ODOT’s District-wide School Travel Plan ProcessColumbus Public Schools DiscussionMay 16, 2012

SafeSafeRoutesRoutesToToSchoolSchool

SafeSafeRoutesRoutesToToSchoolSchool

National Safe Routes to School

Within 2 miles of k-8 schools5 E’s

Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Evaluation

SRTS - Ohio

Funding: $6-7 M annually

Staffing: 1 Program Manager1 Shared Safety Engineer3 Shared Data AnalystsDistrict SRTS CoordinatorMulti-discipline committee

Program: Mix of Engineering and Non Engineering projects targeted to make it safer for children in grades k-8 to walk or bicycle to school.

Ohio Perspective

SRTS Project Location Map

• ODE Estimates Pupil Transportation Funding: $462 M Annually

• $48 M in announced funding since 2007

• SRTS Announced projects in 74 out of 88 Counties

Ohio Safe Routes to School

School Travel Plan– Documentation of a

communities’ intentions – Requirement for further

funding requests– ODOT assists communities in

completing STP– Must address all 5 E’s

Development of Research Project

• FHWA Research Funds

• District-wide STP Process, school districts with more than 15 K-8 schools

• The desired objective is a process that can work across all of Ohio’s larger school districts

Why Focus on Large School Districts

Large District Benefits•Planning Process•Data Collection•Prioritization•Public Involvement

Large District Benefits•Planning Process•Data Collection•Prioritization•Public Involvement

Large District Challenges•Planning Process•Data Collection•Prioritization•Public Involvement

Large District Challenges•Planning Process•Data Collection•Prioritization•Public Involvement

Ohio’s Large School Districts

16 Districts with 15 + K-8 schools (orange stars)– Columbus – 97– Cleveland – 76– Cincinnati – 47– Akron – 41

5 Districts nearing 15 + K-8 schools (green stars)– Lorain – 14– Pickerington, Mentor,

Elyria, and Findlay – 12

ODOT’s District-wide School Travel Plan ProcessDavid Shipps - TranSystems

SafeSafeRoutesRoutesToToSchoolSchool

SafeSafeRoutesRoutesToToSchoolSchool

Pilot Project – Cincinnati Public School District

• 49 K-8 schools

• All of City including portions of adjacent communities

• No students bussed within 1 mile of school

• Active SRTS Team

• Developing Walking School Bus program

Identification of Methodologies

• How do we obtain a similar level of detail (to the current STP process) when CPS encompasses 75 square miles?

• Data gathering was necessary to appropriately identify barriers/solutions

• Methodologies were developed:1) Mapping2) Infrastructure Project Identification3) Non-Infrastructure Project Identification4) Prioritization

Mapping Methodology – Part 1

Student Location Maps•Data for students: home address, grade level, and school attending

•Geocoded (GIS) students and created maps for all 49 schools

•Quantified students within 1 and 2 mile buffers of the school they attend

Mapping Methodology – Part 2

Priority Corridors•Stakeholder outreach to identify current and future corridors (existing or preferred areas)

•Use student location maps to look at access (focused on 1 mile buffer)

•Factors: sidewalks (primary) and signalized crossings (secondary)

•Walk Audits at 10 schools

•Google Maps Streetview to verify

Mapping Methodology – Google Earth

Infrastructure Methodology

Infrastructure Project Identification•Focused on Priority Corridors

•Included info from: SRTS Team, Surveys (parents/principals), walk audits, existing city plans/policies, and other data

•Google Earth for verification

•DRAFT Countermeasures (conceptual) that will require further analysis, design, and public input prior to implementation

Non-Infrastructure Methodology

District-wideFocused on Policies and Programs

– City, School District, Local, Parent/Caregiver Support for SRTS– Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education– On-Campus Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations– Driver Awareness of School Zones/Driver Behavior– Volume of Vehicular Traffic Along Student Walking/Biking Routes– Student Safety and Comfort at Intersections and Crossings and along

the School Route– Arrival and Dismissal Procedures– Adult Supervision/Personal Security

Identified “Partners” through Outreach (Surveys)

Prioritization Methodology

Infrastructure•Ped/Bike potential, including proximity to a Priority Corridor and proximity to a K-8 School

•Ped/Bike deficiency (sidewalk gaps, roadway classification, and crashes)

•Support– Local School Participation (Principal Surveys, Walk to School Day,

Education)– Priorities identified by Steering Committee, Principals, and Study

Team

•Feasibility (including estimated costs and ROW requirements)

•ODE School Demographics

Prioritization Methodology

Non-Infrastructure

– Feasibility (including estimated costs)

– Alignment with the Steering Committee’s Vision/Goals for the STP

Overall Timeline

Research Project•Began in May 2011•Background Research•Finalize Guide in Fall 2012

CPS STP•Kickoff Meeting in October 2011•Data Gathering, Parent/Principal Surveys, Walk Audits•Regular Meetings w/ Local Team•DRAFT STP in late March 2012•Final STP in early June 2012•Final STP will serve as the Template

Lessons Learned

District-wide Recommendations vs. Specific Countermeasures– Larger role for GIS

Development and use of Prioritization MatrixAdministering Surveys– National Center Surveys– Principal/Partner Surveys

Local SRTS Team– Imperative to have an overall leader– 5 E’s must be represented

Questions?

Julie WalcoffODOT SRTS Program ManagerJulie.Walcoff@dot.state.oh.us(614) 466-3049

David ShippsTranSystems CorporationDFShipps@transystems.com(614) 433-7821(800) 800-5261