Try to stay calm…

3,700 post offices are facing closure as the U.S. Postal Service looks for ways to combat ever-dwindling profits.

The Postal Service hopes the contraction will save $200 million a year. That does not come close to recouping the $8 billion the agency is expected to lose for the second year running as it fights plummeting mail volume. But postal officials said they intend to review half of their network of 32,000 post offices for closure in the next decade as they try to slash labor costs.”

Thanks to The Associated Press!

Among the offices facing the possibility of shutdown is one that was once operated by Benjamin Franklin, the founder of the modern day postal service.

Will your inbox completely replace your mailbox?

Blackboard Collaborate has announced that UMBC's Wimba Classroom will be upgraded to version 6.1.4 during an extended maintenance window from Saturday, August 6 at 10:00 PM to Sunday, August 7 at 7:00 AM. The maintenance release will address server-side enhancements of Wimba Classroom. During this time, services, including live sessions and recordings, will not be available.

Thank you for your patience during this upgrade.

Johann Weber, graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in public policy at Georgia Tech, is featured in this installment of the AASHE Bulletin Sustainability Student Diary series. As chairman of the university’s Bicycle Infrastructure Improvement Committee (BIIC), Weber details how the committee facilitated a bicycle infrastructure improvement project on campus. AASHE welcomes questions and invites feedback on each Sustainability Student Diary entry. Submit diary entries of your own for consideration to bulletin@aashe.org.

In the fall of 2010, a handful of graduate and undergraduate students at Georgia Tech from a wide range of departments including Environmental Engineering, Aerospace, Chemical Engineering, Public Policy and Civil Engineering who were interested in bicycling began an active and ongoing discussion about how to make the campus more bike friendly. Many of us had strong environmental motivations, and all of us recognized the ease, enjoyment and bargain that bicycling can provide to students, faculty and staff of a large urban university such as Georgia Tech.

Before this began, the campus had a number of buildings with dramatically insufficient parking, and only two segments of bike lane. We firmly believed that with better facilities, more students would be inclined to ride; a winning proposition for the students, the campus and the metro area of Atlanta, which is infamous for both its congestion and poor air quality.

Through close interaction with a staff member in the office of Parking and Transportation, this general desire to improve campus coalesced into the more concrete task of forming a committee that would provide suggestions for improvements and facilitate their undertaking. This included identifying funding, selecting contractors, and installing them. To do so would require incorporating a number of departments on campus, all of whom had no shortage of projects on their plates already. Yet those departments embraced the opportunity and challenge presented to them, with many offering not only to participate but actively asking to be committee members so that they could be as useful as possible.

The Student Government Association (SGA) approved the formation of the institute-wide committee in January, and our first meeting brought to the table Parking and Transportation, Facilities (responsible for all infrastructure projects and maintenance), Campus Planning, Auxiliary Services, as well as members of the Sustainability Committee, StarterBikes (an on-campus bike cooperative), SGA and the city’s bicycle advocacy group, the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition.

As a committee we identified—based on existing knowledge of demand and usage—where there was a need for more bicycle parking, and identified viable corridors for the installation of bicycle lanes (based on road width and conditions). We then secured cost estimates for each project, and compiled a list totaling around $45,000. Originally, our hope was to push for an increase to the student fee for parking and transportation by $1 per term. This would bring in around the desired amount of money thanks to a student population of more than 20,000. However, meetings with SGA quickly made it clear that while they supported our efforts, they would not support increased student fees and, more importantly, it was unlikely that the logistics of such an action would prove manageable. They suggested an alternative solution: Ask the student body directly for the money. A bill could be drafted to request that money be given to the committee, which could disperse it to the departments involved in the projects. While $45,000 was probably not in the cards, a smaller amount could be feasible, and would be popular since it involved an investment in infrastructure, rather than a temporary support for a small campus group.

So we altered the project list, cutting it down to a more manageable $26,146, including .8 miles of bike lanes and 6 racks (a total of 58 parking spaces). We wrote up the bill and submitted it. It went before the chambers of the SGA in March 2011 and was passed. This was a huge success, proving not only that the campus wanted these improvements, but also that they were willing to work together and devote money to make them happen.

We rapidly followed up this success by constructing a website entirely devoted to bicycling at Georgia Tech (bike.gatech.edu), as well as Twitter and Facebook accounts to supplement it. In addition, Parking and Transportation collected a commuter survey, giving us a baseline mode share for bicycling on campus, and helping us direct future projects. BIIC also created subcommittees tasked with maintaining the website, constructing a bike master plan, and securing funding for further development. We welcomed new members from Campus Police and the Office of Environmental Health and Safety.

In April, BIIC was awarded the 2011 Georgia Tech Environmental Initiative Award in recognition of its accomplishments, and in May we began the process of working with Campus Planning to finalize the precise details of the roadway projects, as well as ordering the racks. This led to the decision to replace downhill segments of lane with sharrows (an on-road marking noting that bicycles and cars will share the lane) to help ease merging points and reduce the need to move the centerline (a costly endeavor).

As of this July, the project details have been finalized, and Campus Planning has taken the additional step of selecting other roads for sharrow installation, contingent upon funding. The racks have arrived, and we are preparing to install them. The website is live, a student survey has been prepared for the fall, and orientation education programs are in the works.

We’ve submitted grant applications to a number of organizations, and are hoping to hear back soon, while also pursuing funding from Georgia Tech. Most recently, we added two faculty members to the committee, and are working to begin the roadway projects as soon as the last details and contracting are ironed out.

In many ways, the first year has been a great success. Looking back on what was available and being done a year ago, BIIC has made huge leaps forward. However, we look at our peer institutions, and we know we have a long way to go. It was also enlightening to see how difficult a process this can be, even when all the stakeholders are committed and supportive. In sum, things are good, but they can always be better, and we will continue to work hard to make Georgia Tech a place that not only educates in and researches sustainability, but practices a more sustainable way of living every day.

Get the full Norway story in pictures and tweets. Is law enforcement prepared for disaster in the online era?

Stay up to date with Washington with brief updates, if you care.

Birds vs. crustacians. Check out the environmental impacts hurting our local waters.

Ah, Summer. The season of warm weather and long sunny days, which seem to afford more time to catch up on the backlog of reading that has accumulated since the New Year began. In addition to light pleasure reading typically associated with summer, for many faculty it is also a time for doing ones own research and writing, reviewing others’ research for potential course development and publication, or updating syllabi for the Fall.

Although I am not a faculty member, I do print off research that catches my eye, usually stashing it in a folder until there is some time to read it. I happened to be cleaning off a bookshelf last week in an effort to see which books could be donated when I came across a manila folder with a copy of the below research paper on quality of life and subjective well-being. Though published in 2006, it still is very applicable and I thought it worth highlighting.

An interdisciplinary team of 21 faculty at the University of Vermont and the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics conducted the study, trying to tackle the issue of defining quality of life (QOL) with the goal of figuring out ways to enhance it.
While this topic is certainly applicable to sustainability practitioners (and the interdisciplinary nature of the authors helps illustrate this), the researchers also note the importance and need for further research looking specifically into the intersection between sustainability and QOL studies.

In the abstract to the paper, Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being, the goal is clearly stated to provide, “an integrative definition of QOL that combines measures of human needs with subjective well-being or happiness. QOL is proposed as a multi-scale, multi-dimensional concept that contains interacting objective and subjective elements.”

The authors go on to say that, “We relate QOL to the opportunities that are provided to meet human needs in the forms of built, human, social and natural capital (in addition to time) and the policy options that are available to enhance these opportunities.”

Towards the end of the paper, the authors acknowledge the need for further research related to sustainability in this area:

“The application of sustainability issues to QOL studies is another avenue of research that is likely to prove integral. The continuation of the goods and services (including aesthetic) provided by natural ecosystems is a key concern for maintaining life functions. The level and quality of Natural Capital inputs needed and their effect on individual needs and overall QOL are issues that require immediate investigation. Answering the question: “What is the role of ecological sustainability for QOL?” could help integrate the social and scientific policy agendas and hence pay double dividends.”

After finishing the paper, I couldn’t help but reflect on my own feelings of happiness, quality of life and well-being. Many of the human needs the authors identify are strongly related and impacted by levels of ecological sustainability (identified as requiring inputs of natural capital). My own personal measurement was of course a snapshot in time, which certainly was elevated by the fact that I happened to be reflecting on this while lounging next to a swimming pool on a warm summer day (meeting and most likely exceeding the human need of leisure).

A few take aways also struck me: how the work of campus sustainability is so strongly connected to issues of improving quality of life but sometimes only implicitly stated; how measuring student, faculty and staff levels of QOL in relation to sustainability initiatives could be instructive to improving programs; and how a closer examination of QOL issues could have long term implications on broadening the conversation and context of campus sustainability.

If there is additional research happening in this space please share it in the comments section below. I am also interested to hear others reactions to the paper (only 8 short pages). The full paper is available here as a PDF.

Bill Hybels

“Romans 12:8 tells those of who have the gift of leadership that we had better sit up and take notice, we had better “lead with  diligence.” Why? Because the Church, the bride of Christ, upon which the eternal destiny of the world depends, will flourish or falter largely on the basis of how we lead. If you’re a leader, please reread that sentence and let it sink into your consciousness. Also, please understand that I am not writing about leadership simply to highlight this particular gift. My ultimate concern is not leadership. For me, the bottom line is the Acts 2 church. But I am absolutely convinced that the church will never reach her full redemptive potential until men and women with the leadership gift step up and lead.”

Reflection:
Leading is not easy. At times it takes all of who you are to be able to stand up for what is right and stick with it all the way to the end. The church needs men and women who are willing to live this way, so that real things can happen. Therefore, God has placed people in His church who are called to live this way so that the church may see their example, learn from them, and grow. Yet, just as a team cannot properly function without the guidance and support of its leaders, church will not flourish without those who are willing to give their all for the sake of God’s Kingdom.

Response:
Let’s pray for the leaders of our church. Let’s ask for an even deeper sense of calling to fill their hearts and lives, and that they would be refreshed again in the way that God is leading them.

Source: “Courageous Leadership” by Bill Hybels