nursing, and Architecture. The South Campus has dormitories for 1400 students, or 5.6% of the total student body, and many nearby moderately priced apartments and houses that cater to students. There are restaurants, bars, coffeehouses, a movie theater, a supermarket, and other conveniences of urban life within reasonable walking distance of the dorms and other housing; these provide an atmosphere that is at once more convenient and stimulating than the widely spaced and isolated North Campus and environs. The South Campus is also a hub of the regional mass transit system, providing ready light rail access to downtown Buffalo and direct bus links to several regional locations, including the North Campus. The end result of these factors is that a primary concentration of student off campus housing is in the area adjoining South Campus, in spite of the fact that most academic activity has shifted to the North Campus.
A large number of students, faculty, and staff at the University of Buffalo either come from, or choose to locate, in or near the center of the city of Buffalo. The wide array of housing options, myriad recreational and commercial opportunities, and close proximity to art galleries, museums, and other colleges make the location attractive. However, downtown Buffalo is 10 miles from the North Campus and 5 miles from the South Campus. It is a simple matter to get to the South Campus from central Buffalo via mass transit; however, the commute from central Buffalo to North Campus via mass transit is considerably more inconvenient. As a result, many students, faculty, and staff drive ten or more miles to get from Buffalo to the University that ostensibly is at their city.
RECOMMENDATIONS
SHORT TERM:
Alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles
Walking and Biking: Implement the UB 2025 plan, which proposes increased vegetation along walking and biking trails to provide protection from heat, wind and rain, without compromising safety.
Car-Pooling: Facilitate car-pooling through the use of computer matching (currently under way); set aside a lot exclusively for multiple occupancy vehicles or offer a discount on the transportation fee to demonstrated car-poolers. Work especially with the professional schools, where student schedules are not as widely divergent as they are for undergraduates.
Available Mass Transit: Educate new freshmen and transfers about the regional mass transit network.
Housing
Promote housing options located close to the academic cores of the University:
Foster working relationships between landlords near each campus and the University.
Consider leasing or selling the University's land on Sweet Home Road to a developer for the construction of student apartments.
Provide free advertising to landlords within a one-half mile radius of the campus boundaries.
Have a presentation on transportation and its impact at Freshman Orientation. Use this venue to promote the existing mass transit system (especially that beyond the Blue Birds) to broaden student awareness of these transportation options, encouraging expanded use of the existing public transportation network.
Utilize fuel efficient vehicle models; continue and expand the use of vehicles that use alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas.
Encourage the use of fuel efficient car models as well as the use of vehicles that use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas.
Conduct a modern, comprehensive, and detailed study of the transportation geography of the University, involving GIS analysis of commuting patterns. With the foundation of an updated study | | |
