#18 Making Tough Choices Easier: A Prioritization Process for Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements...

Making Tough Choices Easier: A Prioritization Process for Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements

The need

End-user interview results

Explainable to public and funders

Standardized Practical Safety-oriented

SRTSprojectidentification

Step 1: Prioritize schools

Step 2: Conduct field reviews of highest priority schools

RESULT: Ped infrastructure needs for highest priority schools

Group the schools

Based on Crash history Safety concerns Current or potential pedestrian use

Group the schools

1 Current walking, crash history. Ideally school interest

2 Current walking, public/school concerns.

3 Few students currently walk because of safety concerns.

4 Few students walk due to distance or costly infrastructure barriers

5 Students walk to the school & walking environment generally safe

Prioritize within Group 1 (maybe 2)

Use road and driver characteristics Traffic volume and speed Crossings Infrastructure

Additional considerations Geography

Low income communities

Interest

Worksheet

SRTSprojectidentification

Step 1: Prioritize schools

Step 2: Conduct field reviews of highest priority schools

RESULT: Ped infrastructure needs for highest priority schools

Step 2: Field review

(excerpt)

Learn more at www.saferoutesinfo.org

Thank you

pullen@hsrc.unc.edu919 962-7419

Jessica Manzi, PEFormerly of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

San Francisco’s Safe Routes to School Prioritization System

Presentation Overview

San Francisco & SRTS-SF Background

School assignment policy – commute study

Infrastructure prioritization system

Non-infrastructure prioritization system

Lessons learned

Background on San Francisco

49 square miles on tip of a peninsula

Over 800,000 people One city and one county SF has one public school

district w. 100 schools

SRTS in SF, before prioritization

School Area Safety Program – Bus and passenger loading– Traffic engineering requests around

schools– Evaluation sites for crossing guards– Apply for and manage SR2S/SRTS grants– Limited education/encouragement

Grant locations selected from:– Requests from schools/parents/residents– Requests from elected officials– Approved traffic calming plans– Staff-identified need

SRTS San Francisco

SF DPH

SFUSD

SFPD

DOESFMTA

SFBC•YBike

School Commute Study

Change in school assignment policy

UCSF conducted evaluation of school commute with over 12,000 students in K, 5th, 6th, and 9th grades

Study included – 72 out of 73 elementary schools– 12 out of 13 middle schools– All 14 high schools

SRTS prioritization system

ITE Journal article by Carl Sundstrom, Nancy Pullen-Seufert, et al (Feb 2010)

Used results from UCSF school commute study, crash data, demographic data

Modified procedure to fit needs of both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects

Buena Vista Elementary25th St & Utah St.

SRTS prioritization system

Infrastructure improvements

– Prioritize schools with a lot of kids walking and safety concerns

Non-infrastructure projects

– Prioritize schools with the highest potential for more walkers

Jefferson Elementary

Golden Gate Park

SRTS Prioritization System-Infrastructure

Prioritize schools with a lot of kids walking and safety concerns Step 1: Compile data

– Total school enrollment (SFUSD)– % who walk to school (UCSF)– Calculate total walkers– Pedestrian-involved crashes (SFMTA)

Step 2: Classify schools into (5) tiers– Calculate quartiles (total walkers, ped

collisions)– Classify each school

Step 3: Reality checkJohn Muir Elementary

Page & Webster Streets

SRTS Prioritization System-Infrastructure (cont.)

Step 4: Rank within tiers– % students living within 1 mile – % qualifying for free/reduced lunch– % of crashes during school hours– Severity of crashes

OR

Step 4: Feasibility screen– Work already planned/completed– Coordination opportunities– Scope budget v. grant budget– Scope v. funding source

Longfellow Elementary

Morse Street, east of Mission Street

SRTS prioritization system –Non-infrastructure (5 E’s)

Prioritize schools with the highest potential for more walkers Step 1: Compile data

– Total school enrollment (SFUSD)– % living w/in 1 mile (SFUSD +

Excel plug-in)– % who walk to school (UCSF)– Calculate # of non-walkers

Step 2: Rank by non-walkers Step 3: Solicit participation

Jefferson Elementary

19th Avenue & Irving St.

Lessons Learned

Focus on the goal Use what you have

(data, relationships) Take advantage of

time-sensitive opportunities

Be creative with funding

Contact us

Jessica Manzi, PECity of Redwood City(650)780-7372, jmanzi@redwoodcity.org

Ana Validzic, MPHSan Francisco Dept. of Public Health(415) 581-2478, ana.validzic@sfdph.org

Ellen Robinson, PESan Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency(415) 701-4322; ellen.robinson@sfmta.com

David Henderson, Miami-Dade MPOStewart Robertson, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro PlaceSeptember 11th 2012

School Board CTST

Study Goals• Develop a formalized method to prioritize

Miami-Dade elementary and K-8 schools for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) infrastructure improvements

• Develop SRTS plans and infrastructure improvements for 10 priority schools

• Prepare FDOT SRTS infrastructure funding applications for the 10 schools

Public Schools Database• Number of K-5/K-8 schools – 219• SRTS plans complete/funding applied – 62• Number of schools considered in 2011 – 157

The School Prioritization Process ranked the remaining 157 Elementary and K-8 schools based on need.

Prioritization FactorsFactor Source NotesPercent of students walking to school

Miami-Dade County Public Schools and UM WALKSAFE program

Weighted x2

Students living within 0.5 miles of attended school

Miami-Dade County Public Schools GIS

Juvenile pedestrian crashes

Miami-Dade MPO

Total pedestrian and bicycle crashes

Miami-Dade MPO

Traffic volume on the nearest major street

FDOT and Miami-Dade County

Automobile ownership Miami-Dade MPO Weighted x0.5

Prioritization is based on composite rank of individual factors

Prioritization Rankings

Prioritization is based on composite rank of individual factors

• Excerpt…

Prioritization Rankings• First county-wide prioritization of Miami-Dade

schools for SRTS improvements based on need• Quantitative process using available data• Assumes the six factors have a direct correlation

with a school’s potential for benefits

Potential Drawbacks• Does not include existing pedestrian

infrastructure levels– Field reviews were conducted to address this factor

Possible Future Modifications• Consider obtaining input from school principals

on the relative need for SRTS improvements– Perhaps through annual WALKSAFE survey

• Consider replacing “automobile ownership” with “percentage of students eligible for free or reduce lunch” as a proxy for income level– Available from Miami-Dade County Public Schools

at the school level

Top 10 School Selection• Used quantitative priority rankings as a starting

point– Removed magnet schools– Removed ideal scenario schools with few apparent

infrastructure needs

• Developed revised list of Top 10 Priority Schools to move into SRTS Plan and SRTS Application process

School Address Municipality Priority RankPhyllis Ruth Miller Elementary 840 NE 87th Street Miami 2

Jesse J. McCrary Jr. Elementary 514 NW 77th Street Miami 3

Toussaint L'ouverture Elementary 120 NE 59th Street Miami 5

Kensington Park Elementary 711 NW 30th Avenue Miami 6

Santa Clara Elementary 1051 NW 29th Terrace Miami 10

Linda Lentin K-8 Center 14312 NE 2nd Court Unincorporated Miami-Dade 11

Phillis Wheatley Elementary 1801 NW 1st Place Miami 12

North Hialeah Elementary 4251 E 5th Avenue Hialeah 16

Natural Bridge Elementary 1650 NE 141st Street North Miami 33

Oak Grove Elementary 15640 NE 8th Avenue Unincorporated Miami-Dade 35

Top 10 Schools

Location Map of Top 10

Schools

SRTS Plan Methodology• GIS data analysis• School meetings

– Principals

– PTSAs

– CTST

• Parent surveys• Student arrival and departure travel tallies• Site assessments

Site Assessments

Typical Recommended Improvements

• Sidewalks• Crosswalks• Signage• Traffic signal upgrades• School zone flashers• Rectangular rapid

flashing beacons (RRFBs)

1

2

1

2

Typical Routes

Acknowledgments• School staff, students, and parents• Miami-Dade MPO• Miami-Dade County Public Schools• Miami-Dade County Public Works and Waste

Management Department• University of Miami Miller School of Medicine

WALKSAFE• School Board Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST)