With many non-profit organizations also challenged by the pandemic we are likely to see fewer experts at technology, finance and management gatherings where leading practice is discovered and promulgated. That does not mean that many gatherings will not be offloaded onto the internet but, with fewer paid experts involved, one wonders whether there will be fewer unpaid experts — or will there be more unpaid experts? We shall see.
Since the United States federal government can print money it is likely that more decision-making will be drawn back to Washington D.C. — where the money is. The likelihood that we shall see greater federal control over education facility industry originating at the federal level inspires a revisit of the United States standards system. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is the oversight agency and the American National Standards Institute is the private non-profit organization that oversees the development of voluntary consensus standards for products, services, processes, systems, and personnel in the United States.
When is it ever NOT storm season somewhere in the United States; with several hundred schools, colleges and universities in the path of them? Hurricanes also spawn tornadoes. This title sets the standard of care for safety, resilience and recovery when education community structures are used for shelter and recovery. The most recently published edition of the joint work results of the International Code Council and the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute SEI-7 is linked below:
Given the historic tornados in the American Midwest this weekend, its relevance is plain. From the project prospectus:
The objective of this Standard is to provide technical design and performance criteria that will facilitate and promote the design, construction, and installation of safe, reliable, and economical storm shelters to protect the public. It is intended that this Standard be used by design professionals; storm shelter designers, manufacturers, and constructors; building officials; and emergency management personnel and government officials to ensure that storm shelters provide a consistently high level of protection to the sheltered public.
This project runs roughly in tandem with the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute SEI-17 which has recently updated its content management system and presented challenges to anyone who attempts to find the content where it used to be before the website overhaul. In the intervening time, we direct stakeholders to the link to actual text (above) and remind education facility managers and their architectural/engineering consultants that the ICC Code Development process is open to everyone.
The ICC receives public response to proposed changes to titles in its catalog at the link below:
You are encouraged to communicate with Kimberly Paarlberg (kpaarlberg@iccsafe.org) for detailed, up to the moment information. When the content is curated by ICC staff it is made available at the link below:
We maintain this title on the agenda of our periodic Disaster colloquia which approach this title from the point of view of education community facility managers who collaborate with structual engineers, architects and emergency management functionaries.. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting, open to everyone.
Harvard University Dormitory Room | Smithsonian Museum | Thomas Warren Sears Collection
Today we break down public consultation notices for literature that sets the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of student housing in K-12 prep schools, colleges and universities. We deal with off-campus housing in a separate session because it involves local safety and sustainability regulations; most of which are derived from residential housing codes and standards.
Like any other classification of real property the average cost for room and board for a public university student dormitory depends on several factors such as the location of the university, the type of dormitory, and the meal plan options. According to the College Board, the average cost of room and board for the 2021-2022 academic year at a public four-year in-state institution was $11,620. However, this figure can range from around $7,000 to $16,000 or more depending on the specific institution and its location. It’s important to note that this average cost only includes the basic meal plan and standard dormitory room. Students may also have additional costs for a larger or more luxurious dorm room, a premium meal plan, or other expenses such as laundry or parking fees.
According to ring Rider Levett Bucknall, a global property and construction consultancy firm, the average construction cost for a student housing facility in the United States in 2021 was around $202 per square foot. However, this figure can range from around $150 to $300 per square foot or more depending on the specific project. Life cycle cost for new facilities with tricked out net-zero gadgets is hard to come by at the moment.
Because money flows freely through this domain we examine scalable densities and the nature of money flow patterns; partially tracked by the Electronic Municipal Market Access always on the standing agenda of our Finance colloquium.
Here are a few pros and cons of private sector construction of university-owned student housing:
Pros:
Increased housing availability: Private sector developers may be able to build more student housing units than a university could build on its own, which can help to alleviate the shortage of on-campus housing for students.
Faster construction: Private developers may be able to complete construction projects faster than universities, which can help to reduce the amount of time that students must wait for new housing options.
Reduced financial burden on the university: The cost of building and maintaining student housing can be significant, and private sector developers may be willing to bear some of these costs. This can help to reduce the financial burden on the university and free up resources for other initiatives.
Professional management: Private developers may have more experience managing large housing projects and may be able to provide more professional management services than a university could provide on its own.
Cons:
Higher costs for students: Private developers may charge higher rents than a university would charge for student housing, which can make housing less affordable for some students.
Reduced university control: Private developers may have different priorities than a university would have when it comes to building and managing student housing. This can lead to a reduced level of control for the university over housing quality, management, and policies.
Potential conflicts of interest: Private developers may be more focused on making a profit than on meeting the needs of students or the university, which can create potential conflicts of interest.
Less transparency: Private developers may not be subject to the same level of transparency and accountability as a university would be when it comes to housing policies, decision-making processes, and financial management.
It’s important to note that these pros and cons may vary depending on the specific circumstances and context of each individual university and private sector partnership.
Today we amble through the literature providing policy templates informing school district, college and university-affiliated transportation and parking facilities and systems. Starting 2024 we will break up our coverage thus:
Mobility 100 (Survey of both ground and air transportation instructional and research facilities)
Mobility 400 (Reserved for zoning, parking space allocation and enforcement, and issues related to one of the most troublesome conditions in educational settlements)
Today’s session will be the last when we cover both land and air transportation codes, standards, guidelines and the regulations that depend upon all them. We will break out space and aerospace mobility into a separate session — largely because many universities are tooling up square footage and facilities in anticipation of research grants.
Like many SDO’s the SAE makes it very easy to purchase a standard but makes it very difficulty to find a draft standard open for public review. It is not an open process; one must apply to comment on a draft standard. Moreover, its programmers persist in playing “keep away” with landing pages.
The public school bus system in the United States is the largest public transit system in the United States. According to the American School Bus Council, approximately 25 million students in the United States ride school buses to and from school each day, which is more than twice the number of passengers that use all other forms of public transportation combined.
The school bus system is considered a public transit system because it is operated by public schools and school districts, and provides a form of transportation that is funded by taxpayers and available to the general public. The school bus system also plays a critical role in ensuring that students have access to education, particularly in rural and low-income areas where transportation options may be limited.
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
National School Transportation Association
School Bus Manufacturers Association
…and 50-state spinoffs of the foregoing. (See our ABOUT for further discussion of education industry non-profit associations)
There are several ad hoc consortia in this domain also; which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Charging specifications are at least temporarily “stable”; though who should pay for the charging infrastructure in the long run is a debate we have tracked for several revision cycles in building and fire codes.
Because incumbents are leading the electromobility transformation, and incumbents have deep pockets for market-making despite the “jankiness” of the US power grid, we can track some (not all) legislation action, and prospective public comment opportunities. For example:
Keep in mind that even though proposed legislation is sun-setted in a previous (116th) Congress, the concepts may be carried forward into the following Congress (117th).
Public consultations on mobility technologies relevant to the education facility industry are also covered by the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets 4 times monthly in European and American time zones.
This topic is growing rapidly and it may well be that we will have to break it up into more manageable pieces. For the moment, today’s colloquium is open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Written by William Walsham How in 1871 for the Church Hymns collection, this Christian standard is a celebration of God’s creation and love, set to the tune “Ruth” by Samuel Smith (1865). How, an Anglican bishop known for his pastoral work, crafted the hymn to reflect the joy of summer, with its vibrant imagery of glowing suns, flowing light, and nature’s voices uniting in praise.
The hymn’s four stanzas emphasize God’s mercy, eternal love, and guidance through life’s challenges, urging steadfast faith even in dark times. Its meaning centers on gratitude for divine providence, the beauty of creation, and trust in God’s presence, with the final stanza affirming hope in eternal light.
Published in over 239 hymnals, it remains a cherished expression of summer’s warmth and spiritual reassurance.
The West Virginia University PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system is a unique and innovative form of public transportation that serves the WVU campus and the city of Morgantown, West Virginia. The PRT system consists of a series of automated, driverless vehicles that operate on an elevated track network, providing fast and convenient transportation to key destinations on and around the WVU campus.
The PRT system was first developed in the 1970s as a solution to the growing traffic congestion and parking demand on the WVU campus. The system was designed to be efficient, reliable, and environmentally friendly, and to provide a high-tech, futuristic mode of transportation that would appeal to students and visitors.
The PRT system currently operates five different stations, with stops at key campus locations such as the Mountainlair Student Union, the Engineering Research Building, and the Health Sciences Center. The system is free for all WVU students, faculty, and staff, and also offers a low-cost fare for members of the general public.
The PRT system has been recognized as one of the most advanced and innovative public transportation systems in the world, and has won numerous awards for its design, efficiency, and environmental sustainability. It has also become an iconic symbol of the WVU campus, and is often featured in promotional materials and advertising campaigns for the university.
“Evaluation of the West Virginia University Personal Rapid Transit System” | A. Katz and A. Finkelstein (Journal of Transportation Engineering, 1987) This paper evaluates the technical and operational performance of the WVU PRT system based on data collected over a six-year period. The authors identify several issues with the system, including maintenance problems, limited capacity, and difficulties with vehicle docking and undocking.
“Modeling of the West Virginia University Personal Rapid Transit System” by J. Schroeder and C. Wilson (Transportation Research Record, 2002) This paper presents a mathematical model of the WVU PRT system that can be used to analyze its performance and identify potential improvements. The authors use the model to evaluate the impact of various factors, such as station dwell time and vehicle capacity, on the system’s overall performance.
“Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personal Rapid Transit: A Case Study of the West Virginia University System” by K. Fitzpatrick, M. Montufar, and K. Schreffler (Journal of Transportation Technologies, 2013) This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the WVU PRT system based on a survey of users and non-users. The authors identify several challenges facing the system, including low ridership, reliability issues, and high operating costs.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
