The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCORRESPONDENCE - 25FMitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:08 AM To: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma Cc: Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma; Gerardo, Abigail; Alcala, Abigail Subject: FW: Crossing Guard Cuts Talking Points_0C_Feb2015_final.docx Attachments: Crossing Guard Cuts Talking Points_OC_Feb2015_final.docx; ATT00001.txt Categories: Correspondence Include in Agenda Packet. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Councilwoman Michele Martinez [mailto:councilwomanmartinez@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:40 AM To: Huizar, Maria; Sonia Carvalho Subject: Crossing Guard Cuts Talking Points_OC_Feb2015_final.docx I would like this to be sent to all my colleagues and also put in the minutes for today's meeting. CCM 02/17/2015 25F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Date: February 13, 2015 To: Councilwoman Michele Martinez From: Bill Sadler, Southern California Regional Policy Manager, Safe Routes to School National Partnership RE: Crossing Guard Budget Cuts Total of 2 pages Dear Councilwoman Martinez: Thank you for asking for input on the proposed budget cuts and elimination of crossing guard positions in the City of Santa Ana. One of the five "E's" of Safe Routes to School is enforcement, and besides partnering with law enforcement, providing crossing guards is one of the most effective strategies to ensure safe walking and bicycling across intersections near schools.' Eliminating these positions jeopardizes the safety of schoolchildren and creates an environment where walking and bicycling are not encouraged. Crossing guards are a visible presence for drivers, letting them know to pay extra attention while traveling through an intersection where young children may be crossing the street. The presence of crossing guards also encourages more families to walk or bike to school, promoting physical activity and reducing congestion in the areas around schools. Crossing guards are also a form of preventive enforcement, protecting against potential safety hazards and other dangers near schools. It is important to have a system of safety to encourage walking and bicycling, and crossing guards are part of that system of safety. There is a need to understand the equity implications of this decision, as it can have unintended consequences that would affect communities of color or lower-income communities. The analysis does not indicate whether demographics or socioeconomic status were taken into account when making this decision. This decision could potentially regress the city to a point of being unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially in disadvantaged communities. With regard to the evaluation and "Warrant Sheet": 1.) Several warrant sheets recommended one crossing guard, but there were additional crossing guards assigned: we acknowledge that there may be overlap in the current system, but in many cases, a single crossing guard cannot manage the entire intersection when there are children traveling in multiple directions. 2.) Some crossing guards were in close proximity to others: as stated above, we acknowledge the redundancy of having multiple crossing guards near each other, but given that children travel in multiple directions to and from school, this may make sense in many of these locations. 1 Safe Routes to School, Five E's": httr)://saferoutespartnership.org/local/getting-started-locally/5es SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3.) There was an overhead tri -phase signal or a marked crosswalk with sufficient street signage: this assumes that streets are 100% safe if there is a traffic signal and well -marked crosswalk. Crossing guards provide an extra layer of protection often needed to signal to drivers that children are crossing the street. 4.) The collision data involving pedestrians at most locations was relatively low, or the data did not support collisions were occurring during school hours: the lack of collisions does not mean a collision will never occur, and mischaracterizes the role of a crossing guard in ensuring safety. Also, many collisions with pedestrians and people biking go unreported if there is not a serious injury. 5.) Some crossing guards interviewed indicated pedestrian traffic was minimal: the lack of demand at a particular intersection should not in itself disqualify it from having a crossing guard. There should be other factors considered where traffic is minimal, especially the safety of the surrounding neighborhood, socioeconomic status of the students, etc. 6.) Children were crossing major streets to attend school despite the fact there was another school in closer proximity or in the same residential tract: the presence of schoolchildren at these busy intersections suggests that crossing guards are needed to protect their safety, even if there are schools closer to where they live and theoretically there are safer streets they could cross to get there. We acknowledge school budget issues necessitate cuts to certain programs, and this was not an easy decision to make. But the elimination of almost half (46.3%) of the existing crossing guards is a significant cut, and sets a bad precedent when future cuts are necessary. It also has the potential of creating more physical harm than fiscal savings in the event an accident takes place. We urge the City of Santa Ana to reconsider its decision and revise its analysis to address equity issues and our other concerns. Further Reading: Adult Crossing Guard Guidelines: http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/crossing guard/ California Adult Crossing Guard Guidelines: http://www.casaferoutestoschool.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/04/CA-School-Crossing-Guard-Training-Guidelines april-14.pdf