Integrating a Health Impact Assessment into District-Wide School Travel Plan...
#81 Using Data and Survey Information to Guide Safe Routes to School Programs and Advocacy Strategies - Landman
1. Kids are Commuters Too!
The Mode Shift Potential of Walk to School Programs
Wendy Landman
WalkBoston
September 2012
ProWalk ProBike
On twitter: @WalkBoston
2. Why do we need to better target Safe
Routes to School programs?
What are the ingredients of a “successful” SRTS mode
shift program (separate from safety focused programs) –
and have we been getting there?
Brockton – One of WalkBostonʼs
favorite urban, lower income municipal
partners, and what we learned from our
research…
3. Brockton has:
1. Enthusiasm
2. City buy in – including funding for SRTS efforts at
five participating schools
3. Terrific leadership from school department wellness
coordinator
4. Participation by police, local semi-pro sports teams,
terrific local press
5. After two years of pretty intensive investment saw a
~2% increase in walking
6. Brookfield School selected to receive state SRTS
funds for infrastructure project
4. What we learned…
• The SRTS program is thus being delivered almost
entirely to students who live far away.
• It turns out that at the Brookfield School only about 25%
of the students live within ½ mile of the school and 35%
within one mile – 65% of students live more than a mile
from school.
• With 16 – 17% of all students walking, we may be seeing
close to 70% of the students who live with ½ mile already
walking which translates into only 40 students who live
with ½ mile and are not already walking.
• The geographic distribution of students make the
Brookfield School a poor choice for investing in a
mode shift focused SRTS program.
5. Conditions vary hugely - we should pick
places where we can have impact
• Whelan School: 330 students living within ½ mile are
being driven to school – and thus present great
potential for mode shift programs of high impact – this
the community that WalkBoston is now working with.
Our goal is to add 5 – 8% walking trips each year and
we have a lot of short car trips to work with!
• Lincoln School: 220 students are already walking and
only 74 students are being driven from within ½ mile.
This school has expressed interest in SRTS, but
presents a relatively small opportunity for mode shift.
6. Back to the beginning: Our Research Questions
1. Can we better target SRTS programs to achieve
mode shift, reach children in need, and reduce GHG
emissions?
2. Can we find out what schools or school districts
have a lot of children who live near school but are
currently being driven?
3. What information is missing?
• Walksheds of schools – not “as the crow flies”
• Number of children near schools
• Demographic information
• School assignment policies
• Geography of transportation choices
7. Walkshed Assessments – Sample 1
• Lots of
sidewalks
• Low
volume, low
speed
streets
• Open space
• Highly
connected
street
network
8. Walkshed Assessments – Sample 2
• Little street
connectivity
• High
volume,
high speed
streets
• Missing
sidewalks
9. Community walksheds
How much
of the
community
is within
walking
distance of
any
school?
12. How to target programs to children in need?
Because income
is a good proxy
for children at risk
of overweight or
obesity, % of
children eligible
for free or
reduced price
lunch was used
to identify places
of need
13. Assignment policies
• Massachusetts does not maintain any consolidated
information on district assignment policies which vary
from all neighborhood schools to district-wide magnet
programs
• Almost every one of the stateʼs 351 cities and towns has
a separate school district (332 districts)
• Based on density and demographic data we called many
districts to find the ones that had primarily neighborhood-
based school districts where most students go to nearby
schools
• From among this set we solicited districts to participate in
the survey
14. Surveyed Districts
We
approached
many
districts –
found nine
who
participated
15. Survey
Instrument
• New, 6-question
school commute
survey
• Seven languages
• Pilot survey in two
schools
• On-line map
interface
• 51% response rate
26. Connected (chained) vs dedicated trips
Trip chaining may
make it more
complicated to shift
trips from cars to
feet
27. Vehicle availability and mode choice
Fewer cars
translate to
more
walking and
bus use
and less
driving
28. Distance and mode choice
½ mile
walking
distance
really seems
to be the
place where
mode shift is
most likely
to succeed
29. GHG emissions and school mode choice
Estimated Emissions and Cost of Auto School Commuting, by Surveyed District
Annual GHG Avg. Student
Annual Fuel Cost per
Emissions (kg) per Annual Auto GHG Commutes as a Share
Municipality Student Auto
Student Auto per Household (kgs) of Avg. Household
Commuter*+
Commuter* GHG
Brockton 425 $152 7,196 5.9%
Lawrence 240 $86 5,611 4.3%
Malden 329 $113 5,374 6.1%
Newton 157 $59 7,485 2.1%
Revere 267 $95 5,572 4.8%
Somerville 369 $120 4,505 8.2%
Winchester 266 $95 8,352 3.2%
Source: MassGIS analysis of MA RMV vehicle inspection records, 2005-07; MAPC analysis; MAPC survey, 2011. * Surveyed Schools only,
+Assuming Avg. gas price of $3.70/gal (fuel gauge report)
32. National Unified Voice for Walking
Vision for a Walkable America
• 300+ organizations …
• Steering Committee
• D.C. Advocacy
• Walking Action Network
34. The National Walking Survey was a
collaborative effort between America Walks
and Hunter College Professors
Peter Tuckel (Sociology) and
William Milczarski (Urban Planning).
35. Purpose: to examine attitudes and
behaviors concerning walking
◦ Focus on frequent walkers
www.pedbikeimages.org/LucianoRizzi
36. On-line survey sponsored by America Walks
Partner Organizations:
AARP (participating state chapters)
Active Transportation Alliance
Alliance for Biking & Walking
American Public Health Association
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP)
Bike Walk Virginia
California Walks
Initiative for Bike & Ped Innovation (IBPI) at Portland State U.
PedNet Coalition
PEDS
Rails-To-Trails Conservancy
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Vermont Bicycle & Pedestrian Coalition
Walk Boston
Walk San Diego
Walk San Francisco
Walking.About.com
Willamette Pedestrian Coalition
37. About the survey:
Survey conducted between April 27 & June 13
Publicized through
homepages
e-mails
Facebook
Went “viral” – Facebook, twitter, blogs
Purposive sample; n = 7,019
Some less avid walkers also included among
respondents
38. “I love it. Power walk 40 minutes a day outside...rain,
snow, or sleet...never miss it.”
“Walking rocks! It is the best stress buster going and
free and easy to do!”
“Walking is a very important part of my life.”
“My parents encouraged me to walk a lot when I was
a young child and the habit of walking and my
pleasure in it has persisted.”
39. Demographic profile
Survey U.S.
◦ Race
White, non-Hispanic 90.1% 67.0%
Asian 1.6% 4.8%
African-American 2.4% 11.6%
Hispanic 2.1% 14.2%
◦ Education
Bachelor’s degree 33.8% 17.4%
Grad training or degree 47.2% 10.1%
◦ Median HH Income $46,256 $41,994
◦ % ≥ 45 55.0% 34.4%
◦ % Female 65.0% 50.9%
40. Frequency of Walking
Frequency Percent
◦ Never 33 0.5
◦ Rarely 257 3.7
◦ A few times a month 415 6.0
◦ 1-2 days a week 889 12.8
◦ 3-4 days a week 1589 22.8
◦ 5-6 days a week 1510 21.7
◦ Everyday 2264 32.5
Total 6957 100.0
77.0% are avid walkers!
41. Walk Frequency by Age
Frequent Infrequent
Age Walker Walker
18-24 63.7% 36.3%
25-30 57.6% 42.4%
31-44 51.6% 48.4%
45-64 52.9% 47.1%
65+ 61.1% 38.9%
frequent infrequent
63.7
61.1
57.6
51.6 52.9
48.4 47.1
42.4
38.9
36.3
18-24 25-30 31-44 45-64 65+
43. Length of Time a Person Has Been Walking
Frequency Percent
◦ < 1 year 301 7.5
◦ 1 year up to 2 years 349 8.6
◦ 2 years up to 3 years 356 8.8
◦ 3 years up to 5 years 439 10.9
◦ > 5 years 2,592 64.2
Total 4,037 100.0
Almost two-thirds have been walking
more than 5 years.
44. Where Do People Walk?
Gym Treadmill at home Mall
Parks/forests Other Sidewalks/streets
Combination of places
2% 1%
0%
8% 2%
23%
64%
45. Source of Original Encouragement
Frequency Percent
◦ Family member 287 5.4
◦ Friend 219 4.1
◦ Health care professional 212 4.0
◦ Organization in my community 59 1.1
◦ Organization I work for 140 2.6
◦ Media 353 6.6
◦ Just decided on my own 3,037 56.7
◦ Don’t remember 284 5.3
◦ Other 763 14.3
Total 5,354 100.0
Only 4% received encouragement to walk from a
health care professional
46. Orientation toward Walking for Non-Pet Owners & Pet Owners
Non-Pet Owners Pet Owners
Care for pet & health
Both reasons
Health/relaxation Care for pet & destination
Get to a destination Care for pet
24% 14%
41%
17%
69%
35%
47. Orientation toward Walking by Age
(excludes pet owners)
18-24 25-30 31-44 45-64 65+ TOTAL
Health/
relaxation 7.7% 13.0% 27.6% 45.8% 52.5% 35.3%
Get to a
destination 50.5% 43.3% 31.4% 13.0% 10.3% 23.6%
Both reasons 41.8% 43.7% 41.0% 41.3% 37.2% 41.2%
Walking for health/relaxation increases
with age.
48. What is a Walkable Neighborhood?
There are many places to go within easy
walking distance of my home.
It is easy to walk to a transit stop (bus, subway,
train) from my home.
There are many interesting things to look at
while walking in my neighborhood.
49. Walking and Walkability
Frequent walker Infrequent walker
88.1
78
64.9
Percent of people who are
frequent walkers
by neighborhood walkability 35.1
22
11.9
Low walkability Middle walkability High walkability
People in highly
walkable neighborhoods
are much more likely to
walk
50. “We moved to Baltimore City's Federal Hill neighborhood
specifically because of its walkability.”
“When deciding which neighborhood to live in, walkability
was a main factor for me.”
“My neighborhood is really nice in terms of walkability.”
“Walkability is a dealbreaker for me. Won't live anywhere
without good transport and local shopping.”
51. Orientation toward Walking and Walkability
(excludes pet owners)
Low Medium High
Walkability Walkability Walkability TOTAL
Health/relaxation 56.2% 32.8% 14.2% 31.4%
Get to a destination 11.5% 25.0% 35.6% 25.7%
Both reasons 32.3% 42.3% 50.3% 42.9%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Low walkability – health/relaxation;
high walkability – instrumental.
52. Orientation toward Walking and Population Density
(excludes pet owners)
Low Middle High
Density Density Density TOTAL
Health/relaxation 59.4% 41.3% 12.4% 35.1%
Get to a destination 8.7% 19.1% 38.1% 23.6%
Both reasons 31.9% 39.6% 49.4% 41.3%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Low density – health/relaxation; high density – instrumental.
53. Orientation and Duration of Walking (mins.)
(excludes pet owners)
15 to < 30 30 to < 60 60 to < 90 90+ Don’t know
Health/
relaxation 33.9% 50.1% 12.2% 3.6% 0.3%
Get to a
destination 83.5% 14.0% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0%
Both reasons 57.1% 33.2% 6.4% 2.3% 1.0%
Health/relaxation – long trips;
instrumental – short trips
54. Reasons for Walking
(percentage who answered very important)
Walking helps me to maintain good health - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71.1
Walking helps me to feel calm and less stressed - - - - - - - - - - -60.6
Walking gives me more physical energy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58.2
Walking gets me out of the house and I feel better afterwards - - - 53.6
Walking helps me to maintain my weight - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52.0
Walking allows me to get to a specific destination such as work,
school, or a store - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51.8
Walking gives me an opportunity to go out and explore my
surroundings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47.7
Walking helps me to lose weight - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34.2
Walking allows me to take care of my pet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -22.4
Walking is how I get to/from transit stops - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22.1
Walking gives me an opportunity to spend time with family or
friends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.0
Walking is my main form of transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.7
55. “It is a win/win form of transportation.”
“Walking helps me reduce my environmental impact.”
“Gives me uninterrupted talk time with my husband
or daughter.”
“I enjoy the time alone.”
“I simply feel better after a walk.”
“Walking is the most sensible way to go short
distances.”
56. Type of Walker and Medical Conditions
Frequent Walkers Infre-
Health/ Get to a quent
relaxation destination Both walkers TOTAL
≥ 15 lbs. overweight 36.6 19.5 25.9 41.9 31.8
Hypertension 19.4 7.2 12.5 18.7 15.0
Depression 7.8 9.3 9.4 12.8 9.9
Arthritis 11.8 5.2 9.2 10.9 9.6
Asthma 7.8 8.4 9.1 8.5 8.5
Osteoporosis 6.9 1.4 4.1 4.1 4.4
Diabetes 6.1 1.8 3.5 4.8 4.2
Heart disease 4.4 0.6 2.0 3.1 2.7
Cancer 2.2 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.5
None of the above 36.4 60.3 49.0You 38.5 44.9
should
walk
more.
57. Frequency of Walking and Medical Conditions
Type of Walker
number of Frequent Infrequent
conditions Walker Walker
0 48.7% 40.5%
1 31.0% 30.2%
2 13.0% 18.3%
3+ 7.3% 11.1%
Number of Medical Conditions
58. Walkability and Medical Conditions
Neighborhood walkability:
# of Medical Conditions 0 1 2 3+
Residents of more walkable communities
have fewer illnesses.
60. Physical Activities Besides Walking:
Frequent Walkers
number of Infrequent Frequent
activities Walker Walker Total
None 7.1% 4.5% 5.7%
1–2 35.9% 29.0% 32.2%
3–4 36.2% 40.0% 38.3%
5+ 20.7% 26.6% 23.9%
Frequent walkers participate
in other activities. This is
true even when controlling
for several demographic
variables.
61. Physical Activities Besides Walking:
Dog Walkers
number of Without With
activities a Dog a Dog Total
None 5.3% 3.1% 4.8%
1–2 31.6% 24.1% 29.8%
3–4 39.3% 40.5% 39.6%
5+ 23.8% 32.4% 25.8%
Most walkers participate
in other physical activities;
dog walkers even more so.
62. Walkability and Physical Activities Besides Walking
number of Walkability
activities Low Medium High
0 7.5% 4.8% 3.7%
1–2 36.8% 31.5% 27.0%
3–4 37.2% 37.4% 41.5%
5+ 18.5% 26.3% 27.8%
People in walkable communities are more active in
general.
www.pedbikeimages.org/MaxBushell
63. Reasons for Not Walking
(percentage who strongly agree)
I am involved in other physical activities and do not feel the
need to walk more - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.9
In my neighborhood things like not enough sidewalks or
speeding motor vehicles discourage me from walking more - - - 13.3
I do not have time to walk more - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.8
With things like work or family responsibilities, I do not have
the energy left to walk more - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.8
There are not many desirable places nearby in which to walk - - - 10.6
I am just not that enthusiastic about walking more - - - - - - - - - 6.9
The level of crime in my neighborhood discourages me from
walking more - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.4
64. “no sidewalks, speeding cars, and unrestrained dogs”
“laziness!”
“My girlfriend does not like walking that much.”
“There's no point. You have to drive anywhere to get
to anything.”
“I don't usually consider walking as an alternative. I
just hop in the car to go somewhere without
thinking.”
65. Safety Problems for Walkers
Very big Somewhat of
problem (%) problem (%) Total%
Drivers talking on cell phones or using
other electronic devices _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26.5 27.7 54.2
Speeding motor vehicles _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22.9 30.3 53.2
Unsmooth sidewalks or other walking surfaces _ _ 13.4 24.7 43.4
Not enough sidewalks __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18.7 20.7 39.4
Poorly-lit streets _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10.7 22.6 33.3
The sidewalks are too narrow _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.8 16.5 23.3
The walk signs or street signals do not give me
enough time to walk across the street safely _ _ _ 5.5 12.6 18.1
Crime _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.4 10.1 13.5
Dogs or other animals _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.4 9.7 13.1
66. “Drivers in my area do not give pedestrians the right of
way in cross walks.”
“The greatest physical danger to frequent walkers in my
community are speeding drivers who run red lights and
fail to slow at crosswalks.”
“I would walk MUCH more often if we had sidewalks and
more tickets for cell-phone/texting drivers.”
“Cars turn right on red without stopping or looking even
when I have the WALK signal.”
“Distracted drivers is my number one concern while
walking.”
67. Transportation Used by Grade K – 8 Children
of Respondents (n=775)
Automobile - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.4%
Walking - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.5%
School bus/van - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.4%
Child (children) uses a combination of means - - 14.8%
Bicycle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.6%
More than one child in elementary school and
they use different means of transportation - - - 2.8%
Public transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.7%
Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.7%
68. Transportation to School by Walkability
Walkability of Neighborhood
Transportation Low Medium High Total
to school
Automobile 38.3% 32.3% 17.2% 29.4%
School bus 25.7% 20.4% 9.9% 18.7%
Bike 1.5% 4.4% 5.9% 3.9%
Walk 17.0% 21.7% 40.4% 26.1%
All other 17.5% 21.2% 26.6% 21.7%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
69. Transportation to School and Parents’ Walking
Walking by Parents
Transportation Infrequent Frequent Total
to school
Automobile 45.5% 26.4% 31.3%
School bus/van 22.5% 19.6% 20.3%
Bicycle 3.0% 4.0% 3.8%
Walking 16.0% 26.2% 23.6%
All else 13.0% 23.8% 21.0%
70. Only 6.6% heard or read about the benefits of
walking through the media.
Only 4.0% said that a health care professional
encouraged them to walk.
◦ Even among those with serious medical conditions, only a
small proportion received encouragement to walk from a
health care professional.
Many health/relaxation walkers have a serious
medical condition.
◦ For them, walking is for the purpose of preventing further
deterioration in health.
Greater efforts are needed to publicize the multiple
benefits of walking.
71. Among infrequent walkers, a higher percentage cite
“neighborhood” factors (e.g., not enough
sidewalks, speeding motor vehicles) rather than
“personal” factors (e.g., not enough time).
54.2% of respondents cite “drivers talking on cell
phones or using other electronic devices as a “very
big problem” or “somewhat of a problem.”
53.2% of respondents cite “speeding motor
vehicles” as a “very big problem” or “somewhat of a
problem.
More resources should be devoted to protecting
people walking, especially from motor vehicles.
72. Large percentages of respondents noted
infrastructure as a problem:
◦ Unsmooth sidewalks (43.4%)
◦ Lack of sidewalks (39.4%)
◦ Poorly lit streets (33.3%)
Walkability matters.
Walkability and population
density are not the same. Avid walkers are in
cities, suburbs and rural areas.
Walkability matters.
Children walk to school if their parents are walkers
and if they live in walkable neighborhoods.
Walkability matters.
73. People in more walkable neighborhoods have a
fewer number of serious medical conditions. This
finding holds even after controlling for age, sex,
education and other background variables.
Walkability matters.
People in more walkable neighborhoods engage in
a greater number of physical activities besides
walking. This finding holds even after controlling
for age, sex, education and other background
variables.
Walkability matters.
74. Meet the needs of health/relaxation walkers
Make neighborhoods walkable
◦ Nearby destinations
◦ Connectivity
◦ Accessible to transit stops
◦ Attractive, safe, interesting walking environment
◦ Tame the motor vehicle
◦ Safety from crime
75. The medical community needs to advocate
walking with their patients one on one
Health/fitness messages need to be aimed at
young adults to build walking habits that will
endure or be restored later
Organizations working for arthritis, heart and
other specific types of health need to
continue their work to get people walking
76. Messages need crafting for minority
populations and those less advantaged
◦ Why walking is important
◦ Fitting walking into your busy life
◦ Walking is cool
Walking infrastructure needs improving
◦ Safe, usable by all, and attractive
Slower, safer vehicle speeds
77. Walking Action Network
◦ Steps to a Walkable Community
◦ Training and technical assistance
◦ Information Collection and Dissemination
◦ Evaluation
