Safe Routes to School Report SCTA Board Presentation prepared by: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

safe routes to school report
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Safe Routes to School Report SCTA Board Presentation prepared by: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Safe Routes to School Report SCTA Board Presentation prepared by: Anthony Taylor Date: September 11, 2017 This project is supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions One Bay Area Grant Program, Measure M, and Kaiser Permanente


slide-1
SLIDE 1

prepared by: Anthony Taylor Date: September 11, 2017

Safe Routes to School Report

SCTA Board Presentation

slide-2
SLIDE 2

This project is supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s One Bay Area Grant Program, Measure M, and Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Benefit Program.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Countywide Safe Routes to School Program

June 2015 ‐ September 2017

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Program Goals

Health & Air Quality

  • Increase active transportation
  • Increase use of shared

transportation

  • Reduce vehicle emissions
  • Increase physical activity

Safety and Security

  • Improve infrastructure
  • Calm traffic
  • Reduce injuries

Source: National Safe Routes to School Partnership (2016): http://saferoutespartnership.org/healthy‐communities/101/facts

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Program Design Update

  • Pilot Project: 2015‐16
  • Modified Approach: 2016‐17
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Data‐Driven Planning

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Program Overview

Educ ducation ion Enc Encour urag agem emen ent En Enforcem emen ent Engi Engineeri neering Evalua aluation tion Equity quity

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Education

In‐Class Education Bike Rodeos On‐bicycle Workshops Smart Cycling Workshops Climate Literacy Youth Leadership Training Bicycle Street Skills Share the Road Student Assembly

Photos: Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Encouragement

Participa rticipatio ion‐Based Based Con Contes ests ts Wa Walk & Ro Roll Da Day Online line Challeng allenges Coc Cocoa 4 Car Carpool

  • ols

Bi Bike Cl Club ub Bi Bike Blender Blender

Photos: Bike Blender at Analy High School (ECO2SCHOOL, left); International Walk & Roll to School Day, Sonoma, 2016 (Press Democrat)

In Intern rnatio ional Wa Walk & Ro Roll to to School hool Da Day

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Enforcement

Photo: Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, 2015

Encouragement Activities Traffic Observations Walking Audits

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Engineering

Walking Audits Recommended Routes Maps

Photos: El Verano Walking Audit, 2014; MHS Walking Audit map feedback 2016

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Out Outcom

  • me Ev

Evaluation Walking & Biking Rates Parent Surveys Pr Process Ev Evaluation Education Assessment Program Process

Evaluation

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Program Cost; 2015‐16 & 2016‐17 School Years

OBAG Cycle 1 (STP Funds) $999,475 11.47% Match* $129,493 Indirect Costs* $73,684 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,202,652 Measure M Grant $89,364 Kaiser SRTS Grant $40,000 County Realignment $73,813 TOTAL UNFUNDED COSTS* $203,177

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Who was reached?

15,825 students at 29 schools across Sonoma County

slide-15
SLIDE 15

20% 2% 20% 2% 18% 2% 18% 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Walk Bike

Walking & Bicycling, All Schools

Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

slide-16
SLIDE 16

19% 2% 65% 12% 23% 3% 66% 7% 17% 2% 49% 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Walking Biking Car Bus

How Does Sonoma County Compare?

Sonoma County California USA (2014)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

24% 24% 22% 21% 18% 16% 17% 18% 58% 60% 62% 61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

Elementary & Middle Schools

Active Shared Family Car

slide-18
SLIDE 18

3.1% 2.4% 2.6% 1.4% 3.3% 2.0% 2.8% 2.9% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%

4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

Bicycling Rates ‐ 4th‐8th Grade

Fall 2015 Spring 2017

slide-19
SLIDE 19

22% 17% 16% 14% 36% 40% 35% 38% 41% 43% 48% 48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

High Schools

Active Shared Single Occupancy Vehicle

slide-20
SLIDE 20

70% 58% 14% 94% 25% 0% 22% 46% 25% 4% 9% ‐21% 2% 2% ‐14% 95% 2% ‐27% ‐31% ‐39% 16% 42% 0% ‐5% ‐5% ‐2% ‐23% ‐1% ‐4% ‐12% 13% ‐3% ‐7%

JEFFERSON GUERNEVILLE BINKLEY SPRING CREEK VILLAGE SHEPPARD MONROE BROOKHAVEN PARK SIDE MEADOW JX WILSON

Schools With an Increase in Active Transportation

ACTIVE SHARED FAMILY CAR

slide-21
SLIDE 21

‐34% ‐28% ‐9% ‐3% ‐6% ‐1% ‐22% ‐14% ‐70% ‐27% ‐34% ‐33% ‐31% ‐1% ‐43% ‐26% ‐45% ‐38% 8% 0% ‐22% ‐8% ‐41% ‐35% 19% 48% 13% ‐11% 113% 52% ‐16% ‐37% ‐12% 29% ‐7% 4% 7% 15% 10% 7% 5% 21% 5% 13% ‐1% 23% 11% 3% 15% 5% 12% ‐7% 26% 46%

STRAWBERRY EVERGREEN MONTE VISTA FITCH MTN MARK WEST MIWOK ROSELAND LINCOLN BROOK HILL HELEN LEHMAN PROCTOR TERRACE SR CHARTER ARTS SEBASTOPOL CHARTER RL STEVENS WRIGHT CHARTER ANALY HIGH MONTGOMERY HIGH WINDSOR HIGH

Schools With a Decrease in Active Transportation

ACTIVE SHARED FAMILY CAR

slide-22
SLIDE 22

14% ‐15% 3% ‐21%

NON‐DISADVANTAGED (N = 19) DISADVANTAGED (N = 10)

CHANGE IN WALKING & BICYCLING RATES (ALL SCHOOLS)

WALK BIKE

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Parent Surveys

  • Administered Fall 2015 and Spring 2017
  • Responses received from 25 schools

– Average response rate = 16%

  • Travel habits mirror student tally data
  • SRTS Participation
  • Barriers to Walking & Bicycling
slide-24
SLIDE 24

Parents: SRTS Has Addressed Barriers

26.4% 27.8% 31.2% 32.2% 32.7% 32.7% 33.5% 34.6% 37.6% 49.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Time Traffic Volume Unsafe Intersections Lack of Adults Speeding Traffic Lack of Crossing Guards Stranger danger Driving Convenience Distance

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Infrastructure Improvements

Lincoln Elementary West Ninth Street & Rockwell Place Installed pedestrian sign

BEFORE AFTER

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Infrastructure Improvements

Lincoln Elementary West Ninth Street & Link Lane Advance stop lines installed on all legs

BEFORE AFTER

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Infrastructure Improvements

Lincoln Elementary West Ninth St & Simpson St Yellow high‐visibility crosswalk painted on north and south legs

BEFORE AFTER

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Looking Towards the Future…

  • Provide value to schools
  • Continue data‐driven planning
  • Evaluate efficacy of activities
  • Measure travel habits more frequently
  • Increase sample size at high school level
  • Disadvantaged schools – further study
slide-29
SLIDE 29

Brittany Lobo SRTS Program Specialist 707‐565‐5383 brittany.lobo@sonoma‐county.org