Transcript The California Safe Routes to School Program – Background

Influential factors in children’s
school travel:
Safe Routes to School and beyond
Tracy E. McMillan, PhD, MPH
University of Texas at Austin
[email protected]
Elementary
School
property
• The paradox of transportation in the late twentieth
century is that while it became possible to travel to
the moon, it also became impossible, in many cases,
to walk across the street.
– Joell Vanderwagen, 1995. “Coming down to earth,” in Zielinski, S. and Laird, G.
(eds), Beyond the car, Steel Rail Press, Toronto, pp.137-139.
Children’s travel behavior and health
• Transportation Issues
– Significant mode shift in school travel over the past few
decades
• 1969: 87% of school trips < 1mi. walk/bike, 7% private auto
• 2001: 55% of school trips < 1mi. walk/bike, 36% private auto
– Localized congestion/hazardous travel in school zone
• Ped/bike highest rate of injury/fatality on per mile basis compared
to other modes of school travel
– Burden on household
• Mothers are five times more likely to be transporting children than
fathers
• Trip chaining
• Health issues
– Low rates of overall physical activity
– Increase in age-adjusted prevalence of overweight
• From 4% in 1963-65 to ~15% in 1999 youth aged 6-11
• Mexican-Americans and non-Hispanic blacks disproportionately
represented in 12-19 age group
– School trip important contributor to overall daily physical
activity
– Pedestrian injuries 2nd leading cause of unintentional injury
death for youth aged 5-14
• 20,000 non-fatal pedestrian injuries for this age group in 2001
Cost to the nation
• Heart disease: $193.8 billion (2001), health
care & lost productivity
• Cancer: $189.5 billion (2003)
• Diabetes: $132 billion (2002)
Is the built environment to blame for changes
in travel and health behavior/outcomes?
• What some research shows:
guilty by “association”
– Two broad characteristics of
the pedestrian infrastructure
associated with walking
behavior
• Presence
– Accessibility
• Quality
– Safety
– Security
• However, there are
limitations to this
research
– Focus on adult behavior:
their activities &
destinations—does this
transfer over to children?
– Little understanding of
the structural relationship
between variables of
influence—no causal path
The reality of influencing behavior
• It’s not as simple as
we would like!
– Not just tell them
what’s best and they’ll
do it
– Not just build it and
they’ll come
– Dealing with multiple
factors that we can
affect directly and
indirectly
Relative influence of built
environment on children’s school
travel
• Built environment does influence the probability of
walk/bike to school
– Two significant variables: mixed use & windows facing street
– What wasn’t significant? Sidewalks
• Magnitude of influence of individual built environment
variables was small
• However, the overall effect of built environment did
help in the prediction of the walking trip to school
More influential factors on
caregiver’s decision
– Perceptions of
neighborhood &
traffic safety
– Reported distance
– Social/cultural norms
– Parent’s attitudes &
perceptions toward
travel
– Sociodemographics
Policy implications for SR2S
• Highlights the complexity of
travel behavior
• Emphasizes the importance of
correctly identifying problems
before creating solutions
• Most cost-effective and
equitable solutions for
changing travel behavior may
involve a multi-pronged
approach (education,
enforcement and engineering)
Policy implications for SR2S
• The “experience of
place,” not just the
structure of space,
affects behavior
• Built environment may
still have significant
impact on cost of
development if
outcomes of inactivity
are quantified
The California Safe Routes to School
Program – Background and Evaluation
Marlon G. Boarnet1, Kristen Day1,
Craig Anderson1, Tracy McMillan2,
Mariela Alfonzo1
1 University
of California, Irvine
2 University of Texas, Austin
Funding: UC Transportation Center and Caltrans
SR2S Background
• Authorized by California AB 1475, 1999
• Renewed by SB10, 2001
• Renewed again by SB 1087, 2004
SR2S Background
• AB 1475 authorized setting aside 1/3 of
California’s federal Surface Transportation
Program safety funds for two years for the
SR2S program
• Motivation – high profile pedestrian
accidents
• Coalition of safety, school, non-motorized
transportation advocates
SR2S Funding
• Projects funded at 90% / 10% state/local
participation
• Projects capped at $450,000 of state (federal)
funds
• Five cycles of projects funded so far
– 455 projects
– $111.7 million in federal funds
– $124.1 million total funds
• Average project funding: $273,000
SR2S Program
• Administered by the Division of Local Assistance
within Caltrans
• Authorizing legislation required an evaluation by
December, 2003, with funds for evaluation
• Legislative goals:
– Increased pedestrian/bicycling safety near schools
– Increased viability/frequency of walking/bicycling to
schools
• SR2S was, first, a safety program
SR2S application
Recent Caltrans brochure states that successful local
applications highlight:
• How the proposal supports an existing traffic safety or
health promotion plan.
• How the application has been developed through
problem identification using a "walkability checklist"
or other audit tool.
• Demonstrated understanding about how proposed
engineering solutions interrelate to enforcement,
education and other strategies.
• Evidence-based estimates regarding the impact of
the proposed project – both risk reduction and health
promotion.
SR2S evaluation
• Caltrans contract, pursuant to Streets and
Highways Code 2333.5: $118,500
• University of California Transportation
Center:
$162,614
Research Design
• Multiple Case Study Approach, 10 school sites
• Before/After evaluation
– Traffic characteristics
• Vehicle counts, vehicle speed, yield to nonmotorized traffic, walk/bicycling counts and on
sidewalk/street
– Urban Design
– Survey of parents of 3rd-5th grade children
• Did child walk more after SR2S construction?
School Sites
• 16 Schools chosen, 10 completed SR2S
construction by Fall, 2003
• Schools chosen based on:
–
–
–
–
–
Elementary school (70% of Cycle I schools elementary)
Variation in urban/rural/suburban setting
Represent six SR2S work types
Willingness to be included in study
Fit with research window, April 2002 through Fall,
2003
Busy street proximate to Cesar Chavez
Elementary School
New traffic signal at Loveland Avenue and
Jaboneria Road
Cesar Chavez Elementary School
Glenoaks Boulevard before installation of
crosswalk lighting system
New pedestrian-activated, in-pavement
crosswalk lighting system on Glenoaks
Boulevard
Glenoaks Elementary School
Northwest view of Morning View Drive
from Juan Cabrillo Elementary School
New decomposed granite
pathway near school
Decomposed granite pathway
southeast from school along Morning
View Drive
Juan Cabrillo Elementary School
Adams Avenue before improvement
Murrieta Elementary School
Adams Avenue after sidewalk installation
New sidewalk at the San Pablo Dam Road and May Road intersection
School
City
Cesar Chavez Bell Gardens
Glenoaks
Jasper
Juan Cabrillo
Mt Vernon
Murrieta
Newman
Glendale
Alta Loma
Malibu
San
Bernardino
Murrieta
Chino
Sheldon
Valley
West Randall
El Sobrante
Yucaipa
Fontana
Med HH
income (zip
code)
$ 30,029
$ 41,674
$ 66,668
$100,857
$ 23,498
% blocks w/
complete
sidewalk
94%
36%
57%
17%
63%
$ 61,494
$ 55,185
8%
86%
$ 61,494
$ 39,286
$ 35,008
53%
22%
36%
School
City
Cesar Chavez Bell Gardens
Glenoaks
Jasper
Juan Cabrillo
Mt Vernon
Murrieta
Newman
Glendale
Alta Loma
Malibu
San
Bernardino
Murrieta
Chino
Sheldon
Valley
West Randall
El Sobrante
Yucaipa
Fontana
% AfricanAmerican
(school)
0.2%
1.7 %
7.3 %
0.6 %
9.3 %
% Hispanic
(school)
7.6%
3.1 %
22.9 %
56.4 %
26.3 %
1.8 %
1.7 %
22.1 %
24.1 %
92.1 %
99 %
18.5 %
22.6 %
17 %
84.9 %
Evaluation:
Compare Outcomes to Expected Effects
SR2S Project Type
Number of Schools
Sidewalk Improvements
5
Traffic Signal Improvements
2
Crosswalk / Crosswalk Signal 4
Bicycle Facilities
1
Traffic Diversion
0
Traffic Calming
0
Note: Some school projects are more than one type.
Work Type
Sidewalk
improvements
Traffic calming &
speed reduction
Pedestrian/bicycle
crossing
Bicycle facilities
(on-street or offstreet)
Traffic control
devices
Traffic diversion
improvements
Schools
Sheldon, West Randall
(primarily sidewalks)
Murrieta, Valley, La Gloria
(includes other work
types), Juan Cabrillo,
Ocean Knoll
La Gloria, Hawthorne
Mt. Vernon, Jasper,
Valley, Glenoaks
La Gloria, Murrieta
Cesar Chavez, Newman
La Gloria, Sulphur Springs
Study Methods
• Before/After Construction Data Collection
at Each School
• Observations/Data Collection:
– Traffic Characteristics
– Survey of Parents of 3rd through 5th Graders
– Observe Urban Design within ¼ Mile of School
Traffic Observations
• Observations for two days before and after
SR2S construction
– 30 minutes before start of school to 15 minutes
after start of school
– 15 minutes before end of school to 30 minutes
after end of school
• Teams of 3-4 observers
Traffic Observations
• Vehicle Counts
• Vehicle Speed (via stopwatch to time travel of car
for pre-marked distance between landmarks –
human error estimated in analysis)
• Yielding of Vehicles to Pedestrians/Bicyclists
• Pedestrian Counts and Locations (on street/path or
shoulder/sidewalk)
• All data for 2-minute intervals – assess total and
“peak/off-peak”
Parent Survey
• Distributed to parents of 3rd-5th grade children at
all schools
• Before Construction Survey response rate ranged
from 36% to 72% -- 51% response in full sample
• After Construction Survey response rate ranged
from 23% to 57% -- 40% response rate in full
sample
• 1,562 “before” surveys; 1,244 “after” surveys
Parent Survey
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How child normally travels to school
Perceptions of safety
Perceptions of urban design and child travel
Attitudes
Demographic characteristics
Perceptions of traffic near school
Perceptions of social/cultural norms about
walking/bicycling
• Assessment of SR2S project
Urban Design
• Block by block assessment for ¼ mile around
school
• Gives information on, e.g.,
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
% of blocks with complete sidewalk
% of blocks with bike lanes
Average block length
Number of lanes in street
Paving treatments
Cul-de-sacs
Street trees
Evaluation
• Detailed data collection and analysis
• Project impact assessed by comparing
“before” and “after” data
• Impact assessed relative to expected impact
for each project
• Example: traffic light expected to improve
yielding; sidewalk expected to change
location and amount of walking
How to Assess SR2S project
effectiveness
•
•
•
•
Amount of walking
Yielding of cars to non-motorized travelers
Location of walking (on or off sidewalk)
Vehicle speeds
For all of above, consider expected and measured
impact of the project – a traffic light would have
different expected effects than a sidewalk
Sidewalk Gap Closure Results
School
# Walk # Walk % on
Before After
Street
Before
Sheldon 138
152
66%
% on
Street
After
T-stat
35%
5.55
Valley
64
West
692
Randall
89
42%
4%
6.79
1146
75%
5%
39.23
Sheldon: Average Vehicle
Speeds on San Pablo Dam Road
Before After
%
(mph) (mph) Change
a.m.
offpeak
a.m.
peak
p.m.
offpeak
p.m.
peak
40.43
41.50
3%
33.69
32.29
-4%
39.30
31.96
-19%
36.02
31.68
-12%
Sheldon: Safety Advantage from
Shift of Walking to Sidewalk
San Pablo Dam Road before
sidewalk improvement
San Pablo Dam Road after
sidewalk improvement
Traffic Control Device Results
School
Cesar
Chavez
Newman
% Yield
(number)
Before
95.42%
(584)
% Yield
(number)
After
100%
(205)
T-stat
94.86%
(277)
99.62%
(265)
3.44
5.42
Another Looking at Walk/Bike
Travel and SR2S
• “After Construction” survey asked
Would you say that your child now walks
or bicycles to school:
a.Less than before the project described
above was built.
b.The same amount as before the project
was built.
c.More than before the project was built.
Sort by Whether SR2S Project Along
Route to School
• Survey asked if
project was along
child’s usual route to
school
• 52% of parents said
“yes”; 48% said “no”
Star indicates location of elementary school; Circle represents portion of
neighborhood included in the study (approx. ¼ mile radius from the
elementary school)
After Construction Data
• 1244 returned “after construction” surveys
from 10 schools
• School response rates varied from 23% to
54%
• Full Sample Response Rate: 40%
Results, by School
% Walk More
% Walk More
Along Route
Not Along Route
Diff
tstatistic
n
Cesar Chavez
20.59%
6.15%
14.43%
2.52
151
Glenoaks
12.00%
7.69%
4.31%
0.76
126
Jasper
3.13%
0.00%
3.13%
1.02
57
Juan Cabrillo
6.67%
0.00%
6.67%
1.04
32
Mt. Vernon
19.05%
5.71%
13.33%
1.85
87
Murrietta
13.73%
2.38%
11.34%
2.12
101
Newman
10.94%
0.00%
10.94%
2.80
101
Sheldon
15.63%
0.00%
15.63%
2.43
62
Valley
11.59%
0.00%
11.59%
3.01
97
West Randall
28.57%
7.41%
21.16%
3.15
139
School
Expected
Walking/ Bicycling
Versus
Impacts
Project
Actual
Description Outcome Amount a Location b
Projects with Strong Evidence of Success
Cesar
Traffic
Expected: Increase* ---- g
Chavez signal
Actual d: Increase ---Glenoaks In
pavement
crosswalk
lighting
Sheldon Sidewalk
gap
closures
Valley Sidewalk
gap
closures
West
Sidewalk
Randall gap
closures
Expected: Increase* ---Actual: Increase ----
Traffic Impacts
Vehicle
Yielding Vehicle counts
c
speeds
Increase Decrease Decrease*
Increase Decrease Increase
Increase Decrease ---Increase None
----
Expected: Increase On sidewalk ---Actual: Increase On sidewalk ----
-------
-------
Expected: Increase On sidewalk ---Actual: Increase On sidewalk ----
-------
-------
Expected: Increase On sidewalk ---Actual: Increase On sidewalk ----
-------
-------
Summary
• Evidence that Outcomes Corresponded to
Expectations for 5 of 10 schools
– Consistent evidence
– Exceeds standard error or human error range
– Magnitude large (excludes Murrieta)
• Criterion is measurable, near-term impact,
and so excludes:
– Increases in awareness/caution
– Long-term infrastructure program progress
Summary, Patterns from
Evaluation
• Among 5 sidewalk gap closure projects, 3 had
evidence of success
– Primary success was moving walking off street/curb
• The two traffic signal projects increased vehicle
yielding
• Crosswalk and crosswalk signal projects – no
evidence, likely because success is more caution,
which is difficult to measure
Characteristic of Successful
Projects
• In areas with pre-existing non-motorized travel to
school in unsafe conditions
• Closing sidewalk gaps in areas where students
walk is a good example
• Controlling vehicle speed or increasing driver
awareness / caution
• Some projects were initial investment in
infrastructure (e.g. 8% of blocks around Murrieta
Elementary had complete sidewalk before SR2S.)
Federal SRTS program
• Passed in August 2005
• Dedicates $612 million to SRTS from 2005-2009
• Distribution of funds to states based on student
enrollment
– Each state will receive at least $ 1 million/yr
– http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/
• Creates SRTS program
in every state DOT
– Requires hiring of a
full-time SRTS
coordinator
• Kristie Billiar, MN
DOT
• Targets grades K-8
• Legislation also required development of
clearinghouse/repository for SRTS activities
• National Center for SRTS
– Based at Highway Safety Research Center at UNCChapel Hill
– Collaboration of many partners
– www.saferoutesinfo.org
• Federal SRTS Task Force also required &
currently being formed
Focus on 5 E’s
•
•
•
•
•
Engineering
Education
Enforcement
Encouragement
Evaluation
– Each state must
allocate at least 10% of
total funds (but no
more than 30%) to
non-infrastructure
activities
Intervention point
Mediating factors
- Neighborhood
Moderating factors
safety
- Traffic Safety
- Social/cultural
X
norms
- Attitudes
- Household transportation
options
- Socio-demographics
Distal evaluation point
Proximal evaluation point
Urban
Form
Intervention point
Parental
decisionmaking
Children’s
travel behavior
(trip to school)
Change in
health
outcomes
Intermediate evaluation point
Increasing the focus on children’s
school travel in our communities
1) Policy/regulation
Model language in comprehensive/general
plans, ordinances, etc
General Plan Language
• Real Examples:
– City of Los Angeles has a bicycle plan as part of the
transportation element of their general plan – for
establishing a bicycle network
– Minneapolis Bicycle Plans
– Minneapolis General Plan
“Minneapolis will continue to build, maintain and require
a pedestrian system which recognizes the importance
a network of private and public sidewalks which achieve
the highest standards of connectivity and amenity.”
Minneapolis General Plan
• Require the most generous sidewalk width possible for public
sidewalks located in high pedestrian volume areas, such as
existing growth centers, neighborhood commercial areas, transit
corridors and mixed use areas.
• Ensure that all sidewalk standards meet ADA requirements as
mandated by law.
• Promote the development of design standards that produce high
quality sidewalks for public and private sector development, with
supporting street furniture (including street trees), ample widths
for pedestrian traffic and transit loading, and the use of materials
thatrequire acceptable levels of maintenance.
• Encourage all new developments to situate their front doors so
that they open onto the public sidewalk.
What is Missing?
• Schools
• Hypothetical Examples:
– Mention of school siting and pedestrian /
bicycle transportation network near schools in
community plans
Increasing the focus on children’s
school travel in our communities
2) Comprehensive, continuous and
coordinated planning
– between the school district, the local
municipalities and other stakeholders (e.g.,
local health department)
– addressing school siting, changing
demographics in the community, externalities
of school location, etc.
Increasing the focus on children’s
school travel in our communities
3) Education/awareness
the public, stakeholders
in the community, etc.