Transportation Impact Study by Holly Nelson

Holly NelsonMaster of Urban Planning 2012 University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignMay 2012

Central High School Relocation Study

TRANSPORTATIONIMPACT ANALYSIS

2

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 3

Scenario Summaries 3

Introduction 5

School Siting: A Review of the Literature 5

Scenarios 7

Accessibility 8

Population Distribution 9

Travel Distances 9

Transportation Zones 10

Multimodal Impacts 12

Cost 12

Total Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 12

Mode Share 13

Mode Share and VMT 15

Athletic Participation 15

Other Extracurricular Activities 16

Cost Estimate 16

Conclusion 18

Acknowledgments 18

Appendix A: Summary of Mode Share Assumptions 19

Appendix B: Summary of Transportation Cost Assumptions 25

Appendix C: Summary of Athletic Participation Assumptions 27

DisclaimerInformation about transportation impacts for each scenario was generated using current data and estimates. Due to unknown changes, such as fluctuations in gas prices, changes to the high school districts, or changes in population, the results of modeling could vary significantly. The models are intended to identify potential tradeoffs for the decision-making process, not to predict actual costs.

3

Executive SummaryThe Champaign Unit 4 School District is currently considering options for the future of the two high schools, Central and Centennial. The district will likely remodel or rebuild one or both of the high schools and many sites throughout the Champaign area have been suggested for a new school.

Depending on the future locations of the schools, parental and district responsibilities for transportation may shift. According to Illinois law, the Unit 4 School District does not have to provide transportation to those students living within 1.5 miles of a school. Outside that distance, it must provide transportation. In Champaign, Unit 4 provides the majority of transportation for high school students by paying for MTD (Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District) passes and additional routes. Students in only a few of the most distant areas are picked up by a yellow school bus.

The Transportation Impact Analysis of the Central High School Relocation Study uses four hypothetical scenarios, intended to be representative of any of the options currently under consideration, in addition to comparisons with current conditions at both high schools. Estimates of the total daily vehicle miles traveled and the modes of transportation that students and staff use to arrive at school were used to develop information about current and future accessibility to the schools and costs of transportation.1

As the discussion among the school board, parents, school staff, and the wider community continues, these pros and cons of accessibility and transportation costs should be discussed. A greenfield site has advantages for ease of construction, provision of parking, and centralization of athletic facilities. Remodeling the current schools or building a new school on an infill site may have higher initial development costs but would save time and money for both families and the district over the school’s lifetime. Transportation is an essential consideration for Unit 4’s future facilities planning.

Status Quo (already eliminated from District options)The Status Quo scenario considers current transportation conditions at both Central and Centennial high schools. Data provided by the district regarding current transportation modes form the basis for comparison with other scenarios. Centennial has space for most athletic facilities and student parking is available. Most of Central’s athletic facilities are not located on site and students are limited to street parking.

Both schools are located fairly close to the center of population of Champaign, and as a result, students traveling to school generate a fairly low number of vehicle miles. Accordingly, there is a balance between the number of students who can walk or bicycle to school, drive or get a ride, and take a transit or school bus. District yearly transportation costs are about $249,000 at Central and $113,000 at Centennial. Families spend a total of about $449,000 at Central and $322,000 at Centennial. Average costs are about $537 per student at Central and $311 at Centennial.

1. Due to the uncertainty of future districting between high schools, the analysis of two scenarios (Country Fair and Dodds Park) produces artificially high numbers as the sites are located outside the current boundaries of Central’s district.

Scenario Summaries

4

Country FairThe Country Fair scenario represents the option for redevelopment of a commercial area located within the heart of the community. The proximity of this particular location to Centennial High School presents some options for continuing to share facilities, as well as optimizing transportation. Other commercial redevelopment areas within the city may exist. Some athletic facilities and student parking could be located on site at a large commercial redevelopment site.

Country Fair (or another similar location) is within the heart of the community, thus transportation would likely continue to be fairly efficient. Families would continue to have access to multiple modes of transportation. District yearly costs for transportation might be about $453,000 and costs for families might be about $416,000, or $669 per student.

Olympian (North, Northwest, and South fringe sites)The Olympian scenario exemplifies a greenfield development (undeveloped land) option where nearly all athletic facilities could be located on site. The site would be at least 60 acres in size, allowing for ample space for parking, green space, and state-of-the-art athletic facilities. A greenfield site could be located anywhere on the periphery of Champaign but given the size of the city, would likely be at least three miles from the city’s core.

Due to its peripheral location, students going to Olympian or another greenfield site would travel significantly higher distances on a daily basis. Almost no students would be able to bicycle or walk to school because few students live within a mile-and-a-half of the school. District yearly costs for transportation would be approximately $806,000 and family costs would be approximately $811,000, which amounts to about $1,281 per student.

Franklin (Garwood site)The Franklin scenario demonstrates the possibility of swapping facilities with another district school (Franklin Middle School), while also capitalizing on nearby land that will soon be vacant (Judah Christian School) and Spalding Park. Other options for trading school locations within the district might exist, or other local governmental bodies (such as the Park District) might be willing to provide land. A student parking lot would likely be unavailable due to lack of land and many athletic facilities would remain offsite.

Franklin is also located within the core of the community, so students and their families could continue to use a variety of transportation modes to arrive at school. District costs for transportation might be about $308,000 and family costs might be about $480,000 each year, which is about $607 per student.

5

Dodds Park (Solon site)The Dodds Park option is a unique opportunity with the potential for a higher education partnership with Parkland Community College. The school building could be built on a portion of Park District land adjacent to the college and upper level students might have the opportunity to take classes there. Other similar opportunities might exist near the University of Illinois campus.

Dodds park is not quite centrally located (towards the north and west), but is still within developed areas of town. Although the distances that students would have to travel to the Dodds site are higher than current distances, opportunities for various modes of transportation still exist. The cost to transport students would be about $934 per student, or $663,000 for the District and $550,000 for families each year.

IntroductionThe Champaign Unit 4 School District is currently considering options for the future of the two high schools, Central and Centennial. Central High School is an older facility and the local school board has suggested several sites on the periphery of the community on which to build a new school. The Champaign Planning Department has identified other sites within the city where a school could replace an existing or vacant land use.

The decision of where to locate a new high school or how to renovate the old one will impact not only the 3,000 high school students in Champaign and their families, but also the future development of the city as a whole. The location and configuration of the local high schools will influence the function of the transportation network. As a component of the author’s capstone project, this study will aim to assess some of the transportation impacts of high school locations, including accessibility and costs.2

2. Congestion of the local road network and safety of various modes of transportation are also important considerations but are not examined here due to limited data availability and the complication of modeling such impacts. 3. Litman, Todd. 2003. “Measuring transportation: Traffic, mobility, and accessibility.” ITE Journal. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 73 (10):28-32.

School Siting: A Review of the LiteratureIn terms of transportation impacts, school siting can be examined in three major ways. From the traffic optimization perspective, a fringe location next to a major roadway is preferable, with ample parking available. With an emphasis on mobility, the best location is on a major urban street with parking, frequent public transit, and bicycle access. The optimal location from an accessibility perspective is within a residential neighborhood to maximize the number of people who can walk to school.3 All three perspectives can be used to justify various location choices and have associated costs.

Few studies on the subject of school transportation or school siting exist. A 2011 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication citing data from the US Department of Transportation

6

(USDOT) notes that the number of children walking or biking to school declined significantly from 1969 to 2001, from a rate of 41 percent to only 13 percent, while the rate of students being bussed to school remained relatively stable.4 Due to the increase in parents driving kids to school, overall traffic congestion and emissions have increased, which has implications for the health and safety of children.5 The decrease in use of active transportation modes may be contributing to a nearly threefold increase in childhood obesity rates over the past thirty years.6 While some of these changes are related to lifestyle differences, some may be related to changes in school siting.

When people make travel choices, the built environment may affect their decisions. In a meta-analysis of transportation studies, Ewing and Cervero found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were influenced most by accessibility to destinations and street design variables. Land use diversity, intersection density, and accessibility of destinations improve the walkability of a neighborhood. Transit network and street network design are the primary contributors to the success of a transit network, with land use diversity having a secondary impact.7 Transportation decisions are complex but studying the built environment can provide some clues for how to plan for the future.

Land use and urban design characteristics may also have an influence on school-related travel behavior. Based on a study of travel diary surveys in Gainesville, Florida, the EPA found that school location and the quality of the built environment impact how children get to school. By locating schools closer to children, more children will be able to use active modes and emissions will decrease. Improving the built environment also reduces driving as children (and their parents) feel more comfortable walking.8 Another study of schools in the Atlanta, Georgia area found that neighborhood design factors have less influence for children’s travel than for adults because children may be influenced by their parents’ perceptions of crime, traffic safety, or school quality (the initial decision of where to send a child to school).9 Travel to school seems to be influenced by a slightly different set of factors than general adult travel patterns.

The trend in school siting in the recent past has been like that of retail, favoring the “big box” design and locating schools in areas with ample land and primarily automobile access. Along with this trend, and coupled with consolidation of school districts, the distance that students must travel to get to school has increased. For the state of Illinois, these changes have contributed to an increase in school district costs for student busing. State appropriations for school transportation have risen from approximately $235 million in 1994 to $723 million in 2009, which may be contributing to the State’s budget deficit.10 Along with governmental costs, individual costs may also be rising. 4. Office of Children’s Health Protection. School Siting Guidelines. United States EPA, October 2011. EPA-100-K-11-004. www.epa.gov/schools/siting5. Ibid. US EPA 20116. Ibid. US EPA 20117. Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the built environment.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 76 (3).8. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting. US EPA, October 2003. EPA231-R-03-0049. Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc. Youth Travel to School: Community Design Relationships with Mode Choice, Vehicle Emissions, and Healthy Body Weight. Prepared for the US EPA, December 2008.

7

Today however, the trend may be moving in the other direction as “citizens, school administrators, and parents are recognizing that schools do more than house children for the day. They affect home-buying decisions and traffic patterns. They present opportunities to create neighborhood centers for education and civic life.”11 Communities are recognizing that school siting decisions are complex and have an influence on the broader urban fabric.

10. Healthy Schools Campaign et al. Draft: School Siting and Sustainability in Illinois: Examining the Significance of School Location and Community-Centered Schools. Office of the Lieutenant Governor, February 2009.11. Ibid. US EPA 2003

ScenariosThe Champaign Unit 4 School District and City of Champaign Planning Department have identified a multitude of location options if a new high school is built. For the purposes of the transportation impact study, research is limited to five scenarios that might be representative of any of the options considered in the future (see Figure 1). Although redistricting is likely to occur if Central moves, available information is insufficient to make any assumptions about the outcome of that process, thus all scenarios will assume current districting and the continuation of Centennial High School as it currently operates.

1. Status QuoThe first scenario considers current transportation conditions at both Central and Centennial high schools. Data provided by the district regarding current transportation modes form the basis for comparison with other scenarios.

2. Country Fair (Springfield Avenue and Mattis Avenue)The second scenario represents the option for redevelopment of a commercial area located within the heart of the community. The proximity of this particular location to Centennial High School presents some options for continuing to share facilities, as well as optimizing transportation. Other commercial redevelopment areas within the city may exist.

Figure 1: High School Location Scenarios

"!

!

!

$

!

¯

0 2 41Miles

Map created by Holly Nelson, UIUC, January 2012. Data provided by CUUATS, Champaign Unit 4 Schools, and City of Champaign Planning Department.

Unit 4 District boundary

Olympian

FranklinDodds Park

Country Fair

Current Centennial

Current Central

8

3. Olympian (Olympian Drive and Market Street)

4. Franklin (Harris Avenue and Sherwood Terrace)

The third scenario exemplifies a greenfield development option where nearly all athletic facilities could be located on site. The site would be at least 60 acres in size, allowing for ample space for parking, green space, and state-of-the-art facilities. A greenfield site could be located anywhere on the periphery of Champaign but given the size of the city, would likely be at least three miles from the city’s core.

The fourth scenario demonstrates the possibility of swapping facilities with another district school (Franklin Middle School), while also capitalizing on nearby land that will soon be vacant (Judah Christian School) and Spalding Park. Other options for trading school locations within the district might exist, or other local governmental bodies (such as the Park District) might be willing to provide land.

5. Dodds ParkThe fifth option is a unique opportunity with the potential for a higher education partnership with Parkland Community College. The school building could be built on a portion of Park District land adjacent to the college and upper level students might have the opportunity to take classes there. Other similar opportunities might exist near the University of Illinois campus.

AccessibilityAccessibility is a measure of the ease with which people can arrive at a particular location. This study will use transportation zones to demonstrate varying degrees of accessibility at each potential school site. If more people are able to get to a site easily, it has a higher level of accessibility.

The three major transportation zones in the Unit 4 School District are self-transport, mass transit, and yellow bus. According to Illinois law, the Unit 4 School District does not have to provide transportation to those students living within 1.5 miles of a school. Outside that distance, it must provide transportation. In Champaign, Unit 4 provides the majority of transportation for high school students by paying for MTD (Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District) passes and additional routes. Students in only a few of the most distant areas are picked up by a yellow school bus.

Figure 2: High School District Boundaries

"!

!

!

$

!

¯

0 2 41Miles


Central DistrictCentennial DistrictTraffic Analysis Zone centroids

!

"

$

CentralCentennialPotential school locations

9

Figure 3: School Locations and Student Population

"!

!

!

$

!

¯

0 2 41Miles


Unit 4 District boundary

!

"$

CentralCentennialPotential school locations

<100.0100.1-200.0200.1-400.0400.1-800.0>800.1

Population density (students/mile2)

Travel DistancesTo determine approximate travel distances for high school students, all students were assumed to be located at the centroid of their respective TAZs. Network distances from these centroids were calculated using ESRI ArcGIS (see Figure 4).

12. Garber, Nicholas J. and Lester A. Hoel. Traffic and Highway Engineering. Pacific Grove, CA: The Wadsworth Group, 2002.

Population DistributionIn order to estimate the number of high school students in the Unit 4 School District, 2010 census data by age at the block group level was used. The census groups ages together. For the purposes of this research, the cluster of persons aged 15 to 17 was selected. Approximately 52 percent of the persons in this age group are assumed to attend Unit 4 high schools, based on current attendance information and the population within the district boundaries (1300 students at Central and 1400 students at Centennial).

Transportation analyses are usually performed at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, which are areas defined so as to minimize differences in socioeconomic characteristics and generate approximately equal trips, households, population, or area, while also following census area boundaries.12 Block group populations were attributed to the proper TAZs. Next, the TAZs near the periphery of the Unit 4 District were clipped to match the boundaries of the district. Populations within those TAZs were adjusted with respect to area of the new shapes versus the original TAZ areas (Figure 2 shows the high school districts and Figure 3 shows high school population distribution by TAZ). The population of high school students is generally concentrated in central and western sections of the district.

Figure 4: Network Distances to Central High School from Unit 4 TAZs

¯

0 2 41Miles


Unit 4 District boundary" Central

Traffic Analysis Zone centroidsRoadsRoutes from TAZ centroids to Central

"

10

13. A few students actually do live within 1.5 miles of the Olympian location, however, for the purposes of modeling, the centroid to which they are assigned is farther than 1.5 miles from the school.

The area of responsibility for the district will change with the high school’s location (see Table 1 and Figure 5). This particular measure of accessibility did not work well for the Country Fair and Dodds Park scenarios as the locations of those schools are outside of the current Central attendance boundaries. The self-transport zones were smaller for those two scenarios because adjacent TAZs were not included in the “Central” district. If a high school was located at Country Fair or Dodds, significant redistricting would be necessary, but the politics of that decision are complicated and the author is not prepared to make assumptions on future districting.

The Olympian and Franklin scenarios can be successfully compared with the current transportation situation at Central High School because the attendance boundaries in those scenarios would likely change only minimally. The District’s zones of responsibility would change drastically with the Olympian scenario; effectively no students reside within the 1.5 mile self-transport zone,13 thus the district would be legally responsible for offering transportation to all students (see Figure 5). Franklin’s zones of responsibility would be similar to the status quo scenario.

The accessibility zone model assumes that the school district would be able to negotiate continued busing for high school students regardless of location. The MTD may increase the cost of the busing service if it has to provide many additional routes or additional frequency to locations it would not normally service.

Transportation Zones

Table 1: Zones of Responsibility for Unit 4 Transportation

Individual Transport

MTD Transport

Yellow Bus Transport

Central 552.8 609.9 130.2Country Fair 235.0 927.7 130.2Olympian 0.0 1,162.7 130.2Franklin 583.4 579.3 130.2Dodds 88.9 1,073.8 130.2Centennial 653.6 583.4 164.9

School Location

Approximate Number of Students

Source: Populations based on 2010 data from the US Census Bureau at the block group level for ages 15-17 (SF1, Table P12), adjusted to match current high school attendance rates. Zone definitions based on the author's calculations using ArcGIS Network Analyst, ISBE regulations, and current MTD and school bus routes.

11

Figu

re 5

: Hig

h Sc

hool

Loc

ation

Sce

nario

s and

Tra

nspo

rtati

on R

espo

nsib

ility

Zon

esCo

untr

y Fa

irO

lym

pian

Fran

klin

Dodd

s Par

kCe

nten

nial

Cent

ral

¯0

24

1M

iles

Scho

ol lo

catio

nU

nit 4

Dist

rict b

ound

ary

Tran

spor

tatio

n m

odes

ava

ilabl

e:

Indi

vidu

al

Dist

rict -

MTD

Dist

rict -

Yel

low

Bus

Map

cre

ated

by

Holly

Nel

son,

UIU

C De

part

men

t of U

rban

and

Reg

iona

l Pl

anni

ng, J

anua

ry 2

012.

Data

pro

vide

d by

CU

UATS

, Cha

mpa

ign

Uni

t 4 S

choo

ls, a

nd C

ity o

f Cha

mpa

ign

Plan

ning

Dep

artm

ent.

12

A further measure of accessibility is access to multiple modes of transportation. While a detailed analysis of all modes is not possible, a few simple observations can indicate relative accessibility of various modes. Walkscore.com generates an estimate of the “walkability” of an address based on amenities located nearby, and design factors such as intersection density and block lengths.14 Although this does not indicate the quality of pedestrian facilities, it does provide some indication of the level of connectivity and urban fabric of the neighborhood. Central, Franklin, and Centennial all scored approximately 60 percent on Walkscore, and Country Fair had the highest score at 74 percent. The Olympian and Dodds scenarios had significantly lower scores at 12 and 43 percent, respectively.

Bicycle access to the sites also varies, although local bicycle facilities are rapidly improving (thus new facilities may be added soon). Central, Country Fair, and Centennial all have at least one bicycle route coming from each of four directions. Franklin and Dodds Park have routes coming from two directions. There are no bicycle routes near the Olympian site.

CUMTD provides varying levels of bus access to the sites. There are four daytime routes that pass within a half mile of Central, Country Fair, and Franklin. Centennial has three nearby routes. Dodds Park has two and Olympian currently has no bus access. Additional routes would likely be added near a new school, at cost to the District.

An additional consideration for staff and students who drive themselves to school is the availability of parking. The Central and Franklin sites have on-street parking nearby. The Country Fair, Dodds Park, Centennial, and Olympian sites have the necessary acreages to provide parking on site.

Multimodal Impacts

CostThe cost of transporting students to and from school and extracurricular activities should be a consideration in the school siting decision. Many have cited the current school’s lack of nearby athletic facilities as a major problem. This study will examine the costs of transportation for athletic participation in addition to basic transportation costs, for both families and the District, including shifts in responsibility between the two.

Total Daily Vehicle Miles TraveledApproximate total daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each scenario were calculated with trip generation factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook. For a school with approximately 1400 students, the average daily trip generation factor is 2.04 one-way trips per day, per student.15 This figure accounts not only for student travel, but also other travel associated with the school, including staff and parent trips.16

14. http://www.walkscore.com/15. An average calculated from the average daily trips per student and the average daily trips per employee. From Institute of Transportation Engineers. “Land Use 530: High School.” Trip Generation. Washington, D.C.: ITE, 2003.16. Unit 4 High Schools allow Juniors and Seniors to leave campus for lunch. Lunchtime travel was not included in this study.

13

Based on the numbers of students in each TAZ and network distances to the centroids, total daily VMT was generated (see Figure 6). Central has the lowest daily VMT of 5,840 and Olympian has the highest at 11,590. For comparison, Centennial’s total daily VMT is approximately 5,150.

5,834.9

6,723.0

11,587.6

6,210.0

8,503.5

5,147.9

- 2,000.0 4,000.0 6,000.0 8,000.0 10,000.0 12,000.0

Central

Country Fair

Olympian

Franklin

Dodds

Centennial*

Miles

Figure 6: Total Daily VMT

*VMT for Centennial is based on locations of current Centennial students. All other VMTs are based on locations of current Central students. Some redistricting is likely to occur if the school is moved.

Mode ShareIn transportation planning, mode share is a computation of the number (or percentage) of trips that are made using various types of transportation. For local school transportation, modes include driving alone, getting a ride from another family member, public transit, yellow school bus, and walking or bicycling. An additional segment of the population (siblings or members of the same household) does not generate trips because they can ride along or use the same bus stop as another member of the household.

Within each transportation zone, the number of students using each mode was divided based on distances (see Tables 2 and 3). The actual number of non-trip generating students remained constant for each scenario (197 students at Central and 331 students at Centennial).17

The model assumes that all students living within ¼ mile of a school will walk, with the number decreasing with increased distance to the edge of the self-transport zone.18 The number of students taking yellow buses does not change and was derived from student locations and district busing information. The number of students driving, getting a ride, or

Table 2: Current Mode Share of Unit 4 High School Students

Mode Number Percent Number PercentYellow Bus 91 7.0 107 7.6MTD 478* 36.9 631* 45.1Self-Transport 528 40.8 331 23.6Carpool** 197 15.2 331 23.6Total 1294 1400*This is the number of students eligible for MTD passes which may or may not represent the number who use them on a daily basis. CUMTD estimates that 500-700 students total use MTD buses on a daily basis. **These students were unaccounted for in the District's computer model. They are likely members of the same household as another student that would not generate an additional bus stop and could reasonably be expected to carpool.

2011-2011 District DataCentral Centennial

17. Data provided by Steven Rousey, Unit 4 Transportation Director18. Based on National Household Transportation Survey data, Ibid. UP EPA 2011

14

taking an MTD bus was based on data from an EPA study of Atlanta schools.19 MTD also provided an estimate of the total number of high school students taking a bus (an average of 500-700 students), which matches

the mode share model fairly well.20 The number of students driving themselves was validated by information on student parking permits at Centennial (typically 300-350 permits issued, as compared to 292 student drivers in the model).21 Mode share may vary between TAZs of similar distances based on socioeconomic factors, but for simplification purposes, this study assumes uniform mode share based on distance (see Appendix A for more details).

In all scenarios, the number of students driving themselves is relatively constant, ranging from 24 (Olympian and Dodds) to 30 (Franklin) percent. The number of students getting a ride follows a similar trend, with approximately 20 to 25 percent of students arriving in this manner. Students taking a yellow bus are constant at about 8 percent for each scenario. The number of students likely to walk varies significantly, with 0 at Olympian and 11 percent at Central and Franklin. Assuming a similar contract could be negotiated with MTD regardless of location, the number of MTD riders also fluctuates considerably, with 25 percent at Franklin and 47 percent at Dodds Park (see Figure 7).

While the mode share estimate is not necessarily an accurate depiction of family and student behavior, it does allow a comparison of how conditions might be different in various locations. For example, given the current location of Central, some students living nearby might be expected to walk or bike to school. If the school was located at Olympian, almost no students could be expected to walk.

Mode 0-0.25 0.26-0.5 0.5-1.0 1-1.5 1.5-4 >4Drive self 0 27 40.5 45 22 32 9.5Get ride 0 23 34.5 39 18 28 8Walk 100 50 25 16 0 0 0YB 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.5MTD 0 0 0 0 60 40 0*Mode share assumptions based on the author's experience, data from Unit 4 School District, data from CUMTD, and two EPA studies (United States Environmental Protection Agency. Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting . US EPA, October 2003. EPA231-R-03-004; Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc. Youth Travel to School: Community Design Relationships with Mode Choice, Vehicle Emissions, and Healthy Body Weight . Prepared for the US EPA, December 2008.

Table 3: Percent of Mode Share Assumptions Self-Transport Zone Distance (mi) MTD Distance (mi) Yellow

Bus Zone

19. Ibid. Lawrence Frank and Company, 200820. Estimate provided by Robert Patton, Director of Operations, CUMTD21. Estimate provided by Brian Easter, Athletic and Facilities Director, Centennial High School

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Central Country Fair Olympian Franklin Dodds Centennial

Figure 7: Student Mode Share Estimate

Drive self Get ride Walk or Bike Yellow Bus MTD

Source: Estimates based on 2010 US Census Bureau block group population (ages 15-17 from SF-1 P12) attributed to TAZs within the Unit 4 School District, and distances from hypothetical school locations.

15

Mode Share and VMTIn order to include the impacts of urban form on school location, an alternate estimate of VMT was generated using mode share estimates (see Figure 8). These estimates used the ITE trip generation factor (2.04) for students driving themselves and double that factor (4.08) for students getting rides from parents. MTD and yellow bus routes are very complicated. The model assumes that one bus per centroid travels to and from the school location each day. While the model may underestimate bus mileage, daily bus mileages would still be minimal compared to car mileages even if increased by an order of magnitude.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Central

Country Fair

Olympian

Franklin

Dodds

Centennial

Figure 8: Alternate VMT Model - Mode Share Analysis

Drive self

Get ride

MTD

Yellow Bus

Source: VMT estimates based on 2.04 trips per day for students driving themselves and 4.08 trips per day for students getting a ride for a parent. MTD and yellow bus mileages assume one trip per day from each TAZ (carrying all students).

Athletic ParticipationA major argument in the school siting debate is the difficulty of transporting students for athletic participation. Most athletic facilities are available on site for Centennial, as a significant quantity of land around the building was purchased when the school was developed. Central was initially built as a junior high school in a time period when athletic participation was less extensive than today, thus the school’s site is barely bigger than the building’s footprint. Many of Central’s current athletic facilities are shared with Centennial or are located at other sites around the community. Athletes and their parents frequently complain about the difficulties of getting to and from various sites for practices.

Using data from both athletic directors on numbers of students participating, days of practice offsite, and distances of practice locations, annual VMTs for athletic participation were calculated (see Table C1, Appendix C). The mode share assumptions for athletic calculations were slightly different than general assumptions because due to participation in athletics, athletes are more likely to drive to school if they must travel to another site for practice (see Table 4). Cost assumptions remained the same (see Cost Estimate section below).

Distance of athletic facility from school

Percent of participants driving

0.25 miles or less 00.26 to 1.0 miles 331.0 miles or greater 50

Table 4: Athletic transportation assumptions

Source: Author's experience. Marching band has limit of 25 percent driving because the directors mentioned that the "vast majority" ride district buses to the practice site.

16

Other Extracurricular ActivitiesAlthough not often discussed in the school siting debate, other extracurricular activities such as music, theater, dance, or clubs can be expected to generate additional travel. Currently, these activities take place onsite at both Central and Centennial and could be expected to remain onsite regardless of location. For this reason, other extracurricular activities would likely show very similar patterns of VMT, as well as accessibility, cost, and emissions to the basic travel patterns discussed above. general assumptions because due to participation in athletics, athletes are more likely to drive to school if they must travel to another site for practice (see Table 5). Cost assumptions remained the same (see Cost Estimate section below).

Cost EstimateGiven the VMT estimates from mode share assumptions above, costs for families and the District may vary significantly (see Figure 9). Individual vehicle operational costs are approximately 55.5 cents per mile.22 The Unit 4 annual contract with MTD is currently approximately $305,020.23 In order to estimate differences in the cost of the MTD contract, the current cost (including both Central and Centennial) was divided by the estimate of MTD VMT from the mode share VMT estimate. Yellow bus costs were more difficult to determine. A report by the Maine Department

of Education in 2005 lists a cost of $2.87 per mile as the national average for yellow school bus costs.24 To account for inflation and increasing fuel costs, this study uses a rate of $3 per yellow bus mile traveled.

Total costs borne by families for both basic transportation and athletic transportation could range from approximately $426,000 (Country Fair) to $811,000 (Olympian), as compared to $322,000 at Centennial. District costs would range from about $249,000 at Central to

22. Internal Revenue Service. “IRS Increases Mileage Rate to 55.5 Cents per Mile.” June 23, 2011. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=240903,00.html23. Data provided by Cynthia Hoyle, Transportation Planning Consultant for the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District.24. Maine Department of Education. FY 2005 School Bus Transportation Statistics. 2005. www.maine.gov/education/const/trans/pt065.doc

$-

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

$1,600.00

$1,800.00

Central Country Fair Olympian Franklin Dodds Park Centennial

Annu

al c

ost,

in th

ousa

nds o

f dol

lars

Figure 9: Estimated Annual Transportation Costs

District Cost for Yellow Buses

District Cost for MTD

Basic Annual Family Costs

Source: Based on author's estimates of mode share and student distances from school locations. Costs assume $0.55 per mile for families (2011 IRS reimbursement rate), current MTD contract of $305,020 scaled to estimation of MTD VMT for each scenario (CUMTD), and $3 per mile for yellow bus operations (based on State of Maine School Bus Transportation Statistics, FY2005).

17

$854,000 at Olympian, versus $113,000 at Centennial (see Figure 9). The average annual cost of transportation per student is about $310 at Centennial currently and would range from $537 at Central to $1,281 at the Olympian site or another greenfield location.

Annual costs for athletic transportation were calculated for the scenarios based on the VMT calculations from the “Athletic Participation section above (see Table 5). The current Central and the Franklin scenario have significantly higher costs for athletic participation than the two scenarios where most facilities could be located onsite (Olympian and Centennial).To put these costs in perspective, however, the differences in athletic costs are very low in comparison with basic transportation costs (see Figures 10 and 11).

School LocationNumber of

Sports Offsite

Annual Family

VMTAnnual

Family Cost

Annual District

VMTAnnual

District CostCentral 18 86342.0 47,488.09$ 487.8 1,463.41$ Country Fair 12 29521.5 16,236.81$ 217.1 651.28$ Olympian 2 13902.3 7,646.28$ 0.0 -$ Franklin 12 80408.0 44,224.42$ 668.0 2,004.03$ Dodds Park 8 34449.8 18,947.37$ 144.8 434.44$

Centennial 8 16844.9 9,264.67$ 165.1 495.33$ Source: Data on athletic participation provided by Unit 4 athletic directors.

Table 5: Estimated costs of athletic participation

$-

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

$900.00


Cost

, in

thou

sand

s of d

olla

rs

Figure 10: Family Transportation Costs - Basic vs. Athletic

Basic Annual Family CostsAthletic Annual Family Costs

Source: Based on author's estimates of mode share and student distances from school locations. Costs assume $0.55 per mile for families (2011 IRS reimbursement rate).

$-

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

$900.00


Cost

, in

thou

sand

s of d

olla

rs

Figure 11: District Transportation Costs - Basic vs. Athletic Basic Annual District Cost

Athletic Annual District Cost

Source: Based on author's estimates of mode share and student distances from school locations. Costs assume current MTD contract of $305,020 scaled to estimation of MTD VMT for each scenario (CUMTD) and $3 per mile for yellow bus operations (based off of State of Maine School Bus Transportation Statistics, FY2005).

18

ConclusionSchool location impacts transportation in terms of accessibility, mode choice, and costs. These factors should be considered in the school siting debate. Each scenario will have positive and negative transportation impacts.

The status quo transportation scenario is fairly efficient in terms of limiting VMT and costs but parking at Central is difficult and athletic facilities are scattered. The Country Fair scenario would likely also generate limited VMT and costs (dependent on redistricting) and may provide opportunities for more efficient busing and athletic facility sharing. Parking and athletic participation would be much more convenient in the Olympian scenario, but VMT and costs would be high and few students could walk or bicycle to school. Franklin is efficient in terms of VMT and costs but no parking is available and most athletic facilities would still be located offsite. The Dodds Park site would be somewhat centralized (dependent on redistricting), limit VMT and costs, and would provide parking, but some athletic facilities would likely have to remain offsite.

As the discussion among the school board, parents, school staff, and the wider community continues, these pros and cons of accessibility, mode share and transportation costs should be discussed. A greenfield site has advantages for ease of construction, provision of parking, and centralization of athletic facilities. Remodeling the current schools or building a new school on an infill site may have higher initial development costs but would save time and money for both families and the district over the school’s lifetime. Transportation is an essential consideration for Unit 4’s future facilities planning.

AcknowledgmentsMany thanks to the local officials and professors who provided data, information, and advice towards the completion of this project:

• Brian Easter, Centennial Athletic Director• Eric Hansen, Champaign County Regional Planning Commission• Cynthia Hoyle, Transportation Planning Consultant to the CU Mass Transit District• Bruce Knight, City of Champaign Planning Deparment• Rob Kowalski, City of Champaign Planning Department• Bumsoo Lee, Professor of Urban Planning• Gabriel Lewis, Champaign County Regional Planning Commission• Robert Malito, Interim Superintendent, Unit 4 School District• Robert Patton, CU Mass Transit District• Barbara Ramsay, Champaign Unit 4 Schools• Steve Rousey, Champaign Unit 4 Director of Transportation• Daniel Schneider, Professor of Urban Planning• Mohammed Ullah, Champaign County Regional Planning Commission• Bill Volk, CU Mass Transit District• John Woods, Central Athletic Director

19

Appendix A: Summary of Mode Share AssumptionsAs outlined in the full report, transportation costs for individual families were derived using a multi-step process.

Student LocationsFirst, students were allocated spatially throughout the district based on 2010 Census data for persons age 15-17 (Census data comes in age groups and this was the one that most closely matches the age of high school students). As these populations were significantly higher than the actual number of students in attendance, I multiplied all populations by a factor (0.52) to reach the approximate current attendance figures of 1300 students at Central and 1400 students at Centennial (see page 7).

To calculate the distances that each student travels to school, I assumed that all students within a given geometric area (in this case, Traffic Analysis Zones) were located at the center of area that zone (see Figure 4 on page 8). I used ArcMap, a mapping software, to determine the distances from the centers of area to the school locations.

Student Modes of TravelTo determine the mileages and costs for each site, I made an estimate of the number of students that would be likely to walk or bike, drive or be driven, or take a yellow or MTD bus. I began by examining the actual numbers of students who travel using each mode currently (See Table 2 above, data provided by Steve Rousey).

While this data was very helpful, there are some major differences between the two schools in the number of students who travel using each mode. Also, the district has no way of determining how the “self-transport” students get to school – they may walk, pay for their own bus pass, get a ride from a parent or sibling, or drive themselves. Without any survey data, I turned to some studies from other cities about the transportation habits of high school families, also using my own perspective of having been a student and other data from local sources to verify the results.

I chose to vary the transportation mode choice by distance from the school, as shown in the table below (Table 3 above). See Table A1 for the exact breakdown of how my model distributed students by mode.

Driving AloneI assumed that people driving themselves would increase based on distance. I used an EPA study from Atlanta that studied mode share by age and distance for guidance. For example, the study found that 20 percent of 16-year-olds and about 60 percent of 17-18-year-olds drove alone to school (approximately 35 percent of total student population, if age is distributed evenly between 15, 16, 17, and 18-year-olds). Those numbers seemed high to me given the high number of people in the Unit 4 district with low socioeconomic status and the convenience of public transit. For comparison, Centennial informed me that approximately 300 to 350 student parking permits are purchased each year. According to my model, approximately 292 students drive themselves each day at Centennial, which amounts to 21 percent of students. An equal percentage of students drive to the fringe site (Olympian) in my model, but they are distributed somewhat differently because all students effectively live outside the self-transport zone.

20

Table A1: Student transportation mode distribution from author's modelMTD

Mode 0-0.25 0.26-0.5 0.5-1.0 1-1.5 1.5-4 >4 YB TOTALDrive self 0.0 4.2 70.7 110.2 95.4 26.7 10.5 317.7 25%Get ride 0.0 3.5 60.2 95.5 78.1 23.3 8.8 269.5 21%Walk 33.9 7.7 43.7 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.5 10%YB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.1 91.1 7%MTD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.3 33.3 0.0 293.6 23%Carpool 6.1 2.8 31.3 43.9 77.8 14.9 19.8 197.0 15%Total 40.0 18.2 205.9 288.7 511.6 98.3 130.2 1292.9 100%

MTDMode 0-0.25 0.26-0.5 0.5-1.0 1-1.5 1.5-4 >4 YB TOTALDrive self 0.0 3.3 33.9 46.4 166.7 9.3 10.5 270.2 21%Get ride 0.0 2.8 28.9 40.2 136.4 8.1 8.8 225.3 17%Walk 0.0 6.2 20.9 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.6 3%YB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.1 91.1 7%MTD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 454.6 11.6 0.0 466.2 36%Carpool 0.0 2.2 15.0 18.5 135.8 5.2 19.8 197.0 15%Total 0.0 14.6 98.8 121.7 893.4 34.3 130.2 1293.0 100%





Cent

enni

al

Self-Transport Distance Mode Percent


Cent

ral

Coun

try

Fair

Oly

mpi

anFr

ankl

inDo

dds P

ark





21

Getting a RideAccording to the Atlanta model, approximately 30.5 percent of students shared a ride to school. This category is slightly different than the way I examined mode share because it does not differentiate between those students getting a ride from another student and those getting a ride from a parent who may have to make a separate trip to drop off or pick up students at school. In the self-transport zone, the number of students getting a ride increases significantly with distance. I assumed much lower percentages of students would get a ride from parents in the MTD or yellow bus zones because the inconvenience of driving a child to school increases with distance and another form of transport is available free of charge to families.

Because the number of students carpooling at each school is unlikely to change based on the school’s location (the number of sibling pairs is unlikely to vary significantly) and the percentages were significantly different between Central and Centennial, I kept those numbers constant across all locations (197 at Central and alternate sites, 331 at Centennial). The percentage of carpooling students was held constant across all distances.

In my model, approximately 21 percent of students were dropped off by parents and 20 percent rode along in a vehicle that was already going to the Central. At Centennial, 17.6 percent of students were dropped off and 20 percent carpooled.

Walking or BicyclingFor students who live a quarter mile or less from a given site, I assumed that all students would walk. The percentage of students walking decreases with distance to only 16 percent walking between 1 and 1.5 miles from the school and zero walking beyond 1.5 miles. The Atlanta study found that an average of 4.25 percent of high school students walked to school. In my model, 9.6 percent of students walked at Central and 11.5 walked at Centennial. Given the more dense urban nature of Champaign compared to Atlanta, these estimates seemed reasonable to me.Riding a Yellow BusI assumed that only students who live in the yellow bus zone would ride a yellow bus in all scenarios. For Centennial, the model assumes that 104 students (7.4 percent) ride the bus, as compared to 107 students according to Unit 4’s actual data. At Central the model assumes that 91 students (7.0 percent) ride the bus, which is equal to the number from the district’s system. These numbers remained the same in the alternative locations because I assumed that the same areas of the district would remain outside of MTD’s service area regardless of the school’s location.

Riding a Yellow BusI assumed that only students who live outside of 1.5 mile but within the MTD’s service area would ride the MTD. Because a bus ride is less convenient for students who live farther from the school sites, I assumed that the percentage of students riding more than four miles was somewhat less (60 percent of those living 1.5 to 4 miles away, 40 percent of those living more than 4 miles away). The total percentage of students riding MTD was 23 percent at Central and 19 percent at Centennial, which is a total of 561 students. Staff at MTD told me that approximately 500 to 700 students use MTD currently.

22

Travel DistancesBased upon the breakdown of mode share described above and the spatial allocation of students, I was able to calculate total vehicle miles traveled using each mode. As mentioned in the report, I used the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook. For a school with approximately 1400 students, the average daily trip generation factor is 2.04 one-way trips per day, per student. This figure accounts not only for student travel, but also other travel associated with the school, including staff and parent trips.

According to this figure, Central currently generates a total of approximately 2,652 one-way trips each day, which are distributed among students and staff. Because these trips are not distributed evenly among students (not every student drives himself), I assumed that students driving alone would make 2.04 trips per day and parents giving a ride would make 4.08 trips per day. Although this does not account for “trip-chaining,” whereby parents drop students off at school on the way to or from work, I used this higher figure to account for other travel associated with the school such as staff or extra parental visits for conferences. At Central, the model generates a total of 2,164 trips, of which 62 are MTD or yellow bus trips. In comparison, at the Olympian site the model generates a lesser total of 1,917 trips (118 MTD or yellow bus trips), but the total vehicle miles traveled increases significantly because the students are far from the school.

MTD and yellow bus routes are complicated so to simplify the analysis I assumed that one bus would travel from each Traffic Analysis Zone to the school each day. In actuality, I think this assumption may significantly decrease the total VMT generated by buses, but it does allow the bus routes to adjust based on the school locations. For example, yellow buses drive approximately 70 miles each day to Central in the model. From a quick examination of the actual bus routes, it appears to me that each bus route may be up to 15 miles in length. If each high school uses three buses and the buses pick students up and drop them off after school, the total daily mileage would be 90.

For a closer examination of the differences in vehicle miles traveled at Central versus a fringe site, please see tables A2 and A3 which outline the VMT by mode type and traffic analysis zone distance. Transport zones refer to Individual (I), MTD (M), and Yellow Bus (Y) zones, as shown in Figure 5.

23

Table A2: Central High School Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by Mode ShareDrivers Riders MTD Yellow Bus

TAZ Name

Number High School

Students

Distance from School

(miles)Transport

Zone

Daily VMT (2.04 one-way

trips daily)

Daily VMT (4.08 one-way trips

daily)

Daily VMT (2 one-way trips

daily)


daily)CHP164 22.9 0.2 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CHP179 17.2 0.2 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CHP180 18.2 0.4 I 4.13 7.03 0.00 0.00CHP168 29.6 0.6 I 14.69 25.03 0.00 0.00CHP136 34.8 0.6 I 18.38 31.32 0.00 0.00CHP135 27.0 0.7 I 14.63 24.92 0.00 0.00CHP124 6.2 0.7 I 3.40 5.79 0.00 0.00CHP117 33.8 0.8 I 20.97 35.73 0.00 0.00CHP092 7.3 0.8 I 4.86 8.28 0.00 0.00CHP123 4.7 0.8 I 3.16 5.39 0.00 0.00CHP093 8.3 0.8 I 5.82 9.91 0.00 0.00CHP169 24.4 0.9 I 17.92 30.53 0.00 0.00CHP137 28.1 1.0 I 23.53 40.09 0.00 0.00CHP053 1.6 1.0 I 1.34 2.29 0.00 0.00CHP148 28.6 1.1 I 29.06 50.38 0.00 0.00CHP122 10.4 1.1 I 10.69 18.53 0.00 0.00CHP140 14.6 1.1 I 15.20 26.34 0.00 0.00CHP134 36.9 1.2 I 40.90 70.89 0.00 0.00CHP052 2.6 1.2 I 2.92 5.06 0.00 0.00CHP116 15.6 1.3 I 18.12 31.40 0.00 0.00CHP118 15.1 1.3 I 18.36 31.82 0.00 0.00CHP020 0.4 1.3 I 0.44 0.77 0.00 0.00CHP021 9.7 1.4 I 12.01 20.82 0.00 0.00CHP139 16.6 1.4 I 21.63 37.49 0.00 0.00CHP098 72.3 1.4 I 94.93 164.55 0.00 0.00CHP058 35.4 1.5 I 49.20 85.28 0.00 0.00CHP019 0.7 1.5 I 1.02 1.77 0.00 0.00CHP022 29.8 1.5 I 41.90 72.63 0.00 0.00CHP051 2.6 1.6 M 1.81 2.97 3.11 0.00CHP095 44.2 1.6 M 31.00 50.73 3.13 0.00CHP050 3.1 1.6 M 2.30 3.76 3.28 0.00CHP018 1.0 1.7 M 0.81 1.32 3.45 0.00CHP046 3.6 1.7 M 2.82 4.62 3.45 0.00CHP086 4.7 1.7 M 3.63 5.94 3.46 0.00CHP048 3.6 1.8 M 2.92 4.78 3.58 0.00CHP047 5.2 1.8 M 4.20 6.87 3.60 0.00CHP023 22.0 1.8 M 17.86 29.23 3.61 0.00CHP081 30.2 1.9 M 25.28 41.37 3.74 0.00CHP017 1.0 1.9 M 0.88 1.45 3.79 0.00CHP025 47.8 1.9 M 41.60 68.07 3.87 0.00URB045 4.4 2.0 M 4.04 6.61 4.07 0.00CHP114 28.1 2.1 M 26.81 43.87 4.25 0.00CHP049 4.2 2.2 M 4.03 6.60 4.32 0.00CHP146 56.2 2.3 M 57.91 94.76 4.59 0.00CHP026 55.1 2.3 M 57.69 94.40 4.66 0.00CHP079 39.5 2.5 M 44.88 73.45 5.06 0.00CHP028 26.5 2.7 M 32.30 52.86 5.43 0.00CHP044 23.9 2.9 M 30.71 50.26 5.72 0.00CHP078 27.0 3.0 M 36.22 59.27 5.97 0.00CHP043 43.2 3.1 M 60.45 98.93 6.24 0.00CHP010 34.3 4.0 M 62.35 102.02 8.10 0.00CHP041 98.3 4.6 M 292.32 511.55 9.11 0.00CHP042 44.2 3.4 Y 28.75 48.41 0.00 6.71URB064 10.7 3.7 Y 7.61 32.05 0.00 7.37NEF005 9.6 5.2 Y 9.58 40.34 0.00 10.33SEF005 1.1 5.4 Y 1.19 5.00 0.00 10.72SWAIR1 22.5 5.6 Y 24.33 102.43 0.00 11.15CHP008 17.2 5.9 Y 19.67 82.82 0.00 11.83NWF005 24.9 6.1 Y 29.47 124.06 0.00 12.21Totals 1292.9 1454.63 2694.81 109.60 70.32

TOTAL VMT 4329.36

24

Table A3: Olympian Drive Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by Mode ShareDrivers Riders MTD Yellow Bus

TAZ Name

Number High School

Students

Distance from School

(miles)Transport

Zone


trips daily)


trips daily)


daily)


daily)CHP025 47.8 1.6 M 34.77 56.90 3.24 0.00CHP026 55.1 1.8 M 43.88 71.81 3.55 0.00CHP058 35.4 2.1 M 33.26 54.43 4.19 0.00URB045 4.4 2.4 M 4.83 7.91 4.87 0.00CHP023 22.0 2.5 M 24.76 40.51 5.00 0.00CHP134 36.9 2.6 M 42.67 69.83 5.15 0.00CHP022 29.8 2.6 M 35.19 57.58 5.25 0.00CHP093 8.3 2.8 M 10.43 17.07 5.59 0.00CHP095 44.2 2.8 M 55.97 91.59 5.64 0.00CHP092 7.3 2.9 M 9.32 15.25 5.70 0.00CHP021 9.7 2.9 M 12.52 20.49 5.77 0.00CHP053 1.6 3.0 M 2.12 3.47 6.06 0.00CHP124 6.2 3.1 M 8.56 14.01 6.11 0.00CHP135 27.0 3.1 M 37.17 60.83 6.13 0.00CHP028 26.5 3.1 M 37.46 61.31 6.30 0.00CHP020 0.4 3.2 M 0.52 0.86 6.40 0.00CHP052 2.6 3.2 M 3.75 6.13 6.42 0.00CHP123 4.7 3.3 M 6.87 11.23 6.54 0.00CHP019 0.7 3.4 M 1.12 1.83 6.83 0.00CHP164 22.9 3.4 M 35.38 57.89 6.89 0.00CHP122 10.4 3.5 M 16.23 26.55 6.95 0.00CHP136 34.8 3.5 M 54.43 89.07 6.96 0.00CHP179 17.2 3.5 M 26.94 44.09 7.00 0.00CHP098 72.3 3.5 M 114.44 187.26 7.06 0.00CHP051 2.6 3.5 M 4.13 6.76 7.09 0.00CHP018 1.0 3.6 M 1.69 2.76 7.22 0.00CHP050 3.1 3.6 M 5.08 8.31 7.26 0.00CHP046 3.6 3.7 M 6.07 9.93 7.43 0.00CHP180 18.2 3.7 M 30.36 49.68 7.43 0.00CHP048 3.6 3.8 M 6.17 10.10 7.56 0.00CHP017 1.0 3.8 M 1.76 2.89 7.56 0.00CHP047 5.2 3.8 M 8.84 14.47 7.58 0.00CHP137 28.1 3.8 M 48.17 78.83 7.64 0.00CHP118 15.1 3.9 M 26.06 42.65 7.70 0.00CHP168 29.6 3.9 M 52.32 85.61 7.87 0.00CHP086 4.7 4.0 M 8.31 13.59 7.91 0.00CHP117 33.8 4.0 M 61.34 100.38 8.09 0.00CHP049 4.2 4.1 M 11.00 19.25 8.10 0.00CHP169 24.4 4.2 M 67.02 117.28 8.40 0.00CHP116 15.6 4.2 M 42.90 75.07 8.42 0.00CHP139 16.6 4.2 M 45.91 80.34 8.45 0.00CHP148 28.6 4.4 M 82.44 144.27 8.83 0.00CHP140 14.6 4.5 M 42.56 74.49 8.96 0.00CHP081 30.2 4.7 M 92.63 162.10 9.41 0.00CHP114 28.1 5.4 M 98.26 171.95 10.72 0.00CHP146 56.2 5.6 M 204.95 358.66 11.18 0.00CHP079 39.5 5.8 M 148.36 259.63 11.50 0.00CHP044 23.9 5.8 M 89.99 157.49 11.53 0.00CHP043 43.2 5.8 M 162.77 284.86 11.55 0.00CHP078 27.0 6.2 M 110.14 192.75 12.48 0.00CHP010 34.3 6.4 M 142.44 249.27 12.72 0.00CHP041 98.3 7.9 M 506.16 885.77 15.78 0.00NEF005 9.6 1.7 Y 3.11 5.24 0.00 3.35NWF005 24.9 4.1 Y 19.81 83.42 0.00 8.21URB064 10.7 5.6 Y 11.60 48.83 0.00 11.23CHP042 44.2 6.5 Y 55.68 234.45 0.00 13.00SEF005 1.1 7.7 Y 1.71 7.22 0.00 15.47SWAIR1 22.5 8.1 Y 35.46 149.29 0.00 16.25CHP008 17.2 9.2 Y 30.75 129.49 0.00 18.49Totals 1292.9 2918.55 5384.94 395.98 86.00

TOTAL VMT 8785.48

25

Appendix B: Summary of Transportation Cost AssumptionsThe cost estimate was based on the estimates of vehicle miles traveled by mode share. These estimates are outlined more explicitly in the full report (see pages 13-15). All costs are present value and do not account for increasing fuel or insurance costs in the future.

Vehicle costs were based upon:

• Individual vehicles: IRS reimbursement rate of $0.55/mile• Mass Transit: current cost of MTD contract ($305,020), allocated between the two high

schools based on estimates of the vehicle miles traveled. Central’s share of the contract is higher because its service area is larger (see maps on page 10 of full report).

• Yellow buses: $3/mile total operating cost (includes fuel, insurance, and driver pay/benefits). This figure came from a study of school bus operating costs in Maine because the district was unable to provide me with their own figure.

In the following tables, the costs are broken down more explicitly than the report. In Figure 9, the total transportation cost for Central is shown as $698,000. Centennial’s cost is $435,000. These figures include money spent by the District and money spent by families providing their own transportation (see Tables B1-B3). As shown in Table 1, the District’s current cost for basic transportation is much lower, at $247,000 for Central and $112,000 for Centennial. Including the costs of athletic transportation, the District likely spends approximately $250,000 for Central and $113,000 for Centennial (see Table B3). In the graph, the darkest bar shows the costs borne by individual families and the two lighter bars show the District’s costs for MTD and yellow bus.

Annual costs per student are shown in Table B4, divided among the students using each mode from the model (see Table A1). While the costs for student drivers or parents giving rides go up with longer distances, the District’s contract with MTD could actually be more cost effective if a higher number of students are using MTD’s services (see Figure A1).

Table B1: Summary of Basic Transportation Costs (in thousands of dollars)

School LocationCosts borne by

families District Cost for MTDDistrict Cost for

Yellow BusesTotal District

Cost

Total Cost of Basic

TransportationCentral 401.67$ 210.62$ 37.13$ 247.75$ 649.41$ Country Fair 400.19$ 416.16$ 36.37$ 452.54$ 852.73$ Olympian 803.78$ 760.95$ 45.41$ 806.36$ 1,610.14$ Franklin 435.68$ 268.13$ 38.69$ 306.82$ 742.51$ Dodds Park 531.52$ 621.31$ 41.89$ 663.20$ 1,194.72$ Centennial 312.80$ 94.40$ 18.25$ 112.65$ 425.45$

Table B2: Summary of Athletic Transportation Costs (in thousands of dollars)


familiesDistrict Cost for

Yellow Buses

Total Cost of Athletic

TransportationCentral 47.49$ 1.46$ 48.95$ Country Fair 16.24$ 0.65$ 16.89$ Olympian 7.65$ -$ 7.65$ Franklin 44.22$ 2.00$ 46.23$ Dodds Park 18.95$ 0.43$ 19.38$ Centennial 9.26$ 0.50$ 9.76$

Table B3: Summary of Total Transportation Costs (in thousands of dollars)


families Total District Cost

Total Transportation

CostsCentral 449.15$ 249.21$ 698.36$ Country Fair 416.43$ 453.19$ 869.62$ Olympian 811.42$ 806.36$ 1,617.79$ Franklin 479.91$ 308.83$ 788.74$ Dodds Park 550.47$ 663.64$ 1,214.10$ Centennial 322.07$ 113.14$ 435.21$

Table B4: Annual Basic Costs per student

School LocationAverage cost of self-

driversAverage cost of

giving ridesAverage district

cost Central 421.43$ 993.61$ 644.00$ Country Fair 493.70 1,184.17 812.02 Olympian 997.86 2,356.43 1,342.82 Franklin 435.60 1,024.54 844.31 Dodds Park 673.92 1,608.47 1,103.13 Centennial 356.59 844.61 314.22

26

Table B1: Summary of Basic Transportation Costs (in thousands of dollars)


families District Cost for MTDDistrict Cost for

Yellow BusesTotal District

Cost

Total Cost of Basic

TransportationCentral 401.67$ 210.62$ 37.13$ 247.75$ 649.41$ Country Fair 400.19$ 416.16$ 36.37$ 452.54$ 852.73$ Olympian 803.78$ 760.95$ 45.41$ 806.36$ 1,610.14$ Franklin 435.68$ 268.13$ 38.69$ 306.82$ 742.51$ Dodds Park 531.52$ 621.31$ 41.89$ 663.20$ 1,194.72$ Centennial 312.80$ 94.40$ 18.25$ 112.65$ 425.45$

Table B2: Summary of Athletic Transportation Costs (in thousands of dollars)


familiesDistrict Cost for

Yellow Buses

Total Cost of Athletic

TransportationCentral 47.49$ 1.46$ 48.95$ Country Fair 16.24$ 0.65$ 16.89$ Olympian 7.65$ -$ 7.65$ Franklin 44.22$ 2.00$ 46.23$ Dodds Park 18.95$ 0.43$ 19.38$ Centennial 9.26$ 0.50$ 9.76$

Table B3: Summary of Total Transportation Costs (in thousands of dollars)


families Total District Cost

Total Transportation

CostsCentral 449.15$ 249.21$ 698.36$ Country Fair 416.43$ 453.19$ 869.62$ Olympian 811.42$ 806.36$ 1,617.79$ Franklin 479.91$ 308.83$ 788.74$ Dodds Park 550.47$ 663.64$ 1,214.10$ Centennial 322.07$ 113.14$ 435.21$

Table B4: Annual Basic Costs per student

School LocationAverage cost of self-

driversAverage cost of

giving ridesAverage district

cost Central 421.43$ 993.61$ 644.00$ Country Fair 493.70 1,184.17 812.02 Olympian 997.86 2,356.43 1,342.82 Franklin 435.60 1,024.54 844.31 Dodds Park 673.92 1,608.47 1,103.13 Centennial 356.59 844.61 314.22

$-

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00


Figure A1: Annual Basic Transportation Costs Per Student

Average cost of self-drivers Average cost of giving rides Average district cost

Source: Based on author's estimates of mode share and costs

27

Appendix C: Summary of Athletic Participation Assumptions

Currently, 18 of the 22 athletic programs at Central (including marching band) practice offsite at least once a week. In contrast, 14 athletic programs practice onsite at Centennial. In order to develop estimates of the costs of transportation, I made assumptions on the type of athletic facilities that might be possible at each site (see Table C1). Current data on practice locations and participation was provided by the athletic directors.

Spor

tN

o.

Part

icip

.W

eeks

of

Prac

tice

Dist

.or

Indi

vl?

No.

Da

ys/W

k O

ffsite

Prac

tice

Loca

tion

No.

Da

ys/W

k O

ffsite

Prac

tice

Loca

tion

No.

Da

ys/W

k O

ffsite

Prac

tice

Loca

tion

No.

Da

ys/W

k O

ffsite

Prac

tice

Loca

tion

No.

Da

ys/W

k O

ffsite

Prac

tice

Loca

tion

No.

Da

ys/W

k O

ffsite

Prac

tice

Loca

tion

Chee

rlead

ing

4534

I4

Gard

en H

ills

0N

/A0

N/A

4N

/A0

N/A

1I-F

orce

Danc

e16

34N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

2Re

finer

yBo

y's C

ross

Cou

ntry

1713

D/I

2Va

ries*

2Va

ries*

0N

/A2

Varie

s*1

Orc

hard

Dow

ns2

Varie

s*Bo

y's G

olf

1810

I6

U o

f I C

ours

e6

U o

f I C

ours

e6

U o

f I C

ours

e6

U o

f I C

ours

e6

U o

f I C

ours

e6

U o

f I C

ours

e Bo

y's S

occe

r38

13I

6Fr

ankl

in0

N/A

0N

/A6

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

Foot

ball

100

16D

6M

cKin

ley

Fiel

d0

N/A

0N

/A6

McK

inle

y Fi

eld

0N

/A0

N/A

Girl'

s Cro

ss C

ount

ry15

13D/

I2

Varie

s*2

Varie

s*0

N/A

2Va

ries*

1O

rcha

rd D

owns

2Va

ries*

Girl'

s Gol

f8

10I

6U

of I

Cou

rse

6U

of I

Cou

rse

6U

of I

Cou

rse

6U

of I

Cou

rse

6U

of I

Cou

rse

6U

of I

Cou

rse

Girl'

s Ten

nis

2512

I6

Lind

say

Cour

ts6

Lind

say

Cour

ts0

N/A

6N

/A6

Lind

say

Cour

ts6

Lind

say

Cour

tsGi

rl's S

wim

min

g/Di

ving

2515

I6

Cent

enni

al6

Cent

enni

al0

N/A

6Ce

nten

nial

6Ce

nten

nial

0N

/AGi

rl's V

olle

ybal

l45

14N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/ABo

y's B

aske

tbal

l45

19N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/AW

rest

ling

4016

I6

YMCA

0N

/A0

N/A

6N

/A6

N/A

0N

/ABo

y's S

wim

min

g an

d Di

ving

2514

I6

Cent

enni

al6

Cent

enni

al0

N/A

6Ce

nten

nial

6Ce

nten

nial

0N

/AGi

rl's B

aske

tbal

l40

20N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0N

/ABo

y's B

aseb

all

5015

I6

McK

inle

y Fi

eld

0N

/A0

N/A

6M

cKin

ley

Fiel

d0

N/A

0N

/ABo

y's T

enni

s40

13I

6Li

ndsa

y Co

urts

6Li

ndsa

y Co

urts

0N

/A6

N/A

6Li

ndsa

y Co

urts

6Li

ndsa

y Co

urts

Boy'

s Tra

ck &

Fie

ld40

19I

6Ce

nten

nial

6Ce

nten

nial

0N

/A6

Cent

enni

al0

N/A

0N

/AGi

rl's S

oftb

all

2515

I6

Carr

ie B

usey

6Ca

rrie

Bus

ey0

N/A

6Ca

rrie

Bus

ey0

N/A

0N

/AGi

rl's S

occe

r45

14I

6Fr

ankl

in0

N/A

0N

/A6

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

Girl'

s Tra

ck &

Fie

ld25

19I

6Ce

nten

nial

6Ce

nten

nial

0N

/A6

Cent

enni

al0

N/A

0N

/AM

arch

ing

Band

135

9D/

I4.

5Ce

nten

nial

4.5

Cent

enni

al0

N/A

4.5

Cent

enni

al0

N/A

0N

/A

*Cro

ss c

ount

ry te

ams p

ract

ice

in v

ario

us lo

catio

ns. T

wo

com

mon

site

s are

Orc

hard

Dow

ns a

nd P

arkl

and

Colle

ge. T

he m

ean

of th

e di

stan

ce to

eac

h of

thes

e sit

es w

as u

sed

in th

e VM

T es

timat

ion.

Sour

ce: E

stim

ates

on

part

icip

atio

n, d

ays o

f pra

ctic

e, a

nd lo

catio

n pr

ovid

ed b

y Jo

hn W

oods

(Cen

tral

Ath

letic

Dire

ctor

) and

Bria

n Ea

ster

(Cen

tenn

ial A

thle

tic D

irect

or).

Tabl

e C1

: Cha

mpa

ign

Uni

t 4 S

choo

l Dis

tric

t ath

letic

par

ticip

atio

n as

sum

ptio

nsCe

ntra

lCo

untr

y Fa

irO

lym

pian

Fran

klin

Dodd

s Par

kCe

nten

nial

Date post:	03-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dokhanh
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Transportation Impact Study by Holly Nelson

Documents