Kids are Commuters Too!

The Mode Shift Potential of Walk to School Programs

Wendy Landman WalkBoston

September 2012

ProWalk ProBike

On twitter: @WalkBoston

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…

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

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 amode shift focused SRTS program.

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.

Back to the beginning: Our Research Questions1.  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

Walkshed Assessments – Sample 1

•  Lots of sidewalks •  Low

volume, low speed streets •  Open space •  Highly

connected street network

Walkshed Assessments – Sample 2

•  Little street connectivity •  High

volume, high speed streets •  Missing

sidewalks

Community walksheds

How much of the community is within walking distance of any school?

How many children are there?

How many children are near schools?

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

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

Surveyed Districts

We approached many districts – found nine who participated

Survey Instrument

•  New, 6-question school commute survey

•  Seven languages •  Pilot survey in two

schools •  On-line map

interface •  51% response rate

On-line tool, great in SOME districts

Sample Survey Results

Enormous range in commute patterns

Great variety in patterns

Great variety in patterns

Great variety in patterns

Understanding the Differences

Using data to make choices can lead to great differences in the success of mode shift programs

The Heart of the Matter

A few more details – which will help to inform program understanding and options

Morning and afternoon commutes

Connected (chained) vs dedicated trips

Trip chaining may make it more complicated to shift trips from cars to feet

Vehicle availability and mode choice

Fewer cars translate to more walking and bus use and less driving

Distance and mode choice

½ mile walking distance really seems to be the place where mode shift is most likely to succeed

GHG emissions and school mode choice Estimated Emissions and Cost of Auto School Commuting, by Surveyed District

Municipality

Annual GHG Emissions (kg) per

Student Auto Commuter*

Annual Fuel Cost per Student Auto Commuter*+

Annual Auto GHG per Household (kgs)

Avg. Student Commutes as a Share

of Avg. Household 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)

Molly O’Reilly, board member www.americawalks.org

National Unified Voice for Walking

Vision for a Walkable America •  300+ organizations … •  Steering Committee •  D.C. Advocacy •  Walking Action Network

April-June, 2011

The National Walking Survey was a collaborative effort between America Walks and Hunter College Professors

Peter Tuckel (Sociology) and William Milczarski (Urban Planning).

Purpose: to examine attitudes and behaviors concerning walking ◦ Focus on frequent walkers

www.pedbikeimages.org/LucianoRizzi

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

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

“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.”

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%

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!

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%

18-24 25-30 31-44 45-64 65+

63.7 57.6

51.6 52.9

61.1

36.3 42.4

48.4 47.1 38.9

frequent infrequent

Walk Frequency by Education

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.

Where Do People Walk?

2% 1% 0%

8% 2%

64%

23%

Gym Treadmill at home Mall

Parks/forests Other Sidewalks/streets

Combination of places

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

Orientation toward Walking for Non-Pet Owners & Pet Owners

41%

35%

24%

Non-Pet Owners

Both reasons Health/relaxation Get to a destination

69%

17%

14%

Pet Owners Care for pet & health

Care for pet & destination

Care for pet

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.

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.

Walking and Walkability

64.9

78 88.1

35.1

22 11.9

Low walkability Middle walkability High walkability

Frequent walker Infrequent walker

Percent of people who are frequent walkers

by neighborhood walkability

People in highly walkable neighborhoods are much more likely to walk

“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.”

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.

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.

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

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

“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.”

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 49.0 38.5 44.9 You

should walk

more.

Frequency of Walking and Medical Conditions

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

Type of Walker

Walkability and Medical Conditions

Residents of more walkable communities have fewer illnesses.

# of Medical Conditions 0 1 2 3+

Neighborhood walkability:

Physical Activities Besides Walking

Swimming Tennis Golf Jogging Skiing Bicycling Hiking Physical fitness (e.g., aerobics,

weight lifting) Gardening Bird watching Team sports Yoga

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.

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.

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

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

“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.”

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

“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.”

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%

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%

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%

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

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

  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

  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

Walking Action Network ◦ Steps to a Walkable Community ◦ Training and technical assistance ◦  Information Collection and Dissemination ◦ Evaluation

Thank you…….