The ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT)

A flexible, data-driven methodology for prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian improvements along existing roads

ProWalk/ProBike/ProPlace

Pittsburgh, PA September 2014

Follow us on Twitter! @tooledesign

• Introductions

• Why prioritize?

• What is the APT?

• Why prioritize with the APT?

• How the APT was developed

• APT Overview

• How the APT can help you

• The APT in Action

• APT resources

RJ Eldridge, Director of Planning, Toole Design Group

Joe Perez, EIT, MPA, Bicycle Coordinator and Traffic Engineer, City of Phoenix

Bob Schneider, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

• Toole Design Group

• Kittelson & Assoc. Inc.

• University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

• Pilot Communities – Bellingham, WA – Bend, OR – Carmel, IN – Gastonia, NC – Miami, FL – Phoenix, AZ – Alameda County, CA

Transportation Commission – Casper Area MPO, WY – Humboldt County, CA

Association Of Governments – Georgia DOT – New Mexico DOT

• Lots of needs, but limited resources

• Need to make wise choices about how resources are used

• Need to communicate choices to others

• Need to build public/political support for action

• May be required for funding purposes

• NCHRP 07-17 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation along Existing Roads

• Project Goals:

– Analyze institutional approaches for improving physical conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists

– Evaluate prioritization factors including safety, accessibility, connectivity, health benefits, and economic development

– Identify data gaps and research needs

– Develop a methodology to evaluate and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements on existing roads

• A method of prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle facility improvement locations along existing roads.

• APT Materials:

– APT Guidebook

– GIS guidance

– Screencast

– Brochure

– NCHRP 07-17 Final Report with research approach and findings

– Programmed Spreadsheet and User Guide

• Helps prioritize pedestrian and bicycle facility improvement locations along existing roads

• Addresses pedestrian and bicycle improvements separately but can be used as part of a “complete streets” prioritization process

• Applies at state, regional, and local levels.

• May be applied once or iteratively

• Does not provide guidance for determining pedestrian and bicycle facility design solutions

• Transparent

• Rational

• Flexible

• Responsive

• Supported by research

• Save time and effort ($$$) versus creating a prioritization method from scratch

• Literature review

• Survey

• Interviews with transportation agencies

• Feedback from NCHRP panel

• Pilot tests

Agency Region Type Population

Yountville, CA*† W City 3,000

Breckenridge, CO W City 4,540

Cheverly, MD* NE City 6,200

Madras, OR* W City 6,250

Houghton, MI MW City 7,700

Salisbury, NC† SE City 34,000

Burlington, VT† NE City 42,000

Carmel, IN MW City 79,000

Roseville, CA W City 119,000

French Broad River MPO (Asheville, NC area) SE MPO 417,000

Portland, OR† NW City 584,000

Wilmington Area Planning Council (DE-MD)† NE MPO 640,000

Charlotte, NC† SE City 731,000

Knoxville RTPO SE MPO 850,000

Delaware DOT NE State 907,000

Massachusetts DOT NE State 6,587,000

North Carolina DOT† SE State 9,656,000

Washington State DOT† NW State 6,830,000

Michigan DOT MW State 9,876,000

*Agencies contacted as part of an effort to get more representation of small communities. †Agencies for which case studies were developed.

• Prioritization is common among agencies (though some efforts are poorly documented)

• No single method, but similar frameworks

• Prioritization = balancing needs vs. feasibility

Photos by Robert Schneider

• Pedestrian & bicycle modes sometimes prioritized separately; sometimes together

• Pedestrian & bicycle prioritization differed by scale, emphasis (segment vs. intersection; focus areas vs. connectivity)

• Different weights used for criteria; reflect agency goals

• Many methods are “data hungry”

• Data collection & analysis technologies evolving quickly

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Other (e.g., congestion)

Roadway Type

Opportunity

Demand

Socioeconomics

Public Input

Route Network/Connectivity

Land Use

Roadway Suitability

Safety

Attractors

Number of reviewed sources that used a factor in each category for prioritization (17 pedestrian-only prioritization sources were reviewed)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Socioeconomics

Roadway Type

Land Use

Demand

Attractors

Safety

Other (e.g., congestion)

Public Input

Roadway Suitability

Route Network/Connectivity

Opportunity

Number of reviewed sources that used a factor in each category for prioritization (11 bicycle-only prioritization sources were reviewed)

• Common “need” criteria – Safety

– Demand

– Suitability (existing walking or bicycling conditions)

– Connectivity

– Stakeholder input

• Common “feasibility” criteria – Project cost; available right-of-way

– Opportunity (e.g., grants, upcoming projects, existing funding sources)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Planned Transit Proj.

Road Functional Class

Traffic Signals

Street Auto Parking

Paved Shoulders

Multi-Use Trails/Paths

Planned Road Proj.

Employment Density

Previous Plan

Public Comment

Street Network

Roadway Lanes

Posted Speed Limit

Bus Routes/Stops

Population/Housing Density

Transit Stations

Traffic Volume

Ped/Bike Network

Shopping Areas

Proximity to Other Location

Parks

Schools

Curb-to-Curb Width

Pavement Condition

Lane Width

On-Street Bike Facil.

Sidewalk Buffer

Ped. Crash Locations

Sidewalk Presence

Ped

estr

ian

& B

icyc

le-

Rel

ated

Bic

ycle

-R

elat

edP

ed.-

Rel

ated

Number of reviewed sources that used data item for prioritization (47 sources were reviewed)

Note: A complete list of Existing Conditions variables is included in the APT Guidebook

Variable

Pedestrian

Level of

Service (LOS)

(Segment)

Pedestrian

Level of

Service (LOS)

(Uncontrolled

Crossing)

Pedestrian

Level of

Service (LOS)

(Signalized

Intersection)

FHWA

Crosswalk

Guidelines

Pedestrian

Intersection

Safety Index

(ISI)

Pedestrian

Crash

Modification

Factors Notes

Traffic speed in the parallel direction

of travel or roadway being crossed

X X X X X

Traffic volume and composition

(proportion heavy vehicles) in the

parallel direction of travel or

roadway being crossed

X X X X

Right-turn-on-red restricted/allowed X X

Signal timing (e.g., leading pedestrian

interval, pedestrian clearance time,

pedestrian and bicycle delay)

X

Presence/type of traffic control (e.g.,

traffic signal, stop sign)

X

Presence of crosswalk warning signs

or beacons (e.g., in-street crossing

signs, rectangular rapid flashing

beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacon)

X X

Number of general-purpose (through)

lanes in the parallel direction of

travel or being crossed

X X X X

Number of designated right-turn lanes

in the parallel direction of travel or

roadway being crossed

See Schneider

et al. (2010)

Total crossing distance X

Curb radius (for right-turn vehicles) See AASHTO

Pedestrian

Guide (2004)

and PedSAFE

(2013)

Presence of median or crossing island X X

Presence and util ization of on-street

parking

X

Presence and width of the paved

outside shoulder or parking area

X

Frequency of driveway crossings See Schneider

(2011)

Presence and width of buffer between

sidewalk and motorized traffic

X

Presence and width of sidewalk X

Presence of traffic calming measures See Zein, et al.

(1997) and

AASHTO

Pedestrian

Design Guide

(2004)

Source Multimodal

Level of Service

for Urban

Streets (NCHRP

Report 616,

2008, p. 88)

Multimodal

Level of Service

for Urban

Streets (NCHRP

Report 616,

2008, p. 88-91)

Multimodal

Level of Service

for Urban

Streets (NCHRP

Report 616,

2008, p. 88)

Safety Effects

of Marked

Versus

Unmarked

Crosswalks at

Uncontrolled

Locations,

Final Report

and

Recommended

Guidelines

(FHWA, 2005,

p. 54)

Pedestrian and

Bicyclist

Intersection

Safety Indices,

Final Report

(FHWA, 2006,

p. 38)

Crash

Modification

Factor

Clearinghouse

(FHWA,

http://www.cm

fclearinghouse

.org/)

Note: A complete list of Demand variables is included in the APT Guidebook

Variable

Maryland Meso-

Scale Model of

Pedestrian

Demand

Charlotte, NC

Signalized

Intersection

Pedestrian

Volume Model

Alameda

County, CA

Intersection

Pedestrian

Volume Model

San Francisco

Intersection

Pedestrian

Volume Model

(1)

Santa Monica,

CA Pedestrian

Volume Model

San Diego, CA

Pedestrian

Volume Model

Montreal, QC

Signalized

Intersection

Pedestrian

Volume Model

San Francisco

Intersection

Pedestrian

Volume Model

(2)

Portland, OR

Pedestrian

Index of the

Environment WalkScore® Notes

Population or hous ing unit dens i ty X X X X X X X X

Employment dens i ty X X X X X X X X

Commercia l reta i l property

dens i ty/access ibi l i ty/proximity

X X X X X X X

Trans i t s tation or s top

dens i ty/access ibi l i ty/proximity

X X X X X X X X

Dens ity/access ibi l i ty/proximity of

attractors (grocery s tores , restaurants ,

coffee shops , banks , parks , schools )

X X X

Land use mix X X

Proximity to col lege/univers i ty campus X

Number of boardings at trans i t s tops XProportion of res idents l iving in

poverty or without access to an

automobi le

X X

Distance from downtown/centra l

bus iness dis trict

X Possibly add

to our l ist of

variablesSource A Meso-Scale

Model of

Pedestrian

Demand

(Clifton, et. al,

2008)

Assessment of

Models to

Measure

Pedestrian

Activity at

Signalized

Intersections

(Pulugurtha

and Repaka,

2008)

Pilot Model for

Estimating

Pedestrian

Intersection

Crossing

Volumes

(Schneider,

Arnold, and

Ragland, 2009)

Pedestrian

Volume

Modeling: A

Case Study

of San

Francisco (Liu

and Griswold,

2009)

GIS Based

Bicycle and

Pedestrian

Demand

Forecasting

Techniques

(Haynes and

Andrzejewski,

2010)

Seamless

Travel:

Measuring

Bicycle and

Pedestrian

Activity in San

Diego County

and its

Relationship to

Land Use,

Transportation

, Safety, and

Facil ity Type

(Jones, et al.,

2010)

Modeling of

Pedestrian

Activity at

Signalized

Intersections:

Land Use,

Urban Form,

Weather, and

Spatiotempora

l Patterns

(Miranda-

Moreno and

Fernandes,

2011)

Development

and

Application of

the San

Francisco

Pedestrian

Intersection

Volume Model

(Schneider, et

al., 2012)

The Pedestrian

Index of the

Environment

(PIE):

Representing

the Walking

Environment in

Planning

Applications

(Singleton, et

al., 2014)

www.walkscor

e.com (Note:

The details of

the WalkScore

calculation

methodology

are not

available

publicly. The

methodology

has been

changed in the

past and could

be changed

again. Public

users can also

update data.)

• Some responded: Making ped/bike improvements as a part of other projects doesn’t involve prioritization

• BUT: Opportunity to rethink overall transportation project prioritization more weight to projects with ped/bike elements?

• Don’t reinvent the wheel – Similar approach used by many

agencies: common factors

– But still provide flexibility

• Open the “black box”

– qualitative, political quantitative, transparent

• Develop common language

Photo by Robert Schneider

• Improvement Locations – Specific intersections, roadway segments, or areas that are prioritized.

• Factors – Categories used to express community/agency values and group variables

with similar characteristics.

• Variables – Characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other

features that can be measured.

• Weights – Numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based

on community or agency values.

• Scaling – Process of making variables comparable to one another (e.g. speed vs. ADT)

• Phase I: Scoping – Initial deliberation and

preparation necessary to set up the prioritization process

• Phase II: Prioritization – Process of calculating

prioritization scores for each improvement location based on scoping in Phase I

Photos by Robert Schneider

• Mode

• Goals

• Improvement-specific vs. general location

• Number of improvement locations

1. Stakeholder Input 2. Constraints 3. Opportunities 4. Safety 5. Existing Conditions 6. Demand 7. Connectivity 8. Equity 9. Compliance

Photos by Robert Schneider

Prioritization Purpose Examples

Stak

eho

lde

r In

pu

t

Co

nst

rain

ts

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

Safe

ty

Exis

tin

g C

on

dit

ion

s

De

man

d

Co

nn

ect

ivit

y

Equ

ity

Co

mp

lian

ce

Segment

Given a neighborhood where sidewalks

are absent, select 30 segments to

construct new sidewalks over the next

three years

● ◐ ◐ ● ● ● ◐ ● ○

Intersection/Crossing

Given a regional trail with 50 unsignalized

roadway crossings, identify 12 crossings

for safety enhancements ● ○ ◐ ● ● ◐ ○ ◐ ●

● = Very relevant; ◐ = Less relevant; ○= Not likely relevant

Nine Factors

Equally Weighted

Four Factors Equally Weighted

Relative impact of factors if weighted

differently

Nine Factors

Factors 1 and 2 w eighted m ore h eavily

Four Factors Factor 1 w eighted

m ore h eavily

• Set of possible variables is included for each factor

• Possible variables came from: – Literature review

– Agency survey

– Best practice guidance from organizations such as NCHRP, FHWA, AASHTO, NACTO, and ITE.

– Professional experience of research team

Example Variables Relevance Potential Location

Ped Bike

Note: The relevance designations in this table are meant to provide general guidance. Ultimately, variable relevance depends on the prioritization purpose. Agencies are encouraged to review each variable and consider how relevant it may be considering their purpose. Appendix C provides references for the variables listed in this table to assist practitioners in finding additional information.

● = Very relevant

◐ = Less relevant

○ = Not likely relevant

S = Segment

Cr = Crossing

Co = Corridor

A = Area

Traffic speed1 ● ● Cr, S, Co

Traffic volume and composition (percentage of heavy vehicles) ● ● Cr, S, Co

Right-turning traffic volume ◐ ● Cr

Type of traffic control (e.g., traffic signal, stop sign) ● ● Cr

Presence of crosswalk warning signage or beacons ◐ ◐ Cr

Width of outside through lane ○ ● S, Co

Presence and width of buffer between sidewalk and moving traffic ● ○ S, Co

Note: A complete list of Existing Conditions variables is included in the APT Guidebook

Note: A complete list of Demand variables is included in the APT Guidebook

Example Variables Relevance Potential Location

Ped Bike

Note: The relevance designations in this table are meant to provide general guidance. Ultimately, variable relevance depends on the prioritization purpose. Agencies are encouraged to review each variable and consider how relevant it may be considering their purpose. Appendix C provides references for the variables listed in this table to assist practitioners in finding additional information.

● = Very relevant

◐ = Less relevant

○ = Not likely relevant

S = Segment

Cr = Crossing

Co = Corridor

A = Area

Population density ● ● S, Cr, Co, A

Employment density ● ● S, Cr, Co, A

Commercial retail property density/proximity ● ● S, Cr, Co, A

Transit station or stop density/proximity ● ● S, Cr, Co, A

Density/proximity of attractors (grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, banks, parks, schools) ● ● S, Cr, Co, A

Proximity to college/university campuses ● ● S, Cr, Co, A

Bicycle facility density/accessibility (e.g., multi-use trail, bicycle lane, cycle track, bicycle boulevard) ○ ● S, Cr, Co, A

Evidence of a worn path (in locations where sidewalks are missing) ◐ ○ S, Co

Roadway density/connectivity ◐ ● A

Figure 1: Data Assessment Process

Inventory readily available data (e.g., roadway data, land use, traffic counts)

Seek other data sources (if necessary)(e.g., regional, state or federal agency data, open data sources)

Collect new data (if necessary)• Generate data from GIS analysis (see Step 8)

• High-level collection (e.g., using aerials, Street View imagery)

• Field verification/assessment

• Automatic (counters, video)

Or- don’t use that variable if no data is available!

Example Existing Condition Variables Data Considerations/Sources

Traffic speed Posted speed as surrogate for actual speeds, or 85th

percentile speeds based on speed studies

Traffic volume and composition

(% of heavy vehicles)

ADT or AADT with percent truck volumes, often found in

street centerline database

Right-turning traffic volume May be attribute data within traffic volume database, but

more typically obtained from targeted traffic study

Right-turn on red restricted/allowed May be attribute of signal database, sign inventory

Signal timing

(pedestrian & bicycle delay)

May be attribute of signal database

Type of traffic control

(e.g., traffic signal, stop sign)

Signal database; sign inventory, street-level imagery

Presence of crosswalk warning

signage

Sign inventory, street-level imagery

Number of general-purpose travel

lanes

Typically an attribute within street centerline data, aerial

imagery

Inventory Data Source/Tool Can be used to inventory data for these variables

Aerial Imagery Sidewalk and buffer presence and width Marked crosswalk presence and type Median island presence and width Bicycle facility presence and width Lane width/shoulder width Pedestrian crossing distance

Street-Level Imagery (e.g. video log, Street View)

Curb ramp presence Truncated domes presence Pedestrian/bicycle-related signage Major sidewalk obstructions Pedestrian signal heads Pedestrian push buttons

Direct Field Observation (using technological data collection tools or manual observations)

More precise lane width/shoulder width Traffic volume Traffic speed Sidewalk condition Crosswalk condition Pavement condition Curb ramp slope On-street parking presence and occupancy

• Assess your technological capabilities – Do you have the

tools you need to measure and analyze the variables

– APT intended to work for a range of technological capabilities

• Spreadsheet • GIS • Hybrid

GIS Example Source: Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan, 2009

• First plan initially adopted by Council in 1987

• 1988 bond program, $3 million = 360 miles

• Goal of 700 miles of bikeways citywide

• After 1994 – mostly gas and vehicle license taxes used to fund bike and street program –no City sales taxes, –minimal bond funds

• City of Phoenix is 520 square miles

• 22 bike bridges

• 20 bike tunnels

• 391 miles of bike lanes

• 118 miles of bike routes

• 53 miles of paved paths on canals and mountain parks and preserves

• 66 miles of unpaved paths

• 5000+ miles of local, collector, arterial streets

• General Plan – Bicycling Element Goals

– Increase bike access to destinations

– Remove barriers to bicycling

– Improve safety

• 2008 Streets Infrastructure Needs Report

– $43 million in bike program needs

– $19 million in unfunded needs

• Downtown Phoenix to Downtown Tempe, 10 miles

• Bike Blvd (Chris-Town Mall to Gateway Comm College), 10 miles

• Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway (South Mountain to Carefree Hwy) 25 miles

• Arizona Canal Path through Phoenix, 20 miles

Arcadia Portal Project Multi-Use Trail ($651,137)

Trail opened 2012, bridge opened 2008

South Mt. Community College Bike/Ped Bridge ($790,518) opened 2012

Rio Salado Bike Trails

($6.7 million in planned projects)

Social Bicycles/Cycle Hop proposed Bike Share vendor

($1.5 million in city and CMAQ federal funds + vendor investments)

32nd St ; Shea Blvd – Union Hills Bike Lanes

Shea Blvd; 32nd St –

SR 51 Bike Lanes

Over $800,000 in federal funding secured to add

bike lanes for both projects in 2013/2014

New bike lanes on Indian School Rd bet. 19 Ave and I-17 with overlay project

(June/July 2013)*

*$25K plus $75K traffic signal modifications necessary for lane shifts

caused by new bike lanes = $100K

New bike/ped improvements on 11th St Roosevelt to Washington

(under construction)

• Helmet usage

• Wrong-way riding

• Parked cars

• How to ride

• Where to ride

• Website and Apps

• Etc.

• Bike structures ($1 M- $6 M each)

• Bike paths ($800 K - $3 M/mile)

• Small special projects ($2K - $30K each)

• Bike Share ($1.5 M + vendor investment)

• Major Street Projects ( $725K/mile)

• Retrofit existing streets ($5K - $75K/mile)

• Administration ($160K - $220/year)

Calculating DEMAND

Variable Source

Schools City of Phoenix

Bus Stops City of Phoenix

City Facilities (e.g. libraries, municipal offices, etc.) City of Phoenix

Community Centers City of Phoenix

Light Rail Stops Valley Metro

Park and Rides Valley Metro

Parks City of Phoenix

Existing Bikeways City of Phoenix

Wikimap Routes Wikimap

Wikimap Destinations Wikimap

% of Households in Poverty U.S. Census

% of Population under 18 U.S. Census

% Households with No Vehicle U.S. Census

Population Density City of Phoenix

Factor Weight Variable Source

Connectivity 10

Number of times corridor intersects other corridors

N/A

Number times corridor intersects bicycle facilities

N/A

Presence of existing bicycle facilities City of Phoenix

Demand 7

Primary attractors (light rail stops, colleges/universities) within 1 mile of the corridor

Valley Metro Google Maps

Secondary attractors (schools, city facilities, community centers, park and rides, parks) within ¼ mile of the corridor. Also includes bus stops directly on the corridor

City of Phoenix

Valley Metro

Land Use (commercial and high-density housing)

City of Phoenix

Population Density City of Phoenix

% Households in Poverty U.S. Census

% Households with No Vehicle U.S. Census

% of Population under 18 U.S. Census

Bicycle Trip Origin and Destination Zip Codes from the Maricopa County Trip Reduction Survey

MAG

Stakeholder

Input 3

Wikimap Destinations (included public meeting input and transit center surveys)

Wikimap

Wikimap Routes (included public meeting input)

Wikimap

Ad Hoc Task Force input Task Force

Technical Advisory Committee input TAC

Factor Variable Source Connectivity Bicycling Barriers Wikimap

Existing Bikeways City of Phoenix

Safety Bicycle Crashes MAG % of Population under 18 U.S. Census

Existing

Conditions

Posted Speed Limit City of Phoenix Street Classification City of Phoenix

Constraints Order of Magnitude Cost Lee Engineering Available Rights of Way City of Phoenix

Demand Tier 1 Attractors (light rail stops, colleges/universities, schools)

Valley Metro

Google Maps Tier II Attractors (bus stops, bikeshare stations, city facilities, community centers, park-and-rides, parks)

City of Phoenix

Valley Metro

Population Density City of Phoenix Land Use (commercial and high-density housing)

Maricopa County

Equity % Households in Poverty U.S. Census % Households with No Vehicle U.S. Census

• 10 projects • 32 miles • 50 intersections

What do you want to do? How the APT can help

Express community values in planning and project priorities

Provides a method for incorporating variables based on community values and available data.

Offers ideas for integrating data that is more qualitative into a quantitative framework.

Engage stakeholders/public in prioritization process

Establishes a transparent, data-driven decision-making process. Provides framework for integrating stakeholder/public input.

Conduct funding-decision prioritization

Establishes a transparent, data-driven funding decision-making process.

Communicates objective prioritization method and results to the public and other stakeholders.

Prioritize list of “Complete Streets” projects to maximize benefits for walking or biking.

Identifies variables that are applicable to both pedestrian and bicycle modes.

Allows pedestrian and bicycle improvements to be prioritized separately and then combined to identify locations most in need of complete streets improvements.

What do you want to do? How the APT can help

Prioritize pedestrian or bicycle improvements for the first time

Offers guidance for practitioners in local, regional, and state agencies that want to establish a prioritization process that is flexible, transparent, and incorporates agency/community values.

Guides users through a logical sequence of steps and provides tips intended to save agencies time by facilitating important decisions around factor and variable selection; data collection, organization, and analysis; and tools and techniques for calculating prioritization scores.

Update /Compare an Existing Prioritization Process

Provides research-based guidance on additional factors and variables that may be used.

Offers ideas for integrating data that is more qualitative into a quantitative framework.

Identify areas most in need of investment for walking or biking (Planning Level Prioritization)

Suggests variables for identifying areas (e.g., corridors, neighborhoods, communities) for further analysis.

Prioritize walking or biking investments at specific identified locations (Project Prioritization)

Suggests variables for prioritizing specific project locations (e.g., intersections, roadway segments, corridors).

Figure 9: Communicating Prioritization Process by Mapping Selected Factors--Example from City of Bellingham, Washington Bicycle Master Plan

• APT Guidebook

• Programmed Spreadsheet and User Guide

• GIS guidance

• Screencast

• Brochure

• NCHRP 07-17 Final Report with research approach and findings

RJ Eldridge Toole Design Group, LLC reldridge@tooledesign.com 301-927-1900 Joseph Perez City of Phoenix joseph.perez@phoenix.gov 602-534-9529 Robert Schneider, PhD University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee rjschnei@uwm.edu 414-229-3849

Twitter: @tooledesign