Wheaton Safe Routes to School Plan

Wheaton Safe Routes to School Plan

May 2017

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN

THE CITY OF WHEATON MINNESOTA WHEATON AREA SCHOOLS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #803 MAY 2017

Prepared by:..

West Central Initiative..

1000 Western Avenue..

PO Box 318..

Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0318..

218-739-2239.. www.wcif.org..

Andrew J. Besold, Principal Author..

Safe Routes to School Plan | P a g e 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

P a g e 2 | Safe Routes to School Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS Safe Routes to School Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary, Significant Findings and Action Plan .................................................................................... 7 Significant Findings ....................................................................................................... 8 Action Plan Recommendations ...................................................................................... 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) ....................................................................................................42 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 42 History ......................................................................................................................... 42 The Decline of Walking and Bicycling ...........................................................................43 Health Risks ................................................................................................................. 44 The 5 Es of SRTS Planning ............................................................................................ 45 A 6th E? - Equity .......................................................................................................... 49 National Physical Activity Trends In Children .............................................................. 51 Safe Routes to School Planning Framework ................................................................... 52 MnDOT Walk / Bicycle Zone Concept ........................................................................... 53 Status of State and Federal Support for Safe Routes to School ..................................... 54 Minnesota Schools Statewide Enrollment Options a nd the Impacts on SRTS ................ 55 Chapter 3: Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................................56 Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles ..........................................................................................................58 Community Profile and City Ordinaces ........................................................................ 58 Wheaton Area School District and School Profile s ....................................................... 62 Chapter 5: Strengths – Barriers – Opportunities Analysis ................................................................................... 68

Table of Contents | P a g e 3

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings ........................................................................................................ 71 Wheaton Walk / Bicycle Zones ...................................................................................... 71 Walk Audit ................................................................................................................... 74 Observation Day Results .............................................................................................. 88 Traffic Volume Data ..................................................................................................... 97 Crash Data .................................................................................................................. 102 Notables and Concerns ................................................................................................ 107 Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event ............................................................................................... 108 Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis ................................................................................................... 114 Parent Survey – Select Questions / Key Findings ............................................................. 115 Student Travel Tally – Select Questions / Key Findings ................................................... 130 Discussion / Comparison ............................................................................................... 131 Chapter 9: Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 133 Chapter 10: Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 134 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................ 135 Appendix A: Parent Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 135 Pearson Elementary School ......................................................................................... 135 Wheaton Area High School ......................................................................................... 149 Appendix B: Student Travel Tally Results ........................................................................................................ 161 Pearson Elementary School .......................................................................................... 161 Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments ...................................................................................................... 165 Parent Survey: English ............................................................................................... 165 Parent Survey: Spanish ............................................................................................... 167 Student Travel Tally .................................................................................................... 169 Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments ............................................................ 170 Appendix E: Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet .................................................................................177

P a g e 4 | Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS West Central Initiative acknowledges the contributions and guidance provided by the Safe Routes to School team members listed below. In addition, we express gratitude for the technical support and resources provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Safe Routes to School Team Members Jane E.W. Butzer, P.E. – Program Coordinator, MnDOT- District 4 Larry Haukos – County Engineer, Traverse County Kris Krenz – City Administrator, City of Wheaton Nancy Laines – Physical Education and Health Teacher Jim Minion – Chief of Police, City of Wheaton Jessica Peterson – Horizon SHIP Dan Posthumus – Wheaton Area School Superintendent / Principal Pearson Elementary

(Continued next page)

Acknowledgements | P a g e 5

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Lisa Austin – Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Coordinator Dave Cowan – Safe Routes to School Program Administrator Mary Safgren – Planning Director, MnDOT District 4

West Central Initiative Wayne Hurley – Planning Director Greg Wagner – Business and Economic Development Director/ GIS Cartography Donna Ellsworth – Secretary-Receptionist Tammy Froemming – Administrative Assistant

P a g e 6 | Acknowledgements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS AND ACTION PLAN The purpose of this Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan is to guide school and city staff, local and state officials, parents, and educators in their efforts to make it easier, safer and more comfortable for students to walk and bicycle to and from school. It is the product of direct observation, expert analysis of the existing conditions around the school and in the community and input from members of the community. The expertise from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) assembled crash and traffic data, and results from standardized parent surveys and student travel tallies were also used for this plan. A successful SRTS program will require community involvement if it is to have a meaningful impact on the students attending school. However, as an added bonus, SRTS programs and infrastructure usually prove beneficial to the whole community.

SRTS plans and programming are just a few of the tools being used to combat physical inactivity and increased levels of obesity in the United States. Both are considered public health crises that are greatly impacting the health of Americans contributing to the rising costs of medical care today and much more so in the future if current trends continue. Walking or biking to and from school is an easy way for children to get the regular physical activity they need to combat these problems and to build healthy habits into adulthood. Physically-active kids have fewer chronic health problems. They also have improved mood and concentration, a stronger self-image and more self-confidence, which are all critical for succeeding in school and in life. SRTS programs can also instill safe travel habits upon children at an early age which they can take with them into adulthood.

In the spring of 2016, the City of Wheaton (City) with the Wheaton Area Schools, Independent School District #803 (School District) were awarded an SRTS Planning Grant from MnDOT to conduct an SRTS plan for the city, the Pearson Elementary School and Wheaton Area High School. The SRTS planning process began in September of 2016 with a kick-off meeting and the formation of an SRTS planning team.

The team envisions a community where it is safe and convenient for all its children to walk and bicycle to, from and between schools; where children can travel, explore and play in their community safely under their own power. Working together, the SRTS team, consisting of members of the City, School District, MnDOT and Horizon SHIP helped to identify and will help implement the suggested recommendations in this plan for the city and schools. This plan addresses the five “E”s of education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering and evaluation, which is the standard strategy in SRTS planning. Also addressed are possible issues of equity as some communities and/or members of the community may have been historically underserved, have greater needs and/or have been more negatively affected by transportation planning decisions of the past. After the SRTS planning document is approved by both the City and School Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 7

District, the city and/or school may seek out funding and resources to implement the identified recommendations.

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS 

While located toward the edges of town, both schools are well-positioned within Wheaton. They are close to the center of town and contiguous with, if not surrounded by, residential neighborhoods. All residences within urbanized Wheaton are within one and a half miles of both schools. The Walk/Bike Analysis found that the furthest distance to either school within the city was a residence on the far east end of Broadway that was 1.4 street miles from the Wheaton Area High School.



64 percent of the Pearson Elementary School students and 57 percent of Wheaton Area High School students live within the city of Wheaton. There are several farmsteads to the south and west of Wheaton that are within two-miles of the high school. It is possible that older students could walk or bike to the high school using low-traffic gravel roads in relative safety.



The sidewalk network within Wheaton is sporadic with random missing and poorly-maintained sections. The area around Pearson Elementary is served by a more comprehensive but still incomplete sidewalk network. There are no sidewalks for approximately two blocks surrounding the high school and the neighboring Wheaton pool.



At the high school, there are concerns about the elementary school students who live in the neighboring apartments. In the morning, they walk across the parking lot to board the school bus at the high school. There are similar concerns regarding high school students who also walk across this lot. There are no sidewalks guiding students across the parking lot, nor are there any leading th

rd

directly to the school from the intersection of 16 Street and 3 Avenue South. Fortunately, circulation and student driver behavior issues at the high school seemed to be minimal. 

Circulation issues at Pearson Elementary seemed to be minimal. Despite several notices to parents to stop the practice, there are continued issues with some parents who drop off their children on th

the southbound/west side of 8 Street North which requires the children cross the street to the front entrance. During the afternoon of Observation Day, the first school bus pulled up too close to the crosswalk and stop sign. Otherwise, the Student Safety Patrol stationed at the corner of 8 th

Street and 4 Avenue North was exceptionally well-disciplined and very effective at controlling traffic.

P a g e 8 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

th



Observation Day findings would seem to indicate that several students, including small children, th

th

are crossing U.S. Highway 75 – 5 Street between 5 Avenue North and Broadway. 

The city’s well-written and rather specific sidewalk ordinances would appear to be unenforced.

Segments of sidewalks were in poor condition or missing altogether, while other sections were obstructed by parked cars, vegetation and even an RV that would appear to have rather permanent electrical service installed in the boulevard within the public ROW.



Feedback from the community outreach session focused primarily on the high volumes of truck nd

traffic and speeding on the roads entering town, including County 100 – 2 Avenue South. There were also concerns about the lack of sidewalks, stop signs, crosswalks and bicycle facilities within Wheaton, as well as the driving behavior of some high school students.

TRAFFIC VOLUME AND CRASH DATA ANALYSIS 

Heavy Commercial Annual Average Daily Traffic (HCAADT) counts from MnDOT confirm Observation Day reports and residents’ concerns with heavy amounts of truck traffic. The rd

HCAADT on U.S. Highway 75 between 3 Street North and Broadway was 430. This is a block from Pearson Elementary. On State Highway 27 – Broadway between Front Street and U.S. Highway 75 – th

5 Street HCAADT was 235. These numbers are likely higher during harvest season. 

There were a total of two bike/pedestrians crashes in Wheaton involving one pedestrian and one bicyclist. Neither was fatal; the pedestrian received a “possible injury” and the bicyclist a “nonincapacitating injury.”



There is a spike of crashes in Wheaton at the 15:00 hour (3:00 to 4:00 p.m.). This corresponds to when students are dismissed from school. More research would be needed to see if walking and biking students are at extra risk and/or if high school students make up a disproportionate number of crashes during this hour.



The traffic volume on 16th Street between 3rd Avenue North and 2nd Avenue South (400 AADT) was higher than expected. This street happens to be a natural bicycle and pedestrian traffic feeder route to the high school but it has no sidewalks.

PARENT SURVEY AND STUDENT TRAVEL TALLY RESULTS 

The combined walking and biking mode share for Pearson Elementary is above the national average at 18 percent morning, 21 percent afternoon. The national is 15.2 percent in the morning Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 9

and 18.4 percent in the afternoon. The high school fell below the national average with a combined mode share of seven percent morning, 10 percent afternoon. These results are still rather disappointing considering that 64 percent of Pearson Elementary students and 57 percent of the high school students live within Wheaton city limits. However, this means there is great room for improvement which is why this plan was composed. 

The family vehicle was the most frequently used mode of travel to and from school, followed by the school bus. This is somewhat atypical of findings in west central Minnesota. Usually, the school bus is the most common travel mode to and from school even when high school students are included in the travel mode counts.

ACTION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS EDUCATION Goal: Establish at least two educational programs a year within the community to teach and foster good bicycle and pedestrian safety habits.

1.

Facilitate an annual bicycle rodeo event to teach bicycle skills and safety to students.

Bicycle Rodeos are bicycle safety training events typically held after school or on weekends and open to the greater community. They usually run for two to three hours and teach bicycle safety lessons and on-bike skills, usually in a station format (e.g., bicycle safety check, helmet fitting, rules of the road instruction, on-bike obstacle course, on-bike skills drills, etc.). While geared towards children, many of the lessons can be appropriate for adults, as well. Bicycle rodeos can be held as part of a larger event or on their own, and either during the school day or outside of school. Adult volunteers can administer rodeos, or they may be offered through the local police department. Key partners in implementing a bicycle rodeo event may (should) include teachers, League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructors (LCI’s), and Horizon SHIP.

2.

Educate students about proper walking and bicycling etiquette through in-school and after-school bicycle and pedestrian safety education. a. Investigate using the afternoon activities club at Pearson as a platform for safe walking and bicycle education. b. Teach the Walk! Bike! Fun! curriculum to help students understand the rules of the road. c.

Identify the need and apply for a grant for a bicycle fleet if one cannot be borrowed.

P a g e 10 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

Observation results indicate that a portion of students did not exhibit proper walking techniques.

Students were not utilizing crosswalks and some were seen not watching traffic when they were crossing the street. Some of the bicyclists also displayed improper techniques by riding through stop signs and even not looking before entering streets and intersections.

Figure 1: The Fergus Falls bike fleet is kept inside this towable trailer.

Figure 2: Some of the inspirational graphics painted onto the sides of the Fergus Falls bike fleet trailer.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 11

The Walk! Bike! Fun! curriculum is an in-classroom and real-world, on foot and on bike, educational resource. It addresses improper walking and biking behaviors like that observed by the team during the SRTS planning process. Taught by specially-trained school teachers, government staff and/or volunteers, this curriculum is intended for children ages five through thirteen. It teaches life-long skills related to traffic rules like identifying potential hazards and general biking and walking skills. This knowledge enable students to walk and bike safely and comfortably around their communities. The curriculum addresses a variety of walking and bicycling topics and is endorsed by MnDOT. Finally, in order to engage students in the Walk! Bike! Fun! curriculum, the Wheaton Area School District should research the need for a bicycle fleet, or identify a nearby fleet they may be able to borrow.

3.

Develop a school district safety campaign to build awareness of students walking and bicycling to and from school, and to encourage safe driving behavior among parents, high school students and passersby.

While observations by the SRTS team seem to indicate rather good driver behavior around the schools, other observations and comments from the public and in the parent survey indicate concerns about driver behavior. Concerns were not just on the major roadways through Wheaton such as U.S. 75, State Highway 27 and County 100 but on all streets throughout the town. A school safety campaign should be developed that builds awareness around students walking and bicycling to and from school. An effective safety campaign might utilize multiple forms of media to get the attention of parents, students and passersby. Primary outcomes are improved walking, bicycling and driver safety behaviors (particularly near the school), and youth empowerment.

4.

Design a parent workshop to provide tools, resources and support needed to encourage parents and other community members to begin walking and bicycling for transportation.

A parent workshop for those living in and around Wheaton can provide the tools, resources and support needed for parents to overcome some of the common barriers noted by parents to not allow their children to walk or bicycle to and from school. While traffic is a real threat to student safety for those walking to school, it is something that can be mitigated to some degree through education and parent involvement. Topics such as how to be a responsible driver, starting a walking school bus, and launching a safety campaign can help mitigate the amount and speed of traffic at and leading up to the school.

P a g e 12 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

5.

If the reconstruction of the blacktop playground at Pearson is planned in the near future, consider building and painting it with “play” road markings in a manner sometimes referred to as a “Safety Town” or “Traffic Garden.”

Traffic gardens are common throughout Europe and are often painted onto a playground surface of elementary schools. They include “play” traffic lanes, intersections with stop signs, painted sidewalks, marked crosswalks, solid and dashed yellow centerlines, turn lanes and even a traffic circle. The purpose is to teach children proper traffic and safety behaviors associated with walking and biking, as well as driving. While often not much more than paint on asphalt, they can be elaborate and complex with completely functioning traffic lights, railroad gates, etc. This could be located on school grounds or in a nearby park.

Figure 3: Images from a German elementary school “Traffic Garden”. Besides its role teaching traffic basics to children, this area otherwise serves as a regular macadam school yard.

Note the crosswalk on the far side of the right image and the traffic circle to the far right.

For more Education ideas, see Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet (Appendix E) and the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center – Education: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/resources/education.html

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 13

ENCOURAGEMENT Goal: Explore strategies to promote walking and bicycling through the identification of safe routes, organizing events, rewarding participation, and educating adults.

1.

A review of relevant Wheaton School District policies was performed as part of this SRTS plan. The district should investigate updating its policy language with the goal of making it more encouraging of the goals and best practices of SRTS. Amendments for the Wellness policy providing detailed SRTS guidance specific to Minnesota was produced by the Public Health Law Center at the William Mitchell College of Law and can be found in Appendix D. It is suggested that Wheaton look to adopt these policies in whole or in parts. An additional policy resource specific to Minnesota is the Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet which can be found in Appendix E. Furthermore, the SRTS National Partnership, in cooperation with ChangeLab Solutions (a multi-disciplinary, multi-government agency policy partnership), has developed an on-line SRTS District Policy Workbook. This resource is a comprehensive SRTS policy guide covering everything from general policies supporting SRTS to more advanced policies like “No Idling Policies” and “School Siting Policies.” This resource is best accessed on-line and can be found at: http://www.changelabsolutions.org/safe-routes/welcome. Finally, look for possible improved policies from the MnDOT SRTS Office and/or the Minnesota Department of Education, in the near future.

Within the Wheaton School District’s Transportation Policies, as well as its Wellness policy, only one direct reference to walking or biking to and from school was found.

The “707 Transportation of Public School Students” policy articulates the legal requirements of the school district to provide transportation to students within district boundaries. It does not specifically mention details related to walking and biking. The “709 Student Transportation Safety Policy” is primarily a 20-page document dedicated to the operational details of busing students. It does, however, mention that “The school district also will provide student safety education for bicycling and pedestrian safety for students in grades K-5.” This is a statement not often found in other district 707 or 709 transportation policies and ties in well with the goals, aims and ages targeted in the Minnesota Walk! Bike! Fun! curriculum. Note that the term “will” leaves little latitude in this policy statement. However, unlike other 709 policies previously reviewed, Wheaton’s policies do not state that “Parents/Guardians are responsible to support safe riding and walking practices, and recognize that students are responsible for their actions.” No where else in the two policies is there any mention directly about walking or bicycling.

P a g e 14 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

Overall, the Wellness Policy is very supportive of the same goals generally pursued by SRTS and characterized by the statement “that students need opportunities for physical activity and to fully embrace regular physical activity as a personal behavior. Towards that end, physical education and health education will reinforce the knowledge and self-management skills needed to maintain a healthy lifestyle and reduce sedentary activities.” It also states that “during the instructional day, students will be provided at least 45 minutes of physical activity on all, or most days of the week.”

And while the policy “will support parents’ efforts to provide their children with opportunities to be physically active outside of school,” there is no such direct statement as is found in some other Wellness policies that “Schools shall encourage bicycling and walking to and from school.”

Overall, the language in the three policies appears to be relatively standard as written by the Minnesota School Boards Association. However, since most of this standard policy language predates the SRTS movement, there is room for a great deal of improvement with regard to walking, biking and other SRTS initiatives.

2.

Develop informational messages to be included in the monthly school newsletter or email blast, encouraging students to walk or bike to school and highlighting associated health benefits.

Monthly informational messages can raise awareness about the positive health and academic benefits associated with increased physical activity, such as walking and bicycling. To get information to parents, a short message could be included in the monthly school newsletter.

3.

If not already policy, where safe to do so, explore the consolidation of bus stops so bused students are required to walk to a bus stop. The outlying community of Dumont is small enough that only one bus stop should be needed.

Front door pickups and drop-offs are common in many school districts but they minimize the amount of walking bused students can get on their trip to and from school. Requiring students to walk to and from a bus stop is one strategy for bused students to get more physical activity before and after school. It also can speed up travel times so students spend less time on the bus and more time either sleeping in the morning, studying and/or being physically active. Extreme weather conditions, particularly common in the winter months in this part of Minnesota, need to be considered, possibly on a day-to-day basis.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 15

4.

Explore the development of a remote school bus drop site possibly in front of City Hall on th

rd

th

9 Street for the elementary school students and possibly on 3 Avenue S near 13 Street for high school students. In either case, students would have the option of walking the remaining distance (a five-minute walk) to either school or taking the bus the rest of the distance.

In a rural school district where students can live 20, 30 or more miles away from the school, it is not practical to have these students walk or bike to school. Others may live close by but are confronted with traffic barriers like highways and/or railroad tracks. These students can still get the exercise benefits of walking to school if the school bus system gives them the option of walking a few blocks to school from a safe remote drop-off site. This would also allow these students to participate in walking and biking to school competitions. (See below) A teacher or parent volunteer could assist the elementary school children who decide to participate.

5.

Explore / develop a competition or challenge to reward students by tracking the number of times they walk or bike to school, including those who take the bus and opt to be dropped off remotely or participate in some sort of physical fitness activity like walking on school grounds, etc.

Competitions or challenges provide students with immediate, positive reinforcement. Beyond a walk and bike to /from school challenge, possible competitions or challenges are endless and could target individuals, classrooms or the entire school.

6. Explore / continue participation in International Walk and Bike to School Day and the new Minnesota SRTS Winter Walk to School Day to encourage students and their families to try walking or biking to school.

International Walk and Bike to School Day attracts millions of participants all over the world. The intent is to encourage students and their families to try walking or bicycling to school for one day.

In some districts with high busing numbers, events on this day might include a walk around school grounds and throughout the town for all students, or a remote bus drop-off which would allow all students to walk to school from that location. Depending on the response rate, these events could be extended into the future and turn into ongoing designated walking and bicycling days. Winter Walk to School Day started in Canada in 2007 and February 2017 marked the first year that the Minnesota SRTS program officially participated. Key partners to possibly include are law enforcement officials, high school student leaders, teachers, parent advocates and Horizon SHIP.

P a g e 16 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

7.

Consider investigating and composing a map of preferred walking and bicycle route to the schools that uses low traffic stress streets and intersections with better traffic controls.

Most communities, particularly those built on a traditional grid pattern like Wheaton, will often have parallel side streets with very low traffic volumes a block or two away from higher trafficked main streets and avenues. These can often be optimized to create a neighborhood low-stress bicycle network appropriate for children to eight years and up. These same or similar routes often work well as walking routes. A bike network for Wheaton oriented to the needs of SRTS is proposed in the Engineering portion of the Action Plan. Preferred walking routes will likely match up well with the “Priority Corridors” also illustrated in the Engineering section next in the plan.

8. Consider installing a bicycle repair station near the entrances to each one of the schools where the bicycle racks are suggested to be located in accordance to the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professional (APBP) guidelines.

Outdoor bicycle repair stations (Figure 4) are a great way to encourage bicycling.

They provide a way to make sure that bicycles are in good working order before students leave school for the day. Cyclists will be able to make minor repairs that might otherwise leave them stranded, all while teaching students basic mechanics and self-reliance. A typical station is equipped with a repair stand that holds the bike from the saddle, a heavy-duty, all-

Figure 4: A bicycle repair station with a heavy-duty, all-

weather bicycle pump, and basic tools

weather pump, installed in the summer of 2015 at the Fergus

attached to the stand with theft resistant

Falls Public Library.

cables that allow a person to make most basic repairs.

They can also be of use to members of the general public when not needed by students and/or faculty.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 17

9. Investigate the feasibility of walking school buses for students from various neighborhoods within Wheaton city limits.

A walking school bus is a group of students walking to and from school with chaperones, usually parent and/or other adult volunteers. This can be a fun, secure, healthy and easy opportunity for students to be physically active. A walking school bus usually provides front door pick-up and drop-off of students along the way, which can allay most parents’ fears. It can be done daily or just on certain days of the week and/or depending on weather conditions. Look into the demand for a walking school bus and if parents or other citizen volunteers are interested in taking turns walking students as “drivers”. Outreach to parents could be done via the parent newsletter. The hardest part to operating a walking school bus is finding enough dedicated volunteers to act as “drivers” but active elderly members of the community have been recruited to perform this task in other towns and cities with very successful results.

For more Encouragement ideas, see Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet (Appendix E) and the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center – Encouragement: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/resources/encouragement.html

ENFORCEMENT Goal: Address traffic and safety concerns by identifying and implementing enforcement measures within the school walk and bike zone.

1.

Enforce Wheaton’s existing sidewalk ordinances found in Chapters 200 through 203.

Clarify that removal of sidewalks by the adjacent property owner is prohibited. Clarify that all new developments and streets within the platted portion of the city be required to be built with sidewalks on both sides of the street.

A review of Wheaton’s sidewalk ordinances found them to be rather well written and very specific regarding the standards that sidewalks within the city must be maintained. However, evidence disclosed during the Walk Audit made it clear that these ordinances were not being enforced.

P a g e 18 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

2.

Investigate the use of adult crossing guards at strategically-selected intersections on U.S. th

Highway 75 (5 Street), Broadway and/or 2

nd

Street.

The presence of a trained adult crossing guard can be of invaluable for student safety at locations with busy and/or fast moving traffic. They act as a second pair of more experienced eyes and can see hazards that young children may not be aware of. Adult crossing guards have the added benefit of acting as a source of encouragement to students and reassurance to parents. This person could be a school employee or adult volunteer.

3.

Increase the prevalence of traffic law enforcement in strategic locations during student morning arrival and afternoon dismissal.

The SRTS team and parent surveys from one or two parents noted speeding traffic as a barrier for their children to walk and/or bike to school. Increasing the prevalence of law enforcement officers near the school may help to reduce vehicle speeds, improve compliance with speed limits around the school and increase the likelihood of vehicles yielding to pedestrians. This is a short-term, easyto-implement recommendation that can be low cost.

4.

th

Remind the bus drivers to not position the first bus too close to 8 Street North in the afternoon when waiting to pick up students. Buses should be parked at least 30 feet from th

th

the stop sign at 8 Street and 4 Avenue North, if not more, to keep sight lines open to the stop sign but also for students crossing at the intersection. It is suggested that the first bus park no closer than 50 feet from the stop sign.

5.

Remind residents (and enforce by citation if need be) of Minnesota State parking laws per Statute 169.34 PROHIBITIONS; STOPPING, PARKING. Cars parked in driveways across sidewalks were observed at several locations within Wheaton.

While this causes no more than a minor nuisance for abled-bodied persons walking past during warm weather months, cars parked across the sidewalk can become a significant obstacle during times of heavy snowfall and will always block the safe passing of pedestrians with disabilities. This is likely a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And while not observed as a systemic problem in Wheaton, it is also illegal per Statute 169.34 to park: within an intersection, on a crosswalk, within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection, within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing beacon, stop sign, or traffic-control signal located at the side of a roadway, etc. Please see complete statute for all parking restrictions.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 19

6. If not done so already, rescind parking privileges to high school students observed driving in an irresponsible manner while arriving and leaving the school grounds. If possible, extend such restrictions to any student who receives a series of traffic citations and is found guilty of those moving violations.

Being able to drive a private automobile to school and park it on school property is a privilege.

Irresponsible driving behaviors by students near the school and around Wheaton should not be tolerated as the consequences can easily be fatal. Several parents of younger students noted the driving behaviors of high school students as a deterrent to allowing their children to walk and/or bike to and from school.

7.

Investigate restricting heavy truck through-traffic to state and county controlled highways, city streets in commercial and industrial zones, and to only local deliveries on residential city streets.

Many residential city streets, including those near the schools are fairly wide but are really only appropriate for automobile traffic and the occasional truck delivery. Highways that are under state and county jurisdictions, along with roads in commercial and industrial zones, are where such traffic is expected and are typically wider and engineered to accommodate it. Heavy truck traffic should be restricted from using residential city streets in Wheaton unless making a local delivery.

8. Identify the most effective form of automated speed feedback sign and investigate the possible installation (permanent or temporary) at strategic locations within Wheaton.

Notable locations might include: 

U.S. Highway 75 entering town from the north.



State Highway 27 entering town from both the east and the west.



County Highway 100 (2

nd

Avenue South), east and westbound traffic between 660

Avenue and U.S. Highway 75. 

Trail Street entering town from the north.



Possibly downtown Broadway – State Highway 27.

P a g e 20 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

th

Frequently noted as a problem in many Minnesota communities, Wheaton is no different with complaints by members of the SRTS team and the community of speeding in town. Speeding was also directly observed during the SRTS planning process. Speed feedback signs are a fairly uncontroversial and effective means of slowing down traffic. They have been used in numerous communities in Greater Minnesota and are very common in rural North and South Dakota towns.

Using radar to detect a vehicle’s speed, these signs will display the speed of the oncoming vehicle to remind the driver of their speed if driving above the posted speed limit. If driving more than five mph over the limit, the sign can be programmed to flash the detected speed sometimes with a flashing strobe light to really catch the driver’s attention. It is recommended that Wheaton, with help from county and MnDOT officials, identify the most effective form of automated speed feedback and possible locations for deployment.

For more Encouragement ideas, see Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet (Appendix E) and the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center – Enforcement: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/resources/enforcement.html

ENGINEERING Goal: Improve the existing infrastructure within the community to ensure active transportation is encouraged and made safe.

Note – All of the following recommended proposals are rough but well thought-out ideas from a professional active transportation planner. They will need further vetting and refinement, including that of a licensed engineer, to see if they are feasible. The recommendations below are listed in a general order of priority. For a visual summary of the suggested Engineering proposals, please see Figures 5- 12.

1.

With the following engineering suggestions, ensure that all meet conventional standards including but not limited to the latest Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) for ADA compliance and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. For more information regarding ADA PROWAG guidelines in Minnesota, please see MnDOT’s Curb Ramp Guidelines from October 2010.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 21

2.

In an effort to best accommodate students walking and biking to and from school, investigate the installation of sidewalks and multi-use pathways near Pearson Elementary School and Wheaton High School grounds per the recommendations seen in Figures 5 and 6. Take note of the recommended sidewalk widths which are advised to handle the extra pedestrian traffic of walking students near the school, gathering in groups, as well as the large groups of students boarding and alighting from school buses and private vehicles during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal. Please note the 7-foot wide sidewalk on th

th

th

the south side of 4 Avenue North between 8 Street and 7 Street. This should be placed directly adjacent to the curb.

3.

Investigate repositioning the school bus drop-off and pick-up at the Pearson School from th

th

4 Avenue North to the south side of 5 Avenue North. This would remove some traffic from the south side of the school that most student bicycle/pedestrian traffic must traverse. It would also open up a large amount of curb space for parent pick up and drop off. If this suggestion is implemented, it would require an eight-foot wide sidewalk placed directly adjacent to the curb for the same reasons noted above. East of the school bus loading zone, the sidewalk need only be six feet wide and can be pulled back from the curb.

See Figure 5.

4. Paint and properly maintain the crosswalks at all intersections adjacent to school properties.

5.

Investigate closing 8

th

Street between 4

th

Avenue North and 5

th

Avenue North to all

traffic during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal. This may be best done in conjunction with #3 above. Moving the buses away from 8th Street and 4th Avenue North would free up more space on 4

th

Avenue North for parents to drop off and pick

up students in a more orderly fashion.

Concerns were raised numerous times regarding parents who repeatedly drop students off th

from the west side of 8 Street. This continues despite several notices and attempts to eliminate this practice. All parents are asked to drop their children off on the east side of 8

th

th

Street so the children do not need to cross busy 8 Street. Currently, there is a problem with th

children being dropped off on the west side of the street and dart east across 8 Street to the main entrance of Pearson. Closing the street at arrival and dismissal should also eliminate the problem of potentially striking child pedestrians when drivers back out of the nose -in parking spots.

P a g e 22 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

6. Construct / reconstruct ADA compliant sidewalks per PROWAG throughout Wheaton as depicted in Figures 7 and 8. For the needs of SRTS, priority should be given to sidewalks th

rd

closest to the schools and/or along the 4 Avenue North / 3 Avenue North, 2 th

nd

Avenue

th

South, 8 Street, and 16 Street corridors. Secondary prioritization should be given to st

rd

th

th

sidewalks along the 1 Avenue North, 3 Avenue South, 12 Street North and 13 Street South corridors. Priority corridors are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. All sidewalks, unless otherwise indicated, should be a minimum of 5 feet in width as per the city ordinance and the recommendation of the author of this plan.

7.

rd

th

Investigate implementing a special school bus stop at 3 Avenue South and 14 Street to pick up Pearson Elementary School students so they do not need to cross the open high school parking lot.

8. Relocate the bicycle racks at Pearson Elementary School so that they are on a hard surface pad and not blocking sidewalks as per the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), Bike Parking Guidelines. It may be best to locate all the bicycle racks to a location just inside the school yard fence off of 4

th

Street North. (See

Figure 5) At the high school, the bike racks should be brought closer to the main entrance, if not directly next to it, to be in compliance with APBP guidelines. These state that bicycle parking should be closer to the main entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking spot or not more than 50 feet. (See Figure 6) 9. Investigate a 10-mph speed limit on high school property.

10. Investigate a “School Zone” speed limit of 15 mph on the following street sections: 

4 and 5 Avenues North from U.S. Highway 75 to 9 Street North.



8 Street from 6 Avenue North to 3 Avenue North.



2



16 Street from Broadway to 3 Avenue South.



15 Street from 2

th

th

th

nd

th

th

rd

th

th

and 3 Avenues South from 660 Avenue to 13 Street.

th

th

rd

rd

nd

rd

Avenue South to 3 Avenue South.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 23

11. To best facilitate the students walking to Wheaton High School from the east, consider building a curb-protected walkway diagonally across the parking lot from the northeast corner to the eastern school entrance. Also, investigate a secondary sidewalk to provide a shortcut for students living in the Pineview Apartments. (See Figure 6) 12. At 8

th

st

Street between Broadway and 1 Avenue North, investigate the feasibility of

installing a multi-use pathway to provide a shortcut for students traveling to and from the Pearson School. 8

th

Street was identified as a priority corridor as it provides the

most direct access to the Pearson School from the Wheaton Park neighborhood on the south side of town.

13. In conjunction with sidewalk and suggested trail improvements, consider installing pedestrian-activated crosswalk beacons like a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) in conjunction with a high-visibility, Continental-style crosswalk to increase driver yield rates at the following intersections: 

U.S. Highway 75 and 4 Avenue North.



U.S. Highway 75 and 1 Avenue North.



U.S. Highway 75 and 2

th

st

nd

Avenue North.



Broadway and 8 Street.



Broadway and 16 Street.



Trail Street North and 3 Avenue North.



Trail Street South and 5 Street South.

th

th

rd

th

14. Consider painting crosswalks at all other crossings of U.S. Highway 75, Broadway and 2

nd

Street South. This recommendation does not preclude the installation of painted

crosswalks elsewhere throughout Wheaton.

15. Investigate the installation of parking blocks / curb stops to prevent the encroachment of cars parked upon the five-foot sidewalk in front of Pearson Elementary on 8

th

Street North.

P a g e 24 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

16. Investigate installing traffic calming measures such as bump-outs, speed humps, etc. on the following street sections: 

4 and 5 Avenues North from U.S. Highway 75 to 9 Street.



8 Street from 6 Avenue North to 3 Avenue North.



2



3 Avenue South from 660 Avenue to 13 Street.



At the intersection of Broadway and 16



th

th

th

nd

th

th

rd

th

Avenue South from 660 Avenue to U.S. Highway 75.

rd

th

th

At the intersection of Broadway and 8

th

th

Street.

Street.



At the intersection of 2



At the Intersection of 2



16 Street from Broadway to 3 Avenue South.



15 Street from 2

th

th

nd

Avenue South and 16

nd

Avenue South and 8

th

th

Street.

Street.

rd

nd

rd

Avenue South to 3 Avenue South.

Bump-outs have a traffic calming effect; they reduce the distance pedestrians share with automobiles in the street and can prevent illegal parking of vehicles too close to a crosswalk and/or stop sign. Doing so can block a driver’s view of these traffic control devices. It also aids by making pedestrians and stop signs more visible to drivers by placing them in a more conspicuous, more visual location, without being in the roadway. Sidewalk bump-outs can be engineered to be mountable when large heavy trucks need to turn at bump-out intersections. Temporary, low-cost installation on a trial basis to test these traffic calming measures can be used before more permanent and expensive installations are employed. Use best local judgment when prioritizing installations. Sidewalk installations should be coordinated with other road / infrastructure projects to take advantage of potential cost savings. Use best local judgment when prioritizing installations.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 25

17. Have MnDOT conduct an intersection safety audit at the intersection of U.S. Highway 75 and Broadway to give special attention to the safety needs of pedestrians.

Safety concerns were identified at this intersection but, due to the complexity, are beyond the professional expertise of the author of this report. As such, any recommendations are best made by the expert staff at MnDOT District 4 and/or their consultants.

18. Consider moving the transition to 30 mph several hundred feet further outside of town when approaching Wheaton from the north on both Trail Street – County 9 and U.S. Highway 75.

19. Investigate installing the SRTS optimized bikeway network depicted in Figures 11 and 12.

Rank the bikeway routes in the priority corridors identified in Figures 9 and 10. Most recommendations are low-cost, mostly consisting of painted lanes and MUTCD compliant signs. It is recommended that bike routes be augmented with MUTCD compliant bicycle shared lane markings also known as “sharrows.” Suggested lane widths for proposed bike lane improvements have already taken into consideration strategies to minimize loss of on-street parking. It is recommended that bikeway network improvements be phased in gradually, possibly included as part of existing scheduled roadway improvement projects.

This allows local residents time to become accustomed to the changes with minimal extra costs and before a large expense is undertaken.

Note – The suggestion for a bike lane on Broadway is not intended to serve a direct SRTS purpose but was added after several requests in the public comments. The bike lanes would serve those biking to destinations on Broadway and encourage proper bike placement and direction on the roadway. Bike lanes can also calm traffic by narrowing the perceived lane width and serve as a buffer from motorized traffic for those parked on Broadway when entering and exiting their vehicles.

20. Investigate installing multi-use path shortcuts depicted in Figures 7 and 8. Prioritize the multi-use paths in the priority corridors identified in Figures 9 and 10 and listed below: 

8 Street corridor



4 and 3 Avenues North corridor



3 Avenue South corridor

th

th

rd

rd

P a g e 26 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

21. Consider closing one of the legs of these complex 5-way intersections to improve pedestrian safety: 

The south side of 3 Avenue North and 14 Street at Trail Street.



The west side of Broadway and 16 Street at State Highway 27.

rd

th

th

In both cases, the closed leg of the intersection can be easily circumvented by local traffic and will require traffic to slow down. Closures can be tested with inexpensive materials like construction cones and barricades for a trial period. If popular, the closures can be made permanent using curbing, sidewalks and landscaping. The permanent design could allow for the easy access of emergency equipment if required.

22. Besides specific recommendations previously mentioned, prioritize replacing missing and poor sections of the sidewalk network within a quarter mile of school properties working from those closest to the schools outward. Continue with the sidewalk repair and replacement following the recommendation in Figures 7 and 8 and/or best professional judgment.

Despite the low volume of traffic on most residential streets in Wheaton, the lack of sidewalks was frequently mentioned during the community outreach and in the parent surveys as a barrier to children being able to walk to and from school.

23. Work with MnDOT and the State Legislature to post 20-mph speed limits on all city streets that are not part of the state or county networks.

It is suggested that all streets within Wheaton, that are not a part of the state and county networks, be posted at 20 mph. Lowering traffic speed limits is a solidly-proven traffic safety countermeasure and can be done very inexpensively. Nearly all of the roads that fall under this recommendation are residential in nature and have limited potential to serve through-traffic.

24. Where practicable, set sidewalks as far back as possible from the roadway curb to create a buffer between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic.

Such buffers can reduce traffic stress on pedestrians and make walking safer and more enjoyable, while providing a place for street-trees to grow. These buffers are even more important on busier roadways with higher traffic volume, faster vehicle speed, and/or significant heavy truck traffic.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 27

25. Plant trees within the public ROW, preferably between the sidewalk and the curb if there is adequate space in the boulevard (≥4 feet for small tree species, ≥6 feet for medium to large trees). Be mindful to keep sightlines open and free of obstructions at intersections and driveways.

Not only do trees provide a physical barrier between an errant car and a pedestrian, but a colonnade of large overarching trees can provide a traffic calming effect by closing in the perceived width of the roadway and increasing the sense of speed. In winter, trees provide a break from the persistent prairie winds around Wheaton and could make formidable, even dangerous winter windchills tolerable. Finally, trees are best known for helping to create a shaded oasis during hot summer months making walking and biking more attractive to students and residents through the warmer months of the year.

26. Encourage infill residential development and/or development within close proximity to the schools to increase the potential of more students to walk and/or bike to and from school and to minimize busing costs.

Several empty lots were noted close to downtown and elsewhere. There is also the farm field just to the east of the high school. If development is to happen in Wheaton, these locations would be ideal because of the proximity to existing infrastructure and the schools.

27. On a case-by-case basis, if and when the need arises, encourage / require developers to construct multi-use shortcut pathways to make it quicker, easier and safer for people to walk and bike to school and other destinations in Wheaton.

P a g e 28 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

28. Note – This last recommendation is not SRTS related.

Investigate the construction of a recreational bike path around the high school grounds as depicted in Figure 6 and another that would run up the east side of Trail Street North to th

the Mustinka River, Northeast to the 12 Street alignment and back South into town. See Figures 8 and 12.

Several parents noted there is no place for children or anyone to go for a walk or ride bike in town.

These facilities could offer that opportunity while also providing a place to facilitate running activities for gym classes and after-school sports. A path near the river may provide the opportunity for scientific exploration.

For more Engineering ideas, see Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet (Appendix E) and the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center – Engineering: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/resources/engineering.html

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 29

Figure 5: Wheaton Pearson Elementary Suggested SRTS Improvements – Detail. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

P a g e 30 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

Figure 6: Wheaton High School Suggested SRTS Improvements – Detail. Aerial Imagery via Google Maps

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 31

Figure 7: Wheaton Suggested SRTS Improvements: West. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

P a g e 32 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

Figure 8: Wheaton Suggested SRTS Improvements: East. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 33

Figure 9: Wheaton Suggested SRTS Improvements Prioritization: West. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

P a g e 34 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

Figure 10: Wheaton Suggested SRTS Improvements Prioritization: East. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 35

Figure 11: Wheaton Proposed Bikeway Network: West. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

P a g e 36 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

Figure 12: Wheaton Proposed Bikeway Network: East. Basemap Aerial Imagery via Google Maps.

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 37

EVALUATION Goal: Evaluate the effectiveness of programming by tracking baseline data and, in addition, actively work on improvement, based on results.

1.

Administer the student travel tallies at least once per year to track the number of students walking and bicycling in comparison to the 2016 baseline results.

In order to track the results of implemented programming, it is recommended that the Wheaton Area School District administer the student travel tallies at least annually. The results will indicate the number of students walking and bicycling, which in turn will identify the effectiveness of programs. If possible, try to conduct the student travel tallies more than once per year so it is possible to capture travel data during periods of inclement weather, particularly rain and snow, to see how that affects student travel mode choice. This data will also be useful when applying for non-infrastructure or infrastructure funding.

2.

Administer a parent survey questionnaire once every two to three years to track and analyze school travel behaviors and parents’ perceptions.

The parent survey tool tracks and analyzes student travel behaviors and parents’ perceptions of walking and bicycling. This survey should be conducted no more than biannually as attitudes are not likely to change that quickly. If done too frequently, parents may not be as inclined to fill out the surveys. Results can then be compared to the baseline analysis completed in the fall of 2016.

3.

Explore establishing baseline health data (possibly already gathered) to evaluate possible health improvements over time related to SRTS improvements.

In order to track student health improvements over time, it is suggested that the Wheaton Area School District and Pearson Elementary School collect baseline health data. It is likely that the school district is already collecting this data. As SRTS programs and improvements are implemented, the health of students can be tracked on a continual basis. PartnerSHIP 4 Health may be able to help the school district organize this.

For more Evaluation ideas, see Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet (Appendix E) and the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center – Evaluation: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/resources/evaluation.html

P a g e 38 | Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan

OTHER Goal: Create partnerships with local businesses and organizations to increase support and encouragement of active transportation.

1.

Identify opportunities or partners to fund bicycle helmets for educational events like bike rodeos and/or Walk! Bike! Fun! training events.

Goal: Work to ensure all City policies and ordinances are supportive of active transportation.

2.

If residents are elderly and/or disabled and are not physically and financially able to remove the snow from the public sidewalk in front of their residences in accordance to City Ordinance 203 – REMOVAL OF SNOW, ICE AND DEBRIS FROM SIDEWALKS, look to city staff to remove snow and/or establish a volunteer snow removal program where neighbors, possibly even students, help to remove the snow from these sidewalks.

3.

In an effort to maintain the political popularity of SRTS and sidewalks, it is suggested that the city refrain from assessing adjacent property owners when installing and replacing sidewalks unless there is undeniable evidence that the adjoining property owner has removed or damaged the sidewalk within the recent past. Also, sidewalks damaged or removed during construction at an adjoining property should be replaced and paid for by the property owner. Otherwise, sidewalks should be viewed as a public good that are more often of greater benefit to people who live away from the property in question. As such, the cost of regular repair and replacement of the sidewalk should be born by the community as a whole as is often the case with city streets.

4.

The City should investigate the addition of Complete Streets and Sidewalk ordinances that require the needs off all street users be considered during projects in the public right-ofway. Sidewalks should be required for all new construction and only excused if good reason can be made for their exclusion.

For more ideas, see Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet and the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/

Executive Summary, Significant Findings And Action Plan | P a g e 39

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2016, the City of Wheaton (City) with the Wheaton Area Schools, Independent School District #803 (School District) were awarded a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Planning Grant from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to conduct an SRTS Plan for the City, Pearson Elementary and Wheaton High School. This plan is a product of that grant and was developed to encourage students, who live within an appropriate distance of the three schools, to walk and bike to and from school, and to do so safely. In a collaborative effort with the city, the school district, and members of the community, West Central Initiative staff developed this plan which is focused on developing strategies and identifying the infrastructure needs to help attain these goals.

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AN SRTS plan is a multi-faceted guide for school officials, city staff, parents and educators to improve the conditions for students walking and biking to and from school. Walking or biking to and from school is an easy way for children to get the regular physical activity they need for good health. Physical inactivity and increased levels of obesity are considered public health crises. As such, the Minnesota Department of Health has allocated funds and personnel through the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) to assist with SRTS programs such as Walk to School Day. Physicallyactive kids have fewer chronic health problems, have improved mood and concentration, a stronger self-image, and increased self-confidence and independence—all of which are critical for succeeding in school and in life. In some communities, SRTS programs have had the added benefit of reducing and, in select cases, eliminating

Figure 13: New sidewalks and street lights next to the

expensive student transportation costs. The

Barnesville, MN football stadium were installed after the

recommendations in this plan are intended to improve safety, encourage walking and bicycling, P a g e 40 | Chapter 1: Introduction

need was identified in an SRTS plan. While the sidewalk and lights were paid for with an SRTS infrastructure grant, these amenities will benefit all who wish or need to use them.

empower students and reduce traffic congestion during the morning and afternoon school rush. Parents will only allow their children to walk to and from school if the parents are comfortable that it is safe for their children to do so. This plan was commissioned with these goals in mind.

While the primary goal of the plan is to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and desirable transportation choice, the safety improvements proposed have the potential to benefit the community as a whole. Sidewalk, trail and/or intersection improvements built for students as a result of this plan will always be there for any and all who wish to walk or bike for transportation and/or recreation, whether that be a couple going for an evening stroll after dinner or an elderly widow who has no other means but to walk to her local church, convenience store, pharmacy, etc. They should also be looked upon by the community as long-term investments that have the potential to remain in use 100 years from when they are installed.

This five-to-ten year plan was developed for the city, school district and the students at the two schools and is based specifically on the schools’ location, the city’s and the surrounding school district’s geography, pre-existing conditions, school walk and bicycle zones, strengths, barriers, opportunities and student population throughout the district. This SRTS plan uses the standard “5 Es” approach (see Chapter 2) and greatly improves a school’s and community’s chances to be awarded state and federal SRTS infrastructure grant funds.

Figure 14: Sidewalks need to be viewed as long-term, multigenerational investments similar to how street trees are treated. This sidewalk in Breckenridge, Minnesota was built by the Works Progress Administration nearly 80 years ago and remains in near perfect condition despite many harsh Minnesota winters.

Chapter 1: Introduction | P a g e 41

CHAPTER 2: ABOUT SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) OVERVIEW Today more than ever, there is a need to provide options that allow all children—including those with disabilities—to walk and bicycle to school safely. Many communities struggle with traffic congestion around schools and motor vehicle emissions polluting the environment. At the same time, children in general engage in less physical activity, which contributes to the prevalence of childhood obesity. At first glance, these problems may seem to be separate issues, but SRTS programs can address all these challenges through a coordinated action plan.

SRTS programs use a variety of education, engineering and enforcement strategies that help make routes safer for children to walk and bicycle to school and encouragement strategies to entice more children to walk and bike. They have grown popular in recent years in response to problems created by a growing reliance on motor vehicles for student transportation, an expanding built environment, as well as the development and availability of federal and state funding for SRTS programs.

- National Center for Safe Routes to School. (2015) SRTS Guide - Introduction

1

HISTORY The SRTS concept began in the 1970s in Odense, Denmark, rooted in concern for the safety of children walking and bicycling to school.

The SRTS concept spread internationally, with programs developing in other parts of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. The Bronx, a borough of New York City, started the first SRTS program in the United States in 1997. In the same year, the State of Florida implemented a pilot program. In August of 2000, the U.S. Congress funded two SRTS pilot projects through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Within a year of the launch of the pilot projects, many other grassroots SRTS efforts began throughout the United States.

Success with the pilot projects generated interest in a federally-funded national program. In 2003, advocates convened meetings with experts in pedestrian and bicycle issues to talk about SRTS issues

1

National Center for Safe Routes to School. SRTS Guide – Introduction. 2015. Available at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/index.cfm. Accessed on December 22, 2015.

P a g e 42 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

and ideas for developing a national program. Momentum for a national SRTS program in the United States continued to build as several states developed their own programs.

Congress created the Federal-Aid Safe Routes to School Program in 2005 through comprehensive transportation legislation, ultimately resulting in nearly $1 billion in funding. Subsequent transportation legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) passed in 2012 making Safe Routes to School (SRTS) activities eligible to compete for funding alongside other programs, including the Transportation Enhancements program and Recreational Trails program, as part of a new program called Transportation Alternatives.

- National Center for Safe Routes to School. (2015) SRTS Guide - History

2

THE DECLINE OF WALKING AND BICYCLING Not long ago, children routinely moved around their neighborhoods by foot or by bicycle, and that was often how they traveled to and from school. That is no longer the case. Whether looking at the total proportion of children walking and bicycling to school, the proportion of children who live within a mile of school or the proportion of children living within one mile of school who walk or bike, the decline is apparent. 

In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school.



In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school.



In 1969, 41 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school. o



89 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school.

In 2009, 31 percent of children in grades K–8 lived within one mile of school; o

35 percent of these children usually walked or bicycled to school.

The circumstances that have led to a decline in walking and bicycling to school did not happen overnight and have created a self-perpetuating cycle. As motor vehicle traffic increases, parents become more convinced that it is unsafe for their children to walk or bicycle to school. They begin driving them to school, thereby adding even more traffic to the road and sustaining the cycle. Understanding the many reasons why so many children do not walk or bicycle to school is the first step in interrupting the cycle.

Many factors contribute to the reduction in children walking and bicycling to school. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a nationwide survey of parents to find out the most

2

National Center for Safe Routes to School. SRTS Guide – History. 2015 Available at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/history_of_srts.cfm. Accessed on December 22, 2015.

Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 43

common barriers that prevented them from allowing their children to walk to school. Parents of children aged 5 to 18 years cited one or more of the following six barrier reasons: Barrier Reason

Percentage of parents identifying with the barrier



Distance to school:

61.5



Traffic-related danger:

30.4



Weather:

18.6



Crime danger:

11.7



Opposing school policy:

6.0



Other reasons (not identified):

15.0

While this CDC report is from 2005, a report from the National Center for Safe Routes to School in 2010 found that these barriers remain the same.

- National Center for Safe Routes to School. (2015) SRTS Guide – The Decline in Walking and Bicycling

3

HEALTH RISKS The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children do 60 minutes (1 hour) or more of physical activity each day and that the bulk of this physical activity comes through aerobic exercise, such as walking and bicycling. For children and adolescents, regular physical activity helps build and maintain healthy bones and muscles, reduces the risk of developing obesity and chronic diseases, reduces feelings of depression and anxiety and promotes psychological well-being.

Despite these benefits, many children are not getting adequate physical activity. In the 2014 United States Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth, the National Physical Activity Plan Alliance reports that only 24.8 percent of youth ages 12-15 years obtain 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity every day. A 2014 CDC study reports that during the school day, only 4 percent of elementary schools and 8 percent of middle/junior high schools provide daily physical education classes, and in 2012 only 58.9 percent of all school districts required that elementary schools provide students with regularly scheduled physical activity. Unfortunately, less active children are more likely to be overweight, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

3

National Center for Safe Routes to School. SRTS Guide – The Decline in Walking and Bicycling. 2015. Available at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_walking_and_bicycling.cfm. Accessed on December 22, 2015.

P a g e 44 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

When it comes to children's health, the costs of inadequate physical activity and poor eating habits are alarming. Inadequate physical activity and poor eating habits are major contributors to the increased rates of childhood obesity and overweight in the United States. Obese children are at least twice as likely to become obese adults. According to both a 2003 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics and a 2015 CDC, this puts obese children at greater risk for premature death and chronic diseases than their healthy-weight counterparts.

- National Center for Safe Routes to School. (2015) SRTS Guide – Health Risks

4

THE 5 E S OF SRTS PLANNING Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs are intended to improve the health and well-being of children by enabling and encouraging them to walk and bicycle to school. The recommendations outlined in this plan are based on the “5 Es” of the National SRTS program, which include Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation. An integrated approach, each of the “5 Es” is intended to complement the others. Below is a detailed description of the “5 Es”.

EDUCATION Programs focused on education can have long-lasting effects on students that continue into adulthood.

Education programs that teach students safety skills for walking and bicycling also form the basis of good driving skills they may need in the future. Programs should also target parents and other drivers to inform them how to drive more safely around pedestrians and bicyclists. A few examples of possible education strategies are bicycle rodeos that teach safe bicycling skills, classroom lessons focused on traffic safety, takehome flyers informing parents of the rules and regulations regarding student pick-up and drop-off at the school, the Minnesota Walk! Bike! Fun! program, and thoughtfully-placed billboards with safety messages targeting drivers.

4

National Center for Safe Routes to School. SRTS Guide – Health Risks. 2015. Available at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/health_risks.cfm. Accessed on December 22, 2015.

Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 45

Figure 15: Bike MN instructors demonstrate to teachers how to do on-bike skill drills in a parking lot at the Rothsay, MN school.

P a g e 46 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

ENCOURAGEMENT Encouragement strategies are focused on getting students to try walking and bicycling to school and in turn, to celebrate and reward students for their efforts. These strategies can be low-cost, easy-toimplement and fun for students. Examples of encouragement activities include walking school buses and organizing events such as “Walk to School Day” (in October) and “Bike to School Day” (in May) to encourage students to try walking and biking to school.

ENFORCEMENT The primary goals of enforcement strategies are to help reduce unsafe behaviors by drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists; and to increase awareness of laws protecting children who are walking and bicycling. Enforcement strategies

Figure 16: Hundreds of Frazee, MN students along with

include students, parents and school personnel

teachers, parents, local officials, including police, participate

working in conjunction with law enforcement

in International Walk to School Day by walking on the new

officers. Examples of enforcement activities include

multi-use trail. The trail was built after it was identified in an SRTS plan as a possible valuable connector between a new

the installation of digital speed feedback signs,

neighborhood and the school; as well as downtown.

adult or student safety patrol, crossing guards and educational “stings” that inform motorists of the dangers of seemingly minor traffic infractions without issuing tickets.

ENGINEERING Engineering involves the planning and implementation of physical improvements to the built environment that make it safer and more attractive for students to walk and bicycle to and from school. For example, providing a designated space for pedestrians, such as sidewalks, has been proven to reduce pedestrian crash risks. Up to an 88 percent reduction in ‘walking along the roadway’ pedestrian crashes has been seen with

Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 47

5

the installation of sidewalks on both sides of the road. However, engineering projects are most successful when used in conjunction with education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Partnering with engineers and planners is crucial to the successful implementation of projects. Examples of engineering strategies include adding bicycle racks, installing fully-accessible crosswalks, sidewalks and multi-use trails, traffic calming, bicycle lanes, signs and signals, as well as other infrastructure.

Figure 17: This crosswalk is equipped with a pedestrian (push button) activated, solar-powered Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). It is located in Frazee, MN and crosses County Road 12 near the north entrance into town. It is a prime example of an engineering SRTS solution. It was installed as part of a new trail that allows students to get to school in a more direct and safer manner. Once a pedestrian presses the button located on the sign posts, super- bright yellow LED lights flash in an eye-catching “wiggle” pattern under both signs and in both directions. Otherwise, the LED lights remain turned off as seen in this photo. Driver compliance rates for crosswalks with RRFBs are significantly higher than at crosswalks without them, and can be relatively inexpensive to install.

5

US Department of Transportation – FHWA. An Analysis of Factors Contributing to “Walking Along Roadway” Crashes: Research Study and Guidelines for Sidewalks and Walkways. 2002. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-101, FHWA, Washington D.C.

P a g e 48 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

EVALUATION In order to measure the progress of the program activities over time, consistent evaluation is necessary. Evaluation techniques include a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Schools are very strongly encouraged to continue conducting the National Centers for SRTS parent surveys (every two to three years) and student travel tally (once or twice a year) which were already done as part of this plan to provide baseline data. You can find the National Centers for SRTS survey forms in the Appendix C of this report. Other examples of evaluation strategies include, but are not limited to, school walking audits and observations of student travel behaviors arriving to and leaving school.

Figure 18: The cover page of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Walkability Checklist. A walk audit is one of the ways a community can perform an SRTS evaluation.

A 6TH E? - EQUITY Recently, the principle of Equity has begun to be added to the standard “5 Es” of SRTS planning. According to the MnDOT SRTS webpage: Equity is a needs-based approach to allocating resources that aims to achieve fairness in the distribution of benefits and costs. In transportation planning, discussion of equity acknowledges that some communities and populations may require additional resources in order to have the same opportunities as other communities.

Equity is often confused with equality, when in fact they have different meanings. Equality assumes that all needs are the same. The result is that every community gets the exact same resources without regard to individual differences. Equality works only in circumstances where everyone starts from the same place and needs the same things. Equity allows resources to be provided on the basis of need. Communities disproportionally impacted by safety, health or transportation access inequities Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 49

are provided appropriate resources to address their individual needs. Therefore, resource allocation 6

may differ between communities .

Figure 19: This is a common diagram used to illustrate the concept of Equity versus Equality.

Equality is demonstrated on the left, where six boxes (units of aid) are given equally to three people despite their differences in height (need). The two boxes are more than enough for the tall person to reach the fruit high in the tree (goal). Two boxes, however, are just enough for the person of medium height but still not enough for the short person (the one with the most need) to reach the high-hanging fruit. When resources are distributed equally, some people may be given more assistance then they need, while others are still not given enough.

Equity is demonstrated on the right where the same six boxes (units of aid) are distributed to three people based on their differences in height (need). The tall person is given just one box as that is all (the aid) that person needs. The person of medium height is again given two boxes as that remains the amount of boxes (aid) this person needs to reach the highhanging fruit (goal). Finally, the short person is given three boxes (units of aid) as this is the additional level of assistance that person needed to be able to reach the fruit in the tree (goal).

Source: Modified version of an image obtained from the Maine Office of Health Equity website.

The introduction of equity to the SRTS planning formula is an effort to better focus limited SRTS resources to communities and groups that have been often underserved, have greater needs and/or have been more negatively affected by transportation planning decisions of the past and the transportation infrastructure now found in their local community.

6

Minnesota DOT. SRTS webpage. Available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/ Accessed on November 23, 2015.

P a g e 50 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

NATIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TRENDS IN CHILDREN Today, children are not attaining the recommended amounts of physical activity, contributing to increasing rates of obesity and a variety of chronic diseases. Lack of physical activity, along with poor nutrition, is the second leading cause of preventable death, according to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).

7

Physical activity not only prevents chronic diseases but also improves moods and helps with weight 8

control. There is also increasing evidence that physical activity improves academic performance, attentiveness and concentration in the classroom.

9,10,11

There are many ways to promote physical activity among youth, and improving walking and biking to school is one of them. SRTS programs can increase students’ daily amount of physical activity and has the potential to decrease the prevalence of students becoming overweight or obese. It is recommended that children get sixty minutes of physical activity a day. Nationally, only 50 percent of high school students participated in any kind of physical activity that increased their heart rate for a total of 60 minutes on five 12

or more days a week. A 15-minute walking or biking route to and from school can help students meet much of their recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day. Walking and bicycling to school at a young age also has the potential to instill habits of an active lifestyle that children may take with them into adulthood.

7

Minnesota Department of Health. The Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Program SHIP Progress Brief - Year 2. Available at http://mn.gov/health-reform/images/WG-PPH-2012-03-16-SHIP-Progress_Brief-Yr2.pdf. Accessed on November 23, 2015.

8

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Physical Activity and Health webpage. Last updated June 4, 2015. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/pa-health/. Accessed on November 23, 2015.

9

Minnesota Department of Health. Physical Activity: Active School Day. Last updated November 04, 2014. Available at http://www.health.state.mn.us/physicalactivity/activeschool.html. Accessed on February 18, 2016.

10

Active Living Research. “Active Education: Growing Evidence on Physical Activity and Academic Performance”. January, 2015.

Available at http://activelivingresearch.org/sites/default/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveEducation_Jan2015.pdf.

11

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Association Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance. July, 2010. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/pape_paper.pdf.

12

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1991-2013 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Available at http://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/. Accessed on January 10, 2015.

Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 51

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLANNING FRAMEWORK SRTS TEAM Successful SRTS programs recognize each community as being unique and emphasize the importance of including a diverse range of community representation on the team. The Wheaton SRTS team was primarily made up of faculty and staff from the Wheaton Area Schools, the City of Wheaton including the city clerk and police chief, Traverse County, Minnesota Department of Transportation – District 4, and Horizon Public Health. The team members were directly involved in the planning process, with many having the knowledge and skills needed to implement the plan recommendations. After delivering the plan, West Central Initiative (WCI) will continue to provide ongoing technical assistance to aid in plan implementation.

SRTS PLANNING PROCESS The SRTS planning process got its start in fall of 2015 when Wheaton city staff contacted WCI about performing an SRTS plan for the city. With the assistance and expert staff at WCI, the SRTS team came together to review the school and community profiles, provide input on the barriers, outline the vision and goals, assist in data collection, and develop and review the recommendations. As part of the planning and outreach process, the community was invited and encouraged to provide feedback on the community’s strengths, barriers and opportunities; a kind of SWOT Analysis tailored to planning.

In addition to gathering community input, the team conducted an assessment of the community’s current conditions and policies in order to identify opportunities to advance walking and bicycling to school or programs that support active transportation. The team conducted observations to understand how many students walk and bike to and from school, what routes are the most traveled, their behaviors as pedestrians and bicyclists and the interactions between pedestrians and motorists. In addition, the team conducted a separate walk-audit of the entire community to survey its geography and infrastructure.

During the walk-audit, the team recorded sidewalk conditions, child-friendly opportunities to cross streets, along with vehicle speeds, and potential trail and sidewalk connections.

Furthermore, the team helped administer the National Centers for Safe Routes to School (National Centers) student travel tally survey and a separate parent survey. The student travel tally form is used to count the number of students arriving to and departing from school by various modes. The parent survey collects th

information from parents of K-8 graders about how their children travel to and from school, their attitudes towards active transportation, and finally barriers that prevent their children from participating in active transportation modes of travel. The results were then entered into the National Centers’ database.

P a g e 52 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

These assessment tools illustrate the range of current barriers and opportunities, which is the foundation of the identified recommendations. These surveys are to be done yearly with continuing WCI assistance so that possible trends in student travel behavior and parent perceptions can be identified and recorded with the National Centers for Safe Routes to School database. Understanding the possible changes in student travel trends will give the schools, school district and WCI staff the information they need to be able to determine if the goal of getting more children to walk and bike to and from school is being met.

All of this information was then reviewed by the SRTS team and analyzed by the staff at WCI to provide a list of recommendations to improve walking and biking to and from school structured around the active transportation planning principles of the “5 Es”.

MNDOT WALK / BICYCLE ZONE CONCEPT Children are more likely to walk or bicycle to school if they live within the school “walk/bicycle zone.”

MnDOT defines this as “the area within the school’s enrollment boundary from which students can realistically walk or bike to school.” MnDOT guidelines generally assume a distance of up to o.5 miles for children in grades PreK-5, 1 mile for grades 6-8, and 1.5 miles for grades 9-12 is within the walk/bicycle zone.

13

While not stated in any MnDOT documents, the walk/bicycle zone distances are likely based on the following accepted standards. The average adult can walk a distance of 0.5 miles in 10 to 12 minutes. For a child in grades PreK-5, the same distance would likely require twice as much time (20 to 24 minutes) which is a reasonable amount of time to travel to school. For students in grades 6-8, 1 mile can likely be walked within 20 to 30 minutes, similar to an adult. However, children in these grades have the maturity to bicycle that distance if there are no significant traffic hazard barriers. At the relaxed speeds of 8 to 10 mph (the bicycle equivalent to a modest walking pace), 1 mile can be bicycled in 6 to 8 minutes. For high school students in grades 9-12, a distance of 1.5 miles could be walked in 30 to 40 minutes. However, these students can bike that distance in 9 to 11 minutes and have the maturity to navigate even more complex traffic situations.

13

Minnesota DOT. Safe Routes to School: Neighborhood Assessment Guide. September, 2012.

Available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/pdf/srtschecklist.pdf . Accessed on November 16, 2015.

Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 53

STATUS OF STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL An SRTS plan is not required to receive Minnesota state and/or federal SRTS infrastructure grants but is highly recommended. A school and/or community with an SRTS plan will be much better able to compete for limited funding and resources to implement the identified recommendations. Please be aware with anticipated future changes in federal and state transportation laws, the following funding sources below are likely to change. Please contact WCI or MnDOT for updated funding information at any point in the future.

FEDERAL In previous federal transportation laws, the SRTS program was a separately-funded category, independent of the Transportation Enhancements program (TE - bikeways, trails, sidewalks, streetscapes reconstruction, etc.) and Scenic Byways program. In 2012, Congress passed a federal transportation bill entitled Moving st

Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century (MAP-21). This law combined the SRTS, TE and Scenic Byways programs into one funding source called Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). TAP is funded from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund at an amount equal to 2 percent of the total amount of federal-aid highways each fiscal year. Each state was charged with developing their own program for soliciting projects to be funded by the TAP funds allocated to them. MAP-21 states also have the option of redirecting 50 percent of TAP to other transportation projects.

Late in 2015, Congress passed a five-year transportation spending bill called the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), which was then signed into law by the President on December 4th. It is the first law enacted in over 10 years that provides long-term funding certainty for surface transportation.

Overall, the FAST Act largely maintains current program structures and funding for SRTS. The only difference is that Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) which provides SRTS infrastructure funding has been renamed Transportation Alternatives (TA). The FAST Act does include two modest funding increases (4 percent over the life of the Act) for TA/SRTS programs.

14

WCI can assist communities and

school districts that apply for federal TA and SRTS infrastructure funds.

14

US Department of Transportation. “The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act or "FAST Act"”, webpage. https://www.transportation.gov/fastact#sthash.aDqlysIt.dpuf. Last updated January 12, 2016. Accessed on January 14, 2016.

P a g e 54 | Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

STATE In 2014, the Minnesota Legislature allocated $1 million from the general fund of that fiscal year’s budget to the SRTS Program as proclaimed by Minnesota Statute 174.40. MnDOT was tasked with administering the program and allocating the funding to communities. Under the 2014 state program, requested funds could be used for construction costs only, which must be clearly identified in the SRTS budget proposal.

Applications could have been submitted for projects with a total cost as low as $50,000, which made them useful for spot improvements. Regardless, it was still recommended that the minimum project cost at least $100,000 to make efficient use of the funds and limited amount of administrative time at the local level.

It is uncertain if this program will receive funding again in the future.

MINNESOTA SCHOOLS STATEWIDE ENROLLMENT OPTIONS AND THE IMPACTS ON SRTS Minnesota law allows parents whose children are Minnesota residents the choice to enroll their children in a regular public school district other than the one in which they reside.

15

While not required to provide

transportation, school districts will often send buses into the immediate neighboring districts with the practical and alluring promise of front-door pickups. To compete, local school districts have then felt compelled to offer equivalent transportation services, even for students living within immediate proximity of the local school. This has had the unintended consequence of undermining many SRTS efforts. In communities in which WCI has already completed SRTS plans, the SRTS team had observed students being picked up by the local district bus only to be transported to the school a block away, a distance walked in no more than a minute. However, some school districts have eliminated busing within the walk/bike zone for students without hazardous traffic barriers after SRTS plans written at WCI made the policy recommendations to do just that.

15

Minnesota Department of Education. Enrollment Choices Statewide Enrollment Options (Open Enrollment) Key Topics, webpage. http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/EnrollChoice/003871. Accessed on January 14, 2016.

Chapter 2: About Safe Routes to School (SRTS) | P a g e 55

CHAPTER 3: VISION AND GOALS The SRTS team created a unique vision for the city of Wheaton (City) with the Wheaton area schools, Independent School District #803 (School District). This vision is what the team imagines their community will look like in five to ten years after the successful and complete implementation of the Wheaton SRTS Plan. In order to make the vision a reality, the team set goals to attain and barriers to overcome in pursuit of opportunities to increase walking and bicycling to and from school. The goals outlined below are that of the SRTS team. These goals are attainable through the Action Plan Recommendations section which can be found in the beginning of this document. Those recommendations were not developed to address these goals as an itemized list.

VISION The City of Wheaton seeks to become a community where it is safe and convenient for all its children to walk and bicycle to, from and between schools, where our children can travel, explore and play in their community safely under their own power, and where they learn life-long habits of incorporating physical activity into their daily lives. We will seek to achieve this vision through safety awareness, education, encouragement and self-evaluation, all while building the infrastructure needed to make walking and bicycling safer and more convenient for all.

GOALS 1.

Create designated safe routes to and from, as well as between the Pearson Elementary School and Wheaton Area High School.

2.

Incorporate the Walk! Bike! Fun! curriculum into the school day to teach children safe walking and bicycling practices.

3.

Look into walking and bicycling safety awareness and education events such as bike rodeos.

4.

Educate drivers, particularly truck drivers, in and those passing through the community about the need to drive at safe and prudent speeds and how to properly interact with bicyclists and pedestrians through a variety of outreach methods.

5.

Enforce safe behaviors of drivers, walkers and bicyclists by working together with law enforcement, parents, crossing guards, etc.

6.

Continue ongoing assessments of walking behaviors and routes.

P a g e 56 | Chapter 3: Vision and Goals

7.

Evaluate the progress of getting more children to walk and bike to school by using the standardized National Partnership for SRTS “Student Travel Tally” and “Parent Surveys.”

8.

Create an environment within the public right-of-way that is more conducive to safe walking, bicycling and driving, including those with mobility disadvantages.

NOTE: The recommendations in this plan address all 8 goals identified by the Wheaton SRTS team.

Chapter 3: Vision and Goals | P a g e 57

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL PROFILES COMMUNITY PROFILE AND CITY ORDINACES The city of Wheaton is a leafy residential and agricultural community in far west central Minnesota, just five miles east of the border of the far northeastern tip of South Dakota, and approximately 175 miles west northwest of the state capitol rotunda in Saint Paul. Wheaton lies in Traverse County which is the least populated county in Minnesota (March, 2017 est. 3,356) and forms the north half of Minnesota’s western “Bump”. Wheaton is the county seat housing the county courthouse and other county services. The city sits in the heart of the very fertile agricultural lands of the southern Red River Valley. Accordingly, agriculture makes up a vast portion of Wheaton’s economy. Large trucks hauling various raw agricultural commodities traverse the city at all times of the year.

Some of the cargo is transported to and from the large grain elevators in the center

Figure 20: The location of the city of Wheaton within Minnesota relative to major landmarks.

of Wheaton which no longer has rail service. Finally, Wheaton sits squarely within the Prairie Biome.

While the ancestral lands of the Dakota Sioux, the area that would become Wheaton was first visited by European fur trappers in the late 1600. However, Traverse County was slow to develop, in part because the railroads didn’t arrive into central parts of the county until the Fargo and Southern was built in 1883.

Wheaton was platted soon after in 1884 and incorporated in 1887.

P a g e 58 | Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles

Figure 21: Wheaton city limits and the location of the Pearson Elementary School.

Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles | P a g e 59

Due to its location, agriculture still plays a primary role in Wheaton’s economy and agriculture uses make up a vast majority of the land around the city. There is some tourism because of Lake Traverse located just five miles to the west which also forms the border with South Dakota. At the time of the 2010 U.S. Census, Wheaton had a population of 1,424 people, 655 households, and 370 families, all living within 1.80 square miles. This gives the city a population density of 791 residents per square mile. The median age in the city was 49.5 years, with 20.4 percent of residents under the age of 18 and 31.5 percent older than 65. The racial makeup of the city was 97.4 percent White, 0.6 percent African American, 0.7 percent Native American, 0.1 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander and 0.2 percent from other races. 1.0 percent from two or more races and Hispanic or Latino of any race was 1.5 percent of the population.

16

As of 2016, the top five

industries in Traverse County are “Health Care and Social Assistance,” “Retail Trade,” “Public Administration,” Wholesale Trade” and “Educational Services.”

17

Figure 22: Broadway Avenue in downtown Wheaton with its grain elevators towering in the background.

16

US Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. 2010. Accessed May 15, 2017.

17

Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Accessed May 28, 2017.

P a g e 60 | Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles

WHEATON CITY SIDEWALK ORDINANCE / REGULATIONS The City of Wheaton sidewalk ordinances contained within the chapter, “200 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND CROSSINGS,” are very specific about the width, placement of the sidewalks, as well as what constitutes an acceptable sidewalk surface. Sidewalks in the specified Broadway Avenue downtown shall be maintained at a width of 8.5 feet, while all others in the platted portion of Wheaton shall be 5 feet wide. All sidewalks are to be built upon the block line which would seem to be at outside edge of the right-of-way.

Chapter “201 REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS: INSPECTIONS,” starts off with this statement, “The owner of any property within the city abutting a public sidewalk shall keep the said sidewalk in repair for pedestrians.”

Unfortunately, from conditions observed in the Walk Audit, it would appear that the city has not strictly enforced this ordinance and that, in many cases, sidewalks have been removed entirely.

Chapter “202 OBSTRUCTION OF STREETS AND SIDEWALKS,” is also very specific and strict about the obstruction of sidewalks. It permits the obstruction of sidewalks and/or crosswalks for only five minutes or the responsible party is guilty of a misdemeanor. Unfortunately again, from conditions observed in the Walk Audit, it would appear that the city has not enforced this ordinance as numerous obstructions including vegetation, illegally parked cars upon the sidewalk, and an RV with rather permanent electrical service, were found.

Chapter “203 REMOVAL OF SNOW, ICE AND DEBRIS FROM SIDEWALKS,” would appear to require adjacent property owners to clean their portion of the public sidewalks within 24 hours of the weather event and to not place that snow upon the street. Staff from WCI did not visit Wheaton during snowy conditions so cannot comment on how well the ordinances within this chapter are enforced.

Overall, Wheaton’s sidewalk ordinances seem to be rather comprehensive but are lacking in enforcement.

While Chapters 200 and 201 seem to require the sidewalks be maintained to a rather rigorous standard, nowhere is it clearly stated that the removal of public sidewalks by the adjacent property owner is prohibited. It is also not clearly stated that all new streets within the platted portion of the city be required to be built with sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Specific suggestions to improve the language and enforcement of the Wheaton sidewalk ordinances, Chapters 200 through 203 are found within the Enforcement and “Other” sections of the Action Plan at the beginning of this plan.

Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles | P a g e 61

WHEATON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL PROFILES WHEATON AREA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #803 The Wheaton Area Independent School District #803 is the home of the Warriors and is located in the Pearson Elementary School at 710 4th Avenue North, Wheaton, Minnesota, 56296. Daniel Posthumus is the current superintendent and principal of the Pearson Elementary School as of the date on this plan.

Vision Statement The Wheaton Area Schools will work together with our community to achieve excellence in academics and Co-curriculars, foster high student and staff morale, provide a safe environment for the success of all of our students, while remaining financially accountable.

Source – Wheaton Area Independent School District #803 website The District itself, like many in Greater Minnesota, is large. It encompasses 285 mostly agrarian square miles; all within Traverse County. Wheaton and its schools sit just west of center within the District. From the city, it is no more that 15 bee-line miles to four farthest four corners of the school district. (Figure 23)

P a g e 62 | Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles

Figure 23: Wheaton city limits, and the location of the Wheaton District Offices in the Pearson Elementary/Middle School and concentric radii in miles from that location.

Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles | P a g e 63

WHEATON SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT TRANSPORTATION POLICIES The District has two transportation policies deemed directly relevant to SRTS. Reviewed for this plan were policy “707 Transportation of Public School Students” and policy “709 Student Transportation Safety Policy.”

Policy “707 Transportation of Public School Students” was originally adopted in 2000 and would appear not to have been revised since. It is a general policy stating the ground rules governing which students are eligible for school district funded motorized transportation to and from school and other school functions and services consistent with the requirements of law. It “recognizes that transportation by school bus is a privilege and not a right for an eligible student.” Of note in this policy is that the school district will provide transportation “for all resident students who reside two miles or more from the school” as per state statute (Minn. Stat. § 123B.88, Subd. 1) and “may provide transportation for all resident elementary students who reside one mile or more from the school, and high school students who live two or more miles from school”.

The “709 Student Transportation Safety Policy,” was originally adopted in 1996 and last revised in 2002.

Like most other 709 policies in the State of Minnesota, it is a detailed document focused on the finer points of transporting students to school via school buses. The policy states, “The purpose of this policy is to provide safe transportation for students and to educate students on safety issues and the responsibilities of school bus ridership.” However, it does include several lines regarding, and even promoting, walking and biking. The policy states that, “The school district will provide student safety education for bicycling and pedestrian safety for students in grades K through 5.” Note that the term “will” leaves little latitude in this policy statement. Noticeably absent is the statement found in most other 709 policies that “Parents/Guardians are responsible to … support safe riding and walking practices, and recognize that students are responsible for their actions.” Again, while the policy states that “riding the school bus is a privilege, not a right,” it does not offer specific guidelines for students living within safe walking and biking distance to school as defined by MnDOT’s Walk/Bicycle Zone concept. (See Chapter 2) Besides the one brief policy statement seeming to mandate bicycle and pedestrian safe education in grades K though 5, there are no specific guidelines for students, parents, teachers and administrators for those students who choose to walk and/or bike to and from school. For example, there are neither guidelines for when and where crossing guards are warranted, nor are there guidelines for crossing guard qualifications and training.

By comparison, there are multiple pages detailing the qualifications and training of school bus drivers, their duties and responsibilities, operating rules, as well as school vehicle maintenance standards among many other details regarding school bus operations.

P a g e 64 | Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles

WHEATON SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT WELLNESS POLICY The District’s “533 Wellness” policy was originally adopted in 2006 and then last readopted in 2009. “The purpose of this policy is to assure a school environment that promotes and protects students’ health, wellbeing, and ability to learn by supporting healthy eating and physical activity.” It also states that, “All students in grades PreK-12 will have opportunities, support, and encouragement to be physically-active on a regular basis.” While common in some other districts’ Wellness Policies, Wheaton’s policy does not state that, “Schools shall encourage bicycling and walking to and from school.”

PEARSON ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE SCHOOL The Pearson Elementary School is located in the northeast section of the city at 710 4th Avenue North, Wheaton, Minnesota, 56296. Built in 1953 and expanded upon just two years later, Pearson houses grades PreK-5. Well-located within Wheaton and surrounded by well-maintained residences, the Pearson Elementary School is already ideally-situated for a large proportion of students who live in the city to walk and bike to school. The only concerns are related to the county buildings just to the south; they not only house some services that concern parents but large, county highway department trucks operate in the area near the school..

In April 2017, the Pearson Elementary school had an

Figure 24: The main entrance of the Pearson Elementary School.

enrollment of 194 students. The breakdown of students per grade is shown in Table 1. 46 percent of Pearson Elementary School students are eligible for free and reduced cost meals. Of the 194 students attending the Pearson Elementary School, 124, approximately 64 percent, live within the city limits of Wheaton, many of whom should be prime candidates to walk and/or bike to and from school.

Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles | P a g e 65

Table 1: Number of Students per Grade (April, 2017)

Grade

# Students

PreK

25

K

25

st

28

nd

34

rd

27

th

30

th

25

1 2

3 4 5

WHEATON AREA HIGH SCHOOL The Wheaton Area High School is located at 1700 3rd Avenue South, Wheaton, Minnesota, 56296. The school opened in 1974 after the 1899 high school burned down in 1972. While located in the southwestern corner of Wheaton, the high school is still contiguous with what appears to be some of the newer but well-established residential neighborhoods. As such, the high school is also well-situated for a large portion Figure 25: Wheaton Area High School. The presence of large farm equipment in

of the student body that live

the parking lot is a reminder of the rural-agrarian careers of many in the area.

within Wheaton to walk and bike to school. In April 2017, the school had an enrollment of 217 students. The breakdown of students per grade is shown in Table 2. 33 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced cost meals. Of the 217 students attending the Wheaton Area High School, 124, approximately 57 percent, live within the city limits of Wheaton. Due to their greater maturity, most, if not all, are prime candidates to walk and/or bike to and from school.

P a g e 66 | Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles

Table 2: Number of Students per Grade (September, 2016).

Grade

# Students

th

29

th

33

th

33

th

22

6 7 8 9

th

36

th

27

th

37

10 11 12

Also, to the immediate north of the high school building is the Wheaton Pool. As such, any safety improvements near and leading to the high school will have added benefits to local residents traveling by bike or on foot to the aquatic center, many of which happen to also be Wheaton students.

RECOMMENDATIONS Policy recommendations to improve SRTS can be found in the beginning of this document in the subchapter titled “Action Plan Recommendations” in the “Encouragement” and “Other” sections, with further policy recommendations found in Appendices D and E.

Chapter 4: Community and School Profiles | P a g e 67

CHAPTER 5: STRENGTHS – BARRIERS – OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS A strengths, barriers and opportunities analysis of existing policies and programs related to walking and bicycling to school was also performed. This is similar to a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) but tailored for use in SRTS planning. The comments in the following tables are not edited and are not listed in any priority order. Recommendations to improve SRTS found in the sub-chapter titled “Action Plan Recommendations” at the beginning of this document have taken into consideration Wheaton’s unique strengths, barriers and opportunities.

STRENGTHS The city of Wheaton and its schools have many strengths to work with, similar to many other communities in west central Minnesota. Identifying and understanding those strengths are key, with regard to any SRTS plan. The strengths listed in detail (see Table 3) below were gathered by the Wheaton SRTS team.

Table 3: Community and School District Strengths

Community Strengths 1

Wheaton has a dense, contiguous suburban form with an active downtown with movie theater and industrial centers well positioned at the edges of the city.

2

Both schools are well positioned in Wheaton. While the high school is at the southwestern corner of the city it is still well connected to residential neighborhoods.

3

There are numerous parents and several teachers in the community that are enthusiastic about advancing the goals of SRTS.

4

Unlike many rural Minnesota towns, Wheaton does not have an active railroad going through the heart of town which often creates a significant barrier to walk and biking to and from school.

5

The older neighborhoods close to downtown have a good network of sidewalks with wide tree boulevards and mature trees that create a pleasant buffer from traffic.

6

Many students already walk and bike to both schools as seen during the walk audit.

There was additional evidence of an active walking and biking community found during the study process including and older gentleman that walks all over town and Bing “Streetside” images of large family groups cycling in Wheaton.

P a g e 68 | Chapter 5: Strengths – Barriers – Opportunities Analysis

BARRIERS To successfully develop and implement SRTS activities and programs, it was important for the SRTS team to identify and understand the existing barriers within the community that are preventing children from walking and bicycling to school. These barriers, listed in detail in Table 4 below, are an accumulation of information received from the SRTS team.

Table 4: Commuity and School District Barriers

Community Barriers th

1

U.S. Highway 75 creates a barrier for those living east of 5 Street

2

Likewise the Broadway- State Highway 27 forms an east/west barrier through the center of town but not as severe.

3

This east/west barrier is repeated to a lesser extent with 2 Avenue South as it was built to a wider standard than other streets in Wheaton as it is County Highway 100.

Residents complain of vehicles speeding.

4

Much of the existing sidewalk network is in poor condition or has been ripped out all together rather randomly throughout Wheaton.

5

Wheaton experiences a large amount of heavy agriculture truck traffic on U.S. nd Highway 75, Broadway – State 27 and 2 Avenue South – County 100, particularly during harvest season in September and October, two ideal months for walking and biking to school.

6

Many sidewalks lack PROWAG ADA compliant curb ramps at intersections but newly constructed compliant curb ramps indicate that local and state officials are trying to remedy this.

7

While the railroad is long gone, the grain elevator remains next to where the railroad once went through Wheaton. The elevator is still very active and is located in the heart of Wheaton and generates a great deal of heavy commercial truck traffic.

8

Trees and shrubs overgrowing into the sidewalk were commonplace during the walk audit, as were cars parked on residential and commercial driveways blocking the sidewalk including an RV with independent electrical service.

9

Sidewalk network is incomplete even close to the schools. This is particularly true at the high school and city pool, and to a lesser extent at Pearson Elementary.

nd

Chapter 5: Strengths – Barriers – Opportunities Analysis | P a g e 69

OPPORTUNITIES The SRTS team identified opportunities to improve walking and bicycling to school that are not currently being acted upon. The list of opportunities in Table 5 is not exhaustive but is an accumulation of ideas and action steps to help achieve the overall vision.

Table 5: Community and School District Opportunities

Community Opportunities 1

MnDOT is looking to repave and upgrade U.S. Highway 75 and Broadway – State Highway 27 with new asphalt and new ADA compliant sidewalks, curbramps and crosswalks, and is willing to pick up much if not all of the costs.

2

Many residential streets are narrow which acts as a passive form of traffic calming.

Others are wider allowing for possible bike lanes.

3

Over 60 percent of students live within city limits, many of which are prime candidates for SRTS programs to get them walking and biking to and from school.

4

The afternoon activity club at the Pearson Elementary School appears to be the ideal venue to teach walking and bicycle safety, at least for the children that attend.

5

There are numerous parents and several teachers in the community that are enthusiastic about advancing the goals of SRTS.

6

It appears that most of the streets in Wheaton have a wide right-of-way as is evidenced by the position sidewalks and sidewalk remnants positioned far back from the curb.

7

While much of the sidewalk network is in poor condition or has been removed, much of it is still in place and just needs to be reconnected.

P a g e 70 | Chapter 5: Strengths – Barriers – Opportunities Analysis

CHAPTER 6: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS The SRTS team conducted school observations, a community walk audit and a neighborhood assessment.

This was done to identify the existing conditions within the city of Wheaton and near the two schools.

Traffic volume and crash data were also retrieved from MnDOT’s databases for the roads in and around Wheaton. While the SRTS team is a core group of individuals who are very familiar with Wheaton, its schools, SRTS and active transportation planning, broader community input is always helpful to create a comprehensive list of existing conditions and concerns. To gather additional community input, a table was set up at the Wheaton Area Schools parent-teacher conferences in both the high school and Pearson Elementary School the evening of Thursday, October 6, 2016 and again at Pearson Elementary on the Monday, October 10, 2016. (See Chapter 7) Having information on existing conditions is critical in making strategic decisions that support a wise and fiscally-sound future for SRTS programming and activities.

WHEATON WALK / BICYCLE ZONES As discussed in Chapter 2, MnDOT guidelines generally assume that students can realistically walk and / or bike to and from school up to a distance of o.5 miles for children in grades PreK-5, 1 mile for grades 6-8, and 1.5 miles for grades 9-12. Due to Wheaton’s small size and for clarity, just the one-quarter and one-half “Walk / Bicycle Zones” are shown for both schools in Figures 26 and 27. Since the one-half mile zones overlap, one should still be able to get a sense of distance to the respective school outside said school’s onehalf mile Walk / Bike Zone. The Walk / Bike Zones are measured using bee-line radii from the main entrances of each school. For the Pearson Elementary School, approximately 60 percent of the residences within Wheaton fell within the half-mile Walk / Bike Zone. (Grades PreK-5) At the high school, at least 85 percent of residences fell within the one-mile zone (Grades 6-8) and all of Wheaton fell within the one and one-half mile zone; appropriate for Grades 9-12. Distances and walking and biking times to each school using the city street network at various points throughout Wheaton was measured with Google Maps and calculated per the metric noted in Figures 26 and 27. The furthest residence from the Pearson Elementary rd

th

School is located on the far west side on 3 Avenue South at the intersection of 660 Avenue and is 1.3 miles away using the street network. The furthest residence from the high school is located at the far st

eastern end of Broadway just east of the intersection with 1 Street and is 1.4 miles away using the street network. Outside the city limits, there are several farmsteads that are within two road miles of the high school, notably just to the south and southwest which would require students to walk or bike on very lowtrafficked township gravel and/or field access roads. While a bit beyond the typical SRTS suggestion, there is no reason why high school students living two miles away could not bicycle these roads to get to school.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 71

Figure 26: Wheaton Existing Conditions – Walk/Bike Analysis-West (Distance and Walk/Bike Travel Times to Each School).

P a g e 72 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Figure 27: Wheaton Existing Conditions – Walk/Bike Analysis-East (Distance and Walk/Bike Travel Times to Each School).

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 73

WALK AUDIT A walk-audit of the city of Wheaton was conducted in September and October of 2016. This is done to gather data related to major streets, intersections and sidewalk conditions impeding or facilitating pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Factors that were documented include sidewalk width and condition, possible ADA PROWAG (Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines) violations, traffic volume, terrain, threatening features (dogs, perception of criminal activity, highways and busy intersections), trash, speed limits and general safety. The audit provided an opportunity for the team to identify where the community is walkable and where there are opportunities for improvement. The results of the sidewalk survey can be found in Figures 32, 34, 36 and 37, and is discussed throughout the narrative section of the report. Areas of particular concern are listed in Table 8 at the end of this chapter.

School Locations As noted in Chapter 4, both schools are positioned in locations highly conducive to walking and biking to and from school as they both immediately border dense suburban neighborhoods. Pearson Elementary School is located in the northeast quadrant of the city. The high school, while at the southwest corner of the city, is still easily accessible and borders areas that appear to have the latest residential development.

As such, a large portion of the students who live within the city of Wheaton should be able to walk and/or bike to and from school, including nearly all students in grades six and up. (See Walk / Bike Zone Analysis in previous section.)

P a g e 74 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Pearson Elementary/Middle School It is regularly noted among SRTS experts that the area closest to schools can be the most dangerous part of the journey for children who walk and bike to school. This is due to the multitude of traffic modes converging on and delivering people to the school.

Exacerbating this, the design of school grounds are often primarily focused on the circulation of motor vehicle traffic flow with an emphasis on front door pick-up at the safety expense of those arriving on bike or foot. While well-connected to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and located on streets not designed to prioritize motor vehicle flow, traveling to and from the Pearson Elementary School still requires students

Figure 28: The Pearson Elementary School employees and Student Safety Patrol at the intersection of 8th Street and 4th Avenue North in both the morning and afternoon. The professionalism and attention to detail exhibited by the student

from points south, east and west,

patrol was impressive and effective at maintaining a high level of safety at this

to traverse an area with a good

intersection.

deal of motor vehicle traffic. This traffic is caused by the arrival and departure of students by bus and private automobile. This is effectively controlled at the intersection of 8th Street and 4th Avenue North by the presence of a student safety patrol th

th

in both the morning and afternoon. However, north of 4 Avenue North on 8 Street, there was a bit more traffic in front of the main entrance to the school. While not directly observed, concerns were brought up numerous times by members of the SRTS team about the less than orderly behavior of some parents who repeatedly drop off students from the west side of 8th Street. This behavior continues despite several notices and attempts to eliminate this practice and have all parents drop their children off on the east side of 8th Street. The problem arises when children are dropped off on the west side of the street then dart east across 8th Street traffic to the main entrance of Pearson. Another potential problem is that of drivers th

accidently striking small child pedestrians when they back out of the nose-in parking spots on 8 Street.

This issue was also noted by a participant in the public outreach event. In spite of the busy traffic on 8

th

Street near the main entrance, morning arrival seemed orderly.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 75

In the afternoon, the student safety patrol was on post at 3:00 pm. All five buses lined up on 4th Avenue North and were purposely positioned very close, nose-to-tail, to prevent children from filtering through the buses to the parent vehicles waiting on the south side of 4th Avenue. However, it appeared that the first bus parked too close to the stop sign and crosswalk in possible violation of Minnesota law that requires Figure 29: All five buses line up on 4th Avenue North and are positioned

vehicles be parked no closer than

purposely very close, nose-to-tail, to prevent children from filtering through the

30 feet from a stop sign. (Figure

waiting buses to parents’ vehicles waiting on the south side of 4th Avenue.

However, it seems that the first bus may be too close to the stop sign and crosswalk in possible violation of Minnesota law that requires vehicles park no

29) Using photo timestamp data of another photo, the buses departed at 3:12 pm. Of additional

closer than 30 feet from a stop sign.

note is that there are no sidewalks th

on the south side of 4 Avenue North bordering the county garage property. This is where parents wait to pick up their children and the lack of sidewalks probably encourages children to walk in the street. This is th

likely exacerbated in the winter when the south side of the 4 Avenue could be buried in piled-up snow.

There are several traditional “schoolyard” style bike racks of extremely robust construction located just off th

the sidewalk on 4 Avenue North and another located just west of the main entrance to the school. (See Figures 30 and 31) While the location of these bike racks mostly comply with the bicycle parking standards established by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professional (APBP), the placement on the grass near the main entrance where it somewhat blocks the sidewalk in both locations does not. Also, the rack design does not comply because it only offers one point of contact for stability and security. The rack can bend the bicycle wheels as the wheel is designed to be the only point of contact.

P a g e 76 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

These are legitimate concerns in locations with high bicycle theft and vandalism. However, in a community with negligible crime, these bicycle racks, particularly the traditional schoolyard rack, work very well and are exceptionally good at keeping the bicycles organized. In fact, this old style of bike rack is still the preferred choice for schools in the city of Davis, California, known as the most bike-friendly town in the U.S. In Davis, the school system does not provide busing due to its comprehensive network of bike routes and lanes. Security, if a concern at schools, may be best addressed with rack placement near an office or placing the racks in a fenced-in corral.

Figure 30: The location of the bicycle racks on 4th Street North. Note the sidewalk conditions where students wait to board the buses.

Figure 31: The bike rack near the main entrance was located on the grass. During observation day, the bicycles were rather disorganized and blocked the sidewalk.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 77

Figure 32: Wheaton Pearson Elementary School – Existing Conditions.

P a g e 78 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Some of the sidewalks on and around Pearson Elementary are either lacking or missing th

altogether. There are no sidewalks on 5 Avenue North on the school side of the street and on 4

th

Avenue North on the south side of the street th

th

between 7 and 8 Streets. This likely explains the students’ behaviors as they disembark and board parent vehicles as mentioned earlier. Also on 4

th

Avenue, the sidewalk just south of the school was covered in debris (see Figure 30) and is missing th

east of 7 Street. Directly across from the main th

entrance on 8 Street North, there is a onehundred-foot stretch of sidewalk that is missing, as th

is another on 5 Avenue North across from the school. This seemingly random absence of sidewalks near Pearson is reflected throughout Wheaton. Finally, the narrow five-foot wide sidewalk on school property running parallel to 8th Street North is sometimes encroached upon by the front bumpers of parked cars. (Figure 33)

Figure 33: The narrow five-foot wide sidewalk on school property running parallel to 8th Street North is sometimes encroached upon by the front bumpers of parked cars.

Wheaton Area High School Located on the southwest corner of Wheaton, the high school is still well-connected to the residential neighborhoods just to the north and east. Conspicuously absent, however, are sidewalks leading to the school and within these otherwise walkable residential neighborhoods. Since the students that attend the high school are older and more mature, there was much less drop-off and pick-up traffic at the school than at Pearson. Driving behavior, including that of students, was noted as being relatively good. Though, some drove diagonally across the parking lot and others drove a little faster to beat the 8:30 arrival bell. Students rd

walking to the school from the east on 3 Avenue South walked diagonally across the parking lot toward the main entrance following the expected desire line. Students who walked to the school from the neighboring Pineview Apartments also walked directly across the parking lot from a point between the southwestern-most garages. They either walked directly towards the main entrance, or with the elementary school students taking the bus, straight to the sidewalk at the front of the high school. This practice of the younger elementary school students walking across the parking lot to take the bus was of particular concern by many on the SRTS team and parents alike as noted in the outreach events and parent surveys.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 79

Figure 34: Wheaton Area High School Existing Conditions and that of the immediate surrounding neighborhood.

P a g e 80 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

The City of Wheaton While it is clearly evident that, at one time, Wheaton had a complete and comprehensive sidewalk network, years of neglect and disinterest in maintaining the network have taken their toll. Seemingly random sections of sidewalk are missing, likely torn out by adjacent property owners, and other sections are in poor condition. Elsewhere, whole streets are missing sidewalks in all four fringes of the city. This is particularly rd

th

evident east of 5th Street – U.S. Highway 75 and near the high school on 3 Avenue South and 16 Street.

(See Figures 36 and 37) Most, if not all sidewalks in the residential portions of Wheaton lack PROWAG ADA compliant curb ramps. Trees and shrubs overgrown onto the sidewalk were commonplace during the walk audit, as were cars parked blocking the sidewalk on residential and commercial driveways, including an RV with independent electrical service.

Figure 35: A typical example of an existing sidewalk in Wheaton. Sidewalks are positioned far back from the curb allowing for a wide boulevard that can accommodate large street trees. While there are no curb ramps, the position of the sidewalk far back from the curb will make it easier to install PROWAG, ADA compliant curb ramps as the slope of the ramp can easily be designed to run perpendicular to the street it is crossing.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 81

Figure 36: Wheaton Existing Sidewalk Conditions: West – September 2016.

P a g e 82 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Figure 37: Wheaton Existing Sidewalk Conditions: East – September 2016.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 83

Figure 38: A prime example of poor sidewalk conditions in Wheaton just a block off of Broadway.

Figure 39: An example of two vehicles parked on the sidewalk while the adjacent on-street parking remains empty.

P a g e 84 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Figure 40: An example of a sidewalk in very good condition with a random missing gap. It is a quick and inexpensive fix to connect the existing network together by installing sidewalks in the small gaps to make a more continuous system.

Figure 41: A sidewalk in fair but usable condition is obstructed by overgrown vegetation.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 85

Figure 42: This RV seems to have become a permanent fixture on this section of sidewalk as it is equipped with independent electrical service. Just beyond the RV, the sidewalk was partially blocked by overgrown vegetation.

Despite this, Wheaton is still appealing. Downtown sidewalk conditions were much better with continuous, recently-installed sidewalks along most of Broadway. They are complete with decorative light fixtures, curb ramps (that likely meet PROWAG, ADA compliance standards) and painted crosswalks at all major intersections. It also appears that most streets in Wheaton have a wide right-of-way behind the curb as is evidenced by the position of sidewalks and sidewalk remnants far from the curb. While a lot of the sidewalk network is in poor condition or has been removed, much remains in place and in good condition and just needs to be reconnected. Finally, because the terrain is rather flat, it should be much easier and cheaper for Wheaton to install sidewalk improvements that meet PROWAG, ADA standards.

P a g e 86 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Street, Lane, and (if present) Shoulder Widths Street design and lane width can provide subtle clues to drivers as to the safe operating speed on a particular stretch of roadway. Recent thinking today is that bigger is not always safer and that wide road and lane widths can encourage drivers to speed, even unintentionally. They also require pedestrians to spend more time in the roadways when crossing, extending the time that they are exposed to potentially hazardous motor traffic. Wide streets and lanes, however, can provide the space needed within the rightof-way to retrofit bike lanes, sidewalks, wider sidewalks, tree boulevards, etc.

Overall, most local city streets are of an appropriate narrow width of 34 to 36 feet which helps to keep motorist speeds down. This makes these streets more conducive to walking and biking. Still, this is enough space to accommodate on-street parking on both sides but will require drivers to operate their vehicles more slowly to navigate between the remaining space. There are some notable exceptions where city th

streets have been widened to 42 or 44 feet but most, if not all of these are under county control. 4 Avenue th

th

North between 5 and 8 Streets is 42 feet and maintained by the county due to the heavy county vehicles that need to access the garage just south of Pearson Elementary. The streets around Wheaton City Hall and th

Firehouse are 40 feet wide and Trail Street, 16 Street and 2

nd

Avenue South are all 44 feet wide. Broadway

th

– State Highway 27 is 48 feet wide. Finally, 5 Street – U.S. Highway 75 is 50 feet wide.

Speed and Speed Limits High vehicle speeds are known to be a significant safety hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists. According to the AAA in the U.S., if a pedestrian gets hit by a car traveling at 20 mph, there is an approximately seven percent chance of death. The fatality rate climbs to 90 percent for a pedestrian struck at 60 mph.

According to AAA, the greatest rate of fatality risk increase happens between the speeds of 25 and 45 mph, increasing from 12 percent to 60 percent.

18

Other studies have the 45 mph pedestrian fatality rate as high as

85 percent. High-speed traffic also creates noise and induces stress on pedestrians, making even wide, welldesigned sidewalks unappealing places to walk.

18

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. September, 2011.

Available at https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf . Accessed on May 23, 2016.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 87

All roadways in the urbanized portions of Wheaton are marked or assumed to be 30 mph. The only slight exception to this is U.S. Highway 75. Approaching from the north, it transitions from 60 mph just north of th

County 14 and then from 45 mph to 30 mph just 325 feet north of 5 Avenue North. From the south, it transitions from 60 mph to 45 mph roughly 740 feet within city limits; but outside of the urbanized area.

The speed limit then reduces from 45 mph to 30 mph just south of the entrance to the county fairgrounds.

State Highway 27 transitions to 30 mph several hundred feet prior to entering city limits on either side of the city. County Highway 9 – Trail Street doesn’t transition to 30 mph from an assumed 55 mph until a point just 90 feet north of Cottonwood Avenue and the urbanized portion of Wheaton. From the south, County Highway 9 is known as Front Street and doesn’t transition to 30 mph from an assumed 55 mph until a point 170 feet north of the county fairground’s entrance which is 1,500 feet within city limits but still outside of the urbanized portion of the city.

OBSERVATION DAY RESULTS To gain a better understanding of how students, parents, bus drivers, teachers and staff operate and interact during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal at the two schools and around Wheaton, an Observation Day was held on Wednesday, September 27, 2016. Members of the SRTS team conducted field observations of students’ travel behaviors, patterns and mode choices during morning arrival and afternoon departure.

Team members were strategically-positioned around the school and at select locations in Wheaton. (See Figures 43, 44) They were tasked with counting the number of student pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to school and which routes the students took. They also observed whether students were using good techniques when crossing the street and how motorists behaved in relation to pedestrians and bicyclists on the streets and school grounds. The detail of observations will depend on level and concentration of activity at that location and may vary at times at a single location.

Morning Observations 

Local weather at the Pearson Elementary School: 7:30 a.m. – 42 °F. Clear / Sunny. Wind – Calm.



Observations began at 7:30 a.m. with school starting at 8:30 a.m.

P a g e 88 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

th

th

Post 1: 4 Avenue North and 8 Street – Andrew J. Besold 

Walkers: 8.



Bicyclists: 7.



Parent Vehicles: 41.



Rainbow Rider: 2 students.



Buses dropped off on 4 Avenue North. Arrived about every 5 minutes starting at 8:00 a.m.



Most parents dropped off students on 8 Street near main entrance.



Bicyclists crossed streets like pedestrians.



A student safety patrol of four students were on duty at 8:00 and off at 8:25.



Teachers parked on 4 Avenue across from school.



Of the students that walked or biked:

th

th

th

th

o

6 came from the west on 4 Avenue.

o

6 came from the east on 4 Avenue.

o

2 came from north on 8 Street.

o

1 came from south on 8 Street.

th

th

th

th

th

Post 2: 5 Avenue North and 8 Street – Kris Krenz 

Walkers: 5.



Bicyclists: 6.



Parent Vehicles: 50.



Students walking down the middle of the street. No sidewalk used.



No bikes stopped at stop sign.



Traffic was slow.



One child was driven from a residence directly across the street from the school.



Cars came from both north and south to drop off students on 8 Street, despite requests to NOT

th

th

drop off students from the west side of 8 Street across from school. 

Of the students that walked or biked: th

o

6 came from the west on 5 Avenue.

o

1 came from the east on 4 Avenue.

o

3 came from north on 8 Street.

th

th

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 89

rd

th

Post 3: 3 Avenue South and 16 Street – Nancy Laines 

Walkers: 11.



Bicyclists: 6.



Elementary Students Walking to Bus: 7



Crossing Guards/Patrols: None present.



Students crossing 3 Avenue South watch for traffic.



Concerns with students who walked across the parking lot, high school and elementary school

rd

students both, sometimes lingered and walked between parked cars. 

Parents dropped off close to main entrance using safe speed. At most drop-offs, passengers exited curb-side with some driving up onto flush sidewalk.



Parent drop-offs trickled in from 7:30 to 8:10, and then picked up in intensity.



A few students drove too fast and diagonally across lot.



The closer to 8:30, the faster the students drove.



Rising sun made visibility difficult towards the east.



One bicyclist was observed riding safely down 16 Street on the right side of the street.

th

rd

th

Post 5: 3 Avenue South and 15 Street – ??? 

Walkers: 18.



Bicyclists: 6.



One student on “hoverboard”.



Late arrivals drove a little fast, but not unsafe.



Students used good techniques when crossing the street. rd

th

Post 6: 3 Ave North and 7 Street – ??? 

Walkers: 9.



Bicyclists: 5.



No sidewalks north of intersection for the first half block.



At 7:30, large trucks left county shop. th

st

Post 7: U.S. Highway 75 (5 Street) and 1 Avenue North – Amy Olson 

Walkers: 5.



Bicyclists: 2.



Both bicyclists crossed U.S. Highway 75 - 5th Street at 1 Avenue North from east to west.



One then bicycled down center of 1 Avenue. The other went north on west (left) side of 5 Street.

st

st

P a g e 90 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

th



No crosswalk.



There was heavy traffic, 30-plus vehicles. Lots of semis and a large amount of traffic on 5 Street.

th

Post 8: Broadway (State Highway 27) and Front Street – Jessica Peterson. 

Walkers: none observed.



Bicyclists: 4.



Two student bicyclists seen traveling north on Front Street South then west on 2



One adult bicyclist seen riding west on south sidewalk on Broadway.



A large volume of truck traffic was observed hauling from elevator turning at the intersection of

nd

Avenue South.

th

Broadway and 12 Street South. st

th

Post 9: 1 Avenue North and 8 Street – ??? th

NOTE! – The observer went to the wrong location. Intended post was at Broadway and 8 Street. 

Walkers: 4.



Bicyclists: 3.



Students used the crosswalks and the sidewalks. Seen walking on: o



th

Three students on 6 Street North.

Bicyclist seen on: th

o

6 Street North.

o

8 Street North.

o

3 Avenue North.

th

rd

th

Post 10: U.S. Highway 75 (5th Street) and 4 Avenue North – Tammy Froemming 

Walkers: 4.



Bicyclists: 4.



Good techniques observed when students crossed the street including use of the crosswalks.



Several small students crossed U.S. Highway 75 in front of carwash at 3 Street North.



Four student bicyclists seen at 7 Street and 4 Avenue North.



There was heavy traffic. Lots of semis and large farm tractors.

rd

th

th

th

th

Post 11: 11 Street and 4 Avenue North – Unmanned th

Post 12: 16 Street and Broadway - Unmanned

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 91

Figure 43: Wheaton Observation Day Posts: West – September 2016.

P a g e 92 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Figure 44: Wheaton Observation Day Posts: East – September 2016.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 93

Afternoon Observations 

Local weather at Pearson Elementary School: 3:00 p.m.– 68 °F. Clear / Sunny. Northwest wind – 16 mph.

Observations began at 3:00 pm, ending at 3:30 pm, with school dismissing at 3:15 pm. th

th

Post 1: 4 Avenue North and 8 Street – Andrew J. Besold 

Walkers: 3.



Bicyclists: 4.



Buses: 5.



All buses parked on 4 South of school. First bus too close to corner. All idling.



Buses departed at 3:12.



Parents backed out of parking spots. Could be dangerous. Better to have all parents wait by lining

th

up in the street. 

One bicyclist crossed street like pedestrian.



Student crossing patrol posted from 3:00 until 3:14 pm.



Most vehicles drove below 30 mph.



County double dump trucks drove past on 4 Avenue North and the 8 Street at the end of

th

th

dismissal. They drove cautiously slow but could they use a different route? 

Of the students that walked or biked: th

th

o

5 went east on 4 Avenue, then south on 7 Street.

o

1 went west on 4 Avenue.

th

Post 2: 5th Avenue North and 8th Street – Nancy Laines 

11 Walkers at 3:00pm. Another 12 at 5:00 pm.



Bicyclists: 9.



Parents picked up by main entrance on 8 Street North with cars lined up behind each other

th

blocking cars that were perpendicularly parked further south. 

No crossing guards/patrols.



Students stayed in crosswalk and watched for traffic.



Have sidewalks, except for a section of the west side of 8 Street.



Bicyclist with helmet rode on the wrong side of the street.

th

rd

th

Post 3: 3 Avenue South and 16 Street – Kris Krenz 

Walkers: 20.



Bicyclists: 4.

P a g e 94 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings



Of the students that walked or biked: rd

o

2 went directly east from school entrance to apartments, then north to 3 Street.

o

2 went directly north to 3 Street South.

o

3 went directly northeast, diagonally across lot to 3 Avenue.

rd

rd

Post 4: Wheaton High School, West Loop – Wayne Hurley 

Walkers: 9.



Bicyclists: 0.



Rainbow Rider Bus arrived at 3:15.



First school bus arrived from Pearson at 3:17. All buses by 3:18.



Of the students that walked or biked: rd

o

1 went directly north to 3 Street South.

o

8 went directly northeast, diagonally across lot to 3 Avenue.

rd

rd

th

Post 5: 3 Avenue South and 15 Street – ??? 

Walkers: 20.



Bicyclists: 4.



Of the students that walked or biked: o

13 went directly east from school entrance to apartments.

o

4 went east on 3 Street South.

o

11 went directly north on 15 Street North.

rd

rd

th

th

Post 6: 3 Avenue North and 7 Street – Tammy Froemming 

Walkers: 9.



Bicyclists: 1.



Student sat in the middle of the street to tie his shoe.



Students all walked in the street. Didn’t use crosswalks.



Student rode bike in circles in street.



Two vehicles rolled through stop signs.



Noticed students walking scared, could hear a dog barking in yard, 3 Avenue North and 5 Street.



At 3:32, two large, county double-dump trucks came down 4 Street North eastbound.



Vehicles backed out from county garage when students were leaving school.

rd

th

th

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 95

th

st

Post 7: U.S. Highway 75 (5 Street) and 1 Avenue North – Amy Olson 

Walkers: 4.



Bicyclists: 3.



Bicyclist rode down the middle of the street.



One bicyclist crossed U.S. Highway 75 at 4 Avenue North.



One bicyclist crossed U.S. Highway 75 at 1 Avenue North.



Students walked south on either side of 7 Street North.



No crosswalks or crossings.



Very busy highway.

th

st

th

Post 8: Broadway (State Highway 27) and Front Street – Jessica Peterson. th

th

Note! – Jessica moved toward 12 and 13 Streets during observation. 

Walkers: 6.



Bicyclists: 5.



Three students walked east on either [side] of Broadway (six total).



Two biked east on south sidewalk.



One bicyclist headed east on 2



One bicyclist headed east on 1 Avenue North at 13 Street.



Two bicyclists headed east on 1 Avenue North at Front Street.

nd

th

Avenue South at 13 Street.

st

th

st

st

th

Post 9: 1 Avenue North and 8 Street – ??? th

NOTE! – The observer went to the wrong location. Intended post at Broadway and 8 Street 

Walkers: 1.



Bicyclists: 0.



One student walked on 9 Street North.

th

th

Post 10: U.S. Highway 75 (5th Street) and 4 Avenue North – Unmanned th

th

Post 11: 11 Street and 4 Avenue North – Unmanned th

Post 12: 16 Street and Broadway – Unmanned

P a g e 96 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA While speed limits/traffic speed, street form (street width, number of lanes, lane width, presence of street trees, etc.) and the presence of sidewalks can have a great deal of impact on the safety of a street for pedestrians and bicyclists, traffic volume is also a very important factor. Streets with heavy traffic are often more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians due to increased exposure to potential conflicts. Traffic volume is also the ultimate factor with regard to the stress experienced due to passing motor traffic while walking or biking. (No traffic, no stress.) Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a relatively new term in the active transportation field, means to replace or supplement the often-criticized Level of Service (LOS) measure of facilitation for bicycles and pedestrians. High traffic stress environments can dissuade people from walking and biking despite the presence of facilities that have a high LOS. This report, however, does not attempt to measure LTS but provides traffic volume to help understand current conditions and justify and prioritize future investments.

A common measure of traffic volume is “Annual Average Daily Traffic”, abbreviated AADT. According to MnDOT, AADT “is the theoretical estimate of the total number of vehicles using a specific segment of roadway (in both directions) on any given day of the year. This estimate represents the total number of cars per year divided by 365 and is developed using factors to adjust for season, day of the week, and vehicle type.” “Heavy Figure 45: A truck full of sugar beets travels northbound on U.S. Highway 75 in Breckenridge. Very similar truck traffic is found in Wheaton.

Commercial Annual Average Daily Traffic” (HCAADT) is a

subset of AADT of only heavy commercial truck traffic. MnDOT defines “Heavy Commercial Traffic” as “traffic from all trucks with at least 2 axles and 6 tires.” It is important to have a measure of HCAADT when available because heavy commercial vehicles are more cumbersome to operate and the increased mass of these vehicles is likely to cause more serious injuries and/or fatalities when involved in any type of crash.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 97

Heavy commercial traffic also has a greater impact on LTS per vehicle observed. Please note that both of these numbers can vary wildly depending on the season, due to factors such as tourism and harvest traffic.

Figures 46 and 47 are maps of the AADT and HCAADT, respectively, from data collected by MnDOT of the more significant roads in the immediate vicinity of the city of Wheaton. Tables 6 and 7 are a breakdown again of both AADT and HCAADT, (where available) respectively, on roads directly leading into and within urbanized Wheaton. MnDOT traffic volume data comes from the MnDOT Basemap (Available at: http://mndotgis.dot.state.mn.us/basemap/) and was accessed on May 22

nd

2017.

Table 6: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for state system highways in and around Wheaton.

Highway Name and Location

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

U.S. Highway 75 between County 14 th and 5 Street North

1,800

th

U.S. Highway 75 between 5 Street North rd and 3 Street North

3,050

rd

U.S. Highway 75 between 3 Street North and Broadway

3,350

U.S. Highway 75 between Broadway nd 2 Avenue South

2,900

U.S. Highway 75 south of 2nd Avenue South

1.350

th

State Highway 27/Broadway west of 16 Street

1,200

State Highway 27/Broadway between 16th Street and Front Street

2,600

State Highway 27/Broadway between 16th Front Street th U.S. Highway 75/5 Street

2,650

nd

State Highway 27/2 Avenue South between st U.S. Highway 75 and 1 Street

1,300

State Highway 27 South east of 1st Street

850

nd

2 Avenue South between State Highway 27 th and 16 Street. nd

310

th

2 Avenue South between 16 Street and Front Street

460

2nd Avenue South between Front Street and U.S. Highway 75

1,150

nd

Trail Street/County 9 north of 2 Avenue South nd

Front Street/County 9 south of 2 Avenue South

610 465

rd

3 Avenue North between Trail Street th and 16 Street North th

105

rd

16 Street between 3 Avenue North nd and 2 Avenue South P a g e 98 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

400

Figure 46: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for state system highways in and around Wheaton.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 99

Table 7: Heavy Commercial Annual Average Daily Traffic (HCAADT) on select highways in and around Wheaton.

Highway Name and Location

Heavy Commercial AADT (HCAADT)

U.S. Highway 75 between County 14 th and 5 Street North

290

th

U.S. Highway 75 between 5 Street North rd and 3 Street North

405

rd

U.S. Highway 75 between 3 Street North and Broadway

430

U.S. Highway 75 between Broadway nd 2 Avenue South

310

U.S. Highway 75 south of 2nd Avenue South

170

th

State Highway 27/Broadway west of 16 Street

105

State Highway 27/Broadway between 16th Street and Front Street

230

State Highway 27/Broadway between Front Street th and U.S. Highway 75/5 Street

235

nd

State Highway 27/2 Avenue South between st U.S. Highway 75 and 1 Street

120

State Highway 27 South east of 1st Street

80

P a g e 100 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Figure 47: Heavy Commercial Annual Average Daily Traffic (HCAADT) for state system highways in and around Wheaton.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 101

CRASH DATA Crash data from within the Wheaton city limits was gathered using the online Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool. (MnCMAT) http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/crashmapping.html MnCMAT is MnDOT’s crash database that includes all crashes involving a motor vehicle where a crash report was filed. It includes only crash reports from the past ten years. However, a crash involving a solo cyclist, the most common type of bicycle crash, would not be recorded even if emergency services responded as long as the crash did not rd

involve a motor vehicle. The MnCMAT data for Wheaton was accessed, May 23 2017. As of that date, the st

st

dataset included crash reports from January 1 2006 through December 31 2015, all of which were included in this analysis. According to the MnCMAT homepage accessed on the date above, there has been a delay in updating the database with crash data from 2016. Typically, the lag time between crash occurrence and data entry into the MnCMAT database can last approximately 2-3 months with the data updated four times per year; approximately quarterly.

The staff at WCI felt that collecting crash data within the city limits of Wheaton would provide the most utility. There were a total of 95 crashes; one involved a 60-year-old female bicyclist who received a “nonincapacitating injury” (Crash 1), and another involved a three-year-old female pedestrian who received a “possible injury” (Crash #2). (See Figure 48) In both crashes, the drivers were at fault.

Of all 95 crashes within Wheaton, one involved a fatality, single vehicle DUI in August 2013 on U.S. th

th

Highway 75 – 5 Street near the intersection of 4 Avenue North.

P a g e 102 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Figure 48: Map of the 95 crash sites within the city limits of Wheaton. Two crashes involved either a bicyclist or a pedestrian. Map auto-generated online by MnCMAT and then edited. Note that some dots represent multiple crash sites.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 103

The severity classes and numbers of each severity class include one fatality, one with incapacitating injuries, five with non-incapacitating injuries, 19 with possible injuries, and 69 with property damage. (See Figure 49) Of the “Crash Types,” the vast majority are collisions with other motor vehicles in transport or parked vehicles followed by collisions with deer. There was one crash that involved a pedestrian and another with a bicyclist. The rest are mostly collision with fixed objects. (See Figure 50) From 2006 to 2015, the crash rate seemed to hover around nine per year within Wheaton. However, 2015 saw a spike of 15 crashes; the most crashes of the 10 years analyzed. (See Figure 51) The peak time for crashes was during the 15:00 hour with a secondary peak in the 8:00 and 12:00 hour. (See Figure 52) This 3:00 p.m. peak may correspond with student driver behaviors upon dismissal. Further evaluation of the crash data would need to be done to see if student drivers are the cause in this crash spike. It must be noted that a crash peak in the 15:00 hour has been seen in other communities where WCI has completed SRTS plans. Finally, there was an unusual crash spike in August which has not been seen before and could just be a statistical anomaly. Otherwise, the data reveals the typical pattern of crashes happening more often in winter months which corresponds to poorer surface and light conditions. (See Figure 53)

Wheaton Crash Severity – Severity Class and Number

Figure 49: Wheaton Crash Severity - Severity Class and number of crashes in each class.

Graph automatically generated online by MnCMAT.

P a g e 104 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

Wheaton Crash Type and Number

Figure 50: Wheaton Crash Type – Crash type and number of each crash type.

Graph automatically generated online by MnCMAT.

Wheaton Crash Rate per Year

Figure 51: Wheaton crash rate per year. Graph automatically generated online by MnCMAT.

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 105

Wheaton Crashes per Hour of the Day (24 hour time)

Figure 52: Wheaton crashes per hour of the day (24 hour time). Graph automatically generated online by MnCMAT.

Wheaton Crashes per Month of the Year

Figure 53: Wheaton crashes per month of the year. Graph automatically generated online by MnCMAT.

P a g e 106 | Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings

NOTABLES AND CONCERNS Table 8: Street and Intersection Conditions in Wheaton.

Street or Intersection

Posted/Assumed Speed Limit

U.S.thHighway 75 between 4 Avenue North and st 1 Avenue North

30

Several students (less than five) observed crossing the U.S. Highway 75 in this location.

U.S.thHighway 75 between 5 Avenue North and Broadway

30

AADT >3000, HCAADT >400, and complaints of speeding. Heavy Commercial numbers are likely higher during harvest season.

U.S. Highway 75 330 feet north of th 5 Avenue North

45 to 30

Speed limit seems to transition to 30mph a little too close into the urbanized area

City Wide

30

Sidewalk network is fragmented with many missing sections and in poor condition, with obstructions and lack of ADA curb ramps.

City Wide

30

Almost all residents within Wheaton live within 1 mile of both schools as measured using the street network. The furthest residence from the Pearson Elementary School is 1.3 miles away.

The furthest residence from the High School is 1.4 miles away.

All streets around High School

30

There are no sidewalls for several blocks around the high school and the neighboring city pool.

16 Street between rd 3 Avenue North and nd 2 Avenue South

30

AADT of 400 was unexpectedly high. This is also a street that is a natural bicycle and pedestrian traffic route to the high school and it has no sidewalks.

Broadway and 12th Street South

30

A large volume of truck traffic hauling from elevator making turns at this intersection.

4 Avenue North th and 8 Street.

30

On Observation Day the first of five school buses during afternoon dismissal was positioned too close to the sidewalk and stop sign in violation of Minnesota Law.

City Wide

30

No street within the urbanized areas of Wheaton has a speed limit greater than 30mph.

City Wide

30

3:00 to 4:00 p.m.is the peak hour for crashes in Wheaton which may have a correlation to student driver behaviors upon dismissal.

Further evaluation of the crash data would need to be done to see if student drivers could be a cause in this crash spike.

th

th

Conditions Observed

Chapter 6: Existing Conditions and Findings | P a g e 107

CHAPTER 7: COMMUNITY SRTS OPEN HOUSE EVENT On Thursday, October 6, 2016 from 4:00-7:00 pm, both the Pearson Elementary School and the Wheaton Area High School held parent-teacher conferences. Pearson Elementary hosted a second night of conferences the following Monday, October 10. Due to a poor attendance record at previous SRTS Open House events in other communities, it was decided by the team that it may be more fruitful to go to the people instead of trying to get the people to come to us. As such, it was decided to have a table strategically placed to intercept parents at all three parent-teacher conference events. This proved to be a winning strategy as feedback comments were measured by the dozens, not in single digits and the SRTS team was able to directly talk to and inform parents about the SRTS planning process, the upcoming parent survey and the importance of SRTS programs. Conversely, members of the community were able to meet some of the SRTS team, learn how SRTS works, and help envision what a more walkable, bikeable community could look like.

At the outreach events, WCI staff had a map of Wheaton and numbered sticker dots. They asked participants to put the dot at a location of a concern, problem or even something good; anything that could help the SRTS planning process. WCI staff recorded their comments in number order corresponding to the numbered dot. Effort was taken to separate the comments from parents of students attending Wheaton Area High School from those whose children attended Pearson Elementary. Comments from members of the community are listed in the following table and are not edited. They are not listed in any priority order. Figures 54 and 55 are digital reproductions of the map created by the participants.

P a g e 108 | Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event

Thursday October 6, 2016 Wheaton Area High School Parent SRTS Open House Comments Yellow Numbered Comments 1

Semi-trucks speed as they are leaving and coming in to town.

2

Dangerous to back out of lot on 8 Street in front of Pearson. Worried might hit kid or cause a crash. Maybe a staff member could watch drop-off instead of at the bus area.

3

Speeding coming into town on Trail Street at Cottonwood Avenue.

4

No sidewalks for kids on school side of 5 Street.

5

Difficult for U.S. Highway 75 southbound trucks to make turn onto Broadway West if car stopped at Broadway. Difficult to see around corners when trucks are parked.

6

Dangerous for little kids to cross parking lot. Sun-glare, snow-hills, speeding traffic.

7

Crazy teenage drivers playing games, driving fast, etc.

8

Cars blowing stop sign at 1 Avenue North and 9 Street as well as driving fast on road without stop sign.

9

Bike lanes on Broadway, please. Elsewhere, too.

th

th

st

th

10

There are no stops on Broadway. Traffic just rolls through and doesn’t stop for pedestrians despite the installation of “stop for pedestrians” signs in the middle of the road.

11

Speeding on 2nd Avenue South (Old Highway 27), Trucks, cars, etc.

Other

A safe bike path somewhere in town. Mom said she will often ride the dirt roads with her kids to avoid traffic.

Other

Reward kids for good behaviors whether on a bike or walking with “good tickets.”

Police, county, city worker in uniform could give out good ticket coupons when kids stop at a stop sign, cross at crosswalks, etc.

Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event | P a g e 109

Thursday October 6 and Monday October 10, 2016 Pearson Elementary Parents SRTS Open House Comments Red Numbered Comments 1

707 Broadway, west of house: Make intersection at Broadway and U.S. Highway 75 safer. Cars / trucks continue east down Broadway and drive fast east of U.S. Highway 75. They use Broadway as a cut through.

2

Northside of Broadway at 8th Street; bad concrete.

3

Busy, drive too fast. Speeding on U.S. Highway 75 coming into town especially during planting and harvest. Maybe a speed feedback sign during those times only.

4

Speeding traffic coming in on Trail Street is a problem. Children use the dirt road (alley) north of 3rd Avenue to access 4th Avenue east of Trail Street.

5

No stop signs. Drive too fast. No crosswalks.

6

No crosswalks or stop signs.

7

No crosswalks or stop signs.

8

No crosswalks or stop signs.

9

No crosswalks or stop signs.

10

No crosswalks or stop signs.

11

No crosswalks or stop signs.

12

No crosswalks or stop signs.

13

Very busy.

14

Senior high kids are driving too fast. Don’t stop for signs.

15

Seniors don’t stop. Drive too fast.

16

People don’t stop for signs. Drive too fast.

17

People do not stop for signs.

18

People drive too fast. Kids are walking to school. Hard to cross.

19

People drive too fast. Drop speed limit.

P a g e 110 | Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event

20

Drop speed limit down to 15 mph.

21

Bad intersection.

22

Please drop speed limit to 15 mph.

Other

One parent is worried about some of the residents in the vicinity of the high school (paraphrased). Says there are issues with people having criminal records or so has been heard.

Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event | P a g e 111

Figure 54: Wheaton Points of Concern: Parent-Teacher Conference Outreach-West.

P a g e 112 | Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event

Figure 55: Wheaton Points of Concern: Parent-Teacher Conference Outreach-East.

Chapter 7: Community SRTS Open House Event | P a g e 113

CHAPTER 8: STANDARDIZED SRTS SURVEY ANALYSIS A take-home, self-report parent survey and a teacher-administered in-class student travel tally were conducted in the fall and winter of 2016. These surveys and survey documents have been designed by the National Centers for Safe Routes to School. (National Centers) (http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/) These surveys and survey forms are the national standard for reporting SRTS data in the United States and help the National Centers keep track of walking and biking rates. National Centers’ guidelines, up until 2016, had focused on gathering survey data from students in just grades K-8. However, with the SRTS program expanding focus to now include high schools, surveys are taken from schools that teach grades 9-12. The results analyzed are from the following schools: 

Pearson Elementary School (PreK – 5)



Wheaton Area High School (6 – 12)

The parent survey questionnaire is a two-page form that was taken home by students for parents to complete asking about their child’s school travel behaviors and the parents’ perceptions regarding whether walking and biking to school is appropriate and fitting for their child. Besides English, the parent survey is available from the National Centers in Spanish, Arabic, Armenian, Mandarin Chinese, Haitian Creole, Hmong, Korean, Russian, Somali, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. The parent survey (English and Spanish only) can also be done by parents directly online if school administrators and SRTS believe that this will provide a greater survey return rate. This also has the potential to increase survey response accuracy and saving administrative time in data entry. The results provide valuable information about parental attitudes and opinions relevant to SRTS and create a benchmark baseline by which future analysis can be compared.

The student travel tally is administered by teachers and conducted over three days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) in one single school week throughout the entire school. Teachers record the morning and afternoon weather conditions on each particular day. Then, the teachers ask about students’ travel modes to school that particular day and how they plan on going home. These also provide a benchmark baseline by which future analysis can be compared.

P a g e 114 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Once the paper forms were completed and collected for both surveys, the data is entered on-line into the National Centers’ database by staff at WCI. This is done to maintain data entry continuity and as a service to the school. After the survey data is entered, those with access to the National Centers’ database can produce automated individual reports from each school for both the parent survey and the student travel tally. These reports provide a breakdown of the basic statistics that first establish a baseline that progress can be measured against in the future. The reports generated by the National Centers are the origin of most of graphs and tables in this chapter. The 2016 surveys will be used to establish baseline data for the two Wheaton Schools. Moving forward, the parent survey will be done once every two to three years and the teacher-administered student travel tally will be done at least once, but preferably twice per school year; fall and spring. Follow-up surveying, with help from WCI, will be done so that local, state and national officials can monitor trends over time in the travel habits of students traveling to and from school.

This chapter only reproduces the most important survey results and provides some analysis.

PARENT SURVEY – SELECT QUESTIONS / KEY FINDINGS For the complete parent survey results for the two schools, see Appendix A.

PEARSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Of the children whose parents participated in the survey breakdown of travel mode to and from school is as follows: Table 9: Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

No Response Morning: 1 No Response Afternoon: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 115

Figure 56: Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school.

There is a change in travel modes chosen for school departure compared to arrival. There is a switch from the family vehicle to the school bus, with more students walking in the afternoon. This is in keeping with what has been seen in other schools in the west central region of Minnesota. It is the belief of the author that this mode shift from the family vehicle happens in most communities and schools because it is easy for parents to drive their children to school as they are headed to work. In the afternoon, parents are at work when students are dismissed and students can take their time getting home. Bike mode share for students does not vary between morning and afternoons because students will need to ride their bikes home if they wish to ride to school the next day.

P a g e 116 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

When compared to the 2013 national SRTS combined walk and bike mode share numbers of 15.2 percent in the morning and 18.4 percent in the afternoon, the percentages of students walking and bicycling to and from the Pearson Elementary School (18 percent morning, 21 percent afternoon) are above average.

19

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Parents were asked to give the distance from their home to the school. This question is asked in a way so that parents likely estimate that distance. These results are shown in Table 10. This is recorded because what parents estimate will have an effect on their mode choice for their child. Often parents will overestimate that distance and drive their child to school when walking and/or biking is a viable, safe and timely alternative.

Table 10: Parent estimate of distance from the child’s home to school.

Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

19

The National Center for Safe Routes to School. Trends in Walking and Bicycling to School from 2007 to 2013. March, 2015. Available at http://saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/SurveyTrends_2007-13_final1.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2016.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 117

Cross-reference – Distance, by arrival and departure modes These estimated distances are then cross-referenced with actual arrival and departure mode choice. (Tables 12 and 13) Table 11: Parent estimate of the distance from child’s home to school and mode choice to school.

School Arrival

Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 12: Parent estimate of the distance from child’s home to school and mode choice from school.

School Departure

Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

P a g e 118 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Additional WCI analysis: Mode analysis within the Walk / Bike Zone, arrival and departure According to the MnDOT Walk / Bike Zone concept, one-half mile is considered an appropriate distance for students in grades PreK through Fifth to walk and/or bike to and from school. Since the Pearson Elementary serves grades PreK – 5, for this analysis, all those living within a perceived one-half mile from the school would be considered to live within the appropriate Walk/Bike Zone for this school. However, even when counting only the children that live within a conservatively close range to the school, still only a third of the students walk and bike to and from school. (Tables 13, 14)

Table 13: School arrival modes for students (raw numbers and percent) living within one mile of the Elementary/Middle School.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 14: School departure modes for students (raw numbers and percent) living within one- mile of the Elementary/Middle School.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 119

Which of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school?

Parents were asked to identify issues affecting their decision to allow, or not allow, their child to walk or bike to and from school. Parents were given a list of options to choose from, with the ability to select as many reasons they felt applied. The results from this question were then split by whether parents did allow their child to walk or bike to and from school, or did not.

Figure 57: Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school.

Of the 24 respondents that answered this question and their child does not walk or bike to school, the leading reasons are “distance”, “weather or climate” followed by reasons all related to traffic safety. “Adults to bike/walk with”, “crossing guards” and “time” available are the least cited reasons for not allowing a child to walk or bike to and from school.

P a g e 120 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Figure 58: Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

Of the 6 respondents that answered this question and their child does walk or bike to school, the leading reasons to allow a child to walk to school is “distance”, “weather or climate” followed by “sidewalks or pathways”. “Adults to bike/walk with” and “crossing guards” didn’t even factor into these parents’ opinions.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 121

WHEATON AREA HIGH SCHOOL Note! Two responses for the high school parent survey came from parents of children in Pearson th

Elementary; one from PreK and another from 4 grade. Since the survey was done on-line, these responses could not be separated and were added to the Pearson Elementary survey and included in these results.

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Of the children whose parents participated in the survey breakdown of travel mode to and from school is as follows: Table 15: Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

No Response Morning: 1 No Response Afternoon: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

P a g e 122 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Figure 59: Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school.

There is a slight change in travel modes for school departure compared to arrival which may not be statistically-significant with any useable confidence. There is a small switch away from the school bus and family vehicle to walking and carpooling but lack of mode shift isn’t that unusual. Otherwise, this mode shift is in keeping with what has been seen in other schools in the west central region of Minnesota. Bike mode share is zero.

When compared to the 2013 national SRTS combined walk and bike mode share numbers of 15.2 percent in the morning and 18.4 percent in the afternoon, the percentages of students walking and bicycling to and from the Wheaton Area High School (seven percent morning, 10 percent afternoon) are below average. It should be noted, however, that the national numbers are for grades K-8.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 123

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Parents were asked to give the distance from their home to the school. This question is asked in a way so that parents likely estimate that distance. These results are shown in Table 16. This is recorded because what parents estimate will have an effect on their mode choice for their child. Often parents will overestimate that distance and drive their child to school when walking and/or biking is a viable, safe and timely alternative.

Table 16: Parent estimate of distance from the child’s home to school.

Don't know or No response: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

P a g e 124 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Cross-reference – Distance, by arrival and departure modes These estimated distances are then cross-referenced with actual arrival and departure mode choice (Tables 16 and 17).

Table 17: Parent estimate of the distance from child’s home to school and mode choice to school.

School Arrival

Don't know or No response: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 18: Parent estimate of the distance from child’s home to school and mode choice from school.

School Departure

Don't know or No response: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 125

Mode analysis within the Walk / Bike Zone, arrival and departure modes: Additional WCI analysis.

According to the MnDOT Walk / Bike Zone concept, one mile is considered the appropriate distance for students in grades Fifth through Eighth to walk and/or bike to and from school and one and a half miles for students in grades Ninth through Twelfth. Since there is no way to parse the data between those living between those distances and only one respondent was said to live between one and two miles, it was decided for this analysis that all those living within a perceived one mile from the school would be considered to live within the appropriate Walk/Bike Zone for the high school. However, even when considering only the children who live conservatively close to the school, only eleven walked or biked to school, and fourteen percent walked or biked home from school. (Tables 19, 20)

Table 19: School arrival modes for students (raw numbers and percent) living within two miles of the High School.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

P a g e 126 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Table 20: School departure modes for students (raw numbers and percent) living within two miles of the High School.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 127

Which of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school?

Parents were asked to identify issues affecting their decision to allow, or not allow, their child to walk or bike to and from school. Parents were given a list of options to choose from, with the ability to select as many reasons they felt applied. The results from this question were then split by whether parents did allow their child to walk or bike to and from school, or did not.

Figure 60: Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school.

Of the 25 respondents who answered this question and their child does not walk or bike to school, the leading reasons to NOT allow a child to walk to school are “distance” at 68% and “weather or climate” at 52%. “Crossing guards” (or lack there of), “adults to bike with”, and “safety of intersections and crossings” were the least cited reasons.

P a g e 128 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Figure 61: Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

Of the three respondents that answered this question and their child DOES walk or bike to school, the leading reason to ALLOW a child to walk to school was “distance,” at 100%. “Safety of Intersections and Crossings,” “Amount” and “Speed of Traffic Along Route” and “Crossing Guards” were of no concern.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 129

STUDENT TRAVEL TALLY – SELECT QUESTIONS / KEY FINDINGS For complete Student Travel Tally results , see Appendix B. The student travel tally survey is used to quantify students’ travel both to and from school by travel mode.

The tally form is administered in school, by teachers. The count is administered school-wide in one single school week. Doing the tally on all three mid-week days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) is greatly preferred but two of three midweek days is acceptable. Monday and Friday are avoided as possible weekend plans and/or holidays are more likely to affect students’ regular travel behaviors on those two days. Students are asked by a show of hands how they arrived at school that day and then how they plan to leave for home after school. This survey also records weather conditions on each particular day, morning and afternoon separately, as inclement weather can have an obvious effect on children walking or biking to and from school.

Individual student travel tally counts for both Pearson Elementary and the Wheaton Area High School were requested from the staff at WCI. However, tallies from the high school were never returned or conducted so only the results from Pearson are included at this time. Baseline tallies for the high school should be conducted in the fall of 2017 and also a follow-up tally for Pearson Elementary. The tallies should be repeated for each school at least every year, if not two times per year.

PEARSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Total enrollment in April 2017 was 194.

Question – How did you arrive at school today? How do you plan to leave for home after school?

Travel mode results from the student travel tally match up fairly well with the travel mode results from the parent survey. However, the switch from the family vehicle to the school bus in the afternoon was much less pronounced in the tally compared to the parent survey. According to the tally as seen in Figure 62, the combined rate of walking and biking to school in the morning was 16 percent: 10 percent walking, six percent biking. This combined rate then increased to 19 percent in the afternoon: 13 percent walking, six percent biking. 39 percent of the students rode the school bus in the morning and 41 percent in the afternoon, while 42 percent of the students took the family vehicle to school in the morning and 37 percent in the afternoon. This mode shift towards the school bus, car pooling and a bit of walking in the afternoon is consistent with patterns seen at other schools. Greater use of a family vehicle in the morning is likely due to the convenience of dropping off students as parents are headed to work.

P a g e 130 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison

Figure 62: Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison. Numbers above the bars show percentages of each mode.

DISCUSSION / COMPARISON The Pearson Elementary School travel mode results from both survey instruments are fairly comparable.

The mode numbers for walking are identical and just slightly different for biking. In both surveys, there is a shift away from the family vehicle towards the school bus and walking in the afternoon which has been seen

by WCI staff at other schools in the west central region of Minnesota. However, the shift from the family vehicle to the school bus was much more pronounced in the parent survey which is likely a reflection of the smaller sample size. Overall, the results from both the parent surveys and student travel tallies are comparable and did not contradict one another. That the two survey instruments compliment each other can only increase the confidence in the validity of the results.

Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis | P a g e 131

Using parent survey data from both schools and considering only those students who live within the Walk/Bike Zone (students who live appropriately close enough to the school to walk or bike depending on their age,) we see that 30 percent of the Pearson Elementary School students walk or bike in the morning and that increases to 35 percent in the afternoon. When one considers that 64 percent of Pearson Elementary students live within Wheaton city limits, having approximately half of those students already walking and biking to school is a fairly good result. However, the Wheaton Area High School Walk/Bike Zone numbers are lower at just 11 percent for walking and biking in the morning and 14 percent in the afternoon. With 57 percent of the high school students living in town, there is much that should be done to get more high school students to walk and bike.

When compared to the 2013 national SRTS combined walk and bike mode share numbers of 15.2 percent in the morning and 18.4 percent in the afternoon, the percentages of students walking and bicycling to and from the Pearson Elementary School (18 percent morning, 21 percent afternoon) are above average but the Wheaton Area High School (7 percent morning, 10 percent afternoon) are below average.

While the results from the parent surveys and student travel tallies provide valuable baseline data, several limitations exist. The parent survey was self-reported information, which may self-select and bias the results to a socially-desirable response. Furthermore, the three-day time frame for student travel tallies, only taken during one school week out of the entire year, limits the likelihood of collecting data in all weather conditions. Additional analysis, particularly a second student travel tally at a different time of the year, would be helpful to better understand student travel behaviors and how the weather influences travel mode decisions.

P a g e 132 | Chapter 8: Standardized SRTS Survey Analysis

CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDATIONS For a comprehensive set of recommendations, please see the “Action Plan” in the “Executive Summary, Significant Findings and Action Plan” at the beginning of this document.

Chapter 9: Recommendations | P a g e 133

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION This Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan is intended to guide the City of Wheaton and the Wheaton Area Schools, Independent School District #803, toward their collective goal of making it safer, more convenient and more fun for students to walk and bicycle to and from school. Where it is already safe, encourage students to walk and bicycle to school. Where it is less than ideally safe, improve the existing conditions to make it as safe as practically possible with an eye toward walking and bicycling comfort. When children get exercise on their way to and from school, they: 

Arrive more alert and able to focus,



Get a large portion of their recommended daily physical activity,



Are more likely to be a healthy weight,



Demonstrate improved test scores,



Are less likely to suffer from anxiety, and



Build healthy habits and practices they can bring with them into adulthood.

The SRTS recommendations in the Action Plan at the beginning of this document address the “5 Es” and th

recognizes the “6 E” of Equity, and were created to improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, encourage students to consider walking or bicycling, and instill an active lifestyle. The recommendations in this plan were formed based on expert analysis of the existing conditions around the school and community, direct observation, input from members of the community, MnDOT assembled crash and traffic data, and results from standardized parent surveys and student travel tallies. SRTS plans are the most successful when programs involve the entire community and when they are integrated into current and future policies. If at any time, the City of Wheaton and/or the Wheaton Area Schools, Independent School District #803, have any questions of how to best enact the recommendations in this report, whether that be funding sources, best policies and practices, etc., they are encouraged to contact the staff at West Central Initiative and/or Horizon SHIP.

P a g e 134 | Chapter 10: Conclusion

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: PARENT SURVEY RESULTS

PEARSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Pearson Elementary School.

Set ID: 15531..

School Group: West Central Minnesota / MnDOT D4..

Month and Year Collected: 12/2016..

School Enrollment: 0..

Date Report Generated: 04/18/2017..

% Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don’t know..

Tags: Bike train – ongoing.

Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0..

Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 40..

This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Centers for Safe Routes to School.

P a g e 135 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Sex of children for parents that provided information

P a g e 136 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Grade levels of children represented in survey

Grade levels of children represented in survey

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 137

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school

P a g e 138 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 139

Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

P a g e 140 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 141

Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school

Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school

P a g e 142 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school

Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 143

Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

No response: 10 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group.

--Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically.

P a g e 144 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school by percent

Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child by percent

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 145

Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child by percent

P a g e 146 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Comments Section Survey ID

Comment

1485990

We live 16 miles away from school...our kids always ride the bus

1501402

traffic and sidewalks are some concerns but having a young child walking alone through our town, although low crime, just doesn't seem like a great plan when the bus already stop's at out house. After school our students sometimes walk but again its not our preference.

We live in Dumont so our children are unable to bike or walk to school due to the distance we live from the school. If we lived in town, I would let them walk or ride bike as our older son is 10 and I would let the 5 year old go with him.

Sidewalks are a mess which causes the kids to take the roads which I am uncomfortable with because the courthouse and social services are in the area my kids have to walk which causes a lot of traffic. I see kids walking on the road by my house all the time because there is no sidewalk. Not safe! Sidewalks would be nice!

I walk the kids from the pineview apartments to the High school every morning and sometimes after school. The apartments should have enough kids to have A Bus stop here. Walking the kids across the parking lot at the high school can be a challenge with 9 children 3 with special needs. We really need a bus that stops here at pineview Apartments Community is in need of better sidewalks. Dangerous to bike due to elderly driving.

1485972

1485976

1485998

1486243 1501343

1501558 1485984 1486178

We have 2 boys in School. One that goes to Pearson Elementary and one that is in Middle school and goes to the High School. We have 2 very busy intersections for our kids to travel on. We live on 3rd Ave north near the baseball fields in Wheaton. There is heavy traffic for kids walking, adults walking, and traffic. We are very concerned with the amount of car traffic and speed in the area especially with all the summer activity. A lot of children walk and ride bike to go to the pool in the summer and also to the schools for sporting events, and school activities. The schools baseball games and softball games bring a lot of traffic and fast driving by our home and near the field. This brings up concerns for our children and also children of our community who are traveling on foot or bike to school events. We have went to the city and did get a stop sign placed coming out of the baseball fields on 3rd Ave N. This still hasn't stopped the traffic from speeding by. There is no crosswalks, sidewalks, or signs on Trial Street for children to cross to go to the elementary school. I think this grant should consider looking at these intersections. If there were signs children at play, sidewalks, or slow traffic, or any kind of crossings we would let our children travel on their own to and from school/school events. If you have any questions regarding this please contact me. Kristin Frisch XXX-XXX-XXXX. Have a great day and thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns.

Wheaton needs more sidewalks or bike/walking paths!!

The question about whether my child is male or female is strange to me.... not sure why that matters.

The parking area/ drop off area are the same area and it is dangerous. People are backing out of spaces and dropping kids off. It is a mess.

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 147

1501528 1486227

We live across the street from the school. Besides people frequently running the stop signs I feel that it is very safe for him to walk to and from school. we live in the country so this does not pertain to our child

1501443

1501443 For after school programs I ask my 3 red grader to walk to my work

P a g e 148 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

WHEATON AREA HIGH SCHOOL

Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Wheaton Secondary..

Set ID: 15532..

School Group: West Central Minnesota / MnDOT D4..

Month and Year Collected: December 2016..

School Enrollment: 0..

Date Report Generated: 04/18/2017..

% Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know..

Tags: Bike train – ongoing..

Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0..

Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 42..

This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school.

The data used in this report were collected using the in-class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Centers for Safe Routes to School.

Sex of children for parents that provided information

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 149

Grade levels of children represented in survey

Grade levels of children represented in survey

No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

P a g e 150 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 151

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

P a g e 152 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 153

Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

P a g e 154 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school

Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 155

Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school

Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

P a g e 156 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

No response: 14 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group.

--Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically.

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 157

Parents’ opinions about how much their child’s school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school

Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child

P a g e 158 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child

Appendix A: Parent Survey Results | P a g e 159

Comments Section Survey ID

Comment

1485968

In regards to time, it's not the amount of time it takes to get to school. It's the time of day and amount of day light available.

1488755

Our town needs a bike path or side walks!!!

1485991 1504190

We live 16 miles from the school. Our kids always ride the bus or drive when they are old enough.

We live 10 miles in the country. Walking or riding bike is not an option.

We live in 1487684 the count Our neighborhood is not the safest sometimes and I don’t like having her ride bike home and then be alone after school because of our neighbors 1504221 Rides bus Our neighbors that live next to us are not safe to have my child home alone. So she will not be riding her

bike or walking home alone until they move!

1485971 nt to my child/children Sometimes allow him to walk to our place work after school.

1486167

Biggest issues are crossing Main Street and Hwy 75

1486273

Our son walks to and from school because we live right next to it and he walks with friends. If the weather is terrible (rain or too cold) I'll give him a ride. I will on occasion walk with him until he reaches the sidewalk in front of the entry.

1504504

Living next to the school plays a huge part in letting him walk to school. I will drive him to and from if weather is bad and will meet him after school sometimes if and he's by himself. He mostly walks with friends if he's not with me.

1486002

We live out of town, so it is not practical for her to bike or walk 8 miles to school along a very busy state highway.

1504455

We live about 10 miles from the school and along a very busy highway. I wouldn't let my child ride bike no matter how old she was. No kid who has a car is going to ride a bike instead of driving.

1504184

We live in the country- so walking/biking isn't practical to school.

P a g e 160 | Appendix A: Parent Survey Results

APPENDIX B: STUDENT TRAVEL TALLY RESULTS

PEARSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Pearson Elementary School..

Set ID: 22038..

School Group: West Central Minnesota / MnDOT D4..

Month and Year Collected: October 2016...

School Enrollment: 190..

Date Report Generated: 04/18/2017..

% of Students reached by SRTS activities: Don’t Know...Tags: Bike train – ongoing..

Number of Classrooms Included in Report: 12..

This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school.

The data used in this report were collected using the in-class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Centers for Safe Routes to School.

Appendix B: Student Travel Tally Results | P a g e 161

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

P a g e 162 | Appendix B: Student Travel Tally Results

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Appendix B: Student Travel Tally Results | P a g e 163

Travel Mode by Weather Conditions

Travel Mode by Weather Condition

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

P a g e 164 | Appendix B: Student Travel Tally Results

APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS PARENT SURVEY: ENGLISH – PAGE 1

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments | P a g e 165

PARENT SURVEY: ENGLISH – PAGE 2

A high-quality and text readable original version of this document can be found at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/resources/Parent_Survey_English.pdf P a g e 166 | Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

PARENT SURVEY: SPANISH – PAGE 1

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments | P a g e 167

PARENT SURVEY: SPANISH – PAGE 2

A high-quality and text readable original version of this document can be found at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/resources/Parent_Survey_Spanish.pdf

P a g e 168 | Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

STUDENT TRAVEL TALLY

A high-quality and text readable original version of this document can be found at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/resources/SRTS_Two_Day_Tally.pdf Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments | P a g e 169

APPENDIX D: PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CENTER, SRTS POLICY AMENDMENTS

P a g e 170 | Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments

Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments | P a g e 171

P a g e 172 | Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments

Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments | P a g e 173

P a g e 174 | Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments

Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments | P a g e 175

A text readable version of this document can be found at: http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/SRTS%20Wellness%20Policy%20Final.pdf

P a g e 176 | Appendix D: Public Health Law Center, SRTS Policy Amendments

APPENDIX E: MINNESOTA SRTS MODEL POLICIES TIP SHEET

Appendix E: Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet | P a g e 177

P a g e 178 | Appendix E: Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet

Appendix E: Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet | P a g e 179

P a g e 180 | Appendix E: Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet

A text readable version of this document can be found at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/assets/downloads/MN_SRTS_Tip%20Sheet_MODEL%20POLCI ES.pdf Appendix E: Minnesota SRTS Model Policies Tip Sheet | P a g e 181