The 2001 Summary of Safe Routes to School Programs in the United States

March 26, 2001

A project of Transportation Alternatives

115 West 30^th Street, Room 1207

New York City, 10001

Saferoutes@transalt.org

Produced in Conjunction with the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)

and Funded by

Bikes Belong

League of American Bicyclists

The National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Thunderhead Alliance of State and Local Bicycle Advocates

Table of Contents

Introduction:............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Safe Routes to School California Child Health and Safety Education Initiative............................... 11

California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Campaign.................................................................................... 13

California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Implementation..................................................................... 15

Marin County Safe Routes to Schools................................................................................................................................. 17

Safe Ways to School/Florida Traffic and Bike Safety Education Program (FTBSEP).......................... 19

"Safe Paths to Schools" Legislation................................................................................................................................... 21

PED's KidsWalk to School............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Chicago's Walking School Bus Program........................................................................................................................... 25

Arlington MA, Safe Routes to School Pilot program............................................................................................. 27

KidsWalk to School.......................................................................................................................................................................... 29

The Bronx Safe Routes to School Program..................................................................................................................... 31

Portland Kids on the Move........................................................................................................................................................... 33

Safe Routes to School Legislation........................................................................................................................................ 35

Pennsylvania Walk to School Trails Program............................................................................................................ 37

Arlington County Safe Routes to School......................................................................................................................... 39

Introduction

Children’s lives have altered dramatically over the last few decades. One of the most startling changes is how little independence and mobility they now have compared to the generations who grew up before them. Not so long ago, a vast majority of kids routinely roamed their neighborhoods on foot or bicycle, taking the first steps toward independence. Today, a new generation of moms and dads chauffeur their kids to nearly all their activities, fearing for their children’s safety on streets due to perceived dangers from both crime and traffic. Researchers estimate while more than two-thirds of all children walked or biked to school as little as thirty years ago, that number has now plummeted to less than ten percent.

Yet a new movement is emerging that is focusing on getting kids back on their feet and back on their bikes. Neighborhood groups, traffic engineers and local officials are working together to make streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists along school routes, while encouraging both parents and their kids to take advantage of the many benefits of getting around on foot or by bike. With new interest from transportation professionals, public health advocates, neighborhood improvement groups and local elected officials, communities all across the United States are discovering the many benefits of providing “Safe Routes to School.”

In order to encourage more children to walk or bike, parents need to trust that it is both safe and convenient from a variety of perspectives. A concern among some parents is the threat of violence as well as child abduction. While statistics tell us that abductions are an extremely infrequent occurrence, many parents indeed have legitimate concerns about crime, and violence prevention is an important component of Safe Routes to School programs in many areas.

But the greatest danger for many children walking or biking to school comes from traffic on neighborhood roads and streets. Parents often cite the fear of traffic as one of their top concerns in allowing their kids to walk or bike to school. They note the importance of stronger education programs for both motorists and children, better enforcement of traffic laws, and projects and programs to help slow down the speed of residential traffic. Indeed, it is exactly this type of comprehensive approach to traffic safety problems that has been shown to be most effective in creating safer streets and promoting increased walking and bicycling among Americans of all ages.

The Types of Safe Routes Programs

The desire to reduce pedestrian injuries, restore childhood mobility, improve basic health, and reduce automobile traffic near schools have inspired a wide variety of "Safe Routes to School" programs across the United States. Some Safe Routes to School projects have existed under other names for decades, and been recently recast as Safe Routes to School. Others are new to this country. This paper includes details and contact information for many of these programs.

There are many different components involved in the creation of a safe routes to school program, but generally they can be grouped under these four broad approaches:

• The Traffic Calming Model
• The Funding Model
• The Encouragement Model
• The Enforcement Model

Many programs mix aspects of these models, and the different models can also co-exist in a single state or community. This discussion highlights the differences between the models in order to help proponents of Safe Routes think methodically about what they are doing, and why they are doing it. This means distinguishing between Ends and Means — or Goals and Methods. For instance, traffic calming is a means to an end — reducing child crashes around schools, and encouraging cycling and walking. It is not an end in itself.

The Traffic Calming Model

In 1978, the town of Odense in Denmark launched “Safe Routes to School” to combat a child fatality rate that was the highest in Western Europe. The Odense project included an extensive, and carefully crafted community planning process. The process was based around surveying parents and children and consensus building sessions. The goal of the planning was to generate new ideas and solutions. More subtly, it was intended to win community agreement for the kind of major traffic calming engineering needed to significantly reduce crashes around schools. It worked. Within a year of the redesign of streets around schools using speed humps, traffic circles, and wider sidewalks, child pedestrian crashes in small town Odense plummeted from 10 to 2 a year.

Safe Routes to School in Britain, Germany, Holland, The Bronx, and Arlington, Virginia are examples of the Traffic Calming Model for Safe Routes. Many traffic calming based programs also employ education and enforcement strategies. The Traffic Calming Model is fundamentally based on changing the behavior of motorists through changes in street design. This model can also includes increased enforcement — especially speeding — and increased safety education for motorists — for instance “Kill Your Speed Not a Child” marketing.

The Traffic Calming Model is characterized by these goals and methods.

Goals

1. Measurably reduce crashes, injuries and deaths involving child pedestrians or cyclists near schools.
2. Create congenial and safe walking and /or cycling routes on primary travel corridors to and from schools so as to measurably increase the share of children walking and cycling to school.

Methods

Summary: Use traffic engineering to change motorist behavior, to reduce speeding and reckless driving near schools, and improve the pedestrian environment.

1. Use changes in the physical environment near schools — primarily traffic calming engineering — to slow motor vehicle speeds, and reduce the exposure of child pedestrians to turning and backing vehicles.
2. *Can include community based planning and consensus building process.
3. *Can include Walking School Bus, group rides and other public events to increase political and community support for constructing traffic calming and pedestrian improvements.
4. *Can include increased police traffic enforcement.

Public and Governmental Participation and Funding

1. Must eventually include the active participation and funding of transportation agency.
2. *Can be initiated by civic group, advocates, school or government agency.
3. Government Funding: High $100,000 minimum capital and planning cost per school.

Advocacy Requirements

1. Project Funding Level: High. Advocacy Funding Level to successfully Initiate: $50,000.
2. Advocacy Experience Needed: High. Experienced advocacy and organizing experience

Scale

Most suitable for city or county level.

The Funding Model

The best example of the Funding Model is California’s legislation dedicating one third of federal Surface Transportation Safety funds to local Safe Routes to School programs. The Funding Model is really a means to an end, not an end in itself. This said, it is probably the biggest bang per advocacy resources invested. A handful of advocates in California won $20 million a year for local Safe Routes Program. This is an extraordinarily effective way of using limited time and resources. Funding a range of well thought out Safe Routes projects at the local level also encourages innovation. Several states are considering safe routes funding legislation, including Oregon, Montana, Florida, and Texas.

The Funding Model is characterized by these goals and methods.

Goals

1. Reduce child pedestrian and cycling crashes, and encourage cycling and walking to schools throughout California.

Methods

Summary: Win funding for localities to create engineering, education and enforcement campaigns to change motorist behavior — especially speeding and reckless driving near schools. Funding also supports programs to create congenial street designs, paths and encouragement to motivate children and parents to get kids out of cars and on foot and bike.

1. Pass legislation at federal, state or local level guaranteeing significant levels of funding at the state, city or county level for Safe Routes programs.

2. Win funding, without legislation, from existing safety and transportation funds. (Examples are federal 402 safety funds and federal Transportation Enhancement funds.)

Public and Governmental Participation and Funding

1. Must eventually include the active support of state or local elected officials or government agencies, including effective implementation plans.
2. Can be initiated by civic group, advocates, schools or government agency.
3. Likely to involve extensive coalition building among a broad list of proponents from health, education, safety, public interest and local government organizations.
4. Government Funding Level: Very High. Generates funding for other projects.

Advocacy Requirements

1. Advocacy Funding Level to successfully Initiate: High. $75,000 for legislation. As low as $5,000 for 402 safety grants.
2. Advocacy Experience Needed: Very High for legislation. Moderate for 402 and other readily identifiable safety funds. Extensive organizing experience.

Scale

Most suitable for state, city or county level. Could be implemented on regional, big, small city or local levels with large government commitment.

The Encouragement Model

Encouragement campaigns are the cheapest, quickest and easiest way for non-government organizations to direct public and political attention to walking and cycling to school. Encouragement typically takes the form of Walking School Buses and group rides. These can be accompanied by marketing and behavioral change methods ranging from coloring books and prizes for kids, to street fairs, meetings and brochures targeting parents. Encouragement campaigns can be developed into a consensus building and marketing tool to win increased community, political and governmental support for traffic calming and increased police enforcement and engineering changes.

Programs using the Encouragement model typically include these goals and methods.

Goals

1. Encourage walking and cycling to school. Could be measurable increases.
2. * Could include winning safer walking and cycling corridors at some point in future.

Methods

Summary: Change child and parent behavior, to encourage walking or cycling to school.

1. Walking School Buses, group bicycling and a variety of encouragement literature targeted at children and their parents.

2. *Can include public awareness campaign and outreach to press, community and political leaders.

Public and Governmental Participation and Funding

1. *Can include the active participation of and funding from government agencies.
2. *Can be initiated and conducted by civic group, advocates, school or government agency.
3. *Government funding: Not required. Could be millions of dollars for comprehensive campaign.

Advocacy Requirements

1. Advocacy Funding Level to successfully Initiate: Low. $5,000.
2. Advocacy Experience Needed: Low.

Scale

Most suitable for city or county level. Could be implemented on regional, big, small city or local levels with large government commitment.

The Enforcement Model

Numerous police departments across the country have child traffic safety campaigns. Some (like Chicago’s) are called Safe Routes to School. Typically the police use crash maps to find schools with the highest number of children struck by cars. Police enforcement is assigned accordingly. Many enforcement campaigns also include police visits to schools where children are educated on safe cycling and walking and given safety literature and prizes. Enforcement campaigns are often a short term response to community anger after children are killed and injured. More effective campaigns are usually part of a broader, sustained traffic enforcement strategy.

Programs using the Enforcement model typically include these goals and methods.

Goals

1. Reduce child pedestrian and cycling crashes.

Methods

Summary: Change motorist behavior through increased traffic enforcement.

Modify child and parent behavior to improve cycling and walking safety. Ironically, this some times results in discouraging children cycling and walking due to the severe nature of police traffic safety information.

1. Increased police traffic enforcement; especially during school hours. Tends to be less than one month in duration.

2. Educate children and parents in safer cycling and walking practices.

3. *Can include media campaign with “Get Tough” message to motorists.

Public and Governmental Participation and Funding

1. Must include some commitment by police department or highest level of political support.

Advocacy Requirements

1. Advocacy Funding Level to successfully Initiate: Low. $2,500.
2. Advocacy Experience Needed: Medium to low.

Funding Requirements

1. Employs existing police resources. Unknown opportunity cost.

Scale

Most suitable for city or county level.

Inventory of programs

Note: this is a working draft, and it is by no means exhaustive. It includes a range of school-related pedestrian and bicycle programs that represent the efforts from a number of fields, disciplines and philosophies, not exclusive to traffic calming projects. Many of these projects are just now getting started, or have not previously collected quantitative information on their initiatives. Thus, there are significant gaps in the availability of some types of information. The intention is to continue to fill in these gaps.

Safe Routes to School California Child Health and Safety Education Initiative		California: Statewide
Lead Implementers:	California Department of Health Services EPIC (Epidemiology for Injury Control) Branch -State and Local Injury Control Program -Walk Day Headquarters Center for Health Training Physical Activity & Health Initiative, University of California, San Francisco
Partners:
Location:	Statewide, California
Contact Info:	Peggy DiSilva Walk Day Headquarters Center for Health Training 2229 Lombard Street San Francisco, CA 94123 1-877-4-SAFERT FAX: 415-929-9465
Web Address:	http://www.dhs.ca.gov/EPIC/html/index.htm
Project Focus:	Aims to encourage physical activity and safer child pedestrian behavior through events and safety education.
Summary:	· Convened a multi-disciplinary steering committee to conduct long-range planning. · Conducted focus groups, learning perspectives from parents & community activists; traffic safety & law enforcement personnel; urban planners and traffic engineers; and school & public health personnel. · Hosted a statewide conference and prepared a post-conference newsletter. · Provided encouragement and assistance to local coordinators of a Walk a Child to School Day event. As many as 200 schools participated in 1999. · Granted 10 Safe Routes to School demonstration projects using Federal 402 Safety funds.
Engineering, Planning and Design Strategy:	Not a focus
Enforcement Strategy:	Not a focus
Educational Focus:	Not a focus
Built/Unbuilt-Urban/Suburban:	All
Status:	Ongoing since 2000.
Budget:	Overall: N/A 10 demonstration projects granted $25,000 each.
Funding Source:	Overall: N/A California Health Department granted 10 Safe Routes to School programs with Safe Communities model using Federal 402 Safety funds in 2000-2001

California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Campaign.		California: Statewide
Lead Implementers:	Surface Transportation Policy Project
Partners:	California Bicycle Coalition
Location:	Statewide, California
Contact Info:	James Corless Surface Transportation Policy Project California Office (415) 956-7795
Web Address:	http://www.transact.org/Toolmonth/1999/may.htm http://www.baypeds.org/saferoutes.html
Project Focus:	Makes money available to improve safety and design of street and sidewalk environment along routes to school.
Summary:	Legislation directs $20 million annually in federal transportation safety funding from the Hazard Eliminaton/Safety program toward a program to fund local engneering improvements to school route safety. Traditional pedestrian safety countermeasures are eligible for funding, as are traffic calming programs around schools to slow speeds of cars and make the streets safer for children walking to school.
Engineering, Planning and Design Strategy:	Make funding available for localities to construct traffic calming and traditional pedestrian safety measures.
Enforcement Strategy:	Not a focus
Educational Focus:	Not a focus
Built/Unbuilt-Urban/Suburban:	All
Status:	Campaign launched in 1998, legislation passed in 1999, money allocated in 2000-2001. Renewal legislation campaign begins 2001.
Budget:	N/A
Funding Source:	N/A

California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Implementation		California: Statewide
Lead Implementers:	Caltrans, Local Programs
Partners:	Local governments.
Location:	Statewide, California
Contact Info:	Local Programs at Caltrans P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 916-654-5266
Web Address:	http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoute.htm
Project Focus:	Aims to improve pedestrian and bike safety through funding local planning and construction of street design and traffic calming.
Summary:	Participants structure their proposed improvements to meet as many of the seven rating factors and criteria as possible. The statewide SR2S Project Recommendation Committee (comprised of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies along with bicycle and pedestrian stakeholder groups) guides the granting guidelines. Project applications will be rated in each of these categories as being excellent, good, fair, poor or ineligible. The following list identifies the seven factors: • Identification and demonstration of needs • Potential for proposed improvement to correct or improve the problem • Potential for encouraging increased walking and bicycling among students • Consultation and support for project by school-based associations, local traffic engineers, local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, school officials, and other community groups • Potential for timely implementation of project • Demonstrated relationship between the project and a Safe Routes to School plan • Demonstrated coordination of SR2S funds with other activities, including education, enforcement and outreach activities
Engineering, Planning and Design Strategy:	Municipalities apply to State for grants, but must have input and involvement from the community. A wide range of traffic calming and traditional pedestrian safety approaches are eligible for funding.
Enforcement Strategy:	Not a focus
Educational Focus:	Not a focus
Built/Unbuilt-Urban/Suburban:	Statewide, all are eligible.
Status:	85 schools have been selected to receive first round Safe Routes to School funding for the year 1999-2000. Program will continue until 2002 unless legislation passes to make program permanent.
Budget:	Approximately $60 million for 3 years.
Funding Source:	From state law passed in 2000 to mandate Federal Hazard Elimination Program funds be set aside to fund local Safe Routes to School programs. See "Surface Transportation Policy Project Safe Routes to School Legislation" in this document.

Marin County Safe Routes to Schools		California: Marin County
Lead Implementers:	Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Partners:	Multi-Mobile, a Project of the Tides Center, The Marin Community Foundation, The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the Fred Gellert Foundation, The California Office of Traffic and Safety, The Miller Family Foundation, and the Kidsplate program provide funding.