|
G1. TIP Number: |
356106
|
|
G2. State: |
Kansas
|
|
G3. Multiple agencies / jurisdictions?
|
No
|
|
G4 Project contact: |
Nicole Brown, nicole.brown@jocogov.org
|
|
G5 Purpose and need:
|
SRTS education/encouragement programs will reduce families’ reliance on school bussing and private vehicle trips to/from school. This project continues existing Safe Routes to School non-infrastructure funding currently being provided by BikeWalkKC and planned to transition to Johnson County Department of Health and Environment in Federal Fiscal Year 2021. It includes Youth Bicycle Education and walking school bus programs at K-12 school sites, technical assistance and student travel planning for schools and school districts, and other outreach and encouragement events. The primary audience is K-12 school students.
|
| |
|
G6. Origin and ending
|
Route:
From:
To:
Length (Miles):
|
|
|
G7 Functional Classification:
|
Not Applicable
|
|
G8 Connected KC 2050 Decade?
|
2020
|
|
G9 Muli-Agency Plan?
|
No
|
|
G10 Included in a CIP?
|
No
|
|
G11 Planning stage:
|
|
|
G12 Reviewed by state DOT?
|
--Select--
|
|
G13 Right-of-Way acquisition: |
All acquired or none needed
|
|
G14 ROW by local public agency process manual?
|
No
|
|
G15 Other unique local goals and objectives?
|
Yes
Increasing walking and biking is a goal in many local plans within Johnson County. City of Leawoods Active Transportation plan especially prioritizes Safe Routes to School as an important goal.
|
|
G16 Transportation Disadvantaged Population:
|
Selection of schools to participate in this program will give priority to those serving transportation disadvantaged communities, which are often disadvantaged in health outcomes and access to health care.
|
|
G17 Relevant Public Engagement:
|
Public engagement builds on the work of BikeWalkKC, the previous sponsor of this program. They built close relationships with those directly involved in the program, including students, teachers, parents, and school community stakeholders.
|
|
G18 Planned Public Engagement:
|
Ongoing engagement will focus directly on the students, teachers, parents, and school stakeholders involved in the program. Language appropriate communication and materials will be used for each school community.
|
|
G19 Sustainable Places Criteria:
|
Access to Healthy Foods---Active Transportation/Living-------Compact, Walkable Centers---
Complete Street Design---Connected Street Network-----------
------------Integrated Trail System---
Mixed-Density Neighborhoods-------Optimize Parking---Pedestrian-Oriented Public Realm---
----------------
------
|
|
G19.1 Describe PSP relationship:
|
As the program operates in communities we learn lessons, gather data, identify challenges, surface opportunities, and build partnerships that support or contribute to work in these sustainable places. Examples include identifying gaps in sidewalks or complete street networks, increasing pedestrian activity in walkable centers and mixed-density neighborhoods, helping schools optimize parking on-site and in adjacent neighborhoods, increasing utilization of trails for walking programs, and partnering with food access resources like KC Healthy Kids.
|
|
G20 Implements Sustainable Places Initiatives?
|
No
|
|
G21 Serves Regional Activity Center?
|
No
High-Intensity and More_Walkable Centers
The program serves many schools within activity centers, especially older activity centers where schools are still located in proximity and have not been sited far away. Examples include Downtown Overland Park, Mission, Downtown Olathe, and more.
|
|
G22 Environmental justice tracts?
|
Yes
Many schools served in this program are located in Environmental Justice Tracts. Getting more kids walking and biking to school reduces the transportation burden on families with limited access to vehicles or high dependence on transit. Especially single parents that may be traveling between 2 or 3 jobs with limited time or money for transportation.
|
|
G23 Reduces greenhouse gas emissions?
|
Yes
Getting more kids walking and biking to school reduces the number of car trips by parents, the number of school buses needed, and reduces idling around schools.
|
|
G24 Natural Resource information:
|
|
|
G25 Community Links at Watershaed Scale:
|
|
|
G26 Explain local land use or comprehensive plans:
|
SRTS and the infrastructure improvements needed for walking and biking to school are included in many local plans. Examples include (but are not limited to) Overland Park Bike Plan, Leawood Active Transportation Plan, and Roeland Park Sidewalk Strategy.
|
| |
|
STP Federal amount:
|
19998800
|
|
STP Match amount:
|
4999700
|
|
STP Year requested:
|
2023
|
|
TAP Federal amount:
|
199988
|
|
TAP Match amount:
|
49997
|
|
TAP Year requested:
|
2023
|
|
Source of Local Match:
|
NOTE: We are applying in CMAQ, STP, and TAP. We can use whatever distribution between those funding sources determined by MARC staff and committees. Also, we are requesting the funding be split as evenly as possible between years 2023 and 2024.
The source of local match is local funds.
|
| |
|
Explain:
|
|
| |
|
Scope Change:
|
The project can be scaled based on the level of funding received. Can reduce the number of schools served by the program to fit the available funds.
|
| |
|
Cost by area: |
|
Engineering:
|
0
|
|
Equipment Purchase:
|
3436000
|
|
Right-of-Way:
|
0
|
|
Other:
|
0
|
|
Utility Adjustment/Relocation:
|
0
|
|
Program Implementation/Construction (including Construction Engineering/Inspection):
|
21562500
|
|
Contingency:
|
0
|
|
Total Estimated Project Cost:
|
24998500
|
| |
|
Cost Breakdown by mode:
|
|
Highway:
|
%
|
|
Transit:
|
%
|
|
Bike:
|
50 %
|
|
Pedestrian:
|
50 %
|
|
Other:
|
%
|
