1 / 22

From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School

From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School. Julie Walcoff , Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Alex Smith , Columbus Public Health, Columbus, OH Justin Yoh , The Ohio Department of Transportation - District 7 Mark Nolt , The Kleingers Group, West Chester, OH.

vielka-schultz
Download Presentation

From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Alex Smith, Columbus Public Health, Columbus, OH Justin Yoh, The Ohio Department of Transportation - District 7 Mark Nolt, The Kleingers Group, West Chester, OH

  2. Or: How to get selected! Application and Selection

  3. The Steps The School Travel Plan Funding Eligibility Pre-application Considerations Non-infrastructure Infrastructure Alternative Funding Sources District SRTS Coordinator Involvement The SRTS Funding Application Overview of the 2015 Funding Application Project Selection Process Project Review Notification & Next Steps

  4. The School Travel Plan Funding Eligibility • An ODOT approved School Travel Plan (STP) • Infrastructure • Non-infrastructure • Any updates to your STP are required to be submitted to ODOT as part of the funding application packet. The School Travel Plan and Your SRTS Team

  5. Action Plans And Action Items • Funding Eligibility • Your STP Action Plan should be reviewed and updated annually. • Evaluate the priority level of each of the action items (i.e. short term or long term). • Only items listed in your action plan are eligible for funding. • An updated action plan is required to be submitted to ODOT as part of the funding application packet.

  6. Non-Infrastructure Projects Funding Limit: $50,000 • Identify projects that provide high benefit at lower costs. • Printed materials • Incentives • Safety Programs • Limited Enforcement Campaigns • Reach out to other communities, local MPO’s and advocacy groups for their input. Pre-application Considerations

  7. SRTS National Partnership Kate Moening State Advocacy Organizer – Ohio (614) 269-7085 kate@saferoutespartnership.org

  8. Infrastructure Projects Funding • Funding Limit: $500,000 • This funding cap applies to total project cost (Design to Construction). • PDP Phases Eligible for Funding • Design (approx. 20% of Construction) • Environmental • Detailed Design • Right-of-Way (approx. $4,500 per parcel) • Acquisition • Appraisal • Utility Relocation • Construction • Construction Engineering (approx. 10% of Construction) • There is a 20% local match required however, toll revenue credit can be requested to cover the 20% local match. Pre-application Considerations

  9. Infrastructure Projects Sidewalk/Shared Use Paths/Curb Ramps Pros: • Provides needed connectivity • Non-infrastructure programs see increased participation • Provides separation of pedestrians and motorists • ADA compliance Cons: • Higher construction costs • Greater likelihood of right-of-way needed • Alternative funding sources needed to fund larger sidewalk projects Pre-application Considerations

  10. Infrastructure Projects Signing & Pavement Markings Pros: • Implemented systematically and at a lower cost • Designates school zones and crossings Cons: • Requires existing infrastructure • Requires additional annual maintenance Pre-application Considerations

  11. Infrastructure Projects Traffic and Pedestrian Signals Pros: • Provides a more safe means of crossing at intersections and/or mid-block Cons: • Higher construction costs • Higher likelihood of right-of-way needed • Must meet signal warrants to be eligible for funding Pre-application Considerations

  12. Alternate Funding Sources • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)* • Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)* • Safety Program • Small Cities Grants *Dispersed through Ohio’s metropolitan planning organizations Pre-application Considerations

  13. District SRTS Coordinator Involve your District SRTS Coordinator early! Pre-application Considerations

  14. Funding Application Overview Improving your Application’s Overall Electronic Score Recent non-infrastructure projects • Shows an overall commitment to the program International Walk/Bike to School Day • Register your International Walk/Bike to School Day at www.walkbiketoschool.org. Expected Benefit • Focus your projects in areas with a high density of students or in areas around the school campus.

  15. Funding Application Overview Improving your Application’s Overall Electronic Score Project Funding • Provide at least 10% of the local match • Utilize alternative funding sources to increase your local match • Federal funds from other funding sources CANNOT be used as your local match Speed Limit • Focusing your projects in areas where higher traffic speeds are present

  16. Funding Application Overview Improving your Application’s Overall Electronic Score Crash History • Focus your projects in areas where bike/pedestrian crashes can be mitigated Right-of-Way • Permanent and temporary right-of-way takes result in negative points.

  17. Funding Application Overview Project Description Project Mapping • Include mapping showing your proposed improvement along with the written description. Written Description • Be detailed in your response • Include as an attachment if necessary ODOT SRTS coordinators will be presenting your project for funding consideration!

  18. Project Reviews • Electronic Scoring • All applications receive a preliminary score based on the responses in the application. • Applications are ranked by this score • A cut-off line is established based upon: • Available funding • Strength of eligible applications received • Applications above the cut-off line are further reviewed at the district level.

  19. Project Reviews District Level Review The overall delivery and constructability of the proposed project is reviewed: • Project Schedule (requested construction year) • Project Estimate (funding per PDP phase) • Connectivity (for sidewalk/path projects) • Red Flags (R/W, Environmental, Utilities) • Priority in the Action Plan Recommended projects are then reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team at Central Office ODOT.

  20. Project Reviews Multi-Disciplinary Review Team • District SRTS Coordinators • Statewide SRTS Program Manager • Department of Education Representatives • Department of Public Safety Representatives • Department of Health and/or County Health Department Representatives • ODOT Safety Program Representatives • Bike/Ped/SRTS Advocacy Group Representatives • The review team will provide the Governance Board with a short-list of projects (school travel plan, non-infrastructure and infrastructure).

  21. Notification and Next Steps Governance Board • Makes the final selection as to which projects are awarded funds. • Total available funding for the upcoming funding cycle is $4 million. Applicants are notified of the funding results in May/June at which time the scoping and programming process begins.

  22. Key Dates November – December 2014 • Begin coordinating your proposed projects with district coordinators January – March 2015 • Funding round open to accept applications • School Travel Plan Development • Non-infrastructure • Infrastructure March – April 2015 • Application Review Process May – June 2015 • Award Notifications and Scoping Process Begins

More Related