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