safe routes to school: why they matter to kids, to ......week (us depts. of health ... u.s. youth...

1

Safe Routes to School: Why They Matter to Kids, to Communities, and to TDM Professionals

Sponsored by:Transportation Demand Management Institute of the

Association for Commuter Transportation And

National Center for Transit Research at the University of South Florida

Today’s Agenda

Welcome and Introduction (5 min) Peter Valk, TMS, ModeratorPhil Winters, NCTR at University of South Florida

Polling Questions (5 min)Presentations (40 min)

Donna Smallwood, MassRIDES Operations Manager/URS Corporation and chair National Safe Routes to School Task ForceMichael Eberlein, Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Michigan Department of Transportation

Q&A (30 min)Closing remarks

Association for Commuter Transportation National Center for Transit Research at the University of South Florida

7/25/07

2

Today’s Panel

Michael Eberlein, Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Michigan Department of Transportation

Donna Smallwood, MassRIDES Operations

Manager/URS Corporation and chair National Safe

Routes to School Task Force

Sponsored by:Association for Commuter Transportation

Advocates for TDM

Provides professional growth and networking opportunities

Communicates the latest information on TDM best practices and industry news

For more info, visit www.actweb.org

ACT International Conference September 9-12, 2007

in Seattle


7/25/07

3

Sponsored by:National Center for Transit Research (NCTR)

NCTR is located at the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida

National TDM and Telework Clearinghouse Help DeskTRANSP-TDM listservTDM Talk BlogFlorida Commuter Choice Training

For more info visit: www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse

Coming Attractions

September 9-12, 2007 ACT International ConferenceSeattle, Washington www.actweb.org


7/25/07

1

Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

Why does SRTS matter?

ACT Netconference

Donna SmallwoodMassRIDES/URS Corporation

Lenexa, KS

1. Fewer kids are biking and walking. More parents are driving.

2001: 16% walked

1969: 42% walked

(CDC, 2005)

Parents driving

Parents driving children to school: 20%-25% of morning traffic

(NHTSA 2003; Dept. of Environment)

School siting issues: A generation ago

Small schools

Located in community centers

(EPA, 2003)

School siting issues: Today

Mega-schoolsBuilt on edges of towns and cities

School consolidation has lengthened the trip between home and school


7/25/07

2

It’s not just distance

Students who live within 1 mile and walk or bike:

2001: 63% 1969: 87%

(CDC, 2005)

Most common barriers to walking and bicycling to school

Long distances 62%

Traffic danger 30%

Adverse weather 19%

Fear of crime danger 12%

Note: Sum of percentages is more than 100% because respondents could identify more than one barrier.

(CDC, 2005)

2. What are the unintended consequences of less walking and bicycling?

For the environment

For individual health

1996 Summer Olympic Games banned single occupant cars in downtown Atlanta

Atlanta, GA

Morning traffic – 23%

Peak ozone – 28%

Asthma-related events for kids – 42%

(Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], 2001)

Results of the ban Air quality

Measurably better around schools with more walkers and bicyclists

(EPA, 2003)

Chicago, IL


7/25/07

3

Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1990

(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

No Data <10% 10%–14%



No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19%


(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20%



No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%

Physical inactivity

Most kids aren’t getting the physical activity they need

Recommended 60 minutes on most, preferably all, days of the week

(US Depts. of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, 2005)

U.S. youth overweight rates

(National Center for Health Statistics)


7/25/07

4

Overweight children have an increased risk of…

Type 2 Diabetes

Low self esteem

Decreased physical functioning

Obesity in adulthood

Many other negative emotional & physical effects

(Institute of Medicine, 2005)

3. Safe Routes to School programs are part of the solution…

...to improve walking and bicycling conditions

...to increase physical activity

...to decrease air pollution Dallas, TX

More benefits of SRTS programs

Reduce congestion around schools

Can lead to cost savings for schools(reduce need for “hazard” busing)

Others: increase child’s sense of freedom, help establish lifetime habits, teach pedestrian and bicyclist skills

Elements of SRTS programs

Education

Encouragement

Enforcement

Engineering

EvaluationLenexa, KS

Federal Safe Routes to School program

$612 million to States 2005-2009

Funds infrastructure and non-infrastructure activities

Requires State SRTS Coordinators More information:

www.saferoutesinfo.org

Safe Routes to School goals

Where it’s safe, get children walking and biking

Where it’s not safe, make changes

Winston-Salem, NC


7/25/07

5

Why does SRTS matter to TDM?

Reducing traffic congestionCreating life-long travel habits from childhoodApplying TDM behavior-change skills to new marketsNew business opportunities

New Jersey: SRTS and TDM

TMAs participated in New Jersey SRTS pilot programsBrought behavior-change expertise and consensus building know-howBenefited from new community connections

Massachusetts: SRTS and TDM

MassRIDES, statewide travel options serviceWorking with 60+ schools in 35 communitiesNew partnerships - public health, education, advocacy groupsClient satisfaction!

Colorado: SRTS and TDM

Colorado SRTS program is incorporated into the Bicycle/Pedestrian Program whose Coordinator also oversees TDM Synergy among Safe Routes, TDM, CMAQ, & other programshttp://www.dot.state.co.us/BikePed/SafeRoutesToSchool.htm

Safe Routes to School Resources

National Center for Safe Routes to School• www.saferoutesinfo.org

FHWA- Safe Routes to School• http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/

Walk to School• http://Walktoschool.org

Sustrans• http://www.saferoutestoschools.org.uk/

National Partnership for Safe Routes to School• http://bikesbelong.org/

For more information:

Donna SmallwoodMassRIDES/URS Corporation

[email protected]

www.commute.com


7/25/07

1

Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

ACT Netconference

Mike Eberlein, Coordinator Safe Routes to School Program Michigan Department of Transportation

SRTS on the ground in Michigan:

How it works at the state and local levels.

TM

Today’s Agenda

• Michigan’s SR2S Handbook and Planning Process.

• Status of Michigan’s Program• SR2S Action Plans: 4 schools in Jackson,

MI• SR2S Issues and Insights; TDM parallels

MichiganMichigan’’s SR2S Handbook s SR2S Handbook and Planning Processand Planning Process

SR2S Pilot Program

• 2-year pilot project at 11 elementary schools, 2003-05.

• Active state coalition of over 25 organizations.

• Development of a user-friendly handbook and locally customizable materials.

• Development of a training program.

The 5 E’s

Educate students, parents and the community.

Encourage students to safely walk or bike to school.

Enforce rules and laws that keep walkers & bikers safe.

Engineer environmental changes for safe passage.

Evaluate the impact of SR2S.


7/25/07

2

SR2S Handbook Planning Process

• Organize a multidisciplinary team.• Collect and analyze baseline data from students

and parents.• Evaluate the physical environment around schools

as it relates to walking and biking.• Develop an Action Plan to make routes safe using

the 5 Es.• Implement the plan.• Evaluate the plan.

Statutory Purposes

• 1. To enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bike to school.

• 2. To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age.

• 3. To facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.

• (Section 1404, SAFETEA-LU)

SRTS Application

• The SR2S Handbook planning process must be completed at each school where improvements and/or programs are proposed.

• All 5 E’s must be addressed in the school’s SR2S Action Plan, regardless of whether funding is sought.

• Application available at www.saferoutesmichigan.org.

• No deadline for applying.

The Status of MichiganThe Status of Michigan’’s s Program Program

Where We Are Now

1

1

2

2

4

3

1

4

3

2

11

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

26

6

2 1

11

6

3

2

1

2

5

1 1

5

3

2

3

95

8

4

534

1

1

1

1

3

Since May 2006 launch:

• 216 registered schools in 47 counties.

• Over 500 people trained.

• Comprehensive technical assistance program.

• SR2S website and E-newsletters.

Where We Are Going

• Middle school pilot project to develop best practices for increasing youth involvement and incorporating technology into SR2S programs.

• Developing classroom lessons for core curricular classes that align with SR2S goals and meet state grade level content expectations.

• Modifying the Handbook to address issues of urban poverty and blight, and making SR2S more relevant to students with special needs.


7/25/07

3

SR2S Action Plans: SR2S Action Plans: 4 schools in Jackson, MI 4 schools in Jackson, MI

Background

• Frost Elementary School: pilot school in 2004/5

• District created half time SR2S coordinator and district-wide SR2S committee

–Objective: Planning at all elementary/middle schools

• Frost and 3 others schools (serving K through 6th

grades) completed Action Plans and submitted funding application together

Jackson Schools

• Background

• District-wide SR2S planning team• City of Jackson Walkable Communities Task Force• City of Jackson Departments (Public works, Police)• Jackson Fitness Council• Individual school planning teams

Jackson Planning Teams

• Across 4 SRTS school planning teams

• City of Jackson–Public Works Department–Police Department–Walkable Community Task Force

• Jackson Public Schools–Health and Human Services and SR2S Coordinators–School Principals; teachers–Parent volunteers, PTO president

• Jackson Transportation Authority• Jackson Fitness Council

Jackson School Teams Membership

• Key findings : Students’ trip to/from school(2005)

• Predominant modes: Parent driving, school busing• Student preferred modes: Walking and biking• Parents consider routes unsafe (60% to 90%)• If routes were “improved”, 50% to 80% of parents would permit their children to walk or bike (includes those children who are already walking or biking.

Schools’ surveys

Who, what, when, where, why…

• Conducted at each school by teams of stakeholders• Identify conditions on routes to school and on school grounds

• Spring or Fall, but winter audits useful in north• On streets within school walking/busing boundary• Findings enable identification of safe routes, routes that could be made safe, and the actions necessary to improve routes

Walkability Audits


7/25/07

4

Infrastructure (Engineering) actions identified:

• Sidewalks: fill in gaps; repair sections; maintain• Bike Parking: Install where missing; fix existing• Improve parking lot issues (pickup and dropoff)• Mark crosswalks on routes to school; ped signals where appropriate

• Remove hazards on school grounds

The Action Plans The Action Plans:

Sidewalk Gap

The Action Plans:

Sidewalk Repair

The Action Plans:

Bike Parking?

The Action Plans:

Pickup/Dropoff

The Action Plans:

Crosswalks/Signals


7/25/07

5

• Noninfrastructure actions identified:

• Encouragement:–Annual International Walk to School Day–Walking Wednesdays leading to daily walking school buses

• Education:–Inform neighborhoods; “snow shovel audit”–Curriculum ties (“walk around the world” passport)–Specific ped and bike safety training events/activities

• Enforcement: –Improve crossing guard and safety patrol recruitment, screening, training, and deployment

The Action Plans

k

The Action Plans: Encouragement

The Action Plans: Education

The Action Plans: Enforcement

• Summary of implementation (2005 to present)

• Of 36 total actions across four school plans–25 are completed to date; –Recurring actions (annual resurveys, Walk to School Days, walking Wednesdays/school buses) have occurred annually–3 proposed actions have been deferred by principals. –Remaining actions are the subject of an application for SRTS funds totalling $100,000 in Infrastructure and $21,000 in Noninfrastructure projects.

• Value of 25 completed actions far exceeds cost to SRTS program of remaining actions

The Action Plans: Implementation

The Action Plans: RESULTS!!

Walking to School

7.39

12

3 4

9

15

26

30

4.705

101520253035

2004 2005 2006 2007

Year (April data collection)

Perc

enta

g

FrostNortheastJATA


7/25/07

6

The Action Plans: RESULTS!!

Walking Home from School

7.711

17

12

79 9

2118

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2004 2005 2006 2007Year (Data collection in April)

Perc

en FrostNortheastJATA

Survey conducted with three upper grades at each school for one week.Teachers track how students traveled to school each day for a week. SurveyInstrument designed by Michigan State University.

SR2S Issues and Insights: SR2S Issues and Insights: TDM parallelsTDM parallels

Issues and Insights

Some principles (not “principals”)• The ultimate objectives are

– to get more kids biking and walking, and ultimately, – a new generation to embrace alternatives to the auto

for meeting transportation/mobility needs.• Reliance on federal SRTS funding alone will not

yield short or long term success/sustainability

Issues and Insights

Some principles (not “principals”)

• Sustainability depends on institutionalization of SR2S at individual schools, in school districts, in model curricula, in local governments, and in relevant state agencies’ policies and practices

• Effective initiatives cultivate and engage stakeholders with interests in common, at the grass roots level. Participation in problem and solution identification typically yields commitment of resources as well.

Issues and Insights

Some principles (not “principals”)• Engagement of partners requires understanding

and communication of the benefits SR2S offers in achieving the mission of their organizations.

• Infrastructure investment may be necessary but is likely insufficient, alone, to bring about long term change in lifestyle and transportation choices.

Issues and Insights

Some principles (not “principals”)• Noninfrastructure interventions are very often

low or no cost efforts, but taken together are as important as the pricey infrastructure investments.

• Evidence of change will emerge slowly over an extended period; sustained effort is more important than a silver bullet (which doesn’t exist anyway)


7/25/07

7

QUESTIONS?

• Contact:• Michael D. Eberlein, SR2S Coordinator• Michigan Department of Transportation • 425 W. Ottawa Street, PO Box 30050• Lansing, Michigan 48909• 517 335 3040• [email protected]

• Visit: www.saferoutesmichigan.org


7/25/07

safe routes to school: why they matter to kids, to ......week (us depts. of health ... u.s. youth...

Documents