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

2. The need
End-user
interview results
 Explainable to
public and
funders
 Standardized
 Practical
 Safety-oriented

3. SRTS project identification
Step 1: Prioritize schools
Step 2: Conduct field reviews of
highest priority schools
RESULT: Ped infrastructure needs for
highest priority schools

4. Group the schools
Based on
 Crash history
 Safety concerns
 Current or potential pedestrian use

5. 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

6. Prioritize within Group 1 (maybe 2)
Use road and driver characteristics
 Traffic volume and speed
 Crossings
 Infrastructure

7. Additional
considerations
 Geography
 Low income
communities
 Interest

8. Worksheet

9. SRTS project identification
Step 1: Prioritize schools
Step 2: Conduct field reviews of
highest priority schools
RESULT: Ped infrastructure needs for
highest priority schools

10. Step 2: Field review
(excerpt)

11. Learn more at www.saferoutesinfo.org

12. Thank you
pullen@hsrc.unc.edu
919 962-7419

13. San Francisco’s Safe Routes to School
Prioritization System
Jessica Manzi, PE
Formerly of the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

14. Presentation Overview
 San Francisco & SRTS-
SF Background
 School assignment
policy – commute study
 Infrastructure
prioritization system
 Non-infrastructure
prioritization system
 Lessons learned

15. 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

16. 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

17. SRTS San Francisco
SFUSD
SFBC
SFPD
•YBike
SF DPH
SFMTA DOE

18. 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

20. 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 Elementary
25th St & Utah St.

21. 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

22. 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
John Muir Elementary
 Step 3: Reality check Page & Webster Streets

26. 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 Longfellow Elementary
– Scope v. funding source Morse Street, east of Mission Street

29. 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
Jefferson Elementary
 Step 2: Rank by non-walkers 19th Avenue & Irving St.
 Step 3: Solicit participation

31. Lessons Learned
 Focus on the goal
 Use what you have
(data, relationships)
 Take advantage of
time-sensitive
opportunities
 Be creative with funding

32. Contact us
Jessica Manzi, PE
City of Redwood City
(650)780-7372, jmanzi@redwoodcity.org
Ana Validzic, MPH
San Francisco Dept. of Public Health
(415) 581-2478, ana.validzic@sfdph.org
Ellen Robinson, PE
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
(415) 701-4322; ellen.robinson@sfmta.com

33. David Henderson, Miami-Dade MPO
Stewart Robertson, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro Place
September 11th 2012

35. School Board CTST

38. 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

39. 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.

40. Prioritization Factors
Factor Source Notes
Percent of students Miami-Dade County Weighted x2
walking to school Public Schools and UM
WALKSAFE program
Students living within 0.5 Miami-Dade County
miles of attended school Public Schools GIS
Juvenile pedestrian Miami-Dade MPO
crashes
Total pedestrian and Miami-Dade MPO
bicycle crashes
Traffic volume on the FDOT and Miami-Dade
nearest major street County
Automobile ownership Miami-Dade MPO Weighted x0.5
Prioritization is based on composite rank of individual factors

41. Prioritization Rankings
• Excerpt…
Prioritization is based on composite rank of individual factors

42. 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

43. Potential Drawbacks
• Does not include existing pedestrian
infrastructure levels
– Field reviews were conducted to address this factor

44. 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

45. 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

46. Top 10 Schools
School Address Municipality Priority Rank
Phyllis 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
Unincorporated
Linda Lentin K-8 Center 14312 NE 2nd Court 11
Miami-Dade
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
Unincorporated
Oak Grove Elementary 15640 NE 8th Avenue 35
Miami-Dade

47. Location
Map of
Top 10
Schools

48. SRTS Plan Methodology
• GIS data analysis
• School meetings
– Principals
– PTSAs
– CTST
• Parent surveys
• Student arrival and departure travel tallies
• Site assessments

49. Site Assessments

50. Typical Recommended
Improvements
• Sidewalks
• Crosswalks
• Signage
• Traffic signal upgrades
• School zone flashers
• Rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFBs)

51. Typical Routes 1
1
2
2

52. 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)