2010 Wisconsin Safe Routes to School Funding. 2010 SRTS Project Application Cycle Applications available January 2010 Applications due April 2, 2010 Approximately.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
January 23, 2006 FAIRFAX COUNTY PEDESTRIAN TASK FORCE FAIRFAX COUNTY PEDESTRIAN TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT.
Advertisements

Safe Routes to School Program Presentation by the 3 Rivers Bicycle Coalition.
Applicants Videoconference January 17,  MnDOT funding began in 2005 with federal transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU)  This solictation uses remaining.
Louisiana Safe Routes To School Program
[Insert name, affiliation and date here] CREATING A BICYCLE FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY.
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.
Rochester: Action 2020 The Local Context October 17, 2012 GENESEE TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL.
Ruben Hovanesian June 27,  Public Agencies?  Private Agencies? 2.
Safe Routes to School Basics April Morrison-Harke SR2S Contracts Coordinator
Presentation to the TRSD School Board April 17, 2014 Michael Hollow, Grade 5.
Town of Moultonborough Safe Routes to School Startup Application.
Advancing Active Transportation In Toronto ACT Canada Sustainable Mobility and Healthy Communities Summit December 2, 2014 Carol Mee, Toronto Public Health.
Slide 1. Slide 2 Introduction How did you get to school as a child?
WalkSafe’s Approach : Five E’s Prevention Model Parent and community involvement Monroe County Public Schools Funded by SRTS infrastructure Dept of Public.
Safe Routes. Many child pedestrian fatalities in Denmark, 1970s Odense pilot program reduced the number of injured school children by 30% to 40% Caught.
Danielle Hewson, MPH CHES N.C. Division of Public Health Healthy Schools Summer Institute: Casting Your Net for Partners in Health Friday, June 27, 2014.
Moving Toward Safer Routes to School. GOALS What is the problem? What are the barriers to walking and biking? What is Safe Routes to School?? How do we.
Safe Routes to School Improving Health for Connecticut’s Children and Communities June 23, 2010 Martha Page, MPH, CPH Material supplied by Sandy Fry, CRCOG.
Safe Routes to School Improving Health, Safety and Transportation Lenexa, KS.
Safe Routes to School Improving Health, Safety and Transportation Lenexa, KS Jennifer Hefferan DC SRTS Coordinator Joe Pelaia Maryland SRTS Coordinator.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU Key Highway Safety Provisions Elizabeth Alicandri FHWA.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU Key Safety Provisions Federal Highway Administration.
Safe Routes to School in the ATP Jeanie Ward-Waller Senior California Policy Manager Active Transportation Program Cycle 2 Caltrans District Workshops.
[Insert name, affiliation and date here] CREATING A BICYCLE FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY.
Out of ‘ Site,’ Out of Mind Increasing Community Connectivity and Physical Activity through Healthy School Site Planning.
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.
History of US Bicycle Routes In 1970’s interest in long distance bicycle travel proliferates.
Active transportation is good for kids. Walk or bike to school for exercise Improves academic performance It’s a wellness initiative that happens before/after.
BUILDING SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SPRING Goals of Safe Routes To School Create opportunities and increase the number of children who actively commute.
Presentation to Beloit SRTS Taskforce Wednesday February 1, 2012 Safe Route to School (SRTS) Program.
Mapping the Way to Success: the Arkansas Safe Routes to School Program.
City of Leawood Bicycle Friendly Community The Year in Review.
Kansas Department of Transportation Becky Pepper Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Kansas Department of Transportation Contact:
Safe Routes to School Improving Health, Safety and Transportation.
Safe Routes To School Lenexa, KS. Additional Content Added by: City, Unified School Dist, & NCWRPC Why Safe Routes To School? 1.Fewer kids walk and bike.
From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Alex Smith, Columbus Public Health, Columbus, OH.
Safe Routes To School Lenexa, KS. Additional Content Added by: City, Unified School Dist, & NCWRPC Why Safe Routes To School? 1.Fewer kids walk and bike.
School-based projects from a Transportation Act program.
New Visions Bicycle & Pedestrian Action Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation – Bicycle and pedestrian travel is vital to the region’s public health,
Lompoc Community Assessments “What We Learned” Presented by Judy Taggart MS, CHES March 25, 2010.
ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Program Overview December 4, 2013.
Funding Opportunities Safe Routes to School program Approximately $1.5 million available per year Future funding is uncertain Held 5 application cycles.
Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center Walk It Out: Walking to Transform Individual and Community Health June 7, 2013 Lake Merritt.
Instructions  Check in with Andrew Bomberger at TCRPC to let him know what muni you will be visiting so he can give you any specific info for that muni.
Safe Routes to School  First word is “Safe”  Physical fitness.  Reduced congestion.  Clean air.  A fun way to get to school.
City of Santa Rosa Pilot Safe Routes to School Program Julia Gonzalez Grant Administrator, City of Santa Rosa, Safe Routes to School Program.
Louisiana Safe Routes to School. Where it’s safe, get kids walking and biking Where it’s not safe, make it safe Safe Routes to School goals.
Rural Transportation Planning Eunice Fitzpatrick Transportation Planner Kentucky River ADD Hazard, KY.
Louisiana Safe Routes To School Program NON INFRASTRUCTURE.
City Leadership & Bike Edina Task Force Annual Work Session February 16 th, 2010.
City Leadership & Bike Edina Task Force Annual Work Session June 7 th, 2011.
“E” VALUATION Presented by Terry Preston Safe Routes Project Manager WALKSacramento Alexis Kelso Safe Routes Project Coordinator WALKSacramento.
Where is the Safe Routes to School program in Fairfax County?
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Advancing Safety through SAFETEA-LU Michael Halladay FHWA Office of.
Safe Routes to School Helping more children bicycle and walk to school.
This is a story of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Safety Data Initiatives in Reauthorization – What Can We Expect? Kathy Krause, FHWA Office of Safety 30 th Annual International Traffic Records Forum July.
For El Paso, TX. Has this happened to you? As a motorist?
Active Transportation Program California Transportation Commission Mitch Weiss 01/14/141.
Vermont Agency of Transportation Safe Routes to School Program at [INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL] Date.
PROMOTING BIKING AND WALKING AS FUN, HEALTHY FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION IN PHILADELPHIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
Healthy Community Element City of South Gate General Plan 2035 (adopted 12/08/09)
Traffic Management/Safe Walk Routes January 21,
 Public Health  Enabled a deeper level of community engagement  Characterized human health risk in an educational process for community  Assists.
Safe Routes to School Getting Started Locally Safe Routes to School
CONTRACT AWARD TO ALTA PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO CONDUCT SAFETY OUTREACH AND UPDATE THE SUGGESTED ROUTES TO SCHOOL MAPS FOR THE SAFER.
Complete Streets Award Program
Safe Routes to School Program Overview Cassandra Gascon Bligh
MPO Board Presentation
Safe Routes to School John Schaefer State Coordinator.
Presentation transcript:

2010 Wisconsin Safe Routes to School Funding

2010 SRTS Project Application Cycle Applications available January 2010 Applications due April 2, 2010 Approximately $6 million awarded

Eligible Projects Within two miles of a grade or middle school (kindergarten through eighth grade) Benefit is for walking/biking Can include education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering and evaluation. Projects are 100% fundable to the limit of the project award. For Infrastructure and Non-Infrastructure projects communities will be required to complete the project and then request reimbursement from WisDOT.

Eligible Applicants Planning –Municipality, School, Indian Tribe –Non-Profit organization Infrastructure: –State, local, or regional governmental unit with jurisdiction over property –Indian Tribe with jurisdiction over property Non-infrastructure: –Municipality, School, Indian Tribe –Non-Profit organization

Project Timeline Planning – Projects will begin in Fall 2010 Infrastructure - Small Infrastructure projects with few issues and completed design may be able to begin construction in late The majority of Infrastructure projects should plan for construction in 2012 or Non-Infrastructure – Projects should anticipate starting no sooner than Spring Some projects may want to request funds for some activities before construction and some after.

Application Options Planning Assistance OR Non-Infrastructure and Infrastructure Projects

Planning Assistance Communities will receive the services of a Wisconsin DOT hired consulting firm or their RPC/MPO Firm will assist with tasks such as: –Walk/Bike Audits –Community Meeting facilitation –Existing conditions evaluation –Survey data analysis –Report Writing

Non-Infrastructure and Infrastructure Projects Activities that include: Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering Evaluation

Safe Routes to School Selection Committee Committee comprised of program experts from the following type of organizations - DOT Bureau of Transit and Local Roads DOT Bureau of Transportation Safety Department of Health and Family Service Department of Public Instruction A Police Department A Health Department A Safe Routes to School Program Safe Kids Coalition Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin

Planning Assistance

Selection Criteria Planning Assistance Strength of Task Force – 30% Potential for development of successful SRTS Program – 20% Severity of identified problems – 20% Community and school support for SRTS, biking and walking – 15% Community need for assistance and community demographics – 15%

Strength of Task Force Committee looked for: Inclusion of committee members from key areas such as schools, engineering/public works department, health, and police. Diversity of committee membership such as bringing in parents, business owners, or other members that bring important perspectives. Activities committee has already undertaken that show their ability to successfully undertake the planning process.

Potential for development of successful SRTS Program Things committee looked for include: Showing how SRTS will fit into larger city planning. Activities they are already undertaking to build support for SRTS. Other programs related to physical activity, wellness or safety that the school or community has started and that has been successful. Recognition of need for continuing evaluation and updating of plan. Success with similar planning efforts or programming efforts.

Severity of identified problems Things committee looked for include: Crash or injuries near school or in community involving children. Lack of or poorly maintained bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Documented traffic problems such as speeding or high traffic volume roads near school. High level of parent concerns shown by conducting survey. Lack of any children that currently walk or bike. Hazard bussing situations.

Community and school support for SRTS, biking and walking Things committee looked for include: Bicycle and pedestrian friendly policies (or willingness to change or add policies as part of planning process). Wellness policy that promotes physical activity. Involvement with programs such as the Green and Healthy Schools, Governor’s School Health Award, Movin’ and Muchin’ Program or other programs that promote issues of physical fitness, health, etc. Promotion of biking and walking through Walk to School Day, bike rodeos, physical education classes or other similar events.

Community need for assistance and community demographics Things committee looked for include: High percentage of low-income students in school (based on number of students eligible for free or reduced cost lunch). Community has few professional staff that could provide the necessary planning assistance. Community would be unlikely to be able to undertake the planning process without a grant.

Infrastructure and Non-Infrastructure Projects

Infrastructure Questions Historic buildings or area Wetlands Railroad within 1000 feet of project Recreational area, park or wildlife refuge State or Federal Highway Real Estate Issues

Selection Criteria Infrastructure and Non-infrastructure SRTS Plan or similar assessment – 25% Severity of identified problems – 15% Effective and Comprehensive Solutions – 15% Increases walking, biking and/or safety – 15% Community and school support for SRTS, biking and walking and future sustainability of SRTS efforts – 15% Community need – 5% Overall quality and creativity of projects/activities – 4% Evaluation plan – 4% Time table – 2%

SRTS Plan or similar assessment Things committee looked for include: Community has a completed SRTS Plan that assesses the issues that keep children from biking and walking to school. The requested projects and activities were recommended actions in the plan. The community has a Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Plan or Comprehensive Plan that looked at pedestrian and bicycle issues near the community’s schools. The requested projects or activities were recommended actions in the plan. The community has undertaken some planning efforts such as walk or bike audits, assessment of the school facilities and problems at pick-up and drop-off time, parent surveys, traffic volume and speed studies or other SRTS assessments.

Severity of identified problems Things committee looked for include: Crash or injuries near school or in community involving children. Lack of or unsafe bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Documented traffic problems such as speeding or high traffic volume roads near school. High level of parent concerns shown by conducting survey. Hazard bussing situations.

Effective and Comprehensive Solutions Things committee looked for include: The project or activity described addresses the problems that were identified. Community/school has given consideration to necessary engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement that is needed to encourage and enable children to walk and bike to school safely.

Increases walking, biking and/or safety Things committee looked for include: Project has strong potential to get more children walking and biking to school. Project will significantly increase the safety of children who are currently walking to school.

Community and school support for SRTS, biking and walking and future sustainability of SRTS efforts Things committee looked for include: Bicycle and pedestrian friendly policies (or plan in place to change policies) at school and community level. Wellness policy that promotes physical activity. Involvement with programs such as the Green and Healthy Schools, Governor’s School Health Award, Movin’ and Muchin’ Program or other programs that promote issues of physical fitness, health, etc. Promotion of biking and walking through Walk to School Day, bike rodeos, physical education classes or other similar events. Activities they are already undertaking that support for SRTS.

Community and school support for SRTS, biking and walking and future sustainability of SRTS efforts Other programs related to physical activity, wellness or safety that the school or community has started and that has been successful. Recognition of need for continuing evaluation and updating of plan. Success with similar planning efforts or programming efforts. Policies related to sidewalk provision or development of trails for new developments Prior provision of facilities such as sidewalks, traffic calming, trails, etc

Community need Things committee looked for include: High percentage of low-income students in school (based on number of students eligible for free or reduced cost lunch or other provided data). Community would be unlikely to be able to undertake the project without SRTS funding.

Overall quality and creativity of projects/activities Things committee looked for include: Community has shown that they understand their community’s specific needs and have approached the solution creatively. In addition, consideration was given to the federal objectives of: Project likely to decrease traffic congestion. Project likely to improve childhood health. Project likely to reduce childhood obesity. Project likely to encourage a healthy and active lifestyle. Project likely to improve partnerships between schools, municipalities, parents and other community groups. Project likely to increase a community’s interest in bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Overall quality and creativity of projects/activities Project likely to improve air quality. Project likely to improve community safety. Project likely to reduce fuel consumption. Project likely to increase community security. Project likely to enhance community accessibility. Project likely to increase community involvement.

Evaluation plan Things committee looked for include: Community will be able to complete required Student and Parent surveys. Project includes additional evaluation activities that are appropriate to the size and complexity of the project.

Time table Things committee looked for include: Project has necessary approvals to begin as soon as funding is available. Project can be completed within three years.

Other WisDOT Resources Transportation Enhancements Contact John Duffe

Contacts Renee Callaway

Website saferoutes.htm