School Transport Management
Encouraging Alternatives to Driving to School
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM
Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
September 4, 2007
This chapter describes School
Transport Management programs, which encourage parents, students and
staff to reduce automobile trips and use alternative modes when traveling to
and from schools.
School Transport Management encourages parents, students and staff to reduce automobile trips and use alternative modes when traveling to and from schools. It includes:
· Promotion campaigns, special
events, and contests to encourage parents, students and staff to reduce automobile
travel to schools (Marketing TDM).
· Evaluating
Nonmotorized Travel conditions, and Walking and Cycling
Improvements to address any barriers or problems.
· Pedestrian and bicycle Encouragement and safety education.
· Organizing “Walking School
Buses,” in which a parent walks a group of students to and from school.
· Promoting Ridesharing
by parents and staff.
· Encouraging students and
staff to use Public Transit to school.
· Encouraging parents who
drive to park away from the school and walk with their children the last few
blocks (this reduces congestion and parking problems at the school, and
provides some exercise).
· Traffic
Calming, Speed Reductions and neighborhood traffic
management around schools.
· Produce a Multi-Modal Access Guide, which concisely describes how
to reach the school by walking, cycling and transit.
· Organizing field trips,
off-campus activities and Special Events in ways that minimize
driving (e.g., ridesharing, chartering buses, etc.).
· Locating schools to maximize
Accessibility. For example, preserve older schools and
develop new schools within residential neighborhoods, where they can be reached
by walking and cycling, rather than at urban fringe locations (Beaumont
and Pianca, 2000; EPA,
2003).
· Surveying students, parents
and staff to determine travel patterns, reasons for travel choices, barriers
and potential opportunities for change (Data Collection and
Surveys).
School transport management can provide financial savings to schools and parents, help reduce parking and traffic problems, reduce pollution, and provide safety and health benefits.
Until a few decades ago most grade school students walked or bicycled to school. Now, only a small portion (typically about 20%) walk or bicycle to school in North American communities. Travel to school represents 10-15% of peak period motor vehicle trips in many urban areas. Chauffeuring children to school often results in two vehicle trips, one to the school and one returning home, or four additional trips per day.
School Transport Management programs can be cheaper than
increasing parking capacity, dealing with local traffic congestion and
providing school busing services. Busing is expensive, costing an average of
$528 per student in the
School Transport Management programs that increase “active transportation” (walking and cycling) help children become more physically active and make exercise become a regular habit, which provides significant Health benefits. Children are far less physically active than in previous generations: A few decades ago children typically spent about three hours a day in outside physical activity, but now children average only about three hours of physical activity a week. Research by the U.S. Center for Disease Control indicate that increased physical activity during childhood is an important strategy for lifelong health, and that school and community programs play an important role in promoting physical activity (CDC, 2000).
Walking and bicycling to school are also opportunities for
children to explore their community, develop social skills, and experience
increasing independence and responsibility as they become older (Hillman, 1993;
Adams and Hillman, 1995; EC, 2002). According to a survey of 6,369 elementary
school children in
School Transport Management programs must address barriers
that discourage children for walking and cycling, including Traffic
Safety, Traffic Speed Reductions, and Personal Security Concerns. These risks tend to decline as
travel shifts to alternative modes and so more children and parents are walking
and cycling near schools.
School location and design can have a major impact on
vehicle trips. Improved walking and cycling conditions around schools, and
increased proximity between schools and residential areas increases the portion
of active trips and reduces automobile travel (EPA, 2003;
School siting can affect both the travel mode and the distances that are driven for children to get to school. Some current public policies result in less accessible schools, including policies that favor new school construction over renovation of existing schools, excessive minimum acreage requirements for new schools (resulting in new schools being constructed outside of residential neighborhoods), and inflexible building codes and design standards (Beaumont and Pianca, 2000). School Transport Management may include changing such policies to help preserve existing schools and favor development of new schools in residential neighborhoods.
Similarly, school policies affect transport system efficiency. Wilson, Wilson and Krizek (2007) found that children attending neighborhood schools have reduced travel distance and travel times, pollution emissions and bus fume exposure. They estimate that city-wide schools had six times fewer children walking, 2.5 times as many miles traveled, 2.5 times the system cost, and 2.4-2.6 times the amount of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing bus service, the overall miles traveled (and resulting emissions) decreased 1.5 times compared to no bus service, however system costs were 16 percent higher for the neighborhood school and 9 percent more for the city-wide school when bus service was provided (not including other externality costs). Still, transportation costs at the neighborhood school were 2.5 times less expensive in both scenarios than the city-wide school. School choice and institutional form seem to have a large impact on travel behavior and merit further study.
|
Accessible
Schools Provide Many Community Benefits – By Todd Litman Accessibility refers to the costs and convenience of
reaching goods, activities and destinations. A more accessible school is
located to minimize travel distances and designed to accommodate a variety of
travel modes, including walking and cycling. As a result, improved school
accessibility reduces total automobile traffic. Accessibility
is affected not only by the design of a school itself, but also the design
and management of sidewalks and roads in the neighborhoods around the school.
Even relatively modest location and design factors can affect school
accessibility, and therefore how students travel to and from school. For
example, a major highway, rail line or wall that separates a school from a
residential area can significantly reduce the number of students who walk and
bicycle, forcing parents to drive their children across such barriers. A
pedestrian shortcut between residential streets and the school can increase
nonmotorized travel. School transport management programs, which include
nonmotorized transportation improvements and encouragement, often reduce
automobile trips by 10-30%. Accessible
schools provide many benefits, including time savings to students and
parents, improved transportation options, reduced need for parents to
chauffeur children to school, vehicle cost savings, reduced road and parking
congestion, reduced busing costs to schools, reduced local air and noise
pollution, reduced crash risk, and improved public health. Accessible schools
often become important neighborhood centers, serving a variety of community
needs, and stimulating community cohesion and social development. School
accessibility is particularly important for parents who cannot drive or afford
an automobile, who often find it difficult to participate in activities at
schools that can only be reached by automobile. For this reason, more
accessible schools can help increase parental involvement, and improve
opportunities for disadvantaged populations. Many
students enjoy walking and cycling to school. Students who can walk and
bicycle to and from school can more easily participate in after-hour sports
and social activities. They have opportunities to explore the world and
experience increasing independence and responsibility that are not possible
if children are always chauffeured by automobile. Walking and cycling to
school help children develop the habit of using these modes for
transportation, which they may continue later in life. If students and
parents walk and cycle on suitably designed sidewalks and roadways, they face
minimal risks because their numbers provide sufficient “eyes on the street”
(i.e., people watching what occurs on sidewalks and street crossing). On
the other hand, locating and designing schools primarily for motor vehicle
access, for example along a busy highway at the urban fringe, can create a
self-fulfilling prophesy of increased travel distances, reduced
transportation options, and increased automobile dependency. This forces
schools and communities to bear additional costs from increased vehicle
travel, causes parents to spend more time driving, and prevents children from
traveling under their own power. When only a small number of students walk or
bicycle, or roadways are not properly designed to accommodate pedestrians and
cyclists, those who do use nonmotorized modes face additional risks, because
drivers are not as aware of their presence, and there are fewer people
monitoring sidewalk activity. Conventional
planning and funding practices tend to ignore many of the benefits of
increased accessibility and nonmotorized travel. For example, school planners
consider the additional land costs of a more accessible location, but do not
consider the time and vehicle cost savings that it would provide. This often
results in school location and design decisions that increase total costs.
Some current public policies result in less accessible schools, including
policies that favor new school construction over renovation of existing
schools, excessive minimum acreage requirements for new schools (resulting in
new schools being constructed outside of residential neighborhoods), and
inflexible building codes and design standards. The
additional financial costs required for more accessible school locations are
often modest compared with the total long-term costs to students, parents,
residents, schools and communities from increased vehicle traffic. If a more
accessible school location results in just 10% of trips by students shifting
from motorized (automobile and bus) to nonmotorized (walking and cycling)
travel, the incremental financial costs will easily be repaid. However, these
benefits are often overlooked in school planning economic analysis. |
School Transport Management programs are usually initiated by school authorities, parent organizations, or students, often as a response to traffic and parking problems. They can be implemented as part of a neighborhood traffic management program. Multi-modal transportation can also be considered more when schools are sited and designed. State and provincial education agencies can create policies and programs that support alternative transport to schools.
Travel to school represents 10-15% of peak period motor vehicle trips in typical North American communities, although a smaller portion of total mileage since these trips tend to be shorter than other trip categories. There are currently few detailed studies of the effectiveness of School Transport Management programs, but anecdotal evidence indicates that total reductions in automobile trips of 10-20% or more are possible at a particular school, and much greater reductions are possible when schools are sited and designed for good accessibility. Neighborhood schools often have 70% or more students walk or cycle, while at urban fringe schools the majority of students arrive by car.
Table 1 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel
Impact |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
School trips are numerous,
but relatively short. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
3 |
Reduces peak-period vehicle
trips. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
Encourages use of
alternative modes. |
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
0 |
|
|
Increased ridesharing. |
2 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
1 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
School Transport Management program benefits include:
· Reduced parking and
congestion problems, and over the long run reducing road and parking facility
costs.
· Increased Transportation
Choice and financial savings to families.
· Safer and calmer streets and
nearby neighborhoods.
· Increased physical activity,
and healthy lifestyle habits.
· More Livable
Communities.
· Opportunities for children
to explore the world and experience increasing independence and responsibility.
· Opportunities for positive
interactions between school and community members.
Costs include program costs, and any additional delays or
problems for motorists from parking management and traffic calming.
Table 2 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces peak-period vehicle
trips, although largely on local roads. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces total automobile
travel and school parking costs. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Reduces vehicle costs. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel options. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel, and
traffic around schools, and often includes road safety improvements. |
|
Environmental Protection |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel, and
nonmotorized travel habits. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
3 |
Reduces vehicle traffic.
Can encourage more neighborhood schools. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces vehicle traffic.
Can encourage more neighborhood schools. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
School Transport Management programs offer services and encouragement to all students, although not all can use each service. School Transport Management programs tend to increase equity by devoting a more balanced share of resources to alternative modes, by reducing external costs caused by automobile trips, and by increasing Transportation Choices for lower-income and transportation disadvantaged students and parents. It can also reduce the stigma that may be associated with non-automotive travel for some students. Access to education can be considered a priority for Basic Accessibility.
Table 3 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
2 |
Provides resources for
alternative modes comparable to those for road and parking capacity for
motorists. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
2 |
May require subsidies but
reduces external costs associated with driving. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
3 |
Increases affordable travel
options. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Increases travel choices
for non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Increases access to
education. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
School Transport Management programs are appropriate in most geographic conditions (in urban areas and towns more travel will shift to nonmotorized modes, in suburban and rural areas there may be more carpooling). It is implemented primarily by regional and local governments, often with state/provincial funding.
Table 4 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
1 |
|
Commercial center. |
1 |
Individual business. |
0 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
0 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
2 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
TDM Program
School Transport Management programs may include the following TDM strategies:
· Pedestrian
and Bicycle Planning.
· Ridesharing
Programs and Transit Improvements.
· New
Urbanism and Smart Growth.
Funding for School Transport Management may increase as a result of Least-Cost Planning and Institutional Reforms, which allow alternative programs to receive money that is currently devoted to capacity expansion. It is similar to Campus Transportation Management.
School Transport Management programs are usually implemented by school officials or parent groups, often with the encouragement and support of local transportation agencies. Transit agencies may provide discounted fares and improved services. Planning agencies and developers may be involved in siting schools and street design that affects nonmotorized access. Municipal engineers can provide detailed maps for developing safe routes and technical support. School liaison officers can provide pedestrian and bicycle safety training.
Such programs often require coordinating efforts by a variety of organizations, including school administrators, parents, and student groups. Some school officials may see little benefit unless they perceive an immediate parking or traffic congestion problem. Program funding is often a limiting factor. Parental fears of traffic and strangers often encourage driving.
|
“The
true voyage of discovery begins not with new places, but with new eyes.” -Marcel
Proust |
Documents and guidebooks listed below provide recommendations for best practices. These include:
· Involve school officials,
parents, students and local transportation officials.
· Tailor programs to meet the
needs of each specific school.
· Survey students and parents
to identify barriers to walking, cycling and transit.
· Integrate programs into
school curriculum if possible.
· Implement traffic safety
improvements, pedestrian and bicycle safety audits, traffic calming and safety
education.