#56 thinking big about srts: school travel plans in large districts - walcoff
Upload: project-for-public-spaces-amp-national-center-for-biking-and-walking
Post on 28-Nov-2014
479 views
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Julie Walcoff Safe Routes to School Program Manager Ohio Department of Transportation
David Shipps, AICP TranSystems Corporation
Kate Mencarini, AICP Toole Design Group
Don Burrell, AICP Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government
School Travel Plans For Large Districts
Thinking Big About SRTS
Project Overview Introductions
Ohio Background
Why We Need Change
The Cincinnati Story
Julie Walcoff, Ohio Department of Transportation
David Shipps, AICP; TranSystems Corporation
Katie Mencarini, AICP; Toole Design Group
Don Burrell, AICP; OKI Regional Council of Government
1.2 M K-8 Students’ in more than 3,000 schools
ODE Estimates Pupil
Transportation Funding: $462 M ODOT SRTS Budget: $4 M
$48 M in announced funding
since 2007 (127%) SRTS Announced projects in 75
out of 88 Counties
Process School Travel Plan required for
further funding ◦ Must address all 5 E’s
Limited to 4 schools per plan ODOT assigns consultants to
help communities through the process
More difficult for large school districts
Large School Districts have more challenges
Background and Infrastructure Research and Background
Pilot Project
Cincinnati Challenges
Mapping
Priority Corridors
Project Identification
Prioritization
Listserv’s ◦ SRTS Coordinators
◦ APBP
◦ SRTS Partnerships
Transportation Research Board’s TRID Database
National Center for SRTS Database ◦ Irvine, California
◦ Danville, California
◦ Black Hawk County, Iowa
SRTS Local Policy Guide
Gathered useful background information ◦ Non-Infrastructure recommendations
focus of nearly all identified larger district plans
◦ Suggested that plan be completed within 1 school year due to shifting district and staffing needs
◦ Most informative public input was received from Principals
◦ Walk Audits can be a great non-infrastructure conversational starter
48 K-8 Schools ◦ Neighborhood
◦ Magnet
All of Cincinnati and portions of adjacent communities
Active SRTS Team
Policy: No busing within 1 mile of schools
How do we obtain a similar level of detail to the current STP process when the School District encompasses almost 100 square miles?
Substantial data gathering was necessary to appropriately identify barriers/solutions
Several Methodologies were developed: ◦ Mapping
◦ Infrastructure Project Identification
◦ Non-Infrastructure Project Identification
◦ Prioritization
Part 1 – Student Locations ◦ Home address compared to
school attending
◦ Quantified students w/in 1 and 2 mile buffers of the school they attend
Part 2 – Priority Corridors ◦ “Funnels” students on routes
Sidewalks (primary)
Signalized Locations (secondary)
Google Earth (verify)
Least # of routes while providing access to as many students within 1 mile of schools
Zero to 9 Priority Corridors per school ◦ Neighborhood – larger
concentration of students w/in 1 mile
◦ Magnet – students from all over district
◦ Principals/Parents identified current/preferred routes
Identified Barriers ◦ Focused on Priority Corridors
Best routes, still had room for improvement
◦ Walk Audits Conducted at 10 schools
Trained Stakeholders
Trained 7th/8th Graders
◦ Surveys – identified issues Principal Survey
Parent Survey
◦ Existing City Plans/Policies
Barriers to Solutions (Countermeasures) ◦ Focused on Priority
Corridors ◦ Other locations
determined by locals ◦ Identified which
solutions would benefit the most students List of
countermeasures (per school)
Developed a weighted matrix (scores for each criterion) ◦ Ped/Bike potential, including proximity
to a K-8 school
◦ Ped/Bike deficiency (sidewalk gaps, roadway classification, and crashes)
◦ Support (Individual schools, Steering Committee, and Study Team)
◦ Feasibility (estimated costs and R/W requirements)
◦ Ohio Department of Education School Demographics
Category Criterion Weight Pedestrian/ bicycle
potential
Project supports priority corridor (on priority corridor = 20 points; within 1/4 mile of priority corridor and on street that connects to
priority corridor = 5 points).
4
Pedestrian/ bicycle
potential
K-8 schools within 1/2 mile of project (2+ schools = 20 points, 1 school = 10 points). 11
Deficiency Sidewalk project is on a block with missing sidewalk (block has no sidewalks and project would provide continuous sidewalk on at
least one side = 20 points; block does not have continuous sidewalks and project would provide continuous sidewalk on at least one
side = 15 points; block has continuous sidewalk on one side and project would provide continuous sidewalk on the other side = 10
points; block has continuous sidewalk on one side and discontinuous sidewalk on the other side and project would complete the
discontinuous sidewalk, 5 points).
4
Deficiency Project is along or facilitates crossing a road where traffic speed or traffic volume may be a concern (road classification is US Highway
= 20 points; road classification is State Highway = 15 points; road classification is collector = 10 points).
4
Deficiency Project is within 500 feet of a pedestrian or bicycle crash location that has occurred within the last 5 years (5 or more crashes = 20
points; 4 crashes = 16 points; 3 crashes = 12 points; 2 crashes = 8 points; 1 crash = 4 points).
7
Feasibility Estimated project cost is categorized as low or medium (estimated project cost is under $20,000 = 20 points; estimated project cost
is $20,000 to $149,999 = 10 points; estimated project cost is $150,000 or more = 0 points ).
9
Feasibility Project requires ROW acquisition (yes = -20) 3
School demographics Percent of students at school closest to project that are classified by the Ohio Department of Education school report card as
economically disadvantaged (over 75% = 20 points; 50-75% = 14 points; 25-50% = 6 points)
3
School demographics Percentage of students with disabilities at school closest to project is above 15% (state average) (yes = 20 points) 2
Support Project is within 1/4 mile of a K-8 school that has delivered a child pedestrian or bicycle safety education program in the last 2 years
(yes = 20)
2
Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as a priority project by the study team to address safety concerns (yes = 20) 2
Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as priority by local school SRTS leadership (yes = 20 points) 1
Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as priority by Cincinnati Team (yes = 20 points) 2
Support Project is within 1/4 mile of K-8 school that has participated in International Walk to School Day in the last 2 years (yes = 20) 2
Focused on Countermeasures that are Important and Feasible ◦ Short term: 1-3 years
◦ Responsible Party Identified (Steering Committee lead also)
◦ Divided into 3 Categories
School and City Policies – 18 items related to School District/City Support, Student Safety/Comfort, and SRTS Program Sustainability
Non-Infrastructure – 62 items related to Ped/Bike Education, Personal Security, Arrival/Dismissal Procedures, Student Safety/Comfort, and others
Infrastructure – 61 location specific items along Priority Corridors and several other general countermeasures
Non-Infrastructure Approach Analysis
Identifying Partners
Context
Needs
Countermeasure Examples
Success Strategies
Moving forward
Non infrastructure ◦ Polices
◦ Practices
◦ Programs
◦ Activities
District Level District sets policy
Not location-specific
Resource efficiencies
Institutionalizes SRTS
◦ School District
Practices Research
Discussions/interviews with Cincinnati Team Members and “E Captains”
“Track-It” system
Policy Research
Transportation Policies
Buildings Going Green
Facilities Master Plan
Wellness Policy
Liability Issues
Personal Security/Anti-Bullying
CPS Board of Education: Safe Routes to School Resolution
◦ Local Government
Importance of Partners ◦ Sustainability
◦ Community support
◦ Take ownership of countermeasures
Partner Contributions ◦ Letter of support
◦ Speaking engagements
◦ Funding
◦ Lead a countermeasure
◦ Donations
◦ Schools/ Principals
Online Survey
◦ Partners Online survey
Informal conversations
◦ Parents National Center
Survey
Support for SRTS ◦ School district support ◦ Local school support ◦ Parent support
Student Safety and Comfort ◦ Pedestrians and bicycle safety education ◦ Driver awareness of school zone ◦ Driver behaviors (speed/ distracted driving) ◦ Student safety at intersections and crossings ◦ Student safety along the school route ◦ Arrival and dismissal ◦ Lack of adult supervision ◦ Personal security
Program Implementation and Sustainability
Issue: Principals do not promote walking/biking
Countermeasure: Encourage local schools to adopt policies supporting safe walking and bicycling to/from school and to inform parents of these policies. Provide principals and SRTS champions with guidance regarding how to formulate and communicate these policies.
Issue: 24% of principals ranked “concern about violence or crime” as one of the top three barriers at their school
Countermeasure: Implement a program similar to Chicago Public Schools’ Safe Passages, in which adult volunteers in high-crime neighborhoods monitor and report criminal activity during school arrival and dismissal times.
Issue: Students don’t have the skills they need to make safe judgments and decisions when walking
Countermeasure: Develop a bicycle education program that includes a mobile training unit equipped with bicycles, helmets, etc.
Countermeasure: Work with ODOT to schedule walking school bus training in Cincinnati.
Integrate SRTS into other initiatives and activities ◦ Public Health Events and Initiatives
We Know Health Matters ◦ University of Cincinnati Programs
Clever Crazes for Kids ◦ CPS Programs
B.R.I.D.G.E.S. Program Eco-Mentoring Program Step Team (Taft Elementary)
◦ City’s Mountain Bike Patrol ◦ Community Programs
Safe Routes to Freedom event
Establish SRTS Coordinator ◦ District-wide liaison with local/community
relationships ◦ Looked for opportunities to promote SRTS outside of
traditional setting
Contextual Findings ◦ Several related programs and activities exist!
◦ Different approach from infrastructure prioritization
◦ Prioritization is critical
Prioritization Criteria • Steering Committee Lead
• E’s Supported • Potential Partners
• Priority • Status
• Timeframe * Level of Cincinnati Team effort
• Estimated Cost * External partner needed for implementation
• Possible Funding Source * Likelihood of support from key external partners • Responsible Party
Countermeasure Level of Effort External partners
needed?
Likelihood of support from key external
partners
Reach out to principals…
Low No N/A
Volunteer route monitors…
Medium Yes Don't Know
Develop a bicycle education program...
High Yes Don't Know
ODOT to schedule walking school bus training….
High Yes Likely
Working on right now! ◦ Anti bullying campaign
◦ Walking school bus program
Cincinnati Makes Big Strides Community
School Travel Plan Progress
Infrastructure projects
Non Infrastructure Projects
Role of the MPO
The Right People
Continuous Involvement
Determined Partners
“The Family Outing” by Gary Lee Price
• 188 Infrastructure projects • 15 Selected for funding
• 62 Non-infrastructure projects • 4 Selected for funding
39
Evanston Academy Cincinnati Public Schools
• 188 Infrastructure projects • 15 Selected for funding
• 62 Non-infrastructure projects • 4 Selected for funding
http://clevercrazes.com/aboutus
Online SRTS related Curriculum
SRTS specific Learning Objectives
Available Nationally
Personal Safety
Improved Site Distance
Tripping Hazard
Cincinnati Plan
Regional Support
Process ◦ Long Range Plan
◦ Transportation
◦ Improvement Program
Lessons Learned Detail
Local Team
Partners
Surveys
Upper Level Support
Prioritization
Appropriate level of detail ◦ District-wide Recommendations vs.
Specific Countermeasures
Importance of Local SRTS Team ◦ Must have an overall leader
◦ Local Government Staff be actively engaged
◦ Pre-existing local team shortens STP timeframe
Identify partners early in the process ◦ Keep them engaged
◦ Funding motivates engagement
Administering Surveys ◦ Parent surveys are time consuming
(start early) ◦ Be aware of school district policies
regarding surveys ◦ Utilize online surveys to collect input
(principals, partners)
Support from School District Central Offices
Walk audits not feasible for every school ◦ Provide training to locals
Development and use of the Prioritization Matrices
MAP - 21 Longevity
Partnerships
Planning
Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT
David Shipps, TranSystem
Kate Mencarini, Toole Design
Don Burrell, OKI
Juana Sandoval, MORPC
Julie Walcoff Safe Routes to School Program Manager Ohio Department of Transportation
David Shipps, AICP TranSystems Corporation
Katie Mencarini, AICP Toole Design Group
Don Burrell, AICP Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government