Thinking Big About SRTSSchool Travel Plans For Large DistrictsJulie WalcoffSafe Routes to School Program ManagerOhio Depar...
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, AI...
   1.2 M K-8 Students’ in more than    3,000 schools   ODE Estimates Pupil    Transportation Funding: $462 M   ODOT SRT...
Process   School Travel Plan required for    further funding    ◦ Must address all 5 E’s   Limited to 4 schools per plan...
   Large School Districts have more challenges
Background andInfrastructure   Research and Background   Pilot Project   Cincinnati Challenges   Mapping   Priority C...
   Listserv’s    ◦ SRTS Coordinators    ◦ APBP    ◦ SRTS Partnerships   Transportation Research Board’s    TRID Database...
   Gathered useful background    information    ◦ Non-Infrastructure recommendations      focus of nearly all identified ...
   48 K-8 Schools    ◦ Neighborhood    ◦ Magnet   All of Cincinnati and    portions of adjacent    communities   Active...
   How do we obtain a similar level of detail to the    current STP process when the School District    encompasses almos...
   Part 1 – Student Locations    ◦ Home address compared to      school attending    ◦ Quantified students w/in 1      an...
   Least # of routes while    providing access to as    many students within 1    mile of schools   Zero to 9 Priority  ...
   Identified Barriers    ◦ Focused on Priority Corridors       Best routes, still had room for        improvement    ◦ ...
   Barriers to Solutions    (Countermeasures)    ◦ Focused on Priority      Corridors    ◦ Other locations      determine...
   Developed a weighted matrix    (scores for each criterion)    ◦ Ped/Bike potential, including proximity      to a K-8 ...
Category              Criterion                                                                                           ...
   Focused on Countermeasures that are Important and    Feasible    ◦ Short term: 1-3 years    ◦ Responsible Party Identi...
Non-Infrastructure Approach   Analysis   Identifying Partners   Context   Needs   Countermeasure Examples   Success ...
   Non infrastructure    ◦   Polices    ◦   Practices    ◦   Programs    ◦   Activities   District Level       District...
◦ School District   Practices Research     Discussions/interviews with Cincinnati Team Members and “E Captains”     “Tr...
◦ Local Government
   Importance of Partners    ◦ Sustainability    ◦ Community support    ◦ Take ownership of      countermeasures   Partn...
◦ Schools/ Principals   ◦ Parents            ◦ Partners   Online Survey         National Center     Online survey      ...
   Support for SRTS    ◦   School district support    ◦   Local school support    ◦   Parent support   Student Safety an...
   Issue: Principals do not promote walking/biking   Countermeasure: Encourage local schools to adopt    policies suppor...
   Issue: 24% of principals ranked “concern about    violence or crime” as one of the top three barriers at    their scho...
   Issue: Students don’t have the skills they need to make    safe judgments and decisions when walking   Countermeasure...
   Integrate SRTS into other initiatives and activities    ◦ Public Health Events and Initiatives       We Know Health M...
   Contextual Findings    ◦ Several related programs and activities exist!    ◦ Different approach from infrastructure pr...
Likelihood of support                                       External partners     from key externalCountermeasure       Le...
   Working on right now!    ◦ Anti bullying campaign    ◦ Walking school bus program
Cincinnati Makes Big Strides   Community   School Travel Plan Progress   Infrastructure projects   Non Infrastructure ...
   The Right People   Continuous Involvement   Determined Partners                             “The Family Outing” by G...
•   188 Infrastructure projects    • 15 Selected for funding•   62 Non-infrastructure projects    • 4 Selected for funding
39
Evanston AcademyCincinnati Public Schools
•   188 Infrastructure projects    • 15 Selected for funding•   62 Non-infrastructure projects    • 4 Selected for funding
   Online SRTS related    Curriculum   SRTS specific Learning    Objectives   Available Nationally       http://cleverc...
   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 Loca...
   Administering Surveys    ◦ Parent surveys are time consuming      (start early)    ◦ Be aware of school district polic...
MAP - 21   Longevity   Partnerships   Planning
   Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT   David Shipps, TranSystem   Kate Mencarini, Toole Design   Don Burrell, OKI   Juana Sando...
Julie WalcoffSafe Routes to School Program ManagerOhio Department of TransportationDavid Shipps, AICPTranSystems Corporati...
#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff
#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff
#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff
#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff
#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff
#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff

550 views
445 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
550
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

#56 Thinking Big About SRTS: School Travel Plans in Large Districts - Walcoff

  1. 1. Thinking Big About SRTSSchool Travel Plans For Large DistrictsJulie WalcoffSafe Routes to School Program ManagerOhio Department of TransportationDavid Shipps, AICPTranSystems CorporationKate Mencarini, AICPToole Design GroupDon Burrell, AICPBicycle/Pedestrian CoordinatorOhio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government
  2. 2. Project Overview Introductions Ohio Background Why We Need Change The Cincinnati Story
  3. 3.  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
  4. 4.  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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6.  Large School Districts have more challenges
  7. 7. Background andInfrastructure Research and Background Pilot Project Cincinnati Challenges Mapping Priority Corridors Project Identification Prioritization
  8. 8.  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
  9. 9.  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
  10. 10.  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
  11. 11.  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
  12. 12.  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)
  13. 13.  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
  14. 14.  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
  15. 15.  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)
  16. 16.  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
  17. 17. Category Criterion WeightPedestrian/ bicycle Project supports priority corridor (on priority corridor = 20 points; within 1/4 mile of priority corridor and on street that connects to 4potential priority corridor = 5 points).Pedestrian/ bicycle K-8 schools within 1/2 mile of project (2+ schools = 20 points, 1 school = 10 points). 11potentialDeficiency Sidewalk project is on a block with missing sidewalk (block has no sidewalks and project would provide continuous sidewalk on at 4 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).Deficiency Project is along or facilitates crossing a road where traffic speed or traffic volume may be a concern (road classification is US Highway 4 = 20 points; road classification is State Highway = 15 points; road classification is collector = 10 points).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 7 points; 4 crashes = 16 points; 3 crashes = 12 points; 2 crashes = 8 points; 1 crash = 4 points).Feasibility Estimated project cost is categorized as low or medium (estimated project cost is under $20,000 = 20 points; estimated project cost 9 is $20,000 to $149,999 = 10 points; estimated project cost is $150,000 or more = 0 points ).Feasibility Project requires ROW acquisition (yes = -20) 3School demographics Percent of students at school closest to project that are classified by the Ohio Department of Education school report card as 3 economically disadvantaged (over 75% = 20 points; 50-75% = 14 points; 25-50% = 6 points)School demographics Percentage of students with disabilities at school closest to project is above 15% (state average) (yes = 20 points) 2Support 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 2 (yes = 20)Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as a priority project by the study team to address safety concerns (yes = 20) 2Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as priority by local school SRTS leadership (yes = 20 points) 1Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as priority by Cincinnati Team (yes = 20 points) 2Support 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
  18. 18.  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
  19. 19. Non-Infrastructure Approach Analysis Identifying Partners Context Needs Countermeasure Examples Success Strategies Moving forward
  20. 20.  Non infrastructure ◦ Polices ◦ Practices ◦ Programs ◦ Activities District Level  District sets policy  Not location-specific  Resource efficiencies  Institutionalizes SRTS
  21. 21. ◦ 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
  22. 22. ◦ Local Government
  23. 23.  Importance of Partners ◦ Sustainability ◦ Community support ◦ Take ownership of countermeasures Partner Contributions ◦ Letter of support ◦ Speaking engagements ◦ Funding ◦ Lead a countermeasure ◦ Donations
  24. 24. ◦ Schools/ Principals ◦ Parents ◦ Partners  Online Survey  National Center  Online survey Survey  Informal conversations
  25. 25.  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
  26. 26.  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.
  27. 27.  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.
  28. 28.  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.
  29. 29.  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
  30. 30.  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 • Responsible Party partners
  31. 31. Likelihood of support External partners from key externalCountermeasure Level of Effort needed? partnersReach out to Low No N/Aprincipals…Volunteer route Medium Yes Dont Knowmonitors…Develop a bicycleeducation High Yes Dont Knowprogram...ODOT to schedulewalking school bus High Yes Likelytraining….
  32. 32.  Working on right now! ◦ Anti bullying campaign ◦ Walking school bus program
  33. 33. Cincinnati Makes Big Strides Community School Travel Plan Progress Infrastructure projects Non Infrastructure Projects Role of the MPO
  34. 34.  The Right People Continuous Involvement Determined Partners “The Family Outing” by Gary Lee Price
  35. 35. • 188 Infrastructure projects • 15 Selected for funding• 62 Non-infrastructure projects • 4 Selected for funding
  36. 36. 39
  37. 37. Evanston AcademyCincinnati Public Schools
  38. 38. • 188 Infrastructure projects • 15 Selected for funding• 62 Non-infrastructure projects • 4 Selected for funding
  39. 39.  Online SRTS related Curriculum SRTS specific Learning Objectives Available Nationally http://clevercrazes.com/aboutus
  40. 40.  Personal Safety Improved Site Distance Tripping Hazard
  41. 41.  Cincinnati Plan Regional Support Process ◦ Long Range Plan ◦ Transportation ◦ Improvement Program
  42. 42. Lessons Learned Detail Local Team Partners Surveys Upper Level Support Prioritization
  43. 43.  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
  44. 44.  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
  45. 45. MAP - 21 Longevity Partnerships Planning
  46. 46.  Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT David Shipps, TranSystem Kate Mencarini, Toole Design Don Burrell, OKI Juana Sandoval, MORPC
  47. 47. Julie WalcoffSafe Routes to School Program ManagerOhio Department of TransportationDavid Shipps, AICPTranSystems CorporationKatie Mencarini, AICPToole Design GroupDon Burrell, AICPBicycle/Pedestrian CoordinatorOhio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government

×