Safe Routes to School Improving Health, Safety and Transportation Lenexa, KS

Safe Routes to School goals  Where it’s safe, get children walking and biking  Where it’s not safe, make changes Winston-Salem, NC

The need for Safe Routes to School 1.Fewer kids today walk and bike to school 2.Unintended consequences have resulted 3.SRTS programs are part of the solution

1. Fewer kids are biking and walking. More parents are driving.  2001: 16% walked  1969: 42% walked (CDC, 2005)

Parents driving… What caused the shift? Parents driving children to school: 20%-25% of morning traffic (NHTSA 2003; Dept. of Environment)

School siting issues: A generation ago  Small schools  Located in community centers (EPA, 2003)

School siting issues: Today  Mega-schools  Built on edges of towns and cities

School consolidation has lengthened the trip between home and school

It’s not just distance Students who live within 1 mile and walk or bike: 2001: 63% 1969: 87% (CDC, 2005)

Most common barriers to walking and bicycling to school  Long distances62%  Traffic danger30%  Adverse weather19%  Fear of crime danger12% Note: Sum of percentages is more than 100% because respondents could identify more than one barrier. (CDC, 2005)

Traffic danger

Adverse weather Howard’s Grove, WICentreville, VA

 Fear of crime (both real and perceived)  Abandoned buildings  Other reasons Individual community issues

2. What are the unintended consequences of less walking and bicycling?  For the environment  For individual health

Air quality Measurably better around schools with more walkers and bicyclists (EPA, 2003) Chicago, IL

Physical inactivity  Most kids aren’t getting the physical activity they need  Recommended 60 minutes on most, preferably all, days of the week (US Depts. of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, 2005)

U.S. youth overweight rates (National Center for Health Statistics)

Overweight children have an increased risk of…  Type 2 Diabetes  Low self esteem  Decreased physical functioning  Obesity in adulthood  Many other negative emotional & physical effects (Institute of Medicine, 2005)

3. Safe Routes to School programs are part of the solution…...to improve walking and bicycling conditions!...to increase physical activity!...to decrease air pollution! Dallas, TX

More benefits of SRTS programs  Reduce congestion around schools  Can lead to cost savings for schools (reduce need for “hazard” busing)  Others: increase child’s sense of freedom, help establish lifetime habits, teach pedestrian and bicyclist skills

Elements of SRTS programs  Education  Encouragement  Enforcement  Engineering  Evaluation Lenexa, KS

Education  Imparts safety skills  Creates safety awareness  Fosters life-long safety habits  Includes parents, neighbors and other drivers Chicago, IL

Encouragement  Increases popularity of walking and bicycling  Is an easy way to start SRTS programs  Emphasizes fun

Enforcement  Increases awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists  Improves driver behavior  Helps children follow traffic rules Denver, CO Richmond, VA

Engineering  Creates safer conditions for walking and bicycling  Can influence the way people behave West Valley City, UT

Federal Safe Routes to School program  $612 million to States  Funds infrastructure and non-infrastructure activities  Requires State SRTS Coordinators  Iowa funds allocated through IDOT More information:

I-WALK Partnership & Purpose Assist communities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of local Safe Routes to School programs Iowa Department of Public Health Public School System Iowa State University Extension Local Public Health

I-WALK Goal To develop a sustainable model for community coalitions to continuously update, implement, and evaluate the local Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan.

I-WALK Components 1.Community coalition 2.Evaluation a)Teacher Tally b)Parent & Student Online Survey c)GPS Walkability Assessment 3.GPS & Program Training, TA 4. Presentation of data results to community

1. Community Coalition Community coalition members Local Public Health School Representatives: teachers, principals, parent, student Citizens Parks and Recreation department Public safety/School Resource Officer City Planners Others?

2. Evaluation: Teacher Tally  Conducted by classroom teacher for 5 consecutive days  Completed weeks of October 4-8, 2010 & Aug/September 2011  Determines how students get to and from school

2. Evaluation: Parent & Student Online Survey  Parent and student to complete together at same time  Identifies current routes students take to/from school  Identifies barriers to walking or biking to school

2. Evaluation: GPS Walkability Assessment  Coalition and community members walk routes identified by the parent & student survey  GPS is used to collect data and sent back to ISU Extension for analysis

3. GPS & Program Training, TA  1 Day Regional Training  Overview of GPS use and data collection  Occur between February & May 2011  Technical Assistance provided by IDPH & ISUE

4. Presentation to community  Aug/Sept 2011 present data results and recommendations to Community  Next steps to Safer Routes to School  Coalition members to extend invitations to community

Coalition Member Responsibilities  Teacher tally –Oct, 2010 & Aug/Sept 2011  Determine desired % increase in kids who WOB to/from school  Recruit parents & students to complete online surveys

Coalition Member Responsibilities  GPS & Program training  Walkability assessment  Presentation of data  Program feedback

will provide all resources related to the I-WALK project Additional resources Iowans Fit for Life (IDPH) National Center for Safe Routes to School Iowa Department of Transportation