Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

#18 Making Tough Choices Easier: A Prioritization Process for Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements - Pullen-Seufert


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

#18 Making Tough Choices Easier: A Prioritization Process for Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements - Pullen-Seufert

  1. 1. Making Tough ChoicesEasier:A Prioritization Process forPedestrian InfrastructureImprovements
  2. 2. The needEnd-userinterview results Explainable to public and funders Standardized Practical Safety-oriented
  3. 3. SRTS project identification Step 1: Prioritize schoolsStep 2: Conduct field reviews of highest priority schoolsRESULT: Ped infrastructure needs for highest priority schools
  4. 4. Group the schools Based on  Crash history  Safety concerns  Current or potential pedestrian use
  5. 5. Group the schools 1 Current walking, crash history. Ideally school interest 2 Current walking, public/school concerns. 3 Few students currently walk because of safety concerns. 4 Few students walk due to distance or costly infrastructure barriers 5 Students walk to the school & walking environment generally safe
  6. 6. Prioritize within Group 1 (maybe 2) Use road and driver characteristics  Traffic volume and speed  Crossings  Infrastructure
  7. 7. Additionalconsiderations Geography Low income communities Interest
  8. 8. Worksheet
  9. 9. SRTS project identificationStep 1: Prioritize schoolsStep 2: Conduct field reviews of highest priority schoolsRESULT: Ped infrastructure needs for highest priority schools
  10. 10. Step 2: Field review (excerpt)
  11. 11. Learn more at
  12. 12. Thank 919 962-7419
  13. 13. San Francisco’s Safe Routes to School Prioritization System Jessica Manzi, PE Formerly of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
  14. 14. Presentation Overview San Francisco & SRTS- SF Background School assignment policy – commute study Infrastructure prioritization system Non-infrastructure prioritization system Lessons learned
  15. 15. Background on San Francisco 49 square miles on tip of a peninsula Over 800,000 people One city and one county SF has one public school district w. 100 schools
  16. 16. SRTS in SF, before prioritization School Area Safety Program – Bus and passenger loading – Traffic engineering requests around schools – Evaluation sites for crossing guards – Apply for and manage SR2S/SRTS grants – Limited education/encouragement Grant locations selected from: – Requests from schools/parents/residents – Requests from elected officials – Approved traffic calming plans – Staff-identified need
  17. 17. SRTS San Francisco SFUSD SFBC SFPD •YBike SF DPH SFMTA DOE
  18. 18. School Commute Study Change in school assignment policy UCSF conducted evaluation of school commute with over 12,000 students in K, 5th, 6th, and 9th grades Study included – 72 out of 73 elementary schools – 12 out of 13 middle schools – All 14 high schools
  19. 19. SRTS prioritization system ITE Journal article by Carl Sundstrom, Nancy Pullen- Seufert, et al (Feb 2010) Used results from UCSF school commute study, crash data, demographic data Modified procedure to fit needs of both infrastructure and non- infrastructure projects Buena Vista Elementary 25th St & Utah St.
  20. 20. SRTS prioritization system Infrastructure improvements – Prioritize schools with a lot of kids walking and safety concerns Non-infrastructure projects – Prioritize schools with the highest potential for more walkers Jefferson Elementary Golden Gate Park
  21. 21. SRTS Prioritization System-InfrastructurePrioritize schools with a lot of kidswalking and safety concerns Step 1: Compile data – Total school enrollment (SFUSD) – % who walk to school (UCSF) – Calculate total walkers – Pedestrian-involved crashes (SFMTA) Step 2: Classify schools into (5) tiers – Calculate quartiles (total walkers, ped collisions) – Classify each school John Muir Elementary Step 3: Reality check Page & Webster Streets
  22. 22. SRTS Prioritization System-Infrastructure (cont.) Step 4: Rank within tiers – % students living within 1 mile – % qualifying for free/reduced lunch – % of crashes during school hours – Severity of crashes OR Step 4: Feasibility screen – Work already planned/completed – Coordination opportunities – Scope budget v. grant budget Longfellow Elementary – Scope v. funding source Morse Street, east of Mission Street
  23. 23. SRTS prioritization system – Non-infrastructure (5 E’s)Prioritize schools with the highestpotential for more walkers Step 1: Compile data – Total school enrollment (SFUSD) – % living w/in 1 mile (SFUSD + Excel plug-in) – % who walk to school (UCSF) – Calculate # of non-walkers Jefferson Elementary Step 2: Rank by non-walkers 19th Avenue & Irving St. Step 3: Solicit participation
  24. 24. Lessons Learned Focus on the goal Use what you have (data, relationships) Take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities Be creative with funding
  25. 25. Contact usJessica Manzi, PECity of Redwood City(650)780-7372, jmanzi@redwoodcity.orgAna Validzic, MPHSan Francisco Dept. of Public Health(415) 581-2478, ana.validzic@sfdph.orgEllen Robinson, PESan Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency(415) 701-4322;
  26. 26. David Henderson, Miami-Dade MPOStewart Robertson, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro Place September 11th 2012
  27. 27. School Board CTST
  28. 28. Study Goals• Develop a formalized method to prioritize Miami-Dade elementary and K-8 schools for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) infrastructure improvements• Develop SRTS plans and infrastructure improvements for 10 priority schools• Prepare FDOT SRTS infrastructure funding applications for the 10 schools
  29. 29. Public Schools Database• Number of K-5/K-8 schools – 219• SRTS plans complete/funding applied – 62• Number of schools considered in 2011 – 157 The School Prioritization Process ranked the remaining 157 Elementary and K-8 schools based on need.
  30. 30. Prioritization FactorsFactor Source NotesPercent of students Miami-Dade County Weighted x2walking to school Public Schools and UM WALKSAFE programStudents living within 0.5 Miami-Dade Countymiles of attended school Public Schools GISJuvenile pedestrian Miami-Dade MPOcrashesTotal pedestrian and Miami-Dade MPObicycle crashesTraffic volume on the FDOT and Miami-Dadenearest major street CountyAutomobile ownership Miami-Dade MPO Weighted x0.5 Prioritization is based on composite rank of individual factors
  31. 31. Prioritization Rankings• Excerpt…Prioritization is based on composite rank of individual factors
  32. 32. Prioritization Rankings• First county-wide prioritization of Miami-Dade schools for SRTS improvements based on need• Quantitative process using available data• Assumes the six factors have a direct correlation with a school’s potential for benefits
  33. 33. Potential Drawbacks• Does not include existing pedestrian infrastructure levels – Field reviews were conducted to address this factor
  34. 34. Possible Future Modifications• Consider obtaining input from school principals on the relative need for SRTS improvements – Perhaps through annual WALKSAFE survey• Consider replacing “automobile ownership” with “percentage of students eligible for free or reduce lunch” as a proxy for income level – Available from Miami-Dade County Public Schools at the school level
  35. 35. Top 10 School Selection• Used quantitative priority rankings as a starting point – Removed magnet schools – Removed ideal scenario schools with few apparent infrastructure needs• Developed revised list of Top 10 Priority Schools to move into SRTS Plan and SRTS Application process
  36. 36. Top 10 SchoolsSchool Address Municipality Priority RankPhyllis Ruth Miller Elementary 840 NE 87th Street Miami 2Jesse J. McCrary Jr. Elementary 514 NW 77th Street Miami 3Toussaint Louverture Elementary 120 NE 59th Street Miami 5Kensington Park Elementary 711 NW 30th Avenue Miami 6Santa Clara Elementary 1051 NW 29th Terrace Miami 10 UnincorporatedLinda Lentin K-8 Center 14312 NE 2nd Court 11 Miami-DadePhillis Wheatley Elementary 1801 NW 1st Place Miami 12North Hialeah Elementary 4251 E 5th Avenue Hialeah 16Natural Bridge Elementary 1650 NE 141st Street North Miami 33 UnincorporatedOak Grove Elementary 15640 NE 8th Avenue 35 Miami-Dade
  37. 37. Location Map of Top 10 Schools
  38. 38. SRTS Plan Methodology• GIS data analysis• School meetings – Principals – PTSAs – CTST• Parent surveys• Student arrival and departure travel tallies• Site assessments
  39. 39. Site Assessments
  40. 40. Typical Recommended Improvements• Sidewalks• Crosswalks• Signage• Traffic signal upgrades• School zone flashers• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)
  41. 41. Typical Routes 1 1 2 2
  42. 42. Acknowledgments• School staff, students, and parents• Miami-Dade MPO• Miami-Dade County Public Schools• Miami-Dade County Public Works and Waste Management Department• University of Miami Miller School of Medicine WALKSAFE• School Board Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST)