1. ODOTs District-wide School Travel Plan Process Columbus Public Schools Discussion May 16, 2012 SafeRoutesToSchool

2. National Safe Routes to School Within 2 miles of k-8 schools 5 Es 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 Es

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 Ohios larger school districts

7. 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

8. Ohios 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. ODOTs District-wide School Travel Plan Process David Shipps - TranSystems SafeRoutesToSchool

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: 1)Mapping 2)Infrastructure Project Identification 3)Non-Infrastructure Project Identification 4)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 Committees 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 Es 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