The ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT) A flexible, data-driven methodology for prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian improvements along existing roads ProWalk/ProBike/ProPlace Pittsburgh, PA September 2014 Follow us on Twitter! @tooledesign
Dec 07, 2014
The ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT)
A flexible, data-driven methodology for prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian improvements along existing roads
ProWalk/ProBike/ProPlace
Pittsburgh, PA September 2014
Follow us on Twitter! @tooledesign
• Introductions
• Why prioritize?
• What is the APT?
• Why prioritize with the APT?
• How the APT was developed
• APT Overview
• How the APT can help you
• The APT in Action
• APT resources
RJ Eldridge, Director of Planning, Toole Design Group
Joe Perez, EIT, MPA, Bicycle Coordinator and Traffic Engineer, City of Phoenix
Bob Schneider, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Toole Design Group
• Kittelson & Assoc. Inc.
• University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
• Pilot Communities – Bellingham, WA – Bend, OR – Carmel, IN – Gastonia, NC – Miami, FL – Phoenix, AZ – Alameda County, CA
Transportation Commission – Casper Area MPO, WY – Humboldt County, CA
Association Of Governments – Georgia DOT – New Mexico DOT
• Lots of needs, but limited resources
• Need to make wise choices about how resources are used
• Need to communicate choices to others
• Need to build public/political support for action
• May be required for funding purposes
• NCHRP 07-17 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation along Existing Roads
• Project Goals:
– Analyze institutional approaches for improving physical conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists
– Evaluate prioritization factors including safety, accessibility, connectivity, health benefits, and economic development
– Identify data gaps and research needs
– Develop a methodology to evaluate and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements on existing roads
• A method of prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle facility improvement locations along existing roads.
• APT Materials:
– APT Guidebook
– GIS guidance
– Screencast
– Brochure
– NCHRP 07-17 Final Report with research approach and findings
– Programmed Spreadsheet and User Guide
• Helps prioritize pedestrian and bicycle facility improvement locations along existing roads
• Addresses pedestrian and bicycle improvements separately but can be used as part of a “complete streets” prioritization process
• Applies at state, regional, and local levels.
• May be applied once or iteratively
• Does not provide guidance for determining pedestrian and bicycle facility design solutions
• Transparent
• Rational
• Flexible
• Responsive
• Supported by research
• Save time and effort ($$$) versus creating a prioritization method from scratch
• Literature review
• Survey
• Interviews with transportation agencies
• Feedback from NCHRP panel
• Pilot tests
Agency Region Type Population
Yountville, CA*† W City 3,000
Breckenridge, CO W City 4,540
Cheverly, MD* NE City 6,200
Madras, OR* W City 6,250
Houghton, MI MW City 7,700
Salisbury, NC† SE City 34,000
Burlington, VT† NE City 42,000
Carmel, IN MW City 79,000
Roseville, CA W City 119,000
French Broad River MPO (Asheville, NC area) SE MPO 417,000
Portland, OR† NW City 584,000
Wilmington Area Planning Council (DE-MD)† NE MPO 640,000
Charlotte, NC† SE City 731,000
Knoxville RTPO SE MPO 850,000
Delaware DOT NE State 907,000
Massachusetts DOT NE State 6,587,000
North Carolina DOT† SE State 9,656,000
Washington State DOT† NW State 6,830,000
Michigan DOT MW State 9,876,000
*Agencies contacted as part of an effort to get more representation of small communities. †Agencies for which case studies were developed.
• Prioritization is common among agencies (though some efforts are poorly documented)
• No single method, but similar frameworks
• Prioritization = balancing needs vs. feasibility
Photos by Robert Schneider
• Pedestrian & bicycle modes sometimes prioritized separately; sometimes together
• Pedestrian & bicycle prioritization differed by scale, emphasis (segment vs. intersection; focus areas vs. connectivity)
• Different weights used for criteria; reflect agency goals
• Many methods are “data hungry”
• Data collection & analysis technologies evolving quickly
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Other (e.g., congestion)
Roadway Type
Opportunity
Demand
Socioeconomics
Public Input
Route Network/Connectivity
Land Use
Roadway Suitability
Safety
Attractors
Number of reviewed sources that used a factor in each category for prioritization (17 pedestrian-only prioritization sources were reviewed)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Socioeconomics
Roadway Type
Land Use
Demand
Attractors
Safety
Other (e.g., congestion)
Public Input
Roadway Suitability
Route Network/Connectivity
Opportunity
Number of reviewed sources that used a factor in each category for prioritization (11 bicycle-only prioritization sources were reviewed)
• Common “need” criteria – Safety
– Demand
– Suitability (existing walking or bicycling conditions)
– Connectivity
– Stakeholder input
• Common “feasibility” criteria – Project cost; available right-of-way
– Opportunity (e.g., grants, upcoming projects, existing funding sources)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Planned Transit Proj.
Road Functional Class
Traffic Signals
Street Auto Parking
Paved Shoulders
Multi-Use Trails/Paths
Planned Road Proj.
Employment Density
Previous Plan
Public Comment
Street Network
Roadway Lanes
Posted Speed Limit
Bus Routes/Stops
Population/Housing Density
Transit Stations
Traffic Volume
Ped/Bike Network
Shopping Areas
Proximity to Other Location
Parks
Schools
Curb-to-Curb Width
Pavement Condition
Lane Width
On-Street Bike Facil.
Sidewalk Buffer
Ped. Crash Locations
Sidewalk Presence
Ped
estr
ian
& B
icyc
le-
Rel
ated
Bic
ycle
-R
elat
edP
ed.-
Rel
ated
Number of reviewed sources that used data item for prioritization (47 sources were reviewed)
Note: A complete list of Existing Conditions variables is included in the APT Guidebook
Variable
Pedestrian
Level of
Service (LOS)
(Segment)
Pedestrian
Level of
Service (LOS)
(Uncontrolled
Crossing)
Pedestrian
Level of
Service (LOS)
(Signalized
Intersection)
FHWA
Crosswalk
Guidelines
Pedestrian
Intersection
Safety Index
(ISI)
Pedestrian
Crash
Modification
Factors Notes
Traffic speed in the parallel direction
of travel or roadway being crossed
X X X X X
Traffic volume and composition
(proportion heavy vehicles) in the
parallel direction of travel or
roadway being crossed
X X X X
Right-turn-on-red restricted/allowed X X
Signal timing (e.g., leading pedestrian
interval, pedestrian clearance time,
pedestrian and bicycle delay)
X
Presence/type of traffic control (e.g.,
traffic signal, stop sign)
X
Presence of crosswalk warning signs
or beacons (e.g., in-street crossing
signs, rectangular rapid flashing
beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacon)
X X
Number of general-purpose (through)
lanes in the parallel direction of
travel or being crossed
X X X X
Number of designated right-turn lanes
in the parallel direction of travel or
roadway being crossed
See Schneider
et al. (2010)
Total crossing distance X
Curb radius (for right-turn vehicles) See AASHTO
Pedestrian
Guide (2004)
and PedSAFE
(2013)
Presence of median or crossing island X X
Presence and util ization of on-street
parking
X
Presence and width of the paved
outside shoulder or parking area
X
Frequency of driveway crossings See Schneider
(2011)
Presence and width of buffer between
sidewalk and motorized traffic
X
Presence and width of sidewalk X
Presence of traffic calming measures See Zein, et al.
(1997) and
AASHTO
Pedestrian
Design Guide
(2004)
Source Multimodal
Level of Service
for Urban
Streets (NCHRP
Report 616,
2008, p. 88)
Multimodal
Level of Service
for Urban
Streets (NCHRP
Report 616,
2008, p. 88-91)
Multimodal
Level of Service
for Urban
Streets (NCHRP
Report 616,
2008, p. 88)
Safety Effects
of Marked
Versus
Unmarked
Crosswalks at
Uncontrolled
Locations,
Final Report
and
Recommended
Guidelines
(FHWA, 2005,
p. 54)
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Intersection
Safety Indices,
Final Report
(FHWA, 2006,
p. 38)
Crash
Modification
Factor
Clearinghouse
(FHWA,
http://www.cm
fclearinghouse
.org/)
Note: A complete list of Demand variables is included in the APT Guidebook
Variable
Maryland Meso-
Scale Model of
Pedestrian
Demand
Charlotte, NC
Signalized
Intersection
Pedestrian
Volume Model
Alameda
County, CA
Intersection
Pedestrian
Volume Model
San Francisco
Intersection
Pedestrian
Volume Model
(1)
Santa Monica,
CA Pedestrian
Volume Model
San Diego, CA
Pedestrian
Volume Model
Montreal, QC
Signalized
Intersection
Pedestrian
Volume Model
San Francisco
Intersection
Pedestrian
Volume Model
(2)
Portland, OR
Pedestrian
Index of the
Environment WalkScore® Notes
Population or hous ing unit dens i ty X X X X X X X X
Employment dens i ty X X X X X X X X
Commercia l reta i l property
dens i ty/access ibi l i ty/proximity
X X X X X X X
Trans i t s tation or s top
dens i ty/access ibi l i ty/proximity
X X X X X X X X
Dens ity/access ibi l i ty/proximity of
attractors (grocery s tores , restaurants ,
coffee shops , banks , parks , schools )
X X X
Land use mix X X
Proximity to col lege/univers i ty campus X
Number of boardings at trans i t s tops XProportion of res idents l iving in
poverty or without access to an
automobi le
X X
Distance from downtown/centra l
bus iness dis trict
X Possibly add
to our l ist of
variablesSource A Meso-Scale
Model of
Pedestrian
Demand
(Clifton, et. al,
2008)
Assessment of
Models to
Measure
Pedestrian
Activity at
Signalized
Intersections
(Pulugurtha
and Repaka,
2008)
Pilot Model for
Estimating
Pedestrian
Intersection
Crossing
Volumes
(Schneider,
Arnold, and
Ragland, 2009)
Pedestrian
Volume
Modeling: A
Case Study
of San
Francisco (Liu
and Griswold,
2009)
GIS Based
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Demand
Forecasting
Techniques
(Haynes and
Andrzejewski,
2010)
Seamless
Travel:
Measuring
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Activity in San
Diego County
and its
Relationship to
Land Use,
Transportation
, Safety, and
Facil ity Type
(Jones, et al.,
2010)
Modeling of
Pedestrian
Activity at
Signalized
Intersections:
Land Use,
Urban Form,
Weather, and
Spatiotempora
l Patterns
(Miranda-
Moreno and
Fernandes,
2011)
Development
and
Application of
the San
Francisco
Pedestrian
Intersection
Volume Model
(Schneider, et
al., 2012)
The Pedestrian
Index of the
Environment
(PIE):
Representing
the Walking
Environment in
Planning
Applications
(Singleton, et
al., 2014)
www.walkscor
e.com (Note:
The details of
the WalkScore
calculation
methodology
are not
available
publicly. The
methodology
has been
changed in the
past and could
be changed
again. Public
users can also
update data.)
• Some responded: Making ped/bike improvements as a part of other projects doesn’t involve prioritization
• BUT: Opportunity to rethink overall transportation project prioritization more weight to projects with ped/bike elements?
• Don’t reinvent the wheel – Similar approach used by many
agencies: common factors
– But still provide flexibility
• Open the “black box”
– qualitative, political quantitative, transparent
• Develop common language
Photo by Robert Schneider
• Improvement Locations – Specific intersections, roadway segments, or areas that are prioritized.
• Factors – Categories used to express community/agency values and group variables
with similar characteristics.
• Variables – Characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other
features that can be measured.
• Weights – Numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based
on community or agency values.
• Scaling – Process of making variables comparable to one another (e.g. speed vs. ADT)
• Phase I: Scoping – Initial deliberation and
preparation necessary to set up the prioritization process
• Phase II: Prioritization – Process of calculating
prioritization scores for each improvement location based on scoping in Phase I
Photos by Robert Schneider
• Mode
• Goals
• Improvement-specific vs. general location
• Number of improvement locations
1. Stakeholder Input 2. Constraints 3. Opportunities 4. Safety 5. Existing Conditions 6. Demand 7. Connectivity 8. Equity 9. Compliance
Photos by Robert Schneider
Prioritization Purpose Examples
Stak
eho
lde
r In
pu
t
Co
nst
rain
ts
Op
po
rtu
nit
ies
Safe
ty
Exis
tin
g C
on
dit
ion
s
De
man
d
Co
nn
ect
ivit
y
Equ
ity
Co
mp
lian
ce
Segment
Given a neighborhood where sidewalks
are absent, select 30 segments to
construct new sidewalks over the next
three years
● ◐ ◐ ● ● ● ◐ ● ○
Intersection/Crossing
Given a regional trail with 50 unsignalized
roadway crossings, identify 12 crossings
for safety enhancements ● ○ ◐ ● ● ◐ ○ ◐ ●
● = Very relevant; ◐ = Less relevant; ○= Not likely relevant
Nine Factors
Equally Weighted
Four Factors Equally Weighted
Relative impact of factors if weighted
differently
Nine Factors
Factors 1 and 2 w eighted m ore h eavily
Four Factors Factor 1 w eighted
m ore h eavily
• Set of possible variables is included for each factor
• Possible variables came from: – Literature review
– Agency survey
– Best practice guidance from organizations such as NCHRP, FHWA, AASHTO, NACTO, and ITE.
– Professional experience of research team
Example Variables Relevance Potential Location
Ped Bike
Note: The relevance designations in this table are meant to provide general guidance. Ultimately, variable relevance depends on the prioritization purpose. Agencies are encouraged to review each variable and consider how relevant it may be considering their purpose. Appendix C provides references for the variables listed in this table to assist practitioners in finding additional information.
● = Very relevant
◐ = Less relevant
○ = Not likely relevant
S = Segment
Cr = Crossing
Co = Corridor
A = Area
Traffic speed1 ● ● Cr, S, Co
Traffic volume and composition (percentage of heavy vehicles) ● ● Cr, S, Co
Right-turning traffic volume ◐ ● Cr
Type of traffic control (e.g., traffic signal, stop sign) ● ● Cr
Presence of crosswalk warning signage or beacons ◐ ◐ Cr
Width of outside through lane ○ ● S, Co
Presence and width of buffer between sidewalk and moving traffic ● ○ S, Co
Note: A complete list of Existing Conditions variables is included in the APT Guidebook
Note: A complete list of Demand variables is included in the APT Guidebook
Example Variables Relevance Potential Location
Ped Bike
Note: The relevance designations in this table are meant to provide general guidance. Ultimately, variable relevance depends on the prioritization purpose. Agencies are encouraged to review each variable and consider how relevant it may be considering their purpose. Appendix C provides references for the variables listed in this table to assist practitioners in finding additional information.
● = Very relevant
◐ = Less relevant
○ = Not likely relevant
S = Segment
Cr = Crossing
Co = Corridor
A = Area
Population density ● ● S, Cr, Co, A
Employment density ● ● S, Cr, Co, A
Commercial retail property density/proximity ● ● S, Cr, Co, A
Transit station or stop density/proximity ● ● S, Cr, Co, A
Density/proximity of attractors (grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, banks, parks, schools) ● ● S, Cr, Co, A
Proximity to college/university campuses ● ● S, Cr, Co, A
Bicycle facility density/accessibility (e.g., multi-use trail, bicycle lane, cycle track, bicycle boulevard) ○ ● S, Cr, Co, A
Evidence of a worn path (in locations where sidewalks are missing) ◐ ○ S, Co
Roadway density/connectivity ◐ ● A
Figure 1: Data Assessment Process
Inventory readily available data (e.g., roadway data, land use, traffic counts)
Seek other data sources (if necessary)(e.g., regional, state or federal agency data, open data sources)
Collect new data (if necessary)• Generate data from GIS analysis (see Step 8)
• High-level collection (e.g., using aerials, Street View imagery)
• Field verification/assessment
• Automatic (counters, video)
Or- don’t use that variable if no data is available!
Example Existing Condition Variables Data Considerations/Sources
Traffic speed Posted speed as surrogate for actual speeds, or 85th
percentile speeds based on speed studies
Traffic volume and composition
(% of heavy vehicles)
ADT or AADT with percent truck volumes, often found in
street centerline database
Right-turning traffic volume May be attribute data within traffic volume database, but
more typically obtained from targeted traffic study
Right-turn on red restricted/allowed May be attribute of signal database, sign inventory
Signal timing
(pedestrian & bicycle delay)
May be attribute of signal database
Type of traffic control
(e.g., traffic signal, stop sign)
Signal database; sign inventory, street-level imagery
Presence of crosswalk warning
signage
Sign inventory, street-level imagery
Number of general-purpose travel
lanes
Typically an attribute within street centerline data, aerial
imagery
Inventory Data Source/Tool Can be used to inventory data for these variables
Aerial Imagery Sidewalk and buffer presence and width Marked crosswalk presence and type Median island presence and width Bicycle facility presence and width Lane width/shoulder width Pedestrian crossing distance
Street-Level Imagery (e.g. video log, Street View)
Curb ramp presence Truncated domes presence Pedestrian/bicycle-related signage Major sidewalk obstructions Pedestrian signal heads Pedestrian push buttons
Direct Field Observation (using technological data collection tools or manual observations)
More precise lane width/shoulder width Traffic volume Traffic speed Sidewalk condition Crosswalk condition Pavement condition Curb ramp slope On-street parking presence and occupancy
• Assess your technological capabilities – Do you have the
tools you need to measure and analyze the variables
– APT intended to work for a range of technological capabilities
• Spreadsheet • GIS • Hybrid
GIS Example Source: Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan, 2009
• First plan initially adopted by Council in 1987
• 1988 bond program, $3 million = 360 miles
• Goal of 700 miles of bikeways citywide
• After 1994 – mostly gas and vehicle license taxes used to fund bike and street program –no City sales taxes, –minimal bond funds
• City of Phoenix is 520 square miles
• 22 bike bridges
• 20 bike tunnels
• 391 miles of bike lanes
• 118 miles of bike routes
• 53 miles of paved paths on canals and mountain parks and preserves
• 66 miles of unpaved paths
• 5000+ miles of local, collector, arterial streets
• General Plan – Bicycling Element Goals
– Increase bike access to destinations
– Remove barriers to bicycling
– Improve safety
• 2008 Streets Infrastructure Needs Report
– $43 million in bike program needs
– $19 million in unfunded needs
• Downtown Phoenix to Downtown Tempe, 10 miles
• Bike Blvd (Chris-Town Mall to Gateway Comm College), 10 miles
• Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway (South Mountain to Carefree Hwy) 25 miles
• Arizona Canal Path through Phoenix, 20 miles
Arcadia Portal Project Multi-Use Trail ($651,137)
Trail opened 2012, bridge opened 2008
South Mt. Community College Bike/Ped Bridge ($790,518) opened 2012
Rio Salado Bike Trails
($6.7 million in planned projects)
Social Bicycles/Cycle Hop proposed Bike Share vendor
($1.5 million in city and CMAQ federal funds + vendor investments)
32nd St ; Shea Blvd – Union Hills Bike Lanes
Shea Blvd; 32nd St –
SR 51 Bike Lanes
Over $800,000 in federal funding secured to add
bike lanes for both projects in 2013/2014
New bike lanes on Indian School Rd bet. 19 Ave and I-17 with overlay project
(June/July 2013)*
*$25K plus $75K traffic signal modifications necessary for lane shifts
caused by new bike lanes = $100K
New bike/ped improvements on 11th St Roosevelt to Washington
(under construction)
• Helmet usage
• Wrong-way riding
• Parked cars
• How to ride
• Where to ride
• Website and Apps
• Etc.
• Bike structures ($1 M- $6 M each)
• Bike paths ($800 K - $3 M/mile)
• Small special projects ($2K - $30K each)
• Bike Share ($1.5 M + vendor investment)
• Major Street Projects ( $725K/mile)
• Retrofit existing streets ($5K - $75K/mile)
• Administration ($160K - $220/year)
Calculating DEMAND
Variable Source
Schools City of Phoenix
Bus Stops City of Phoenix
City Facilities (e.g. libraries, municipal offices, etc.) City of Phoenix
Community Centers City of Phoenix
Light Rail Stops Valley Metro
Park and Rides Valley Metro
Parks City of Phoenix
Existing Bikeways City of Phoenix
Wikimap Routes Wikimap
Wikimap Destinations Wikimap
% of Households in Poverty U.S. Census
% of Population under 18 U.S. Census
% Households with No Vehicle U.S. Census
Population Density City of Phoenix
Factor Weight Variable Source
Connectivity 10
Number of times corridor intersects other corridors
N/A
Number times corridor intersects bicycle facilities
N/A
Presence of existing bicycle facilities City of Phoenix
Demand 7
Primary attractors (light rail stops, colleges/universities) within 1 mile of the corridor
Valley Metro Google Maps
Secondary attractors (schools, city facilities, community centers, park and rides, parks) within ¼ mile of the corridor. Also includes bus stops directly on the corridor
City of Phoenix
Valley Metro
Land Use (commercial and high-density housing)
City of Phoenix
Population Density City of Phoenix
% Households in Poverty U.S. Census
% Households with No Vehicle U.S. Census
% of Population under 18 U.S. Census
Bicycle Trip Origin and Destination Zip Codes from the Maricopa County Trip Reduction Survey
MAG
Stakeholder
Input 3
Wikimap Destinations (included public meeting input and transit center surveys)
Wikimap
Wikimap Routes (included public meeting input)
Wikimap
Ad Hoc Task Force input Task Force
Technical Advisory Committee input TAC
Factor Variable Source Connectivity Bicycling Barriers Wikimap
Existing Bikeways City of Phoenix
Safety Bicycle Crashes MAG % of Population under 18 U.S. Census
Existing
Conditions
Posted Speed Limit City of Phoenix Street Classification City of Phoenix
Constraints Order of Magnitude Cost Lee Engineering Available Rights of Way City of Phoenix
Demand Tier 1 Attractors (light rail stops, colleges/universities, schools)
Valley Metro
Google Maps Tier II Attractors (bus stops, bikeshare stations, city facilities, community centers, park-and-rides, parks)
City of Phoenix
Valley Metro
Population Density City of Phoenix Land Use (commercial and high-density housing)
Maricopa County
Equity % Households in Poverty U.S. Census % Households with No Vehicle U.S. Census
• 10 projects • 32 miles • 50 intersections
What do you want to do? How the APT can help
Express community values in planning and project priorities
Provides a method for incorporating variables based on community values and available data.
Offers ideas for integrating data that is more qualitative into a quantitative framework.
Engage stakeholders/public in prioritization process
Establishes a transparent, data-driven decision-making process. Provides framework for integrating stakeholder/public input.
Conduct funding-decision prioritization
Establishes a transparent, data-driven funding decision-making process.
Communicates objective prioritization method and results to the public and other stakeholders.
Prioritize list of “Complete Streets” projects to maximize benefits for walking or biking.
Identifies variables that are applicable to both pedestrian and bicycle modes.
Allows pedestrian and bicycle improvements to be prioritized separately and then combined to identify locations most in need of complete streets improvements.
What do you want to do? How the APT can help
Prioritize pedestrian or bicycle improvements for the first time
Offers guidance for practitioners in local, regional, and state agencies that want to establish a prioritization process that is flexible, transparent, and incorporates agency/community values.
Guides users through a logical sequence of steps and provides tips intended to save agencies time by facilitating important decisions around factor and variable selection; data collection, organization, and analysis; and tools and techniques for calculating prioritization scores.
Update /Compare an Existing Prioritization Process
Provides research-based guidance on additional factors and variables that may be used.
Offers ideas for integrating data that is more qualitative into a quantitative framework.
Identify areas most in need of investment for walking or biking (Planning Level Prioritization)
Suggests variables for identifying areas (e.g., corridors, neighborhoods, communities) for further analysis.
Prioritize walking or biking investments at specific identified locations (Project Prioritization)
Suggests variables for prioritizing specific project locations (e.g., intersections, roadway segments, corridors).
Figure 9: Communicating Prioritization Process by Mapping Selected Factors--Example from City of Bellingham, Washington Bicycle Master Plan
• APT Guidebook
• Programmed Spreadsheet and User Guide
• GIS guidance
• Screencast
• Brochure
• NCHRP 07-17 Final Report with research approach and findings
RJ Eldridge Toole Design Group, LLC [email protected] 301-927-1900 Joseph Perez City of Phoenix [email protected] 602-534-9529 Robert Schneider, PhD University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [email protected] 414-229-3849
Twitter: @tooledesign