Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

Non-Infrastructure Network Call

October 2, 2013

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center (TARC)

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

Agenda

Welcome/Introductions

(Victoria Custodio, TARC)

Active Transportation Program Update

(Jeanie Ward-Waller, SRTSNP – CA Network)

Preliminary results California SR2S Evaluation and the importance of prioritizing data collection.

(Swati Pande, UC Berkeley, SafeTREC)

Announcements: Walk to School Day registration, SRTS National Conference follow-up (Victoria Custodio, TARC)

Q&A

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM UPDATE

TARC NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

NETWORK CALL

OCTOBER 2, 2013

Info and updates: saferoutescalifornia.org

Jeanie Ward-Waller, California Advocacy Organizer

jeanie@saferoutespartnership.org

saferoutescalifornia.orgmailto:jeanie@saferoutespartnership.org

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM (ATP)

Active Transportation

Program ($130M)

Safe Routes to School

($24M state &

$21M federal)

Transportation Alternatives

($67M federal)

Recreational Trails

($2M federal)

Bicycle Transportation

Account

($7M state)

Enviro Enhancement and Mitigation

($3M state)

GOALS:

1. Increase trips by walking and biking

2. Increase active transportation safety

and mobility

3. Advance regional efforts for

greenhouse gas emissions reductions

4. Enhance public health

5. Ensure equity for disadvantaged

communities

6. Fund a broad spectrum of walking

and bicycling project types

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM (ATP)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM (ATP)

Senate Bill 99 (budget trailer bill)

• 40% Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPO) control of funds

• 10% to small urban and rural regions

• California Transportation Commission

(CTC) will set guidelines, award projects

for 50% under statewide competition

• Broad project eligibilities and selection

criteria

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM (ATP)

Senate Bill 99 (budget trailer bill)

• 25% minimum overall to disadvantaged

communities

• Advisory Committee to advise CTC on

setting guidelines & review project cycles

• CTC must report to Legislature annually

on guidelines and SRTS project awards,

geographic and disadvantaged

community award split

Safe Routes to School provisions*

• $24M minimum dedicated for SRTS projects

• $7.3M minimum for non-infrastructure programs

• Technical Assistance Resource Center funded

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM (ATP)

*Senate Bill 95/Assembly Bill 101 budget bills

allocate funding for Safe Routes to School for

first 3 years of ATP

No guaranteed $ for project types in statute

By Oct 13

Bills must be signed by Governor Brown

Sept-Dec

CTC will convene public listening sessions for input

ATP guidelines drafted by CTC and MPOs

Early 2014

Public input and adoption of state & MPO guidelines

Call for projects released (anticipated)

TIMELINE

IMPLEMENTATION

Public input to CTC

• Guidelines:

• Set a procedure for prioritizing projects

• Define ‘disadvantaged community benefit’ at state and regional level

• Establish data collection requirements and performance measures

• Monitor and feedback after first call for projects

• Encourage staffing/training at CTC and Caltrans

Building regional capacity at MPOs

• Participate in regional ATP guidelines establishment

• Encourage local planning for ped/bike projects

• Monitor project awards and expedient project delivery

Tracking program effectiveness in future years…

• CTC annual reporting of project awards - ensure adequate

funds to SRTS, disadvantaged communities

• SRTS guarantee only for first 3 years as “intent” in annual

budget, track annually and may need to extend

• Future funding – post-MAP-21, Cap-and-Trade

IMPLEMENTATION

MORE INFORMATION:

saferoutescalifornia.org

Jeanie Ward-Waller, California Advocacy Organizer

jeanie@saferoutespartnership.org

saferoutescalifornia.orghttp://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

CA SR2S Evaluation and the importance of prioritizing data collection Speaker: Swati Pande, UC Berkeley, SafeTREC

Ten Years later: Examining the Long-term Impact of SR2S in CA

Overview

• SR2S in California • Evaluation process

– Data sources – Safety analysis – Mobility analysis

• Conclusions

What do we want to know?

• Are SR2S funded countermeasures: – Helping to reduce collisions? – Making biking/walking safer? – Increasing mobility in students?

To answer those questions we needed to get the

data and create an evaluation plan!

Evaluation Process

• Data Sources – Collect Data – Georeference Data

• Safety Analysis • Mobility Analysis

Collecting Data

• Program data – Type of countermeasure funded, location of

countermeasure, when was construction completed

• School data • Traffic collision data • Mobility data

– Re-visit schools that participated in UCI evaluation – Collect parent survey data to assess mobility

Program Data Collection Steps

Dataset of schools affected by SR2S improvements

Assign school identifier (CDS) to schools listed in agency database

Create agency level database

Contact funded agencies

Collate grant data from Caltrans SR2S website

Georeferencing Data

• Data Sources: – California Public School Database

• Contained Lat/Long Coordinate – Traffic Collision Data

• Geocoded California data available through Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)

– Countermeasure Locations – Household Locations

Countermeasure Description and Locations

• Locating countermeasures – Intersection (automated/manual geocoding) – Corridor (manual geocoding in Google Maps along

route)

Description Location

Bulb-outs Bulb-outs - excelsior/madrid, excelsior/lisbon, excelsior/paris, excelsior/london

Construct curb, gutter and sidewalks; install pavement markings;

Francis Street between Oaks Avenue and Palmetto Avenue

Countermeasures and collisions map

Distance from countermeasure to nearest school

• Count: 284 • Minimum: 21 ft • Maximum: 4,190 ft • Median: 1,110 ft

Household Locations: For Mobility Analysis

• Similar to countermeasure georeferecing process

• Many types of invalid intersections – Parallel streets – Non-existent streets

• 23% of responses could not be located

Safety Analysis

• Compared collisions within 250 ft of countermeasure to those outside 250 ft and within quarter mile of school – Design 1: Ped/bike collisions involving children

aged 5-18 years – Design 2: All ped/bike collisions

Countermeasures and collisions map

Design 1

• Dataset of 75 schools • Rates compared across time: before/after

construction period • Restricted to ped/bike collisions involving

children aged 5-18 years • Results: Did not find a difference in collision

rates

Design 2 • Countermeasures for increasing safety for

students will also improve safety for pedestrians/bicyclists of all ages.

• Extend collisions to cover all ages • Results: Found a 73% decrease in collisions in

program regions

Results

Design 1: Collisions involving children 5-18

Design 2: All collisions

IRR 95% CL p value IRR 95% CL p value

Total Collisions

0.47 0.20 0.09 0.26 0.11-0.63 0.003

IRR = 0.26 means there was a 74% reduction in collision rate at SR2S program schools

Mobility Analysis

• Are more kids walking to school after construction of SR2S countermeasure?

• Parent surveys from 8 schools, students from grade 4 and 5

• Compare walking to school for students living within 250 feet of a SR2S CM vs. those that do not live within 250 feet of a SR2S CM

Mobility Analysis Results

• Probit regression • Living within 250 ft of a CM is associated with

an increased probability of walking to school

Conclusions

• Need better data! – Sample size: the amazing shrinking dataset – Data collection took more time than analysis

• Changes should be evaluated within an area in which the CM is expected to have an impact

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

TARC Annoucement: W2S Day!!

Int’l Walk to School Day is Oct. 9th

Register your schools at http://www.walkbiketoschool.org/

California’s elementary school participation ranking in 2012:

20th of all states (5.1%)

http://www.walkbiketoschool.org/http://www.walkbiketoschool.org/

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

Announcements: SRTS Nat’l Conference follow-up

Presentations available at http://saferoutesconference.org/program/presentations

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

Questions?

Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center

Thank you!

www.casaferoutestoschool.org

Next meeting: December 2, 2013

http://www.casaferoutestoschool.org/

SR2S_Evaluation_SP-jb_10.02.2013_TARC.pdfTen Years later: Examining the Long-term Impact of SR2S in CAOverviewWhat do we want to know?Evaluation ProcessCollecting Data Program Data Collection StepsGeoreferencing DataCountermeasure Description and LocationsSlide Number 9Distance from countermeasure to nearest schoolHousehold Locations: For Mobility AnalysisSafety AnalysisSlide Number 13Design 1Design 2ResultsMobility AnalysisMobility Analysis ResultsConclusions