built for walking: safe environments for active … · texting while driving parking blocking...
TRANSCRIPT
BUILT FOR WALKING: SAFE ENVIRONMENTS
FOR ACTIVE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
Linda Rothman, BScOT, PhD, Post-Doctoral Fellow,
York University, School of Kinesiology and Health Science,
Hospital for Sick Children
January 19, 2017
B.C. Injury Research & Prevention Unit
THE TEAM
• Dr. Alison Macpherson- Professor, Epidemiologist, York University
• Dr. Andrew Howard- Senior Scientist, Orthopaedic Surgeon,
Hospital for Sick Children
• Dr. Ron Buliung- Professor, Geographer, University of Toronto,
Mississauga
• Dr. Colin Macarthur-Associate Chief, Clinical Research, Epidemiologist,
Hospital for Sick Children
• Dr. Sarah Richmond- Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Epidemiologist,
York University, Hospital for Sick Children
• In Collaboration with Richard Christie and Kristen Evers, Toronto
District School Board, Sustainability Office
2
OUTLINE
1. Introduction
2. Observational Study of Walking to School and Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Collisions
3. Speed Humps
4. School Crossing Guards
5. Risky Driving Behaviours around Schools
6. Parent Perceptions of Traffic Danger
7. Summary of Results
8. Response to Our Research
9. Knowledge Users/Stakeholders
10.Related Projects 3
4
2719
1196
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
# c
ollis
ion
s
National Pedestrian Collisions Resulting In Any Injury (0-14)1
40
17
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
# c
ollis
ion
s
National Pedestrian Fatalities (0-14)1
44% reduction
1Transport Canada, Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics: 2013
57% reduction
• Are there fewer collisions because children
walk less?1
• 1986: 59% 2011: 45%
• Only 38% of Canadian children use any
active school transportation (2013)2
5
1. Metrolinx. School Travel in the City of Toronto, 2015.
2. Active Healthy Kids Canada. Is Canada in the running? 2014.
Walking to School
Potential Health
Benefits Potential Risk of Pedestrian-
Motor Vehicle Collisions
(PMVCs)
Built Environment
Design
(BE)
BALANCE
• Safety in numbers?1
OR
• Increased walking exposure = increased
risk?2,3,4
1 Jacobsen PL, Inj Prev. 2003;9:205-209.
2 Macpherson, A. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1840-1843.
3 Rao, Bull N.Y. Acad Med. 1997;74:65-80.
4 Gropp Inj Prev. 2013;19:64-67
• Recent increase in pedestrian fatalities in
Toronto (all ages)
• 20 (2011), 30 (2015) fatalities
• Many collisions involving children occur near
schools
• ~40% during school travel times/months
• > 1/3 of collisions within 300 m of a school,
highest density within 150 m
8
2. OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
• What proportion of children in JK-Grade 6 walk to school in
the City of Toronto?
• younger versus older students
• How many child PMVCs occur in the areas surrounding
elementary schools?
• How does the BE relate to children walking to school and
child PMVCs?
• What types of driving and pedestrian behaviours are
observed around schools, and how are they related to child
PMVCs and the BE?
9
• 2 data collections, regular program TDSB JK-grade
6 schools
• 2011 (118): cross-sectional, 2015 (100): case-control
• Trained observers morning drop off time (May-June)
• counts of travel mode, excluding school bus
(>20,000)
• kindergarten entrances (50 randomly selected
schools)
• risky driver behaviour checklist
• school site survey
10
DIRECT OBSERVATIONS
11
2015-100
Schools
2011-118
Schools
Built Environment
Density Census
Child population
Total population
Males, 4 to 12
Multi-dwelling
Diversity MPAC, City of Toronto
Mixed land use (entropy)
Commercial land use
Industrial
Institutional
Residential
Vacant land
Recreational
Park land
Design City of Toronto, Census
Field Survey
Crossing guards
Dead end
Flashing lights
Intersection
Road
Local road
Collector road
Major road
Minor road
School crossing guard
Mean speed> 5 km over speed limit
Any dangerous crossing
Double parking
Cars parked blocking
One way streets
Old houses (pre 1946)
Sidewalks missing (both, one)
Traffic calming
Traffic lights
Trails
Urban
Route directness (Inter/inter+dead end)
Other TDSB and Catholic schools
Cars appear to be driving fast
Traffic congestion
Any dangerous intersection
Dropping opposite side
School vehicle volume
Social Environment TDSB, Census
School LOI (Social disadvantage)
School population
Children grades 4 - 6 at school
Males at school
Below ATLICO by school DA
New immigrants at school
School age (years)
English not first language
MAPPING
13
Police-reported child PMVCs
2002-2011, 4-12 years
• School attendance boundaries:
Unit of analysis
• Rates of collisions per child
population
Average walking = 67%,
wide variability
Proportion of children observed walking to study schools by school
boundary (2011)
14
Kindergarten
children walked
significantly
less than older
children
(56% vs 69%)
• Population density
• Traffic lights
• Intersections
• Pedestrian crossovers (crossing controls)
• Children who’s first language wasn’t English
• School crossing guards (14% more walking)
• Where there were school crossing guards,
nothing else was important
15
What was related to more walking to school?
16
• Average =7.4/10,000
children/year, wide
variability
CHILD PMVCs, 2002-2011 (10 years)
• 481 collisions within 105 school boundaries*
• No collisions in 13 school boundaries
• No Injury: 24 (5%)
• Minimal Injury: 191 (40%)
• Minor Injury (seen in ED): 236 (49%)
• Major Injury (admitted): 30 (6%)
• Fatality: 1 (<1%)
• 214 (44%) were school travel time collisions
17
13% increase in collision rate with every 10% increase walking
HOWEVER, once we controlled for the influence of BE
features, this relationship disappeared
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Co
llis
ion
Rate
/10
,00
0\y
ea
r
Proportion Walking
Collision Rate and Proportion Walking to School
18
• What is related to a safer traffic
environment?
• Higher population/residential density
• Lower school disadvantage
• Fewer one way streets
• Fewer traffic lights (i.e. road crossings)
• ? Speed humps
• ? School crossing guards
Walking to school is unrelated to
child PMVCs if environment is safe
19
20
13 schools with no collisions
• Higher school social disadvantage
• Lower density of higher speed roads
• Lower density of one way streets
PROBLEMS WITH CROSS-
SECTIONAL STUDIES
2
1
2002
Traffic
Calming
Collision
2011
Traffic calming
implemented
2007 2005
Collision
• Traffic calming may have not been present when
collision occurred
• Pre-post studies
• Associated with higher collision rates ?? • Traffic calming
• School crossing guards
• Installation associated with a 22% decrease overall (296 PMVCs prevented)
• 45% decrease in child PMVCs
3. SPEED HUMPS: PRE-POST STUDY
•1,344 collisions along speed hump
roadways, 2000-2011
Central City of Toronto
• 58 newly implemented guards
• 260 PMVCs within 50m
4. SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS
PRE-POST STUDY
• Collision rates unchanged after implementation
• Simple roadway modification to that may be related to more walking without
detrimental safety effects
Central City of Toronto
• 568 existing guards city-wide
• 2,573 PMVCs, 2000-2011
SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS
• Most child PMVCs occurred outside of school travel times (62%)
• Most school travel time PMVCs occurred in locations without crossing guards
(86%)
• More permanent interventions needed to address high burden of child PMVCS
happening outside of school travel times and away from guard locations
5. TOP 3 OBSERVED RISKY DRIVING BEHAVIOURS (2011)
25
46%
62%
70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Double parking
Cars blocking view of motoristsand pedestrians
Drop-offs opposite side of roadfrom school
% of schools (n = 118)
26
Each additional riskydriving behaviour
was associated with a 45% increase child
PMVC rates within 200m of a school
during school travel times
Higher school social disadvantage and
higher speed roadways were associated
with higher collision rates
DRIVING BEHAVIOURS
15%
15%
19%
28%
46%
64%
67%
72%
79%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Talking on phone while driving
Texting while driving
Parking blocking crossing controls
Drivers disobeying traffic controls
Double parking
Backing up dangerously
U-Turns
Drivers parking blocking vision
Dropping children opposite side
2%
8%
25%
57%
82%
2%
14%
4%
61%
85%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Disobeying crossing guards
Disobeying crossing controls
Using cell phones/electronic devices
Crossing between parked cars
Uncontrolled midblock crossing
Children
Adults
PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOURS
2015
28
• Traffic congestion risk: • double parking
• parking blocking vision
• parking blocked crossing controls
• dangerous reversing
• crossing unsafely between cars
• Designated drop off areas protective: • parked blocking controls
• dangerous reversing
• dangerous midblock crossings
• crossing unsafely between cars
• but increased talking on phone
• School crossing guards protective: • texting while driving
• potentially parking blocking controls
29
• Greater proportions of children walking
• Higher collision rates
• Higher density multifamily housing
• Fewer crossing guards
• Higher speed roadways
• Less traffic calming
• More traffic congestion
Greater School Social Disadvantage
Objective 1
• To determine if parent perceptions of traffic danger en route
to school and/or at the school site during morning drop-off
are related to walking to school
Objective 2
• To examine the relationship between features of the built
environment and parent-perceived traffic danger
• Parent questionnaire in 20 schools, grades 4-6,
participated in the observational study (2011), 733 surveys
returned
6. PARENT PERCEPTIONS OF
TRAFFIC DANGER
High route danger perception was related to:
• Less frequent walking
• Dangerous midblock crossing
• Higher speed roadways
• But not actual collision rates
To influence walking, the safety of the route must be
considered, however, must also address safety directly
around school sites
31
“How dangerous is the traffic for your child…
1. Between your home and your child’s school? (ROUTE)
2. Around the school during drop-off time?” (SITE)
“How often does your child walk to school” (frequent = 4-5x/weekly)
What is related to a safer traffic environment?
1. Higher population/residential density
2. Lower school disadvantage
3. Fewer one way streets
4. Fewer traffic lights (i.e. road crossings)
5. More speed humps
6. ? School crossing guards
7. Less dangerous driving/pedestrian behaviour
less traffic congestion
controlled midblock crossings
designated car drop offs
school crossing guards
32
7. SUMMARY
33
8. SCHOOLS’ RESPONSE….
Knowledge users:
• Parent council • Caretaker
• School staff • School superintendent
• School advisory council • Caring and safe schools committee
• Crossing guard • Toronto Police Services
• Community liaise officer • School newsletter
• Toronto public health
Actions taken:
• Developed a pedestrian/parking safety
committee
• New crosswalk installed
• Used info for establishment of Kiss’ N Ride
• Used for proposal to City of Toronto for new
crossing guard
• Walking school bus implemented
• Contacted police re: excessive speeding
• Assigned more staff to monitor drop off
• “No stopping, buses only” signs posted
along curb
• Started Walking Wednesdays
• New lines painted on driveway
• Purchased bike rack
• Planned 3 walk to school days
• Registered on the Safe Routes to School
website
• Changed bus loading, legal parking and
drop-off zones
• Investigated changes to speed limit and
signage (e.g. curve ahead)
• Invited Manager of Traffic Operations for
City of Toronto to do student talk about
traffic safety
• Traffic safety incorporated into health class
discussions
• Established walking goals for school
MEDIA’S RESPONSE
34
35
9.KNOWLEDGE USERS/STAKEHOLDERS
• School Zone Safety Working Group, City of Toronto
• Vision Zero
• Metrolinx GTHA Active and Sustainable School
Transportation Regional Hub, Advisory Committee
• Toronto District School Board, Sustainability Office,
EcoSchools Program
• Parachute
• Green Communities
• Toronto Police Services
• CAA
• Presentations, Webinars
36
• Ministry of Transportation
• Active and Safe Routes to School, York and
Peel Region
• CAPHC,
• Ontario Traffic Council
• City Hall-City-School Boards Advisory
Committee
• TDSB: Health and Wellness, Program,
Environmental Sustainability Committees
• Local/National/International Conferences
37
10. RELATED PROJECTS
• National CIHR Team Grant, Environments Health
• Child and youth pedestrian and cycling injury
• School observations and the built environment
• Other designs – case crossover
• Pre-post analysis of built environment features
• Spatial Distribution of PMVC before and after
installation of countdown timers
• Other BE interventions (speed humps, bike lanes)
• Equity
• Child pedestrian safety as an equity issue in urban
neighbourhoods, comparing Montreal and Toronto
• Traffic safety design features
Safety must be considered with the
promotion of walking to school
Built environment influence on
PMVC is more important than
walking rates
To influence AST, route safety must be
considered; in addition to school site safety
We need to get the built environment
right!
38
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • City of Toronto, Transportation Services
• Toronto Police Services
• TDSB, Sustainability Office
• Funding
• Hospital for Sick Children
• Restracomp Research Training Award
• Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation (ONF)
• Summer Internship Program in Injury Prevention
• CIHR
• Doctoral Research Award
• Strategic Teams in Applied Injury Research (STAIR)
• Traffic and Road Injury Prevention Program (Dr Andrew Howard,
Dr. Anne Snowdon)
• Child and Youth Injury Prevention (Dr. Ian Pike, Dr. Alison Macpherson)
• CIHR Chair in Child and Youth Health Services and Policy Research
(Dr. Alison Macpherson)
39
40
Last day of
observations
Friday, June 19/15
Further questions….
Linda Rothman BScOT, PhD
Senior Research Associate
Hospital for Sick Children
41