The Safe Routes to School program was associated with increases in walking and bicycling to school. Education and encouragement programs increased the proportion of students walking and bicycling by 0.9 percentage points per year, a relative increase of 25% over 5 years. Engineering interventions like new sidewalks and crosswalks led to a one-time 3.2 percentage point increase in walking and biking, a 20% relative rise. Enforcement programs did not have a statistically significant effect. The Safe Routes to School program achieved its goal of enabling and encouraging more children to walk and bike to school through education, encouragement, and infrastructure improvements.

1. Impacts of the Safe Routes to School
Program on Walking and Bicycling
Noreen McDonald
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1

2. Outline
• Children’s Travel
• Impacts of the Safe Routes to School Program
• Work @ ITS
2

3. Children’s Travel
3

4. 25%
of the population
4
Source: American Factfinder

5. 33%
of households
5
Source: American Factfinder

6. 20%
of vehicle trips
6
Source: National Household Travel Survey

7. Why do we need to understand
children’s travel?
7
Predicting Adult
Travel
Infrastructure
Investments
Physical Activity
Opportunities

8. Safe Routes to School Program Impacts
8

9. Shift to Automobility
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Auto
Walk/
Bike
School
Bus
Transit
US Mode to School, 5-18 year olds
Source: McDonald, et al. 2011. AJPM 41(2): 146-151.

10. SRTS Goals
• “enable and encourage children to walk and
bicycle to school”
• “make bicycling and walking to school a safer
and more appealing transportation
alternatives”
10

11. SRTS by the Numbers
11
Funding
$1.2
Billion
Schools
Source: McDonald, et al. 2013. AJPM 45(4): 401-406.
1 in 5

12. Research Question
• Do SRTS programs affect the proportion of
children walking and bicycling to school?
12

13. Research Design
13
Randomized
Controlled Trial
Quasi-
experimental
• 4 states
• 801 schools
• 2007-2012

14. Approach
Proportion Walking
and Bicycling to School
SRTS
Interventions
School
Characteristics
Neighborhood
Characteristics
Time
Period
14
 tiititit DZXSRTSfy ,,,

15. Data
15
Walking and
Biking to School
• Administrative
Data
• Student Report
• Parent Report

16. 16Source: National Center for Safe Routes to School

17. Data
17
Walking and
Biking to School
SRTS
Interventions
• 4Es
• Engineering
• Education,
Encouragement
• Enforcement

18. Data: Measuring SRTS
18
%
Walk
Bike
SRTS
Step Function
%
Walk
Bike
SRTS
Linear Function
Time Time
%
Walk
Bike
SRTS
Combined
Time
Presence
(1/0)
Number of
Years +
Presence
Number of
Years

19. Data
19
Walking and
Biking to School
SRTS
Interventions
School and
Neighborhood
• US Dept of Education
• Census
• WalkScore

20. Methods: Functional Form
20
Fractional Logit
+
-
• Predictions inside (0,1)
• 0 & 1
• Marginal effects
• Unbalanced panel
)exp(1
)exp(


X
X
Y


Source: Papke and Wooldridge, 2008; Papke and Wooldridge, 1996

21. Results
21

22. Walking and Biking to School
0%
10%
20%
30%
Before
SRTS
0.1-1.0
years
1.1-2.0
years
2.1-3.0
years
3.1-4.0
years
4.1-5.0
years
>5.0
years
After SRTS 22Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

23. Results: SRTS Program Impacts
23
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
3.2
-1
-2 0 2 4
Presence
# of Years
Education &
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Presence
# of Years
Presence
# of Years
Proportion Walk/Bike
Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

24. Results: SRTS Program Impacts
24
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
3.2
-1
-2 0 2 4
Presence
# of Years
Education &
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Presence
# of Years
Presence
# of Years
Proportion Walk/Bike
Education and
Encouragement
• 0.9 point increase
per year
• Over 5 years, a
relative increase
of 25%
Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

25. Results: SRTS Program Impacts
25
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
3.2
-1
-2 0 2 4
Presence
# of Years
Education &
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Presence
# of Years
Presence
# of Years
Proportion Walk/Bike
Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

26. Results: SRTS Program Impacts
26
Enforcement
• No statistically
significant effect
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
3.2
-1
-2 0 2 4
Presence
# of Years
Education &
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Presence
# of Years
Presence
# of Years
Proportion Walk/Bike
Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

27. Results: SRTS Program Impacts
27
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
3.2
-1
-2 0 2 4
Presence
# of Years
Education &
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Presence
# of Years
Presence
# of Years
Proportion Walk/Bike
Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

28. Results: SRTS Program Impacts
28
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
3.2
-1
-2 0 2 4
Presence
# of Years
Education &
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Presence
# of Years
Presence
# of Years
Proportion Walk/Bike
Engineering
• 3.2 point one-time
increase
• Relative increase
of 20%
Source: McDonald, et al. 2015. JAPA 80(2).

29. Policy Implications
• SRTS program associated with more walking
and bicycling
• Mainstream SRTS programs
29

30. Work @ ITS
30
Image Source: http://www.basf-new-business.com/

31. Source: The Atlantic
31
Declining licensure & mobility
Impacts and explanations
Millennial Travel
Image Source: New York Times
Image Source: The Atlantic

32. The Millennial Economy: Links between
Transport and Work for a New
Generation
Image Source: https://www.sccsc.edu/client/NewsDetail.aspx?id=9381
Changing Nature of
Workforce Transition
& Role of Transport
as Barrier/Facilitator
32

33. Tradeoffs between Environmental
Benefits and Social Exclusion: Are There
Risks to the Downturn in Driving?
33
Which groups have
seen largest
declines?
Are needs being
met?
http://media.salon.com/2013/08/boomerang_babies_money_jobs.jpg

34. Children’s Travel
34
Image Source: http://www.perey.com/images/social_networking.jpg
Walking
and Biking
Health
Physical
Activity
+ +
Pollution
Intake
? -
Air Quality &
Physical Activity

35. Questions
noreen@unc.edu
N.McDonald@leeds.ac.uk
35