1 / 62

Influential factors in children’s school travel: Safe Routes to School and beyond

Influential factors in children’s school travel: Safe Routes to School and beyond. Tracy E. McMillan, PhD, MPH University of Texas at Austin tmcmillan@mail.utexas.edu. Elementary School property.

gyula
Download Presentation

Influential factors in children’s school travel: Safe Routes to School and beyond

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Influential factors in children’s school travel:Safe Routes to School and beyond Tracy E. McMillan, PhD, MPH University of Texas at Austin tmcmillan@mail.utexas.edu

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Cost to the nation • Heart disease: $193.8 billion (2001), health care & lost productivity • Cancer: $189.5 billion (2003) • Diabetes: $132 billion (2002)

  6. 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 Is the built environment to blame for changes in travel and health behavior/outcomes?

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. More influential factors on caregiver’s decision • Perceptions of neighborhood & traffic safety • Reported distance • Social/cultural norms • Parent’s attitudes & perceptions toward travel • Sociodemographics

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. SR2S Background • Authorized by California AB 1475, 1999 • Renewed by SB10, 2001 • Renewed again by SB 1087, 2004

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. SR2S application Recent Caltrans brochure states that successful local applications highlight: • How the proposal supports an existingtraffic safety or health promotion plan. • How the application has been developedthrough problem identification using a"walkability checklist" or other audit tool. • Demonstrated understanding about howproposed engineering solutions interrelateto enforcement, education and otherstrategies. • Evidence-based estimates regarding theimpact of the proposed project – bothrisk reduction and health promotion.

  18. SR2S evaluation • Caltrans contract, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code 2333.5: $118,500 • University of California Transportation Center: $162,614

  19. Research Design • Multiple Case Study Approach, 10 school sites • Before/After evaluation • Traffic characteristics • Vehicle counts, vehicle speed, yield to non-motorized 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?

  20. 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

  21. Busy street proximate to Cesar Chavez Elementary School New traffic signal at Loveland Avenue and Jaboneria Road Cesar Chavez Elementary School

  22. Glenoaks Boulevard before installation of crosswalk lighting system Glenoaks Elementary School New pedestrian-activated, in-pavement crosswalk lighting system on Glenoaks Boulevard

  23. 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

  24. Adams Avenue before improvement Adams Avenue after sidewalk installation Murrieta Elementary School

  25. New sidewalk at the San Pablo Dam Road and May Road intersection

  26. Evaluation: Compare Outcomes to Expected Effects Note: Some school projects are more than one type.

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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”

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. Sidewalk Gap Closure Results

  36. Sheldon: Average Vehicle Speeds on San Pablo Dam Road

  37. Sheldon: Safety Advantage from Shift of Walking to Sidewalk San Pablo Dam Road after sidewalk improvement San Pablo Dam Road before sidewalk improvement

  38. Traffic Control Device Results

  39. Another Looking at Walk/Bike Travel and SR2S • “After Construction” survey asked Would you say that your child now walks or bicycles to school: • Less than before the project described above was built. • The same amount as before the project was built. • More than before the project was built.

  40. Star indicates location of elementary school; Circle represents portion of neighborhood included in the study (approx. ¼ mile radius from the elementary school) 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”

  41. After Construction Data • 1244 returned “after construction” surveys from 10 schools • School response rates varied from 23% to 54% • Full Sample Response Rate: 40%

  42. Results, by School

  43. 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

  44. 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

More Related