ODOT’s District-wide School Travel Plan Process Columbus Public Schools Discussion May 16, 2012

1. Safe Routes To School ODOT’s District-wide School Travel Plan Process Columbus Public Schools Discussion May 16, 2012

2. National Safe Routes to School Within 2 miles of k-8 schools 5 E’s Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Evaluation

3. SRTS - Ohio Funding: $6-7 M annually Staffing: 1 Program Manager 1 Shared Safety Engineer 3 Shared Data Analysts District SRTS Coordinator Multi-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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Why Focus on Large School Districts Large District Challenges • Planning Process • Data Collection • Prioritization • Public Involvement Large District Benefits • Planning Process • Data Collection • Prioritization • Public Involvement

8. 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

9. Safe Routes To School ODOT’s District-wide School Travel Plan Process David Shipps - TranSystems

10. 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

11. 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: • Mapping • Infrastructure Project Identification • Non-Infrastructure Project Identification • Prioritization

12. 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

13. 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

14. Mapping Methodology – Google Earth

15. 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

16. Non-Infrastructure Methodology District-wide Focused 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)

17. 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

18. Prioritization Methodology Non-Infrastructure • Feasibility (including estimated costs) • Alignment with the Steering Committee’s Vision/Goals for the STP

19. 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

20. Lessons Learned District-wide Recommendations vs. Specific Countermeasures • Larger role for GIS Development and use of Prioritization Matrix Administering Surveys • National Center Surveys • Principal/Partner Surveys Local SRTS Team • Imperative to have an overall leader • 5 E’s must be represented

21. Questions? Julie Walcoff ODOT SRTS Program Manager Julie.Walcoff@dot.state.oh.us (614) 466-3049 David Shipps TranSystems Corporation DFShipps@transystems.com (614) 433-7821 (800) 800-5261