Improving the Mobility of Children

Improving the Mobility of Children

Slide Presentations and Discussant Comments

Paper Sessions 1 and 2

2007 Annual Meeting Association of American Geographers

San Francisco, CA, April 17-21

Sponsorships: Applied Geography Specialty Group

Transportation Geography Specialty Group Urban Geography Specialty Group

Organizers:

Selima Sultana - University of North Carolina-Greensboro

Barry Wellar - Wellar Consulting, University of Ottawa, and Transport 2000 Canada

Session Description: In car-oriented cultures the mobility of children has seriously declined, with major impacts for both them and their families. Children are at risk from lack of safe pedestrian and bicycle travel in auto-dominated transport systems, as well as suffering from the air pollution produced by these systems. Families with children face serious transport challenges as children often have to be driven everywhere: to schools, after-school activities, day-care, friends' homes, recreation locations, etc. Through an excessive propensity by adults to drive, children are exposed to values that will increase the difficulty of achieving sustainable transport systems which are based on trips by walking, cycling and transit. This two-part session is intended to stimulate research on children's transportation for the present and in the future.

Slide Presentations

Paper Session 4238: Improving the Mobility of Children I

1. Barry Wellar. Adapting Walking Security Index Concepts and Procedures to Serve and Promote the Mobility of Children 2. Tracy McMillan, Allison Phillips. Cultural Comparison of Caregiver Decision-Making on Children's School Travel 3. Anne Hurni. A Good Place to Bring up the Kids; Investigating Neighbourhood Effects on Children’s Development in Sydney, Australia

Paper Session 4338: Improving the Mobility of Children II

4. Susan Wurtele, Jillian Ritchie. Transportation Infrastructure Improvements and Children's Mobility: Promoting Successful Transition from Busing to Walking and Cycling 6. Selima Sultana. The Journey to School by K-12 Children: Why Fewer Children are Riding the School Bus? 6. Discussant: Barry Wellar

Adapting Walking Security Index Concepts and Procedures to Serve and Promote the Mobility of Children

Abstract

The Walking Security Index (WSI) project was approved in 1994 as an element of the Transportation Environment Action Plan of the Region of Ottawa-Carleton. During the design phase (1995-1998) ten indexes were developed to measure the levels of safety, comfort and convenience expected and experienced by pedestrians at intersections. In the pilot study phase (1999-2002) three macro indexes were tested for operationality. Over the course of the project more than 25 documents were published, including Perspectives on Pedestrian Safety (1995), Walking Security Index (1998), Newspapers as a Source of Fact and Opinion on Pedestrians’ Safety, Comfort and Convenience (2000), and Walking Security Index Pilot Study (2002).

In this presentation the origins of the WSI project are briefly summarized, and the index formulation processes for the Intersection Volume and Design Index (IVDI), the Quality of Intersection Condition Index (QICI), and the Driver Behaviour Index (DBI) are outlined. Consideration is then given to how each of the macro indexes (IVDI, QICI, and DBI) can be used directly or modified to explicitly represent the interests of children in road and intersection designs and operations, and in motor vehicle safety and enforcement programs.

The presentation is concluded by discussing how the indexes can be applied by parents and advocacy groups, as well as by law enforcement, planning engineering and other agencies, to ensure that the levels of convenience, comfort and safety experienced by children while walking or biking exceed those of private motor vehicle operators, and thereby actively serve and promote the mobility of children.

Keywords: transportation, mobility, walking security index, childrenSlide 1

About the Walking Security Index (WSI) Project

The WSI project was initiated in 1994, and the phase funded by the Region of Ottawa-Carleton/City of Ottawa was completed in 2002. Since 2002 WSI project activities include advising active transportation advocates, publishing journal and proceedings articles, making presentations and holding workshops on index design, testing and implementation, commenting on thesis proposals, providing media commentary on issues related to pedestrians’ safety, comfort and convenience, providing opinions and expert witness testimony on civil and criminal matters related to pedestrians’ safety, investigating conflicts between vehicle operators and pedestrians, and exploring the relationship between transportation infrastructure, area planning and children’s mobility.Hardcopy publications from the WSI project are available from various libraries and government agencies in Canada, the United States, and abroad. A limited number of reports from the design phase of the WSI project are available for sale at cost to individuals and organizations, and a limited number of reports from the pilot study phase are available for sale to public libraries or other open-access organizations. Inquiries about WSI publications should be sent to B. Wellar: [email protected].

Readers who wish to learn more about the Walking Security Index are directed to the following websites: aix1.uottawa.ca/~wellarb/; wellarconsulting.com/;geomatics.uottawa.ca/wellarweb/home.htm; www.pedestrian.org;fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks2ah.htm

Slide 2

About Barry Wellar and the WSI Project

The WSI project was presented in 1994 as a research proposal to be undertaken as part of the Transportation Environment Action Plan, Region of Ottawa-Carleton. Barry Wellar was Principal Investigator for the Walking Security Index project, and Director of the Walking Security Index Program while Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Ottawa. Upon retirement in 2005 he formed Wellar Consulting Inc., and was appointed Distinguished Research Fellow in 2006 by Transport 2000 Canada Dr. Wellar is a Member of the Canadian Association of Geographers, and the Canadian Institute of Planners, and is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP). His research on the Walking Security Index has been referenced in successful applications to have him qualified as an expert witness in civil trials involving pedestrians’ safety.

Slide 3

Index Design Guiding Principle: Apply a Reality Test to Potential Variables

Variable Evaluation Criteria Used to Design and AssessWalking Security Index Research

General Particular

SupportPertinence

Degree of Difficulty

EnforceabilityData Availability

Slide 4

Intersection and Volume Design Index (IVDI)

IVDI = V1 • V2 • V3 • V4 • V5 • V6 • V7 • V8

where,V1 = number of passenger car equivalents2/hourV2 = number of pedestrians/hourV3 = number of lanes ratingV4 = number of turn lanes by type ratingV5 = intersection geometry rating V6 = intersection slope ratingV7 = direction(s) of traffic flow ratingV8 = number of channels adjacent to intersection rating

Slide 5

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comments on the IVDI

The largest IVDI number identifies the “Intersection from Hell”, relatively speaking, in terms of design, size and vehicle volumes. Simply put, the larger the IVDI number the less likely that an intersection would be deemed ‘pedestrian friendly’. That is, as the IVDI number increases, the safety, comfort and convenience of pedestrians decreases, and to varying degrees so does children’s mobility.

Slide 6

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comments on the IVDI

The IVD Index can be used in engineering studies, collision studies, pedestrian movement studies, and numerous other kinds of studies to identify and modify structural or functional features of intersections that directly affect the levels of safety, comfort and convenience experienced by children when crossing an intersection.

For example, the IVDI formulation can be used to estimate what an intersection will “look like” after a widening. This estimate can then be matched against existing IVDIs to point which out intersections the widened intersection will most resemble should the widening proceed.

Conversely, the variables that comprise the IVDI can be manipulated to reveal the changes to the physical design, or to the amount and type of vehicular traffic, that are necessary to achieve an IVDI score that approximates the number calculated for an intersection that receives a “thumbs up “ from children.

Slide 7

Quality of Intersection Condition Index

Slide 8

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comments on the QICI

It appears that the WSI research was the first in Canada to haveserious regard for the fact that there are usually four quadrants to an intersection.

The QICI can be tailored to meet the travel patterns of children by focusing on all quadrants, or particular quadrants, when looking for conditions that affect children’s use of intersections.

Slide 9

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comment on the QICI

There are 18 variables in the QICI. Most if not all of them affect children’s mobility. Time allows me to comment on one of them.

The variable ‘Stop bar painted and signed’ represents a narrow strip of paint, and sometimes but not always there is a posted sign beside the road pointing to the stop bar location. The sign is especially important in locations where snow may cover the painted bar. In the Ottawa research it was confirmed that the vast majority of stop bars are too close to crosswalks, and especially crosswalks near schools. It is our finding that stop bars should be at least six metres from a crosswalk, and that a posted sign is required because many drivers do not seem able to grasp that a stop bar is not always located one metre from a crosswalk.

Slide 10

Driver Behaviour Index

Driver Behaviour Index = ALIP

+ RLIP

+ FTYIP

where,

ALIP

= amber-light incidents per phase,

RLI P

= red-light incidents per phase,

FTYIP

= fail-to-yield incidents per phase.

Slide 11

Fitting the DBI to Serve Children’s Mobility: Zero Tolerance for Running the Red

For DBI fieldwork purposes, we modified the official version slightly, so that a red-light incident is deemed to occur if either of the following events is observed:

• for left turns and straights, vehicles cross the stop bar after the red shows;

• for right turns on red, vehicles do not come to a full stop before the stop bar.

This tight definition not only serves field work purposes, it also removes the large forgiveness factor that is currently available to aggressive drivers.

Slide 12

Fitting the DBI to Serve Children’s Mobility: Zero Tolerance for Running the Amber

For DBI fieldwork purposes, we again slightly modified the official version, so that an amber-light incident is deemed to occur if either of the following events is observed:

• for left turns and straights, vehicles cross the stop bar after the amber shows;

• for right turns on amber, vehicles cross the stop bar after the amber shows.

This tight definition not only serves field work purposes, it also removes the large forgiveness factor that is currently available to aggressive drivers.

Slide 13

Fitting the DBI to Serve Children’s Mobility: Zero Tolerance for Failure-to-Yield

For DBI fieldwork purposes, a failure-to-yield incident is deemed to have occurred if any of the following [nine] events are observed:

1 Vehicle blocks crosswalk when pedestrian signal in walk mode.2 Vehicle unable to clear intersection before start of pedestrian signal.3 Vehicle enters crosswalk when pedestrian in lane or about to enter lane.4 Vehicle accelerates to “beat” pedestrian to crosswalk.5 Vehicle fails to slow to allow pedestrian to enter crosswalk.6 Vehicle causes pedestrian to stop or change direction to avoid collision

in crosswalk.7 Vehicle causes pedestrian to delay entering crosswalk.8 Vehicle changes lanes to cut in front of or behind pedestrian.9 Vehicle fails to stop before reaching the stop bar.

Slide 14

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comments on the DBI

A total of thirteen variables (two for reds, two for ambers, and nine for fail-to-yield) were considered when formulating, testing and refining the DBI. The variables are fully discussed in the project reports, as are the procedures for calculating index scores and rankings. As a result, and in the interests of time, my focus here is on presenting an indicative selection of operations, enforcement, engineering, political, legal, and other initiatives that DBI scores and rankings would point to as means to improve the safety, comfort and convenience, and hence the mobility, of children as pedestrians.

Slide 15

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comments on the DBI

1 The DBI is an exceptional means for police services to prioritize the assignment of officers, photo radar and/or red-light cameras at intersections or quadrants to deal with motor vehicle operators who put children at risk.

2 Beginning with the intersections with the worst DBI rankings, photo radar and red-light cameras should be installed at all signalized intersections proximal to schools, libraries and other facilities that attract children as pedestrians. In school zones, infractions should entail triple-rate fines and license suspensions. This recommendation is consistent with the Zero-Tolerance-No Exceptions argument about how to deal with aggressive drivers and their impact on vulnerable road users.

3 Crossing times at intersections proximal to schools and other high-use children destinations should be set at the walking speeds of children.

Slide 16

Applying the Indexes: Illustrative Comments on the DBI

4 Parents and community groups should make it a publicized practiceto obtain monthly reports from police departments on citations issued for such offences as speeding, illegal lane changes, tail-gating, failure to stop before stop bar, crosswalk violations, illegal window tints, and failure to execute a complete stop near schools, libraries, parks and other locations frequented by children as pedestrians.

5 Parents and community groups should conduct their own surveillance of quadrants and intersections, compile their own records of violations, and develop their own DBI scores. This body of information is valuable when evaluating law enforcement and traffic engineering performance on a quadrant-by-quadrant or intersection-by intersection basis. In addition, this body of information would no doubt be exceedingly valuable should a legal situation arise involving a vehicle-child collision and lines of questioning in regard to the “effectiveness” of an enforcement program, and/or the conduct of traffic engineers, planners, or other professionals charged with providing safe passage for children.

Slide 17

Acknowledgements

Assistance from Sam Herold, Laboratory for Applied Geomatics and Geographic Information Systems Science (LAGGISS), Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, in preparing the PowerPoint presentation is gratefully acknowledged.

In addition, I wish to thank Transport 2000 Canada officials and members for supporting my research and publication activities asDistinguished Research Fellow, and I want to express my appreciation to the many individuals and groups who have contributed support, ideas and encouragement for my work on the Walking Security Index, sustainable transport, and other transportation topics.

Slide 18

Cultural comparison of Cultural comparison of caregiver decisioncaregiver decision--making making on childrenon children’’s school travels school travel

Tracy E. McMillan, PhD, MPHTracy E. McMillan, PhD, MPHUniversity of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas at Austin

pphpph partnerspartners

Youth school travelYouth school travel

Significant Significant reductionreduction in nonin non--motorized travel to motorized travel to school in recent decadesschool in recent decades–– Walking represents only 13% of tripsWalking represents only 13% of trips–– Private vehicles make up over 50% of tripsPrivate vehicles make up over 50% of trips

Why?Why?–– Plethora of associations such asPlethora of associations such as……

Physical environment: distance to schoolPhysical environment: distance to schoolHousehold constraints: time, convenienceHousehold constraints: time, convenienceCaregiver attitudes: perceptions of traffic, personal security, Caregiver attitudes: perceptions of traffic, personal security, convenienceconvenienceChild attitude: desire to walk/bikeChild attitude: desire to walk/bikeSocial/cultural: country of birthSocial/cultural: country of birth

Health issuesHealth issues

Significant Significant increaseincrease in prevalence of overweight in prevalence of overweight in youth since in youth since ’’60s60s–– In 1999, over 15% of youth aged 6In 1999, over 15% of youth aged 6--19 overweight19 overweight

Health disparitiesHealth disparities masked in this overall figuremasked in this overall figure–– Highest prevalence in MexicanHighest prevalence in Mexican--American and nonAmerican and non--

Hispanic black adolescentsHispanic black adolescents

Trip to school Trip to school importantimportant physical activity physical activity opportunityopportunity–– Contributes to overall amount of physical activity/dayContributes to overall amount of physical activity/day–– Youth traveling to school by active means are more Youth traveling to school by active means are more

active overallactive overall

Programming/policy reactionsProgramming/policy reactions

Safe Routes to SchoolSafe Routes to School–– Encouragement of safe & active travel to schoolEncouragement of safe & active travel to school–– Several local and stateSeveral local and state--level programs since late level programs since late

19901990’’ss–– National program funded in 2005National program funded in 2005

Increase in research fundingIncrease in research funding–– Robert Wood Johnson FoundationRobert Wood Johnson Foundation

Active Living Research/Active Living by DesignActive Living Research/Active Living by DesignRecent announcement of $500 million investment in Recent announcement of $500 million investment in childhood obesitychildhood obesity

PopulationPopulation--specific/sensitive programming? Not specific/sensitive programming? Not much yetmuch yet

MethodsMethods

Qualitative researchQualitative research–– Two Central Austin elementary schools selected based Two Central Austin elementary schools selected based

on demographics & intereston demographics & interest

–– Caregiver recruitment via flyers sent home in child Caregiver recruitment via flyers sent home in child folder, parent listserv and local advocacy groupfolder, parent listserv and local advocacy group

–– Participants had to live within walking distance of the Participants had to live within walking distance of the schoolschool

–– Interviews (nonInterviews (non--Hispanic caregivers) & focus groups Hispanic caregivers) & focus groups (Hispanic caregivers)(Hispanic caregivers)

School School locationslocations

ParticipantsParticipants

11 interviews with White/Black caregivers 11 interviews with White/Black caregivers –– 10 moms, 1 dad10 moms, 1 dad–– Represented 15 children aged 4Represented 15 children aged 4--9, 6 males/9 9, 6 males/9

femalesfemales

2 focus groups with Hispanic caregivers2 focus groups with Hispanic caregivers–– 10 caregivers overall: 610 caregivers overall: 6--7 moms, 1 dad, 1 7 moms, 1 dad, 1

grandmother, 1 adult sistergrandmother, 1 adult sister–– Represented 19 children aged 4Represented 19 children aged 4--12, 10 12, 10

males/6 females/3 unknownmales/6 females/3 unknown

School travelSchool travel

White/BlackWhite/Black–– Mode: Mode:

8 driven by caregiver8 driven by caregiver2 walked2 walked1 alternated between 1 alternated between walk/bike/drivewalk/bike/drive

–– Some driven in morning Some driven in morning walk in afternoon walk in afternoon

–– All accompanied by adultAll accompanied by adult–– No carpooling in morning, No carpooling in morning,

some in afternoon

HispanicHispanic–– Mode: Mode:

9 walked9 walked1 driven1 driven

–– No variation in travel from No variation in travel from morning to afternoon morning to afternoon

–– All accompanied by adultAll accompanied by adult

some in afternoon

Mode: Choice vs. Necessity?Mode: Choice vs. Necessity?White/BlackWhite/Black–– 7 reported mode was 7 reported mode was

necessity (all HH that necessity (all HH that drive)drive)

–– 3 reported choice (HH that 3 reported choice (HH that walk or bike)walk or bike)

–– 1 commented: 1 commented: ““initially I would say initially I would say necessity but reallynecessity but really……if I if I really think about it, itreally think about it, it’’s s probably more of a choice probably more of a choice because we do live very because we do live very close to the school and close to the school and could easily get up a little could easily get up a little earlier a walk, instead of earlier a walk, instead of drivingdriving…”…”

–– Why? Time, convenience, Why? Time, convenience, too much to carry

HispanicHispanic–– All reported that mode was All reported that mode was

a necessity, not a choicea necessity, not a choice–– Why? No car to drive, Why? No car to drive,

traffic safety (one family traffic safety (one family that drove in this group)that drove in this group)

too much to carry

When asked a different wayWhen asked a different way……primary primary factors influencing mode decisionfactors influencing mode decision

White/BlackWhite/Black–– Driving caregiversDriving caregivers

Traffic safetyTraffic safetyPersonal safety/securityPersonal safety/securityTime/convenienceTime/convenienceMaterials to carryMaterials to carry

–– Walk/bike caregiversWalk/bike caregiversProximityProximityWeatherWeatherLike walking for Like walking for exercise & exercise & environmental reasons

HispanicHispanic–– Driving caregiversDriving caregivers

Traffic safetyTraffic safety

–– Walk caregiversWalk caregiversNo carNo car

environmental reasons

Traffic safety conditionsTraffic safety conditions

White/BlackWhite/Black–– Traffic speedTraffic speed–– Traffic volumes near Traffic volumes near

the schoolthe school““ItIt’’s crazys crazy””Traffic in front of Traffic in front of schoolschool……itit’’s s tremendoustremendous””

–– Poor crossingsPoor crossings–– No crossing guardNo crossing guard–– Inattentiveness of Inattentiveness of

driversdrivers–– No sidewalk on main No sidewalk on main

road to school

HispanicHispanic–– Lots of traffic, heavy Lots of traffic, heavy

around schoolaround school–– Lack sidewalks in Lack sidewalks in

placesplaces–– Speed: Speed: ““people do people do

tend to go over 20 tend to go over 20 mph sometimesmph sometimes””

–– Sight linesSight lines–– 22--3 crossing guards at 3 crossing guards at

this schoolthis school

road to school

Personal safety commentsPersonal safety commentsWhite/BlackWhite/Black–– ““safe as it can be and still safe as it can be and still

be normalbe normal””–– ““fairly safefairly safe””–– Caregivers generally felt Caregivers generally felt

safe, given neighborhood safe, given neighborhood location, and felt general location, and felt general safety for children, but safety for children, but keep them close bykeep them close by

““certainly not the level (of certainly not the level (of safety) that existed when safety) that existed when I was a child whereI was a child where……youyou’’d d leave on a summer day in leave on a summer day in the morning and not the morning and not return until nightreturn until night”

HispanicHispanic–– ““people you donpeople you don’’t know, t know,

worse than when we grew worse than when we grew upup——transients, drug transients, drug dealers, former convicts & dealers, former convicts & squatterssquatters””

–– ““Drugs in the neighborhood Drugs in the neighborhood are a problemare a problem””

–– ““It is safeIt is safe””–– Responses the same Responses the same

whether asking about own whether asking about own personal safety or childpersonal safety or child’’ss

”

““What do others think/would think about What do others think/would think about your child walking/bicycling to school?your child walking/bicycling to school?””

White/BlackWhite/Black–– Mixed responsesMixed responses

9 felt folks would be fine 9 felt folks would be fine ififchild was walking with an child was walking with an adult/not aloneadult/not alone2 felt friends & family 2 felt friends & family would not agree with itwould not agree with it

–– ““I donI don’’t think they would t think they would care. That has to be my care. That has to be my responsibilityresponsibility””

–– ““They get kudos for ridingThey get kudos for riding””–– ““I have in the back of my I have in the back of my

head sometimes this head sometimes this feeling of guilt that wefeeling of guilt that we’’re re not making that walk more not making that walk more oftenoften”

HispanicHispanic–– ““It isnIt isn’’t good, there can be t good, there can be

problems crossing the problems crossing the streetstreet””

–– ““that something is wrong that something is wrong with the parents of the with the parents of the childchild……no reason for a small no reason for a small child to be alonechild to be alone””

–– Worried they would get hit Worried they would get hit by a carby a car

”

Age, sex & independent travelAge, sex & independent travel

White/BlackWhite/Black–– Generally 10Generally 10--12 years 12 years

old/6old/6thth gradegrade““II’’m a little oldm a little old--fashioned; I say like 12fashioned; I say like 12””

–– Some felt older (15Some felt older (15--16)16)

“…“…nature of the time nature of the time we live inwe live in””

–– Sex of child?Sex of child?Influenced decision of Influenced decision of some, but not all

HispanicHispanic–– Age: 16Age: 16--17 and up17 and up

““Not at any ageNot at any age””

–– Sex of child?Sex of child?Some felt concern Some felt concern would be same no would be same no matter gender, matter gender, others felt greater others felt greater concern for femaleconcern for female

some, but not all

Then and nowThen and now……White/BlackWhite/Black–– 7 caregivers walked to 7 caregivers walked to

schoolschool–– 4 were driven (private 4 were driven (private

vehicle or bus)vehicle or bus)–– Pace of life different now, Pace of life different now,

overall seemed safer then, overall seemed safer then, mediamedia——hear more hear more ((““whether it occurs more whether it occurs more frequently now, I have no frequently now, I have no ideaidea””), wasn), wasn’’t as concerned t as concerned then about child safety, then about child safety, just seems less safe now

HispanicHispanic–– All walked to schoolAll walked to school–– ““Before you would do Before you would do

something & they would something & they would tell your mom. Neighbors tell your mom. Neighbors looked after each otherlooked after each other””

–– ““Life is fast nowLife is fast now””–– ““Children have more Children have more

opportunities, choicesopportunities, choices””–– ““Then, if someone Then, if someone

approached, you would run approached, you would run or fight. Now kids panic, or fight. Now kids panic, are fearful of people are fearful of people getting aggressivegetting aggressive”

just seems less safe now

”

ConclusionsConclusionsCultural differencesCultural differences–– Variations in travel mode & reasons behind it Variations in travel mode & reasons behind it –– Personal safety/security in neighborhoodPersonal safety/security in neighborhood–– Age of independent travelAge of independent travel–– What would others think?What would others think?

Cultural Cultural ““samenesssameness””–– Traffic conditions in neighborhoodTraffic conditions in neighborhood–– Sex differences in independent travelSex differences in independent travel–– Feelings about change in conditions over timeFeelings about change in conditions over time

Policy/programming implications?Policy/programming implications?

Urbanism, transportand child developmentin Sydney

Anne Hurni

A good place tobring up thekids?

Child development Children’s health and wellbeing in early life has lifelong

effects that result from interactions between biologicaldevelopment, and social, cultural and environmentalcircumstances (Wadsworth and Butterworth, 2006)

Children’s lives and livelihoods in different locations and atdifferent spatial scales are shaped by a complex array offactors changing over time and space.

The role of transport‘Transport’ is used as ashorthand term forpassenger transportation,broadly conceived as thesystems, networks, modesand services that areavailable within a givenlocality. This includes theinfrastructure forpedestrians, cyclists andmotorists, but also theavailability of publictransport, (mass transit)and community transport(para-transit

The research aims to investigate thedegree to which the transport provisionenables or constrains the mobility ofchildren and their accessibility to arange of activities and services thatcomprise and differentiate theireveryday lives.

Mobility Accessibility Connectivity

Transportation

Connectivity Learn

Play

Engage

Create

Work

Share

Social outcomes Spatial patterns

Mobility Accessibility

Children’s mobilityAbility RangeModeChildren’s mobility, expandsand changes as they grow.Their physical ability,modes of travel and spatialrange develop, alongsidetheir health, skills andlearning, from their firststeps in their home to theirtravels into their localcommunities and beyond asthey develop competence,confidence andindependence.

Competence Confidence Independence

Urbanism: the Radburn designMt Druitt, Blacktown

Early ideas about residentialplanning developed in theUSA , such as the Radburndesign, were adopted in urbanexpansion in western Sydneyin the 1960s and 70s, creatingcar dependency in higherincome areas and transportdisadvantage in lower incomeareas.

Urbanism and child development

1946 2006

A planning fundamental to separateharmful industrial sites fromresidential areas characterised thetwentieth century low densitysuburban developments in Sydney.

Research on ‘sprawl’ and public health(such as Frumkin, Frank and Johnson2004) have prompted planners anddevelopers to promote higher densityliving as the ‘new vision for housing’

Blacktown

Urban development in SydneyUrban development inSydney followed railnetwork until the 1960s.

Blacktown,experienced rapidurban expansion,has largest numberof children inSydney, is verysocially, culturallydiverse and has amixture of urbanform and density.

Population densityPopulationdensity isconcentrated inolder establishedareas of Sydney.Car travel islower in theseareas but….

Pedestrian casualty rate: Casualties aged 0-16years per 1,000 population

Childpedestriancasualty rate isas much asthree timeshigher.

Simpledeterministicapproaches toplanning areinadequate forcomplex inter-relationships

Sydney suburbs: socioeconomic status“Poor social and economic circumstances are the greatest threat to children’s growth”M.Flood (2004)

Blacktown suburbs: socioeconomic statusBlacktown is at the intersection of Sydney’s urban socioeconomic divisions

Blacktown suburbs: child development

In localitieswhich have thesame low SESthere arevariations inchilddevelopmentoutcomes thatsuggest factorsin physicalenvironmentcan influenceoutcomes, egEmertoncompared toShalvey

Blacktown: local connectivity

BMXTrack

EmertonSwimming

Centre Qualitative research can help explainwhy differential outcomes emerge atlocal scale and what might be theimportant transport links that cansupport healthy child development.

ConclusionChildren’s mobility and accessibility is enabled or

constrained by their social and physicalenvironments

Children’s range of mobility and levels ofaccessibility may influence their developmentaloutcomes

Child-centred “connectivity” focuses on thenetworks, passages and infrastructures that enabletheir mobility and accessibility

Transportation Infrastructure Improvements and Children’s Mobility: using maps to support the transition from busing to walking and cycling

paper presented to the AAG Annual Meeting, San Francisco, April 2007

by Susan Wurtele, Department of Geography, Trent University

and Jill Ritchie, Peterborough County-City Health Unit

Relative Location of Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Source: http://www.2ontario.com/

School A School B

Survey #1

School A: Current Mode of Travel to School

Other, 2% Walk/Bike11%

School Bus, 55%

Car, 32%

School B: Current Mode of Travel to School

Walk/Bike28%

Other, 1%

Car, 31%

School Bus, 40%

School A: Impact of Changes to Busing (assuming proportion of Walk/Bike and Car

Mode remains constant)

Car, 55%

Walk/Bike 14%

School Bus, 29%

Other, 2%

School B: Impact of Changes to Busing (assuming proportion of Walk/Bike and Car Mode

remains constant)

Other, 2%Walk/Bike

39%

School Bus, 16%

Car, 43%

School A(# of students)

Mode of Travel

School B(# of students)

Current Expected Current Expected29 38 Walk/Bike 106 151

153 80 Bus 157 60

87 150 Car 118 168

5 6 Other 4 6

274 274 Total # 385 385

Expected Impact of Changes to Busing

+ 63 + 50

Example of Annotated Map from

Parent Survey

ST.PATRICK'SSEPARATE

HUMBER

OTONABEEVALLEYPUBLIC

Aerial Photograph Showing Schools and Their Surrounding Community

HIGHLAND PARKCEMETERY

DENNECRES. PK

ST.PATRICK'SSEPARATE

HIGHLAND PARKCEMETERY

KIWANISPARK

HUMBER

RIDEAUCRES

OTONABEEVALLEYPUBLICSchool B

School A500 m0

Average Age (years) Average Age (years)

Minimum Busing Distance (between home and school)

Catholic School Board 1 (School A)Grades: Junior Kindergarten - 3 4 – 8 1.0 km 0.62 miles Grades: 4-8 9 – 13 1.6 km 1.0 miles Grades: 9-12 14 – 18 3.2 km 2.0 miles

Public School Board 2 (School B)Grades: Junior & Senior Kindergarten 4 – 5 1.0 km 0.62 miles Grades: 1 - 8 6 – 13 1.6 km 1.0 miles Grades: 7 & 8 (stand-alone middle schools) 12 – 13 2.4 km 1.5 miles Grades 9 - 12 14 – 18 3.2 km 2.0 miles

1 Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland & Clarington Catholic District SB

2 Kawartha Pine Ridge District SB

Busing Policy, by School Board

Survey Responses to Question asking:What would make it easier for your child(ren) to walk or bike to school?

The Journey to School by K-5 Children: Why Are Fewer Children Riding The School Bus?

Selima Sultana

Department of Geography

UNC-Greensboro

AAG 2007 at San Francisco

AcknowledgmentAcknowledgmentThis research was supported by the University Summer Research ExThis research was supported by the University Summer Research Excellence Award cellence Award

Why does it matter how kids get to School?

According to The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Transportation (2007) school buses are:

Safest form of transportation for students Reduce TrafficBeneficial to Environment Economic ($5,774.28 per year) and time (740 hours per year) benefits to parents

Background

Trends in school siting are paralleling the trend toward increasingly spread out urban development, commonly known as sprawl.

School location has been a very important factor regarding school travel behavior in children (Collins et al., 2001).

I suspect, low-density siting has clear impacts on childrens’bus travel time and mode choices to school, just as researchers (e.g. Sultana and Weber, 2007) have found people who live in low density peripheral areas travel longer to work.

Background

How school bus services are operating under these circumstances are not known, and nor are the effects on children’s school trip time.

McMillan (2005) pointed out that there is a scarcity in the literature on urban form’s influence on children’s travel, particularly for school.

The Maine State Planning Office (1997) has found that although student enrollment dropped by 27,000 between 1970 and 1995, school busing costs rose from $8.7 million to over $54 million during that same period because of changing land use patterns.

Another finding (McMillan 2007) reveals that urban form is important but not the sole factor that influences school travel mode choice.

Background

• “…an easy way to save millions of dollars: consolidate yellow school bus routes so NYC was no longer paying for buses for hundreds, if not thousands, of children who never actually rode them (NYT, Feb 1, 2007).”

Research Questions

1. Do children who live in low density school catchment areas tend to have a longer bus ride to school than children who live in high density urban school catchment areas?

2. How do bus routes affect the school trip length of children?

3. Are children who live in low-density peripheral school catchment areas more likely to be driven to and from school by their parents than ride a school bus?

Study Area: Guilford County Schools

Guilford County

• This research examines these issues in the Guilford County School District, North Carolina

Data

Digital Student Enrollment Records 2006Home addressBus stop and time to be picked up

Digitized School Catchment Area MapsCensus Tiger FilesSurvey of Parents for Selected Elementary Schools

Distribution of Students in Study, 2006

*Elementary students that ride A.M. bus to schools selected for this study.

Source: Guilford County

Selected Elementary Schools and Number of Students Assigned to AM Bus, 2006

Characteristics Total Students

Percent Students

Total Schools

Students Assigned to AM Bus 39,665 55Students NOT Assigned to AM bus 32,972 44Selected Number of Elementary Schools geocoded

12,138 17

Selected Schools Assigned to AM Bus 8,152 67Assigned Students’ successfully geocoded for selected schools

7,927 97

Students from selected school NOT assigned to AM Bus

3,986 33

24

60

Source: Guilford County Schools

Population Density by School Catchment Areas, 2006

Percentage of Students Assigned to Morning Bus

Average Travel Time By School (student)*

*Based on average travel time of individual students. Shown in standard deviation.

Source: Guilford County

Average Travel Time By School (stop)**Based on average travel from each stop. Shown in standard deviation.

Source: Guilford County

Average Bus Route Time By School*

*Based on the average total travel times of AM bus routes for schools selected for study.

Source: Guilford County

Number of Bus Routes by School*

*Based on the total number of AM bus routes to schools selected for study.

Source: Guilford County

Number of Stops Per Route by School**Based on the number of stops scheduled per route for each school in study.

Source: Guilford County

Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients for Students’ Average Travel Time and Associated Variables, 2006

Total Students

Percent Students Assigned for AM

Bus

Percent Students

NOT Assigned to

AM Bus

Number of

Students per Stops

Number of Routes

by School

Bus Stops per Route

Number of Students

per Routes

Population Density by

School Districts

Average Travel Time by Students -.138 -.104 .104 -.351(*) -.167 .505(**) .102 -.650(**)

Average Travel Time by Stops -.153 -.110 .110 -.310 -.158 .445(*) .076 -.588(**)

Average Travel Time by Routes -.238 -.011 .011 -.543(**) -.136 .579(**) -.044 -.588(**)

Total Students.148 -.148 .033 .830(**) .213 .121 -.352(*)

Percent Students Assigned to AM Bus

-1.000(**) .057 .409(*) .100 .294 -.121

Number of Students per Stops -.178 -.691(**) .559(**) .393(*)

Number of Routes by School .163 -.231 -.287

Bus Stops per Route.112 -.697(**)

N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

Choosing 5 Schools for Parental Survey

Source: US Census, Guilford County School

Summerfield

Oak RidgeIrving Park

Claxton

Sternberger

1= <1/2 Mile; 2= ½ to <1 Mile; 3= 1 to <2 Miles; 4= 2 to <5 Miles; 5= 5 to <10 Miles

1 3

1= School Bus; 2= City Bus; 3= Family Car; 4= Carpool; 5=Vanpool; 6=Walk; 7=Bike; 8=Other

Reasons for not allowing your Children to Ride School Bus in the Morning

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Bus Comes too Early Bus Travel Time istoo Long

Bus stop is not close Bus service is notavailable

Others

Reasons

Perc

ent R

espo

nden

ts

Reasons for not allowing children to ride school bus

• “…requiring him to get up earlier and spend an hour longer on the bus, and he had no choice to participate in after school activities..”

• “My child does not ride the bus as she would have to leave home 45 minutes early to reach a school 5 minutes away by car.”

• “Safety..so many bullies on the bus…bus driver is not a caregiver and can’t watch over every child..”

• “Misbehavior of children on the bus..”

What Types of Improvement Will Allow Your Child to Ride School Bus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Shorter Bus Route Time Bus Stop Closer to Home Other No Improvement Necessary

Types of Improvement

Perc

ent R

espo

nden

t

Conclusion and Future Directions

• Children from low-density school catchment areas are traveling much greater time than children in high density areas

• Because children in these areas are expected to travel greater times to school, parents are more likely to drive their children to save time (as they can get up later in the morning, and have more time for after school activities)

Conclusion and Future Directions

However, there may be additional factors, such as household income, household structure (such as single parent or two parenthousehold, and both parents working vs. one parent working), race, and age of children that are also important determinants of the parental choice of school transportation mode.

Parental attitudes toward the car culture and urban environment influence mode choice for their children’s transportation as well.

These issues need to be examined before any generalizations can be made.

SchoolAverage Time By Student (minutes)

Average Time By Stop (minutes)

Average Total Route Time (minutes)

Cone 22.8 25.8 33.6

Frazier 25.2 25.8 30.0

Sedgefield 25.8 27.0 32.4

Irving Park 26.4 27.0 33.0

Lindley 26.4 28.2 52.8

Archer 27.6 31.8 35.4

Jefferson 28.2 29.4 37.2

Joyner 28.2 29.4 34.8

Sumner 31.8 34.2 41.4

Hunter 32.4 31.8 40.8

Oak Ridge 32.4 34.2 47.4

Brightwood 33.6 36.0 48.0

Alamance 34.2 34.8 46.8

Bessemer 34.2 37.8 43.2

Pleasant Garden 37.2 37.8 60.0

Foust 38.4 40.2 55.2

Stokesdale 38.4 36.0 55.8

Alderman 39.0 39.6 49.2

Claxton 40.2 38.4 48.6

Jesse Wharton 42.6 42.6 53.4

Summerfield 42.6 43.2 57.6

Madison 43.2 42.0 48.6

Sternberger 43.8 48.0 63.6

Sedalia 47.4 46.2 64.8

AVG. 34.3 35.3 46.4

+2 st. dev.

+1 st. dev.

-1 st. dev.

-2 st. dev.

Number of Students Assigned to Bus by School*

*Based on the total number of students scheduled to ride the AM bus to schools selected for study.

Source: Guilford County

Number of Students Per Route by School*

*Based on the number of students scheduled per route for each school in study.

Source: Guilford County

Discussant Comments on Presentations in Paper Session 4338:

Improving the Mobility of Children II

In order to give members of the audience an opportunity to raise questions and make comments, I limited my remarks during the Session. The following comments briefly elaborate several considerations that I regard as having major implications for the quality and impact of research undertaken by Geographers dealing with the topic, Mobility of Children. 1. Referencing. Problems associated with obstacles to the mobility of children have been in the literature for decades, and include matters such as urban design, street patterns, vehicular traffic, distance, safety, crossing guards, sidewalk provision and maintenance, and so on. In several presentations in Session II (as well as in Session I), references are limited to research done in very recent years, and seriously misrepresent how long situations has been known to exist, and how long solutions or changes have been awaited. 2. Knowing the literature. There is a well-established, decades-old literature on how school quality factors affect decisions about residential choice decisions. Current research would likely be more useful if it focused on why and how residential and transportation mode choices interrelate for households that have children or plan to have children,. 3. Knowing how cities work. Municipalities have laws and by-laws regarding the construction and maintenance of infrastructure that affects children’s mobility, and liability can extend beyond financial costs/compensation to include professional misconduct penalties and even criminal charges. The legal dimension as a means to remedy unsafe or unsatisfactory situations that affect the mobility of children (and other vulnerable transportation facility users) warrants attention as a first resort when applying research methods, techniques or findings to real-world situations. 4. Knowing the subject matter. This is a challenge in any non-trivial field of inquiry, but when the research in the public domain the need to be ‘up to speed’ is sharply higher. Simply put, not having a solid understanding of the state of knowledge in a field, and particularly in one where conventions are being challenged, invariably leads to research limitations. By way of illustration, the term ‘improvements’ has been used for many years in the civil and traffic engineering fields, generally to

refer to initiatives that are designed to move more vehicles faster with less cost and inconvenience for the vehicle operators and their passengers, clients or owners. As cases in point, road widenings and intersection enlargements are frequently referred to as ‘improvements’, but they are actually just modifications: both features are just bigger, not necessarily better after the so-called improvements, and could represent worsened situations for some road users. For the past decade more of the alternative transportation literature that deals with the modes used by children and teens -- walking, cycling, transit -- has focused on expressing improvements in “people terms”, such as increasing children’s mobility, promoting children’s good health, reducing children’s obesity, reducing numbers and rates of collisions between vehicles and children, and encouraging children to increase their propensity to walk, cycle or use transit. 5. Retaining credibility as a researcher. Terms like “index” occupy a very critical place in the transportation literature, and their role increases with the complexity of processes and circumstances. If such a term is mentioned in an abstract or a slide, it is imperative that the index formulation, for example, be included in the presentation. To mention and not discuss important terms can be taken as ‘name dropping’ at best. A useful rule or test to apply in this case is to look for concepts that are mentioned but not discussed, and then assess whether the discussion is necessary to make the presentation self-contained and complete. If the answer is “No”, then maybe the honest thing to do is to drop the term from the report. 6. Making the geographic aspects or factors of the research explicit. It is expected that at a meeting of geographers the geographic aspects or factors considered in research into “Increasing the Mobility of Children” will be a central part of the presentation. Many geographers attend the annual meetings of various disciplines and professional associations -- economics, sociology, operations research, traffic engineering, public health, law enforcement, road safety, etc., to learn about why and how their fields contribute to the mission of “Increasing the Mobility of Children”.’ It is both sensible and fair that we reciprocate. Moreover, if we do not discuss the importance of geography to this issue, who will? Barry Wellar, MCIP Professor Emeritus University of Ottawa