Safe Routes to School Task Force to the Secretary of…

      Safe Routes to School Task Force to the Secretary of Transportation
                      U.S. Department of Transportation
                         Sixth Meeting: March 4, 2008

Meeting Type: Teleconference

Location:
This teleconference originated at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Safety, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Room E71-124 was
made available to the public to listen to the teleconference.

Meeting time: 1:00 - 3:00pm Eastern Time

Members on the teleconference:
Dr. Phyllis Agran
(Representing American Academy of Pediatrics)

Ms. Barbara Alberson
Chief, State and Local Injury Control Section, CA Department of Health Sacramento, CA
(Representing State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association)

Mr. Philip Caruso
Deputy Executive Director for Technical Programs, Institute of Transportation Engineers
(Filling in for Thomas Brahms)
(Representing professionals working in the transportation field)

Ms. Sabrina Cruz
Principal, Brichta Elementary School Tucson, AZ
(Representing Pima County - Tucson SRTS Program and the educational community.

Mr. Richard Deal, PE, TE, PTOE
City Traffic Engineer, Monterey, CA
(Representing American Public Works Association and professionals working in the
transportation field)

The Honorable Sue Frank
Former Mayor, City of Raytown, Missouri
(Representing National Association of Regional Councils)

Ms. Deborah Hubsmith
Director, Safe Routes to School National Partnership
(Representing a national SRTS advocacy organization)




                                                                                                  1
Mr. Michael King
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates New York, NY
(Representing Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals and professionals working in
the transportation field)

Ms. Lauren Marchetti
Director, National Center for Safe Routes to School, UNC Highway Safety Research Center
Chapel Hill, NC

Ms. Leslie Meehan
Planner, Nashville Area MPO Nashville, TN
(Representing regional interests through Tennessee's Safer Routes to School Advisory Council)

Scott Osberg, PhD
Director of Research, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
Washington, DC
(Representing professionals working in the transportation field with an emphasis on safety.)

Mr. Robert Ping
Representing Oregon Bicycle Transportation Alliance and Willamette Pedestrian Coalition,
Portland, OR (Practitioners implementing SRTS programs on a local and statewide level)

Ms. Sharon Roerty
Director of Community Programs for the National Center for Bicycling and Walking
(Representing a national bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organization)

Ms. Donna Smallwood, Chair of Task Force
Operations Manager, MassRIDES Boston, MA
(Representing a State Department of Transportation Program)

Mr. Roger Wentz
Executive Director, American Traffic Safety Services Association Fredericksburg, VA
(Representing the transportation industry)

Ms. Dale Ann Wright
Officer, West Valley City Police Department West Valley City, UT
(Representing local law enforcement agencies)

Designated Federal Official:
Mr. Tim Arnade
Safe Routes to School Program Manager
Office of Safety
Federal Highway Administration

Support Staff:
Ms. Diane Lambert, Toole Design Group
Ms. Deena Harris, Toole Design Group


                                                                                                 2
Others on the teleconference for all or a portion of the meeting were:
Mr. John Dewar, Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration


ROLL CALL (DONNA SMALLWOOD)
The meeting was called to order on March 4th at 1:00 pm Eastern Time by Donna Smallwood,
the Task Force Chair. Ms. Smallwood led a roll call to document members in attendance.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 2008 MEETING (DONNA SMALLWOOD)
Ms. Smallwood directed participants' attention to the minutes from the previous TF meeting. It
was noted that the minutes were modified to reflect Michael King's comments on a liability tip
sheet at the end of Day Two. Ms. Frank moved to adopt the minutes; motion was seconded by
Mr. Osberg. The members of the TF approved the minutes with no opposed, no abstained.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION (DIANE
LAMBERT)
Consultant staff acknowledged TF comments received by the established deadline of February
27th, noting that the majority of the comments were relatively minor and easily incorporated.
Today's teleconference will focus on comments relating to major issues for the TF report. TF
members will receive a summary of how all comments were addressed in the next and final
revision of the report. Ms. Lambert requested that all TF members have both a copy of Draft 4
and the January 2008 meeting minutes available for easy reference for today's discussion.

Comments discussed:
-  Letter from the Task Force Chair (Report page 1, line 46)
   Ms. Lambert noted that three TF members commented that this letter had not been
   discussed and is not appropriate. Mr. Arnade apologized for any confusion and explained
   that the letter doesn't state an opinion or convey any policy recommendation but is nothing
   more than a brief transmittal memo formally submitting the completed report to the
   Secretary. TF members agreed to include a combination transmittal/approval letter with all
   TF members' signatures. This letter will be included in the final draft.
-  Executive Summary Introduction (Report page 5)
   Ms. Lambert explained that of the two options presented for the Executive Summary text,
   Option 1 was selected with a 5 to 3 vote. All TF votes came with suggested edits. The
   consultants agree with most of these suggestions and have enough guidance to create the
   final draft. The consultants noted that they will try to incorporate these comments while
   also balancing the length, flow, and tone of the summary.
-  Summary of Strategy Number 1 (Report page 7, line 46)
   Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented "In many cases the states cannot
   streamline the federal requirements as they are federal requirements. This should be re-
   worded to clarify that there are some things that the states can do, but that the Feds also
   need to re-write the rules for the use of SRTS funds. Right now this places a
   disproportionate burden on the States to fix something which really can't be fixed on their
   own." The consultants responded that this sentence is part of strategy number 1 which deals



                                                                                                3
    with the current legislation ­ therefore a recommendation to re-write the rules would not be
    appropriate in this section of the report. Additionally, the Task Force agreed at the
    November 2007 meeting to adopt language that encourages FHWA to streamline, not
    eliminate, these requirements. There were no further TF comments on this issue.
-   Streamlining Federal requirements under Title 23 (Report page 8, line 25-26)
    Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented "The streamlining of the requirements
    should be for both Infrastructure and Non-infrastructure (please add Non-infrastructure to
    this statement)." The consultants responded that factually, Title 23 pertains to infrastructure
    only. Non-infrastructure challenges relate to the government-wide Common Rule. TF
    members commented that State DOT's are not interpreting it that way, and although it
    would be incorrect to refer to non-infrastructure under Title 23, we need to find a way to
    address this issue. It was determined that the text will be modified to discuss streamlining
    requirements under Title 23 and government-wide Common Rule.
-   Report references to school walk zones (Report page 9, line 15)
    Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented "Remove `in school walk zones', and
    suggested the report emphasize community-wide traffic safety approaches". The
    consultants responded that they will modify appropriate sections of the report to include
    broader statements, not school walk zones.
-   There were no major issues presented in Chapter 2
-   There were no major issues presented in Chapter 3
-   There were no major issues presented in Chapter 4
-   Report reference on sidewalk cost estimates (Report page 26, footnote)
    Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member questioned "How wide is the sidewalk?" The
    consultants informed the TF that this study did not reference the width, but that the
    footnote will be replaced with more recent sidewalk estimates that also specify width.
-   Language regarding funds spent on improving routes to bus stops in rural areas
    (Report page 35, lines 11-19): Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented "During
    our last meeting we had significant discussion that centered on population and making sure
    that if a bus stop improvement was going to be made that it be cost effective in the sense
    that it serve some number of students. That is not captured here. I suggest re-writing line
    16 so that cost effective explicitly spells out that funding for improvements would have to
    be at or to highly trafficked bus stops". The consultants responded with acknowledgement
    that this discussion took place on Day 1. However, discussion and an 11-4 TF vote on Day
    Two of the January 2008 meeting established this paragraph as it is currently written to be
    included in the full report (see minutes from January 2008 meeting, page 13). There were
    no further TF comments on this issue.
-   Language on the sunsetting the TF and the National Clearinghouse convening experts
    (Report page 37, lines 11-14): Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented "There
    was significant discussion about this recommendation that is not reflected in this
    paragraph. It was not a unilateral decision by the Task Force. I would ask that the
    statement be re-worded to note that with some dissenting opinions the Task Force is
    recommending that the current Task Force sunset and that going forward the National
    Clearinghouse will convene groups to review national SRTS strategies". The consultants
    responded that this statement as it is currently written was approved by an 11-4 vote on
    Day Two of the January 2008 meeting (see minutes from that meeting, page 15), and
    several issues in this chapter were decided by TF vote at the January 2008 meeting. The



                                                                                                 4
    consultants recommended that all voted statements can be preceded in the report by the
    phrase "it is the majority opinion of the task force" as opposed to "it is the opinion of the
    task force". There was much TF discussion on this issue. One TF member asked about
    including dissenting opinions in the report, but several TF members responded that this was
    not the approach that the TF agreed upon in early meetings when it was determined that
    they would operate by consensus. TF members decided that all voted statements would
    include the phrase "it is the majority opinion of the task force."
-   Regarding design of future roadways (Report page 31, lines 21-25)
    Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented regarding complete streets language "I
    know the TF agreed not to use that term, but we did agree to use the sense of what
    complete streets means. It is critical that this be included within the wider context of all
    streets, not just the school walk zones. This section is too weak now and does not represent
    what the TF agreed on". The consultants reiterated that broader language will be used in
    the next edits, and referred TF members to page 39, line 42 of the report for the expanded
    language on complete streets. This section (page 39) is a new "preventive" section that was
    requested by TF at January meeting to include measures to ensure future design is built
    correctly, and includes two sentences pulled directly from TF members' recommended
    language. A TF member suggested using the words "multi-modal connections to new and
    existing schools". It was determined to use this revised language.
-   Regarding clarification of Title 23 (Report page 36, lines 31-38)
    Ms. Lambert noted an email received earlier the same day. A TF member commented she
    identified "...something in the final minutes that got misconstrued in the re-write of the
    text", referring to a bullet on page 7 of the January minutes which reads "Suggest we say
    streamline Title 23 but retain Davis Bacon (explicitly state this)". The TF member noted
    that as the report reads now, it can be interpreted that we are suggesting that the Davis
    Bacon prevailing wage rates does not have to apply to this program. The consultants
    responded that the bullet on page 7 of the January minutes was one TF member's comment,
    not TF consensus, and that the term "streamline" used in the section of the report relating to
    this issue does not mean eliminate. TF members discussed the issues and it was determined
    that language be added to the report to clarify that FHWA be directed to streamline
    compliance and assurances processes, and that the words "including Davis Bacon
    prevailing wage rates" be removed.
-   Regarding text on all roadway design (Report pages 39-40)
    Ms. Lambert noted that a TF member commented "this strategy is about the design of all
    streets. We should reference that SRTS funds represent only .2% of SAFETEA-LU funds
    and that other transportation projects should always consider the needs of bicyclists and
    pedestrians. This section should encourage state and local jurisdictions to develop policies
    to reach these goals. That is what the task force discussed". It was determined that the new
    language agreed to earlier on this teleconference call regarding the design of future
    roadways (page 31, lines 21-25) will be applied here as well.
-   Regarding the convening of experts on school siting, school campus design and
    roadway design (Report page 40, lines 6-17): Ms. Lambert noted that there were
    comments on this section from a couple of TF members, including "I believe we said
    (voted) that the FHWA review would be every 2 years", "Thought we charged the
    Clearinghouse with a review committee but not sure it was this ­ something has been lost
    in translation", "we agreed at the last meeting to remove that the National Center for



                                                                                                5
    SRTS should convene this group to discuss school sitting. We also agreed that we don't
    need two different groups doing this task and that it was better handled by the multi-agency
    approach outline above", "We discussed adding other non-federal agency representatives
    to this committee ­ that is not included here", "The text we approved at the TF meeting
    included language about other relevant stakeholders. That needs to be added in again",
    "As worded, it sounds like the Clearinghouse would be doing the same thing as the
    FHWA", "This multi-agency review is supposed to include school sighting and school
    design only, NOT roadway design. We never discussed the roadway design in the context
    of this multi-agency review and it should not be included because we already know that is
    needed and DOT has already issued guidance that this is the right policy for locals and
    states to follow. What we need to do is encourage state and local jurisdictions to develop
    policies to support what the US DOT guidance already states. It is important not to mix the
    roadway design with the school sighting issues ­ they are different." The consultants
    responded that the issues of sunsetting the TF and tasking the Clearinghouse to convene
    groups of experts around issues of national significance was discussed both on Day One
    (page 9 of minutes), but then revisited on Day Two. On Day Two (page 15 of minutes), the
    TF established the specific language used on page 37 under "allow TF to sunset" based on
    a vote of 11 to 4. The consultants thereby interpreted the tasking of the Clearinghouse to
    convene experts related to any issues of national significance. As the consultants were
    charged with combining several policy issues of national significance under Strategy 4, it
    seemed to make sense to connect these issues to the future clearinghouse efforts. The
    consultants acknowledge that the paragraphs on Federal agencies collaborating and the
    Clearinghouse convening stakeholders sound too similar. Clarification can be made for the
    intent for Federal agencies to discuss guidance at Federal levels while the Clearinghouse
    convenes experts for state and local level guidance. The consultants will add the text "other
    relevant stakeholders" to page 40, line 11. There was significant TF discussion on the
    intent of this section, and it was determined that any Clearinghouse role would be removed
    from the suggestion to convene experts on school siting, school campus design, and
    roadway design (page 40, lines 14-17 will be removed). In addition, a new sub-heading will
    be added that reads "Policy issues, best practices and other issues of national significance".
    This section will include the existing text on policy issues in education as well as mention a
    Clearinghouse role of convening experts on various topics. Title 23 will not be specifically
    mentioned in this section as it does not apply to the focus of this section, which is building
    things right the first time. A TF member requested clarification that the term "school
    campuses" does not relate to buildings.
-   Regarding the Clearinghouse convening experts on education policy issues (Report
    page 40, lines 38-42): Ms. Lambert noted that two TF members commented "Please
    clarify ­ when did we have this discussion. This appears to be something new. Again, I
    thought we were not going to add anything new" and "This was never discussed at the last
    task force meeting. This is one issue and it should be taken up in the multi-agency review
    described on page 40, lines 6-12. The National Center for SRTS as well as other national
    organizations....should be invited to participate in these discussions. It makes no sense, nor
    was it discussed at the taskforce meeting, to have three separate groups look at these same
    issues". The consultants responded that this issue was resolved in the previous discussion
    on lines 6-17 of page 40 (see above). There were no further TF comments.




                                                                                                6
Ms. Smallwood asked if there were further TF comments on Draft 4 of the report. Hearing no
response, discussion of report edits was concluded and discussion turned to a review of the
revised timeline.

TASK FORCE REVIEW OF REVISED TIMELINE (DONNA SMALLWOOD)
Ms. Smallwood reminded the TF that the next step is for the consultants to make final revisions
and deliver the final report, along with supplemental graphic elements, to the designer on Friday
March 21st. A draft of the graphically designed report will be sent to TF members on Wednesday
April 30th. The TF will hold a conference call on either May 27th or May 29th (consultants will
communicate confirmed date soon) at 1pm Eastern Time to approve the final report. The idea of
a "presentation event" in June or July is still being explored. The consultants will provide more
information as it becomes available.

ADJOURN
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00pm Eastern Time.


I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.




Donna Smallwood
Chair, National Safe Routes to School Task Force




Tim Arnade
Designated Federal Official for National Safe Routes to School Task Force
Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration



These minutes will be formally adopted by the task force at its next meeting.




                                                                                                       7