SummaryThe MnDOT Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Advisory Committee held a strategy planning session for guiding future MnDOT SRTS activities on Friday July 12, 2013. This document presents a summary of analysis and recommendations obtained at this session, as well as a description of the activities conducted.

Overview of activities and reportCommittee members worked through a facilitated brainstorming session that included several intermediate grouping and prioritization activities. Results are reported in this document under the two broad questions that served to structure the activities:• Question 1: Recommended MnDOT priorities, and• Question 2: Key strategies for success

The Analysis and Recommendations sections below provide a final analysis and summary of guidance received from each question activity. A Conclusions section presents a summary of key guidance and next steps based on comments received.

Advisory Committee members grouping and prioritizing initiatives during the meeting of July 12, 2013.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:MNDOT SRTS ADVISORY COMMITTEESTRATEGY PLANNING SESSION OF JULY 12, 2013Draft Summary Report

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 1

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSQuestion 1: Recommended MnDOT prioritiesA total of 154 comments and ideas were received as response to this question. These were grouped by participants by order of sequence (“This would happen first,” “This would happen next,” “This would happen later”) and by the extent to which MnDOT has influence over them.

For analysis, comments were grouped into the following eight general categories, which were defined to capture the main theme or subject area of each of the comments received and roughly parallel elements of the “Five E’s”. Up to two of these categories could be assigned to each comment. In case a comment fit more than two categories, judgement was used to assign the two most important or relevant characteristics of that comment. For each comment, a primary keyword (for its most relevant area or prominent characteristic) was assigned, and a secondary characteristic (if needed) was selected.

The eight categories are:• Community and education: for comments relating to education efforts, or to

existing or desired community attitudes, or to bicyclist or motor-vehicle driver culture, or to general public perception, or public communications or marketing

• Coordination and partnerships: for comments relating to collaboration, coordination and partnerships within MnDOT or MnDOT districts, or with other agencies and partners (including RDCs, school boards, other state / county or city agencies)

• Policy and planning: for comments relating to planning practices, or to future plans or actions, or to policy directions set within MnDOT or other partner organizations

• Facilities and network: for comments related to infrastructure, including pedestrian facilities, crosswalks, off-road trails and/or bike lanes, bicycle parking facilities or signage, or about circulation network gaps or coverage

• Laws and enforcement: for comments relating to existing or desired Minnesota laws, or to their enforcement, or to their observation or practice (or lack thereof) by pedestrians, bicyclists or motor-vehicle drivers

• Funding and economics: for comments relating to the availability, development, or lack of financial resources - including comments related to economic development and/or tourism

• Evaluation and measurement: for comments relating to the evaluation, or the measurement of effectiveness of SRTS programs in reaching “full inclusion” goals

• N.A. and other: for comments where no additional categorization is needed, or Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 2

Question 1: ResultsResults here are presented in order of sequence as arranged by participants (“This would happen first,” “This would happen next,” etc.), with sample comments and brief narrative describing the ideas presented by participants. Full results are presented in this report’s Appendix.

Q1.1 - Analysis of comments received for “this would happen first” (near term)

Initiatives related to “Coordination and partnerships” constituted the largest group of recommendations for the near term (about 30% of all “near term” comments were related to this area). Initiatives related to this grouping include recommendations to:• Improve / support / enhance sharing of SRTS success stories and case studies• Develop an easily accessible, easy to use clearinghouse of SRTS information and

plans• Provide technical assistance and trainings to every region• Integration of other partners involved with school transportation system• Integration of SRTS plans with the work of other local/municipal and regional

agencies

“Community and education” and “Policy and planning” recommendations (each receiving about 22% of “near term” comments) included recommendations to:• Use the sharing of SRTS success stories to build wider community support• Make proactive efforts to reach communities experiencing health disparities• Prioritize investments differently so walking/biking infrastructure is improved

rather than shrinking a school’s walking zone

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 3

Q1.2 - Analysis of comments received for “this would happen next” (medium term)

Initiatives related to “Policy and planning” constituted the largest group of recommendations for the medium term (receiving about 26% of all “medium term” comments), closely followed by “Community and education” and “Coordination and partnerships” (each receiving about 24% of “medium term” comments).

Initiatives received in these groupings include recommendations to:• Develop a multi-partner (MnDOT, DPS, MDH and others) public-private

partnership to develop a campaign around SRTS and bike/walk friendly communities modeled after Pedal MN

• Develop a website/clearinghouse connecting all SRTS activities from all partners currently working on SRTS, including MnDOT, MDH, BCBS, HEART, Bike MN, RDCS, school districts, and others [this was also prominently mentioned as a “near term” priority on the previous page]

• More fully integrate SRTS goals and policies into the transportation system of schools - for example by changing busing policies to institutionalize remote drop offs, and by requiring that each school have a SRTS plan

• Continue and expand collaboration efforts by joining with other stakeholder groups invested in similar or overlapping issues (disability, senior citizen, environmental, etc.)

• Strengthen the SRTS network, continuing and enhancing current efforts - for example, regional coordinators facilitate regional SRTS groups, teams continue to meet on a regular basis, and communities who are involved act as ambassadors to their neighbors

• Expand the integration of bike/ped/SRTS planning into every investment MnDOT makes

• Strengthen regional coalitions through the work of regional coordinators bringing Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 4

Q1.3 - Analysis of comments received for “this would happen later” (longer term)

Initiatives related to “Community and education” constituted the largest group of recommendations for the longer term (about 26% of all “longer term” comments were related to this area), closely followed by “Policy and planning” (receiving about 22% of all “longer term” comments). About 30% of all received comments included in this sequence grouping were worded as vision statements that were not easily categorized as potential action items in the categories used, and were thus classified as N.A. (Not Applicable).

Initiatives related to “Community and education” included recommendations to:• Increasing access to tools and marketing that bring greater familiarity and

interest in SRTS programs and activities - for example, by increasing the number of schools providing “Safer Route” maps for families, or by increasing marketing and events related for SRTS promotion in communities to increase knowledge, participation and support - both by parents and by the community overall

Initiatives related to “Policy and planning” included recommendations to:• Make strategic decisions and long-term commitments to SRTS - for example, by

expanding SRTS programs to high schools; by committing to fund, implement and evaluate programs through multiple cycles; and by considering SRTS needs and goals as part of all activities by MnDOT and its partners

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 5

Q1.4 - Analysis of ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED - by keyword

Initiatives related to “Community and education,” “Coordination and partnerships,” and “Policy and planning” each received about one quarter of all comments (with 24%, 23% and 23% of all comments received, respectively). Overall, a systems-oriented, proactive orientation is a recurring theme for the majority of recommendations, which emphasize collaboration among multiple partners; dissemination of information, success stories and best practices to facilitate learning and building of support for SRTS; and the modification of existing policy frameworks for transportation and land use planning as an approach for maximizing positive outcomes for SRTS.

Selected themes that emerge through the comments received under each of the “Primary Keyword” categories include:

Community and education• Sharing local success stories is important, and can inspire other schools to start

planning for Safe Routes• Developing a brand for SRTS in Minnesota can help increase familiarity with

SRTS for everyone from parents to teachers to policymakers so people throughout the state are familiar with SRTS and can support its aims and needs for funding

• SRTS as a program should be bigger than the MnDOT grants

Coordination and partnerships• Develop an easily accessible, comprehensive clearinghouse of SRTS information:

it can help connect all SRTS activities in the state (MnDOT, MDH, BCBS,

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 6

HEART, Bike MN, RDCS, school districts, etc.); serve as a tool for sharing success stories; and help make SRTS plans and case studies easy to find

• Collaboration is key: Further connect MnDOT districts with local SRTS work (can use regional meetings); provide technical assistance and trainings to every region; work closely with other agencies and organizations, including partners involved with school transportation system; collaborate with other stakeholder groups invested in same issues or overlapping issues (disability, senior citizen, environmental, etc.)

• Multiple partners (MnDOT, DPS, MDH and others) can work together to create public-private partnerships to develop a statewide campaign around SRTS (like PedalMN); and get communities who are involved in SRTS efforts to talk to their neighbors who aren’t

Policy and planning• Work with policymakers (at school, local and state levels) to make SRTS/active

transportation to school a central piece of school transportation - like busing; integrate SRTS into the transportation system of each school; and institutionalize remote drop offs

• Require that every school have a SRTS plan; expand SRTS to high schools; and work to develop dependable funding and planning mechanisms so the local community can initiate and sustain SRTS program

• Allocate SRTS planning and funding based on community needs (including health disparities)

• Modify school siting practices to place greater value on keeping (or developing) schools within neighborhoods

Facilities and network• Address infrastructure deficiencies instead of shrinking the walking zone, and

make the necessary investments to ensure that any child that lives 1-2 miles away can walk or bike to school

Laws and enforcement• Support legislative changes to: strengthen the requirement for a pedestrian /

bicycle curriculum; and to more systematically integrate SRTS in Minnesota laws/rules on school transportation

• Support legislative initiatives to develop a dedicated funding stream for SRTS initiatives, and/or pedestrian / bicycle /transit investments

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 7

Funding and economics• Increase the amount of funding available for SRTS planning and implementation;

simplify the grant process; make additional MnDOT funds available for addressing infrastructure issues

• Continue to dedicate, and increase, resources to technical assistance services• Explore partnerships for coordination of initiatives and funding for projects• Communicate the value of SRTS to legislators so that SRTS, and pedestrian /

Grouping of policy recommendations - Advisory Committee meeting of July 12, 2013.

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 8

Question 2: Key strategies for successParticipants were asked to imagine that it was ten years into the future, and that they were being interviewed by a reporter who wanted to know which policies, strategies and initiatives were put in place (or continued) in 2013 that allowed Minnesota to achieve its 2023 success in fully integrating SRTS in all aspects of life in the state, and to become world-famous for its success. Participants worked with a neighboring participant to develop up to ten total strategies, and then selected their “Top 3” recommendations.

Some themes present in these “Top 3 Key Strategies for Success” include:• Deep integration of measurement and evaluation as part of SRTS reporting - to

learn from successful examples; improve methods based on local best practices; and communicate the value and usefulness of SRTS programs and investments to community members and to legislators and funders

• Continuation / expansion of technical trainings to disseminate best practices for agencies and partners working on SRTS throughout the state

• The necessity of sustaining SRTS efforts over the long-term to reach the desired results - and the importance of securing dependable funding as a component of that sustainable commitment

• The role of collaboration - at all planning and policy levels, including MnDOT Districts, and the broader community - as a key ingredient for successful outcomes at individual schools, and for the program overall

• The need to address deficient walking or biking infrastructure and hazardous conditions caused by other transportation near to schools - by developing and funding improvements, and also by rethinking transportation’s role in quality of life issues - beyond the movement of people and goods / motorized traffic

• Developing a network/coalition to facilitate knowledge-sharing, learning, and collaboration of all agencies’ work - including integration with MDH, BCBS, Bicycle Alliance, RDCs and other partners, and Complete streets, ADA and other programs at MnDOT

• Integrating pedestrian / bicycle transportation in all investments and expectations at the local, regional and state level - from cities to county agencies to MnDOT (in all its programs and investments)

• Broadening the reach of the program, and the public’s understanding and support of it, by building a public, statewide SRTS campaign that builds on Minnesota values of heartiness, love of outdoors, and health

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 9

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSBased on the comments and information collected at the meeting of July 12, and subsequent grouping and analysis of those comments, the following initiatives emerge as the highest priorities for implementation:

Highest prioritiesDevelopment of information-sharing infrastructure: There was strong agreement / desire to develop a “clearinghouse / web resource / one-stop shop” resource to “easily share ideas and case studies” - a repository of statewide SRTS information, plans and best practices that is independent of any one organization but that reflects and includes the participation of all entities working on Safe Routes in the state.  This was seen as a useful tool to support SRTS plan-making, inspire / increase school participation, share SRTS success stories, and communicate the program's value to Minnesota communities.

Necessity of additional funding for infrastructure improvements as part of SRTS programs: Multiple comments mentioned the continuing need for adequately funding necessary infrastructure improvements as part of MnDOT’s role in and commitment to SRTS. In many cases, this was supported by comments referring to conditions at school locations where the city or school district is not able to fund these needed infrastructure improvements, which may perpetuate existing barriers and decrease the effectiveness of non-infrastructure programs.

Deeper integration of measurement into SRTS initiatives: To show improvement and effectiveness of investments, and provide an evidence-based foundation for requests for additional support and funding

Additional integration of SRTS as part of schools’ and school districts’ transportation policies: To place SRTS programs and initiatives on a par (financial and policy-wise) with busing - and to foster / require updated and effective SRTS plans and policies for each school, similar in importance and priority as is currently given to busing policies in each school

Deeper integration of SRTS plans into city / county / state plans: Recommendations to foster the integration of SRTS plans as part of cities’ comprehensive plans (as part of a Comprehensive Plan’s transportation chapter, for example), and to fully include SRTS as part of Complete Streets policies and implementation at all levels.  Over the long-term, this was seen as a cost-effective

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 10

approach for improving conditions at (and siting of) schools, and greatly supporting the goals of increasing schoolchildren’s walking and cycling.

Continuation / expansion of technical support: Technical support is seen as an important resource for plan success at local communities, and for fostering development of better approaches and plans for specific schools and also for general policies and practices (for example, intersection treatments near schools, or school siting policies).  The “clearinghouse / one-stop shop” mentioned above would provide components of this technical support request, and could be supplemented by regional trainings on specific topics as needed.

Broader communication about SRTS to the wider community: To increase support for implementation, to increase parent and community participation, and to foster understanding by the general community and policymakers and representatives. This was seen as an important component for expanded /

MnDOT SRTS training for RDCs and partners held in November 2012 in Madison, Minnesota, featuring the participation of Mark Fenton.

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 11

APPENDIX 1Additional background for Question 1: Recommended MnDOT prioritiesThis activity included three sets of activities and questions:

First set of activitiesParticipants were asked to place answers on individual post-its responding to the following three questions: • What does success look like?• What is your vision for SRTS in Minnesota?• What are some ideas to get there?

Participants were encouraged to think broadly, and to offer as many ideas as possible. Participants placed their post-its on a large board at the front of the room, and were encourage to read the post-its placed by other participants.

Second set of activitiesParticipants were then asked, working individually or together, to group the post-its on the board within the following three broad categories dealing with the sequencing of ideas or initiatives:• This would happen first• This would happen next• This would happen later

Third set of activitiesFollowing the previous sequencing activity, participants were asked to:1)Think about issues, ideas or policies in which MnDOT has a role or influence2)Move those post-its to another previously prepared section of the board3)Place the MnDOT post-its in the previously assigned sequence4)Rank the MnDOT post-its along a continuum that ranged from “issues where

MnDOT has strong influence” to “issues where MnDOT has weak (but still some) influence”

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 12

Question 1: All comments receivedA total of 154 comments and ideas were received as response to this question. Results are presented below, organized by sequence as provided by participants (“This would happen first,” “This would happen next,” etc.), with issues where MnDOT has strongest influence presented first. Comments for which participants thought the level of MnDOT’s influence is similar are presented with the same ranking number.

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

Continued collaboration to move SRTS forward 1 Y 1

Technical assistance and $$$ [financial resources] 1 Y 1

Educate and persuade the government to prioritize bike/ped/SRTS 1 Y 2

Grant process is EASY 1 Y 2

More $ [funding] 1 Y 2

“Direct” or Influence district offices 1 Y 2

Statewide programming (SRTS) 1 Y 3

Lead by example for continued interdisciplinary Advisory Committee 1 Y 3

Policymakers value bike/ped investment at state level 1 Y 3

Share success stories 1 Y 4

Higher need communities get outreach and $ [funding] they need (based on health disparities) 1 Y 4

Make plans easy to find 1 Y 5

Fund statewide resources like curriculum, brand, school patrol, education development 1 Y 5

Keep providing technical support and resources to communities 1 Y 5

Make MnDOT funds accessible 1 Y 6

Support infrastructure - MnDOT has the funds 1 Y 6

Infrastructure is changed to accommodate walking/biking instead of shrinking the walking zone 1 Y 6

Include complete streets language in zoning and subdivision code 1 Y 7

Complete streets policies 1 Y 7

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 13

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

Connect MnDOT districts with local SRTS work - use regional meetings 1 Y 7

Set standards 1 Y 7

Pass Transit for Stronger Economy bill (includes bike/ped $) 1 Y 8

Pass $6M SRTS infrastructure in 2014 bonding bill 1 Y 8

Provision of technical assistance and trainings to every region 1 Y 8

Partnerships and coordination of effort, initiatives, and funds 1 Y 9

Policymakers value bike/ped investment locally 1 Y 9

Statewide public education 1 Y 9

Look at other partners involved with school transportation system 1 Y 9

There is a brand for SRTS in MN 1 Y 10

SRTS has a five year strategic plan 1 Y 10

Share success stories 1 Y 11

We can easily share ideas and case studies 1 Y 11

Get more local success stories out... 1 Y 11

Getting to success requires the collaborative grassroots efforts of parents, educators, local businesses, and the community at large 1 Y 12

Collaboration with other agencies and organizations 1 Y 12

Everyone in the state is familiar with the SRTS program 1 Y 12

SRTS should include healthy eating awareness so that places children walk/bike to work do not promote unhealthy eating (fast food, junkfood)

1 N

Educate parents - students - why; Survey - what’s preventing you from doing this (parents and students) 1 N

People understand SRTS and are engaged 1 N

Easily accessible, comprehensive clearinghouse of SRTS information 1 N

Bicycle rodeos 1 N

Link SRTS to other partners outside of school - disability, senior citizens, etc. 1 N

Schools implement bike-ped curriculum - builds base of people that think it is fun and safe 1 N

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 14

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

SRTS/active transportation to school seen as a central piece of school transportation - like busing 1 N

To get there: support the SRTS Coalition Network Campaign 1 N

Policy - all school buses drop kids off to walk 1 N

Interdisciplinary efforts 1 N

State level, regional, county, district, local - work at all levels...keep connected 1 N

New policies on school transportation 1 N

Integrating SRTS plans with local/municipal plans 1 N

Walking/biking school buses are the norm - (unstructured) 1 N

More funding 1 N

Fund infrastructure changes or work to secure infrastructure changes 1 N

Nobody thinks it’s “NOT SAFE” to walk to school 1 N

Close partnerships between schools/cities in each regional area 1 N

Every school has SRTS activities 1 N

SRTS activities are regularly evaluated and showing measurable improvement 1 N

Make safety curriculum required 1 N

Integrate bike/ped/SRTS planning in every investment MnDOT makes 2 Y 1

Walk/bike education is part of health, phys ed and other classes 2 Y 2

More collaboration 2 Y 3

MnDOT, DPS, MDH and others create public-private partnership to develop a campaign around SRTS 2 Y 3

SRTS and bike/walk friendly communities (like pedal Minnesota) 2 Y 3

Media campaigns health coolness 2 Y 3

Schools have walking and biking as part of transportation plan 2 Y 3

$ [funding] for every school that wants SRTS program - non-infrastructure 2 Y 4

$ [funding] for every school that wants SRTS program - 2 Y 4

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 15

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

infrastructure

More $ [funding] for SRTS program 2 Y 4

Legislature 2 Y 5

Increase federal $ [funding] for SRTS 2 Y 6

Pedestrian death rates down 2 Y 6

Change busing policy to institutionalize remote drop offs 2 Y 6

MnDOT and MDH publish data and performance measures 2 Y 7

School patrol program has quality training across state 2 Y 7

Schools have access to bikes for bike safety 2 Y 7

Keep the SRTS teams in communities meeting on a regular basis 2 Y 8

Those implemented inspire others to start process 2 Y 8

MnDOT - clearinghouse for information, other agencies provide resources and data to MnDOT 2 Y 8

Regional coalitions with regional coordinators bringing variety of stakeholders together 2 Y 9

SRTS is bigger than MnDOT grants 2 Y 9

Collaborate with other stakeholder groups invested in same issues or overlapping issues (disability, senior citizen, environmental, etc.) 2 Y 9

Stronger Mn SRTS network/organization 2 Y 9

Website/clearinghouse connects all SRTS activities - MnDOT, MDH, BCBS, HEART, Bike MN, RDCS, school districts, etc. 2 Y 9

Get communities who are involved in SRTS efforts to talk to their neighbors who aren’t 2 Y 9

There are regional coordinators facilitating regional SRTS groups 2 Y 10

SRTS plans are considered as part of other MnDOT/city/county projects. “Look a trunk highway is being re-done AND there is a school.”

2 Y 10

Training process of crossing guards and traffic control 2 Y 11

Public messages on how to alleviate fears of walking to school 2 Y 12

Legislative changes to strengthen the requirement of ped and bike curriculum 2 Y 12

Tie into other media initiatives...B2S ads 2 N

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 16

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

School siting as mechanism to promote SRTS/active transportation 2 N

Integrate SRTS into more systematic transportation system of school 2 N

Communities are committed to a SRTS network even if they do not get MnDOT SRTS money 2 N

Communities have local SRTS teams and resources that continue over time 2 N

Every school has a SRTS plan 2 N

Continue to provide/increase # [number] of SRTS resources for communities without grants 2 N

More systematically integrate SRTS in Minnesota laws/rules on school transportation 2 N

School siting involves SRTS 2 N

Reward schools that are doing good work - share their stories - case studies 2 N

Education and motivation of SRTS for parents and students 2 N

SRTS education is part of school day - phys ed, science, math, health, etc. 2 N

Schools, cities, parents, counties, police departments, engineers, etc. all working together to find solutions 2 N

The local community initiates and sustains SRTS program. It is part of their planning and implementation plans. 2 N

SRTS - biking and walking to school is cool and the norm 2 N

Increase students walking and bicycling to school. Decrease the number of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes around schools. 2 N

Measurable before/after results and success stories. 2 N

More parents engaged as volunteers for walking school buses or bike trains 2 N

More schools including SRTS as part of wellness policies 2 N

SRTS is fully integrated into everything we do 3 Y 1

SRTS is in high schools 3 Y 2

Expand outreach to different communities 3 Y 3

Regional transportation plans 3 Y 4

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 17

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

Healthier communities 3 Y 5

No kid has to walk in the road 3 Y 6

More youth biking to school 3 Y 7

Students arrive safely at school 3 Y 7

Plan, fund, implement, evaluate, REPEAT 3 Y 8

Reduced crashes and congestion around school zones 3 Y 8

Getting the whole community more active and healthy 3 Y 9

SRTS leads to healthier lifestyles for children - combatting childhood obesity issues 3 Y 10

MN leads in bike/ped rates 3 Y 11

SRTS state poster contest for students to do. MnDOT to do state winner. 3 Y 11

Plans are invested long-term - don’t collect dust 3 Y 12

Less kids in crashes 3 Y 13

Pass a better federal transportation bill 3 N

More schools implementing SRTS curriculum 3 N

Success looks like a community working together toward a safe walking environment for our children 3 N

Engage the whole community in non-motorized transportation 3 N

More kids bike/walk to school 3 N

Schools in neighborhoods 3 N

Any child that lives 1-2 miles away can walk or bike to school 3 N

More youth walking to school 3 N

More buy-in from school staff that walking/biking to school has a positive impact on youth 3 N

All school boards and districts are pursuing SRTS 3 N

More schools providing “Safer Route” maps for families 3 N

Integration of SRTS into other state safety and health initiatives 3 N

More kids biking and walking to school 3 N

Kids can and want to walk/bike to school - “it’s cool” 3 N

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 18

Post-It Comment

Time/Sequenc

e - (1=First

; 2=Next; 3=Later

)

MnDOT Influenc

e?Ranking

Sustained funding to support statewide change 3 N

Kids being able to walk and bike to school safely 3 N

Connect with “healthy community movement” 3 N

Adults are using active transportation more - less car travel 3 N

Sustainable funding for SRTS infrastructure and non-infrastructure - (state funds - no match) 3 N

Kids actually walking or biking to school on a regular basis 3 N

Parents want their children to use active transportation to and from school 3 N

More long-term planning incorporating SRTS 3 N

Health indicators improve for kids in MN (obesity rates go down) 3 N

Improved quality of life 3 N

Children having FUN walking or biking to school 3 N

Communities and schools that support SRTS through programs, policies, and physical projects 3 N

More community events 3 N

Students want to use active transportation to get to and from school 3 N

All schools having a safe routes plan 3 N

All schools have a SRTS plan 3 N

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 19

Appendix 2Additional background for Question 2: Key strategies for successParticipants were asked to imagine that it was ten years into the future, and that they were being interviewed by a reporter who wanted to know which policies, strategies and initiatives were put in place (or continued) in 2013 that allowed Minnesota to achieve its 2023 success in fully integrating SRTS in all aspects of life in the state, and to become world-famous for its success.

Participants listed up to 7 key strategies, and were then asked to pass the worksheet to their neighbor on their left, who was then asked to add up to three additional strategies that they felt would strengthen their neighbor’s list. The worksheet was then returned to its original author, who was then asked to select the the “Top 3” recommendations included there by placing a checkmark next to them. Interestingly, most participants included at least one of their neighbor’s recommendations as one of their Top 3.

Question 2 ResultsAll “Key Strategies” received (with “Top 3” comments listed first) is presented below:

Key Strategy Top 3?

Encouraged planning and helped to follow through on plan Y

Sustained long-term effort with engaging community support Y

Incorporated metrics as part of SRTS reporting Y

We fixed what was broken by securing resources to get sidewalks and trails connected to schools, and then we “started as we meant to go on.” We changed policies at local and state level, supported planning, and integrated the needs of our most vulnerable user into our system.

Y

We measured success with the 8-80 rule Y

We motivated students and parents to do SRTS (social marketing) Y

Education of families - students - communities (benefits - health, learning, environment) Y

Bringing cities, counties, social districts, together to make SRTS work in the areas Y

Education of families, students, and communities of the benefits of SRTS; Bringing cities, counties, social districts together to make SRTS work as a sustained effort over many years - becomes cultural!

Y

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 20

Key Strategy Top 3?

Safe Routes to School technical training Y

Showing successes by collecting metrics Y

Increased funding for implementation of SRTS Y

A SRTS campaign that builds upon the Minnesota heartiness, love of outdoors, and that we are proud to be one of the healthiest states Y

MnDOT started looking at transportation as a quality of life issue, not just moving people and goods Y

Help establish network/coalition to facilitate collaboration of all agencies’ work Y

Massive investment in infrastructure to “retrofit” areas around schools for bike/ped Y

Integrated bike/ped/alternative transportation in all MnDOT investments and expectations at the local level Y

Made alternative transportation a core part of the vision for Minnesota’s future (including bike/ped) Y

Help establish stronger SRTS network with website, regional coordination, sharing resources Y

Support board awareness campaign of SRTS to support network Y

Support launch of curriculum - starting with goal that all schools include something in transportation week Y

Integrated into the bicycle and pedestrian plans at MnDOT Y

Partnering with other agencies and organizations (BCBS, MDH, Bicycle Alliance) Y

Integrate SRTS with HSIP, complete streets, and ADA programs at MnDOT Y

Made SRTS a priority in all MnDOT programs Y

Provided information to public in a positive way - good public communication Y

Neighborhood schools valued walking and biking to school Y

Statewide bike/ped safety curriculum adopted Y

MnDOT has funded comprehensive SRTS plans in every community Y

Financial support for bike/ped/SRTS infrastructure Y

SRTS curriculum mandated in schools - “kids learn about walking/biking at school” Y

MnDOT considers SRTS in all transportation projects Y

Every community has a SRTS or active transportation plan Y

Integrate SRTS with complete streets/(ADA program?) Y

Public communication about SRTS from MnDOT - (broadcast messages) Y

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 21

Key Strategy Top 3?

MN put funding towards SRTS - and the initial ante was set Y

MnDOT prioritized safety of pedestrians equally to motor vehicle safety Y

Complete streets policy and implementation Y

MnDOT emphasized non-infrastructure implementation in grant solicitations so many schools in MN have vibrant SRTS programs and activities Y

MnDOT has bike/ped and SRTS plans for each district throughout the state Y

Education and policies that encourage walking/biking Y

Campaign that encourages children and adults to pedal vs. auto Y

Encouragement to communities to improve quality of life/active living through comp plan updates Y

Provided technical assistance and funding source for implementation

Took success stories, shared them, and inspired others to start

Individual school site plans for existing [not legible]

Incorporated SRTS into new school sites and surrounding areas

Sustained decrease in crashes and congestion - statewide around school zones

Putting non-motorized transportation as the priority in the school zone

SRTS advocates/professionals working with other sectors

Collaborated with MDH, DPS, and others to get significant money to do more than impaired driving and seat belts

Supported significant policy changes at the state level that pushed SRTS forward

Implements one successful program to prove importance

Dedicated significant portion of MnDOT budget to support bike/ped in communities

A campaign like Pedal Minnesota more oriented to safety

Fund strategic plan to guide network mentioned in above comment (Help establish stronger SRTS network with website, regional coordination, sharing resources)

Support launch of curriculum - making bike fleets available

Publish SRTS plans - post on website

Develop additional statewide resources - i.e. high school, school patrol

Get districts more involved with SRTS planning and infrastructure implementation so it becomes normal practice to think about SRTS

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 22

Key Strategy Top 3?

SRTS classroom curriculum

“One stop shop” website providing all information and resources

Collaborated with other agencies and organizations for support and encouragement of the program

MnDOT considers SRTS projects in broader transportation projects every time

Safety concerns from parents for youth walking/biking alleviated through neighborhood school/community partnerships - “we live in a safe neighborhood to walk or bike”

Prioritize SRTS at the same level or above trails

Integrate SRTS with safety program (HSIP)

Include SRTS Steering Committee member (external) in TAP/SRTS decisions

MnDOT no longer funds projects that don’t include all modes of transportation

New schools are sited in locations that are easy to walk and bike to (help with policy?)

Infrastructure in communities takes into account all modes of transportation

Investment in local community SRTS plans and implementation and updates of those plans

We changed the standard of success to build our system to meet the needs of 8 year olds to 80 year olds

Results of Strategy Planning Session of July 12, 2013 23