Influential%20factors%20in%20children

1
Influential factors in childrens school
travelSafe Routes to School and beyond

• Tracy E. McMillan, PhD, MPH
• University of Texas at Austin
• tmcmillan_at_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
(No Transcript)
4
Childrens travel behavior and health

• Transportation Issues
• Significant mode shift in school travel over the
  past few decades
• 1969 87 of school trips lt 1mi. walk/bike, 7
  private auto
• 2001 55 of school trips lt 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

5

• 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

6
Cost to the nation

• Heart disease 193.8 billion (2001), health care
  lost productivity
• Cancer 189.5 billion (2003)
• Diabetes 132 billion (2002)

7
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
  destinationsdoes this transfer over to children?
• Little understanding of the structural
  relationship between variables of influenceno
  causal path

8
The reality of influencing behavior

• Its not as simple as we would like!
• Not just tell them whats best and theyll do it
• Not just build it and theyll come
• Dealing with multiple factors that we can affect
  directly and indirectly

9
Relative influence of built environment on
childrens school travel

• Built environment does influence the probability
  of walk/bike to school
• Two significant variables mixed use windows
  facing street
• What wasnt 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

10
More influential factors on caregivers decision

• Perceptions of neighborhood traffic safety
• Reported distance
• Social/cultural norms
• Parents attitudes perceptions toward travel
• Sociodemographics

11
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)

12
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

13
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

14
SR2S Background

• Authorized by California AB 1475, 1999
• Renewed by SB10, 2001
• Renewed again by SB 1087, 2004

15
SR2S Background

• AB 1475 authorized setting aside 1/3 of
  Californias 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

16
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

17
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

18
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.

19
SR2S evaluation

• Caltrans contract, pursuant to Streets and
  Highways Code 2333.5 118,500
• University of California Transportation
  Center 162,614

20
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?

21
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

22
(No Transcript)
23
Busy street proximate to Cesar Chavez Elementary
School
New traffic signal at Loveland Avenue and
Jaboneria Road
Cesar Chavez Elementary School
24
Glenoaks Boulevard before installation of
crosswalk lighting system
Glenoaks Elementary School
New pedestrian-activated, in-pavement crosswalk
lighting system on Glenoaks Boulevard
25
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
26
Adams Avenue before improvement
Adams Avenue after sidewalk installation
Murrieta Elementary School
27
New sidewalk at the San Pablo Dam Road and May
Road intersection
28
School City Med HH income (zip code) blocks w/ complete sidewalk
Cesar Chavez Bell Gardens 30,029 94
Glenoaks Glendale 41,674 36
Jasper Alta Loma 66,668 57
Juan Cabrillo Malibu 100,857 17
Mt Vernon San Bernardino 23,498 63
Murrieta Murrieta 61,494 8
Newman Chino 55,185 86
Sheldon El Sobrante 61,494 53
Valley Yucaipa 39,286 22
West Randall Fontana 35,008 36
29
School City African-American (school) Hispanic (school)
Cesar Chavez Bell Gardens 0.2 99
Glenoaks Glendale 1.7 18.5
Jasper Alta Loma 7.3 22.6
Juan Cabrillo Malibu 0.6 17
Mt Vernon San Bernardino 9.3 84.9
Murrieta Murrieta 7.6 22.9
Newman Chino 3.1 56.4
Sheldon El Sobrante 26.3 22.1
Valley Yucaipa 1.8 24.1
West Randall Fontana 1.7 92.1
30
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.
31
(No Transcript)
32
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

33
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

34
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

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
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

39
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

40
Sidewalk Gap Closure Results
School Walk Before Walk After on Street Before on Street After T-stat
Sheldon 138 152 66 35 5.55
Valley 64 89 42 4 6.79
West Randall 692 1146 75 5 39.23
41
Sheldon Average Vehicle Speeds on San Pablo Dam
Road
42
Sheldon Safety Advantage from Shift of Walking
to Sidewalk
San Pablo Dam Road after sidewalk improvement
San Pablo Dam Road before sidewalk improvement
43
Traffic Control Device Results
School Yield (number) Before Yield (number) After T-stat
Cesar Chavez 95.42 (584) 100 (205) 5.42
Newman 94.86 (277) 99.62 (265) 3.44
44
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.

45
Sort by Whether SR2S Project Along Route to School

• Survey asked if project was along childs usual
  route to school
• 52 of parents said yes 48 said no

46
After Construction Data

• 1244 returned after construction surveys from
  10 schools
• School response rates varied from 23 to 54
• Full Sample Response Rate 40

47
Results, by School
Walk More Walk More Diff t-statistic n
Along Route Not Along Route
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
48
(No Transcript)
49
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

50
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

51
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.)

52
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/

53

• Creates SRTS program in every state DOT
• Requires hiring of a full-time SRTS coordinator
• Kristie Billiar, MN DOT
• Targets grades K-8

54

• Legislation also required development of
  clearinghouse/repository for SRTS activities
• National Center for SRTS
• Based at Highway Safety Research Center at
  UNC-Chapel Hill
• Collaboration of many partners
• www.saferoutesinfo.org
• Federal SRTS Task Force also required currently
  being formed

55
Focus on 5 Es

• Engineering
• Education
• Enforcement
• Encouragement
• Evaluation
• Each state must allocate at least 10 of total
  funds (but no more than 30) to
  non-infrastructure activities

56
Intervention point
Mediating factors
Moderating factors

• Neighborhood safety
• Traffic Safety
• Household transportation options

• Social/cultural norms
• Attitudes
• Socio-demographics

X
Distal evaluation point
Proximal evaluation point
Childrens travel behavior (trip
to school)
Change in health outcomes
Parental decision-making
Urban Form
Intervention point
Intermediate evaluation point
57
Increasing the focus on childrens school travel
in our communities

• Policy/regulation
• Model language in comprehensive/general plans,
  ordinances, etc

58
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.

59
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.

60
What is Missing?

• Schools
• Hypothetical Examples
• Mention of school siting and pedestrian / bicycle
  transportation network near schools in community
  plans

61
Increasing the focus on childrens 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.

62
Increasing the focus on childrens school travel
in our communities

• 3) Education/awareness the public, stakeholders
  in the community, etc.