From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Alex Smith, Columbus Public Health, Columbus, OH.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Proposed Transportation Funding Policy Changes Fairfax County Department of Transportation March.
Advertisements

Pedestrian Considerations in Work Zones… St. Peter Main Street Reconstruct.
ODOTs District-wide School Travel Plan Process Columbus Public Schools Discussion May 16, 2012 SafeRoutesToSchool.
Project Description and Needs Lincoln Way Widening Addition of a center-turn lane and safety improvements to the grade and horizontal alignment. Needs.
Louisiana Safe Routes To School Program
Tracy Lovell, PE A FOCUSED APPROACH TO SAFETY. Provide a Transportation System  Safe  Efficient  Environmentally Sound  Fiscally Responsible.
Idaho Safe Routes to School (SR2S). Purpose of SR2S Reverse the national trend of fewer children walking or biking to school Alleviate barriers that prevent.
May 13 th, 2014 City of Akron, Ohio Intersection Safety Study State Route 59 / Main Street / Howard Street.
1 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program ( ) Kit Baker, Chair ( Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee ) Desiree’ Winkler, P.E. ( Transportation.
Small City Funding Opportunities Transportation Improvement Board June 2010.
Clinton Street Bridge over the Maumee River ODOT Project DEF April 1, 2015 Stakeholder’s Meeting.
Environmental Justice (EJ) & Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Grant Programs California Department of Transportation District 3 January 25,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Overview NYS Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council August 2, 2010 Albany, New York.
U.S. 31 at CR 400 South Roundabout Information Meeting December 18, 2013 Clifty Creek Elementary Columbus, Indiana.
Green Light-Go Program Pennsylvania’s Municipal Signal Partnership Program April 7, 2015 Daniel Farley Chief, Traffic Signal and Arterial Management Section.
PennDOT’s Transportation Alternatives Program February 18, 2014.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU Key Safety Provisions Federal Highway Administration.
Safe Routes to School Program 2012 Overview New York State Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School Program.
Safe Routes to School: An update on programs, practice and how public health is playing a role Nancy Pullen, MPH, Program Manager September 14, 2006.
Mapping the Way to Success: the Arkansas Safe Routes to School Program.
Clinton Street Bridge over the Maumee River ODOT Project DEF May 14, 2015 Public Meeting.
Schools Jobs Revenues Services Recreation Environment Transportation Transportation Connectivity Housing Public Safety Pontiac’s.
Louisiana Safe Routes to School Program Department of Transportation and Development Louisiana Safe Routes to School Program The Application.
COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES TxDot Grant Fund Project.
Freight Bottleneck Study Update to the Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee of the Regional Transportation Council September 12, 2002 North Central.
2010 Wisconsin Safe Routes to School Funding SRTS Project Application Cycle Applications available January 2010 Applications due April 2, 2010 Approximately.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Capital Improvement Program. During the Annual Strategic Action Plan (SAP) evaluation, long-term needs and priorities are identified by City Council Capital.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
HIGHWAY/UTILITY PROGRAM OVERVIEW ROADWAY CONFERENCE APRIL 20, 2009.
Broward Complete Streets Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Monday August 10, 2015.
ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Program Overview December 4, 2013.
Project Scoping Fundamentals Alan Lively Project Delivery Specialist Local Government Section April 6, 2010.
Funding Opportunities Safe Routes to School program Approximately $1.5 million available per year Future funding is uncertain Held 5 application cycles.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1 Process Development and Integration for the Six-Year Program.
Local Government Section Welcome Marty Andersen ODOT Local Government Section 355 Capitol Street NE, Rm. 326 Salem, Oregon Ph:
Transportation and Transit Committee 4 December 2002 Albion Road Corridor Study.
Regional Transportation Investments: Alaskan Way Viaduct / Seawall Port of Seattle Commission Policy and Staff Briefing March 14, 2006 Item No. xx Supp.
PRESENTED BY PRISCILLA MARTINEZ-VELEZ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SACRAMENTO, CA (916)
Regional Transportation Committee (RTC) 10-Year Project Milestone Policy Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee October 26, 2015.
Action 2020 Training Local Context August 15, 2012.
Bay County’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Keith C. Bryant, P.E., PTOE Public Works Director Bay County, FL 2015 TRANSPORTATION SYMPOSIUM November.
Improving transportation safety through community education June 23, 2015.
Federal Funding Strategies Update Internal Working Document Update on Federal Funding California High-Speed Rail Authority In Partnership with: Kadesh.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Advancing Safety through SAFETEA-LU Michael Halladay FHWA Office of.
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM 2016 Project Scoring Update Workshop.
OneBayArea Grant Update ( Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ) Regional Advisory Working Group April 3, 2012 Craig Goldblatt, MTC.
Public Hearing on the Red Light Camera Ordinance Presented by Dana Crosby, Assistant County Attorney July 13, 2010 Board of County Commissioners.
Winton Emmett, Chief Project Implementation North January, 2016 Division of Local Assistance John Hoole, Chief Project Implementation South.
MTC Safe Routes to School Program OneBayArea Cycle 2 Grant Program.
1% Sales Tax Commission Board Meeting June 3, 2015.
TIF 9 (Trinity River Vision) Expansion and Updated Project and Financing Plans Jay Chapa, Director Housing and Economic Development.
Virginia House Bill 2 – Funding the Right Projects Intelligent Transportation System Activities May 19, 2016.
Community Crossings Matching Grant Fund Program Kathy Eaton-McKalip
Southeast Rail Extension FasTracks Monitoring Committee July 14, 2015.
Improvements to Stockton Street
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Project Solicitation
Update of Transportation Priorities Plan
Central Minnesota Area Transportation Partnership Primer Welcome
The Central Avenue Connector Trail
Complete Streets Award Program
I-66 Outside the Beltway Design Public Hearing Meetings November 13, 14 & Susan Shaw, P.E., Megaprojects Director Virginia Department of.
Solicitation for Projects using STP/SNK/TA Federal Funds – FY2022
Meeting of the Hillsborough MPO Board December 5, 2017
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-aside
Moving Maryland Toward Zero Deaths
Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Analysis
STP Shared Local Fund: Project Evaluation Criteria
Safe Routes to School John Schaefer State Coordinator.
Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program
Presentation transcript:

From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Alex Smith, Columbus Public Health, Columbus, OH Justin Yoh, The Ohio Department of Transportation - District 7 Mark Nolt, The Kleingers Group, West Chester, OH

Application and Selection

The School Travel Plan Funding Eligibility Pre-application Considerations Non-infrastructure Infrastructure Alternative Funding Sources District SRTS Coordinator Involvement The SRTS Funding Application Overview of the 2015 Funding Application Project Selection Process Project Review Notification & Next Steps The Steps

Funding Eligibility An ODOT approved School Travel Plan (STP) Infrastructure Non-infrastructure Any updates to your STP are required to be submitted to ODOT as part of the funding application packet. The School Travel Plan and Your SRTS Team The School Travel Plan

Funding Eligibility Your STP Action Plan should be reviewed and updated annually. Evaluate the priority level of each of the action items (i.e. short term or long term). Only items listed in your action plan are eligible for funding. An updated action plan is required to be submitted to ODOT as part of the funding application packet. Action Plans And Action Items

Funding Limit: $50,000 Identify projects that provide high benefit at lower costs. Printed materials Incentives Safety Programs Limited Enforcement Campaigns Reach out to other communities, local MPO’s and advocacy groups for their input. Pre-application Considerations Non-Infrastructure Projects

Kate Moening State Advocacy Organizer – Ohio (614) SRTS National Partnership

Funding Funding Limit: $500,000 This funding cap applies to total project cost (Design to Construction). PDP Phases Eligible for Funding Design (approx. 20% of Construction) Environmental Detailed Design Right-of-Way (approx. $4,500 per parcel) Acquisition Appraisal Utility Relocation Construction Construction Engineering (approx. 10% of Construction) There is a 20% local match required however, toll revenue credit can be requested to cover the 20% local match. Pre-application Considerations Infrastructure Projects

Sidewalk/Shared Use Paths/Curb Ramps Pros: Provides needed connectivity Non-infrastructure programs see increased participation Provides separation of pedestrians and motorists ADA compliance Cons: Higher construction costs Greater likelihood of right-of- way needed Alternative funding sources needed to fund larger sidewalk projects Pre-application Considerations Infrastructure Projects

Signing & Pavement Markings Pros: Implemented systematically and at a lower cost Designates school zones and crossings Cons: Requires existing infrastructure Requires additional annual maintenance Pre-application Considerations Infrastructure Projects

Traffic and Pedestrian Signals Pros: Provides a more safe means of crossing at intersections and/or mid-block Cons: Higher construction costs Higher likelihood of right-of-way needed Must meet signal warrants to be eligible for funding Pre-application Considerations Infrastructure Projects

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)* Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)* Safety Program Small Cities Grants * Dispersed through Ohio’s metropolitan planning organizations Pre-application Considerations Alternate Funding Sources

Involve your District SRTS Coordinator early! Pre-application Considerations District SRTS Coordinator

Improving your Application’s Overall Electronic Score Recent non-infrastructure projects Shows an overall commitment to the program International Walk/Bike to School Day Register your International Walk/Bike to School Day at Expected Benefit Focus your projects in areas with a high density of students or in areas around the school campus. Funding Application Overview

Improving your Application’s Overall Electronic Score Project Funding Provide at least 10% of the local match Utilize alternative funding sources to increase your local match Federal funds from other funding sources CANNOT be used as your local match Speed Limit Focusing your projects in areas where higher traffic speeds are present Funding Application Overview

Improving your Application’s Overall Electronic Score Crash History Focus your projects in areas where bike/pedestrian crashes can be mitigated Right-of-Way Permanent and temporary right-of-way takes result in negative points. Funding Application Overview

Project Description Project Mapping Include mapping showing your proposed improvement along with the written description. Written Description Be detailed in your response Include as an attachment if necessary ODOT SRTS coordinators will be presenting your project for funding consideration! Funding Application Overview

Electronic Scoring All applications receive a preliminary score based on the responses in the application. Applications are ranked by this score A cut-off line is established based upon: Available funding Strength of eligible applications received Applications above the cut-off line are further reviewed at the district level. Project Reviews

District Level Review The overall delivery and constructability of the proposed project is reviewed: Project Schedule (requested construction year) Project Estimate (funding per PDP phase) Connectivity (for sidewalk/path projects) Red Flags (R/W, Environmental, Utilities) Priority in the Action Plan Recommended projects are then reviewed by a multi- disciplinary team at Central Office ODOT. Project Reviews

Multi-Disciplinary Review Team District SRTS Coordinators Statewide SRTS Program Manager Department of Education Representatives Department of Public Safety Representatives Department of Health and/or County Health Department Representatives ODOT Safety Program Representatives Bike/Ped/SRTS Advocacy Group Representatives The review team will provide the Governance Board with a short-list of projects (school travel plan, non- infrastructure and infrastructure). Project Reviews

Governance Board Makes the final selection as to which projects are awarded funds. Total available funding for the upcoming funding cycle is $4 million. Applicants are notified of the funding results in May/June at which time the scoping and programming process begins. Notification and Next Steps

November – December 2014 Begin coordinating your proposed projects with district coordinators January – March 2015 Funding round open to accept applications School Travel Plan Development Non-infrastructure Infrastructure March – April 2015 Application Review Process May – June 2015 Award Notifications and Scoping Process Begins Key Dates