1. Thinking Big About SRTS
School Travel Plans For Large Districts
Julie Walcoff
Safe Routes to School Program Manager
Ohio Department of Transportation
David Shipps, AICP
TranSystems Corporation
Kate Mencarini, AICP
Toole Design Group
Don Burrell, AICP
Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government

2. Project Overview
 Introductions
 Ohio Background
 Why We Need Change
 The Cincinnati Story

3.  Julie Walcoff, Ohio Department of Transportation
 David Shipps, AICP; TranSystems Corporation
 Katie Mencarini, AICP; Toole Design Group
 Don Burrell, AICP; OKI Regional Council of Government

4.  1.2 M K-8 Students’ in more than
3,000 schools
 ODE Estimates Pupil
Transportation Funding: $462 M
 ODOT SRTS Budget: $4 M
 $48 M in announced funding
since 2007 (127%)
 SRTS Announced projects in 75
out of 88 Counties

5. Process
 School Travel Plan required for
further funding
◦ Must address all 5 E’s
 Limited to 4 schools per plan
 ODOT assigns consultants to
help communities through the
process
 More difficult for large school
districts

6.  Large School Districts have more challenges

7. Background and
Infrastructure
 Research and Background
 Pilot Project
 Cincinnati Challenges
 Mapping
 Priority Corridors
 Project Identification
 Prioritization

8.  Listserv’s
◦ SRTS Coordinators
◦ APBP
◦ SRTS Partnerships
 Transportation Research Board’s
TRID Database
 National Center for SRTS Database
◦ Irvine, California
◦ Danville, California
◦ Black Hawk County, Iowa
 SRTS Local Policy Guide

9.  Gathered useful background
information
◦ Non-Infrastructure recommendations
focus of nearly all identified larger
district plans
◦ Suggested that plan be completed
within 1 school year due to shifting
district and staffing needs
◦ Most informative public input was
received from Principals
◦ Walk Audits can be a great non-
infrastructure conversational starter

10.  48 K-8 Schools
◦ Neighborhood
◦ Magnet
 All of Cincinnati and
portions of adjacent
communities
 Active SRTS Team
 Policy: No busing
within 1 mile of
schools

11.  How do we obtain a similar level of detail to the
current STP process when the School District
encompasses almost 100 square miles?
 Substantial data gathering was necessary to
appropriately identify barriers/solutions
 Several Methodologies were developed:
◦ Mapping
◦ Infrastructure Project Identification
◦ Non-Infrastructure Project Identification
◦ Prioritization

12.  Part 1 – Student Locations
◦ Home address compared to
school attending
◦ Quantified students w/in 1
and 2 mile buffers of the
school they attend
 Part 2 – Priority Corridors
◦ “Funnels” students on routes
 Sidewalks (primary)
 Signalized Locations
(secondary)
 Google Earth (verify)

13.  Least # of routes while
providing access to as
many students within 1
mile of schools
 Zero to 9 Priority
Corridors per school
◦ Neighborhood – larger
concentration of students
w/in 1 mile
◦ Magnet – students from all
over district
◦ Principals/Parents identified
current/preferred routes

16.  Identified Barriers
◦ Focused on Priority Corridors
 Best routes, still had room for
improvement
◦ Walk Audits
 Conducted at 10 schools
 Trained Stakeholders
 Trained 7th/8th Graders
◦ Surveys – identified issues
 Principal Survey
 Parent Survey
◦ Existing City Plans/Policies

17.  Barriers to Solutions
(Countermeasures)
◦ Focused on Priority
Corridors
◦ Other locations
determined by locals
◦ Identified which
solutions would
benefit the most
students
 List of
countermeasures
(per school)

18.  Developed a weighted matrix
(scores for each criterion)
◦ Ped/Bike potential, including proximity
to a K-8 school
◦ Ped/Bike deficiency (sidewalk gaps,
roadway classification, and crashes)
◦ Support (Individual schools, Steering
Committee, and Study Team)
◦ Feasibility (estimated costs and R/W
requirements)
◦ Ohio Department of Education School
Demographics

19. Category Criterion Weight
Pedestrian/ bicycle Project supports priority corridor (on priority corridor = 20 points; within 1/4 mile of priority corridor and on street that connects to 4
potential priority corridor = 5 points).
Pedestrian/ bicycle K-8 schools within 1/2 mile of project (2+ schools = 20 points, 1 school = 10 points). 11
potential
Deficiency Sidewalk project is on a block with missing sidewalk (block has no sidewalks and project would provide continuous sidewalk on at 4
least one side = 20 points; block does not have continuous sidewalks and project would provide continuous sidewalk on at least one
side = 15 points; block has continuous sidewalk on one side and project would provide continuous sidewalk on the other side = 10
points; block has continuous sidewalk on one side and discontinuous sidewalk on the other side and project would complete the
discontinuous sidewalk, 5 points).
Deficiency Project is along or facilitates crossing a road where traffic speed or traffic volume may be a concern (road classification is US Highway 4
= 20 points; road classification is State Highway = 15 points; road classification is collector = 10 points).
Deficiency Project is within 500 feet of a pedestrian or bicycle crash location that has occurred within the last 5 years (5 or more crashes = 20 7
points; 4 crashes = 16 points; 3 crashes = 12 points; 2 crashes = 8 points; 1 crash = 4 points).
Feasibility Estimated project cost is categorized as low or medium (estimated project cost is under $20,000 = 20 points; estimated project cost 9
is $20,000 to $149,999 = 10 points; estimated project cost is $150,000 or more = 0 points ).
Feasibility Project requires ROW acquisition (yes = -20) 3
School demographics Percent of students at school closest to project that are classified by the Ohio Department of Education school report card as 3
economically disadvantaged (over 75% = 20 points; 50-75% = 14 points; 25-50% = 6 points)
School demographics Percentage of students with disabilities at school closest to project is above 15% (state average) (yes = 20 points) 2
Support Project is within 1/4 mile of a K-8 school that has delivered a child pedestrian or bicycle safety education program in the last 2 years 2
(yes = 20)
Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as a priority project by the study team to address safety concerns (yes = 20) 2
Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as priority by local school SRTS leadership (yes = 20 points) 1
Support Pedestrian or bicycle project identified as priority by Cincinnati Team (yes = 20 points) 2
Support Project is within 1/4 mile of K-8 school that has participated in International Walk to School Day in the last 2 years (yes = 20) 2

20.  Focused on Countermeasures that are Important and
Feasible
◦ Short term: 1-3 years
◦ Responsible Party Identified (Steering Committee lead also)
◦ Divided into 3 Categories
 School and City Policies – 18 items related to School District/City
Support, Student Safety/Comfort, and SRTS Program Sustainability
 Non-Infrastructure – 62 items related to Ped/Bike Education,
Personal Security, Arrival/Dismissal Procedures, Student
Safety/Comfort, and others
 Infrastructure – 61 location specific items along Priority Corridors
and several other general countermeasures

21. Non-Infrastructure Approach
 Analysis
 Identifying Partners
 Context
 Needs
 Countermeasure Examples
 Success Strategies
 Moving forward

22.  Non infrastructure
◦ Polices
◦ Practices
◦ Programs
◦ Activities
 District Level
 District sets policy
 Not location-specific
 Resource efficiencies
 Institutionalizes SRTS

23. ◦ School District
 Practices Research
 Discussions/interviews with Cincinnati Team Members and “E Captains”
 “Track-It” system
 Policy Research
 Transportation Policies
 Buildings Going Green
 Facilities Master Plan
 Wellness Policy
 Liability Issues
 Personal Security/Anti-Bullying
 CPS Board of Education:
Safe Routes to School Resolution

24. ◦ Local Government

25.  Importance of Partners
◦ Sustainability
◦ Community support
◦ Take ownership of
countermeasures
 Partner Contributions
◦ Letter of support
◦ Speaking engagements
◦ Funding
◦ Lead a countermeasure
◦ Donations

26. ◦ Schools/ Principals ◦ Parents ◦ Partners
 Online Survey  National Center  Online survey
Survey  Informal conversations

27.  Support for SRTS
◦ School district support
◦ Local school support
◦ Parent support
 Student Safety and Comfort
◦ Pedestrians and bicycle safety education
◦ Driver awareness of school zone
◦ Driver behaviors (speed/ distracted driving)
◦ Student safety at intersections and crossings
◦ Student safety along the school route
◦ Arrival and dismissal
◦ Lack of adult supervision
◦ Personal security
 Program Implementation and Sustainability

28.  Issue: Principals do not promote walking/biking
 Countermeasure: Encourage local schools to adopt
policies supporting safe walking and bicycling to/from
school and to inform parents of these policies. Provide
principals and SRTS champions with guidance
regarding how to formulate and communicate these
policies.

29.  Issue: 24% of principals ranked “concern about
violence or crime” as one of the top three barriers at
their school
 Countermeasure: Implement a program similar to
Chicago Public Schools’ Safe Passages, in which adult
volunteers in high-crime neighborhoods monitor and
report criminal activity during school arrival and
dismissal times.

30.  Issue: Students don’t have the skills they need to make
safe judgments and decisions when walking
 Countermeasure: Develop a bicycle education
program that includes a mobile training unit equipped
with bicycles, helmets, etc.
 Countermeasure: Work with ODOT to schedule
walking school bus training in Cincinnati.

31.  Integrate SRTS into other initiatives and activities
◦ Public Health Events and Initiatives
 We Know Health Matters
◦ University of Cincinnati Programs
 Clever Crazes for Kids
◦ CPS Programs
 B.R.I.D.G.E.S. Program
 Eco-Mentoring Program
 Step Team (Taft Elementary)
◦ City’s Mountain Bike Patrol
◦ Community Programs
 Safe Routes to Freedom event
 Establish SRTS Coordinator
◦ District-wide liaison with local/community
relationships
◦ Looked for opportunities to promote SRTS outside of
traditional setting

32.  Contextual Findings
◦ Several related programs and activities exist!
◦ Different approach from infrastructure prioritization
◦ Prioritization is critical
Prioritization Criteria • Steering Committee Lead
• E’s Supported • Potential Partners
• Priority • Status
• Timeframe * Level of Cincinnati Team effort
• Estimated Cost * External partner needed for implementation
• Possible Funding Source * Likelihood of support from key external
• Responsible Party partners

34. Likelihood of support
External partners from key external
Countermeasure Level of Effort needed? partners
Reach out to
Low No N/A
principals…
Volunteer route
Medium Yes Don't Know
monitors…
Develop a bicycle
education High Yes Don't Know
program...
ODOT to schedule
walking school bus High Yes Likely
training….

35.  Working on right now!
◦ Anti bullying campaign
◦ Walking school bus program

36. Cincinnati Makes Big Strides
 Community
 School Travel Plan Progress
 Infrastructure projects
 Non Infrastructure Projects
 Role of the MPO

37.  The Right People
 Continuous Involvement
 Determined Partners
“The Family Outing” by Gary Lee Price

38. • 188 Infrastructure projects
• 15 Selected for funding
• 62 Non-infrastructure projects
• 4 Selected for funding

39. 39

41. Evanston Academy
Cincinnati Public Schools

42. • 188 Infrastructure projects
• 15 Selected for funding
• 62 Non-infrastructure projects
• 4 Selected for funding

43.  Online SRTS related
Curriculum
 SRTS specific Learning
Objectives
 Available Nationally
http://clevercrazes.com/aboutus

44.  Personal Safety
 Improved Site Distance
 Tripping Hazard

47.  Cincinnati Plan
 Regional Support
 Process
◦ Long Range Plan
◦ Transportation
◦ Improvement Program

48. Lessons Learned
 Detail
 Local Team
 Partners
 Surveys
 Upper Level Support
 Prioritization

49.  Appropriate level of detail
◦ District-wide Recommendations vs.
Specific Countermeasures
 Importance of Local SRTS Team
◦ Must have an overall leader
◦ Local Government Staff be actively
engaged
◦ Pre-existing local team shortens STP
timeframe
 Identify partners early in the process
◦ Keep them engaged
◦ Funding motivates engagement

50.  Administering Surveys
◦ Parent surveys are time consuming
(start early)
◦ Be aware of school district policies
regarding surveys
◦ Utilize online surveys to collect input
(principals, partners)
 Support from School District
Central Offices
 Walk audits not feasible for every
school
◦ Provide training to locals
 Development and use of the
Prioritization Matrices

51. MAP - 21
 Longevity
 Partnerships
 Planning

52.  Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT
 David Shipps, TranSystem
 Kate Mencarini, Toole Design
 Don Burrell, OKI
 Juana Sandoval, MORPC

53. Julie Walcoff
Safe Routes to School Program Manager
Ohio Department of Transportation
David Shipps, AICP
TranSystems Corporation
Katie Mencarini, AICP
Toole Design Group
Don Burrell, AICP
Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government