Tuesday, May 21, 2024 – 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Tune in on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, at 3 p.m. ET/noon PT to learn about creative, flexible, and highly accessible federal funding that can be used to advance Safe Routes to School. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) funding can be used for not only developing Safe Routes to School plans to supplement comprehensive safety action plans, but it can also be used for engagement, encouragement, and education programs! And - the application is a low lift and all eligible applicants in the past two years have been funded. We will highlight creative and exciting ways to use this fund, how to access the funding without cash match, and provide steps for applying for SS4A funds. You don't want to miss this!

Tuesday, April 30, 2024 – 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time

Please join the Safe Routes Partnership and California Transportation Commission for a webinar on April 30 about a new change in the ATP Guidelines: additional questions about the non-infrastructure program in Combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure applications.

For a number of years, we have argued that the format and rubrics of Combined applications in the ATP did not allow either applicants to adequately highlight their proposed educational and encouragement programs, nor evaluators to adequately score them.

Thanks to the adoption of the online applications portable Submittable this cycle, applicants proposing Combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure non-application questions will be prompted for additional information specific to their non-infrastructure components, and evaluators will be given guidance on how to evaluate them.
In this webinar, we will give an overview of the new questions, provide suggestions on how best to answer them, and answer any questions you might have.

Wednesday, May 15, 2024
2pm – 3pm ET

Join us for our final Walk, Ride, and Roll webinar of the school year! This session will explore strategies and best practices for engaging and including students with disabilities in Safe Routes programs. Our expert panelists will share how they lead and participate in inclusive programs, how they partner with local champions, and how other Safe Routes practitioners can make their programs more inclusive and accessible.

Key Takeaways:

• Safe Routes to School is one of only fourteen evidence-based interventions included in the CDC’s High-Impact in Five Years Initiative (HI-5). This initiative promotes strategies that show a positive health impact, results within five years, and are cost-effective. Safe Routes to School is the only intervention included related to active transportation.
• Safe Routes to School programs in the United States led to a reduction in traffic-related injuries around schools and neighborhoods.
• In New York City over a ten-year period, injuries decreased by 44 percent in census tracts with Safe Routes to School improvements like new crossing signs, speed bumps, speed boards, and high-visibility crosswalks.
• Texas (state-wide) pedestrian and bicyclist injury rates among school-age children decreased by 14 percent during the program study period (January 2008- June 2013).
• A study of 18 states found that Safe Routes to School programs reduced pedestrian and bicyclist injury rates in school-age children by 23 percent.
• In an evaluation of 47 California schools, pedestrian and bicycle collisions among children ages 5 to 18 in Safe Routes to School project areas were reduced by 53 percent.  Evidence shows economic benefits exceed the cost of active travel to school interventions.

Wednesday April 10th, 2024, 2–3pm Eastern

The days are longer, the weather is warmer, and National Bike Month is just around the corner! Join us for an informal Zoom session to connect with other Safe Routes practitioners and get ready for Spring programming. Share your program successes and challenges, swap resources, brainstorm project ideas, and let us know how the Partnership can support your work going forward.

NOTE: There will not be formal presentations during this session. The bulk of the time will be reserved for connecting with others during breakout groups. We will not be facilitating the discussion but we will provide guiding questions and are always available to help.

 

Wednesday, April 17th, 11:00 am to 12:00 pm Mountain

How do you change the culture of active transportation in schools? Join us as we explore community engagement strategies aimed at changing behaviors and attitudes around walking, biking, and rolling. Learn how Denver’s Advancing a Culture of Active Transportation in Schools (ACATS) program became a model for community engagement, and how they leveraged this success to secure Safe Routes to School funding.

Featured Speakers:

Kori Johnson, Program and Engagement Manager, Safe Routes Partnership

Priscilla Bloom, Safe Routes to School Program Manager, City and County of Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DOTI)

Key takeaways:

• The percentage of individuals participating in any active transportation for both adolescents and young adults was higher among males, Black and Hispanic racial and ethnic groups, and low-income participants.
• A higher percentage of low-income youth and youth of color participated in active transportation compared with white and high-income peers.
• Young adults and females were less likely to participate in any active transportation.
• This study may suggest that active transportation interventions may support healthy weight among youth, however, some variables may mitigate this effect. For example, youth from low-income families and youth of color were more likely to engage in active transportation but were also more likely to have higher body weights.
• Black adolescents were 10 percent more likely and Hispanic adolescents were 20 percent more likely to engage in active transportation compared to white adolescents.
• Although active transportation accounted for only 18 percent of physical activity for adolescents and 16 percent for young adults, this study suggests that active transportation can be leveraged to promote overall physical activity.

Key takeaway:

• Children who used active transportation to travel to school at a young age were more likely to continue to do so as they got older. Children who did not use active transportation to travel to school were not likely to take up the habit as they got older.
• For every one-tenth of a mile increase of distance from home to school a child’s likelihood of using active transportation to travel to school decreased by eight percent.
• Students within the study area who used active transportation to travel to school at a young age were more likely to continue to use active transportation despite an increase in distance from home to school as they got older.
• The likelihood of children using active transportation to school was almost twice as high if the parent perceived their neighborhood as safe compared to if it was perceived as unsafe. 

Key takeaways:

• Children from families with lower incomes use active transportation to travel to school at higher rates than children from high-income families.
• Living farther away, at distances greater than ½ miles from school decreased the likelihood of walking and biking to school by 92 percent and from school by 89 percent.
• Attending a school with a high level of support for active transportation increases the chances of walking to school by 55 percent and from school by 48 percent.
• The likelihood of active transportation to travel to and from school was greater when children asked permission from their parents to walk or bike and parents perceived there was school support for active travel to school, such as a Safe Routes to School program in place.
• This study revealed that low-income individuals were more likely to use active transportation to travel to school. This travel behavior may reflect evidence of inequity, rather than choice, as families attending schools classified as low- or medium-income may have access to fewer resources, such as a dependable vehicle.

Key takeaways:

• From 2001 to 2017, weekly walking trips increased 35 percent and bicycle trips increased by 12 percent.
• Low-income, carless households make the highest number of trips per week using walking or biking compared to the other households (low-income with a car and high-income households).
• Low-income carless household are more likely to use walking and biking out of necessity and lack of other viable options.
• Individuals in low-income, carless households in suburban areas are associated with up to 14 percent more walking trips and 33 percent more biking trips compared to their counterparts in other areas. The greater use of active travel among people in low-income, carless households in low-density locations could be related to the lower availability of transit in many of these areas that would require people to walk or bike.
• In urban areas where walking or biking is more feasible to access a destination, individuals from high-income households utilize active transportation more than low-income car-owning households.

Key takeaways:

• Nearly one in four U.S. adults reported traffic as a barrier to walking where they live.
•  Of the survey respondents who reported traffic as a barrier to walking, vehicle speed was identified as the leading safety concern for people walking regardless of geographical area.
• Of survey respondents who reported traffic as a barrier to walking, the most common solution to increase safety was improving sidewalks and separating the sidewalk from the road.
• There is a mismatch between what people report as preferred safety improvements and what current guidance on speed reduction for improved safety recommends. For example, while vehicle lane reduction is a common method for safety improvements related to speed, only 10 percent of participants chose this as a preferred safety improvement method.
• Compared to those who walk for leisure or activity, people who walk as a mode of transportation were more likely to report the volume and type of vehicles as a concern and to select safety strategies that slow down vehicles.

Key Takeaways:

• Nearly half of the parents surveyed report that their child walks through an area where cars are dropping off or picking up children to get to or from the school building.
• Over one-third of parents surveyed say drivers are not paying attention and worry that their child will be hurt near the car or bus drop-off area.
• Parents surveyed identified “drivers not paying attention” as the top school traffic safety risk, followed by speeding, parking in no-parking areas, and dropping off in the wrong location.
• An overwhelming majority of parents (94 percent) feel that school officials should act when parents do not follow traffic rules near the school, and two-thirds of parents support the school putting up cones, gates, or other treatments to better direct traffic flow.

Key Takeaways:

• The benefits of having regular Walking School Busses (WSB) are cumulative. With each additional WSB trip, kids were 23 percent more likely to arrive to school on time and 21 percent less likely to experience bullying.
• Forty-two percent of programs reported improvements in students’ classroom behavior.
• The most common barriers to walking school bus programs were recruiting and maintaining student participants and identifying and maintaining route leaders.
• Programs in low-income communities were less likely to be coordinated by a parent than programs in moderate- and high-income communities (3.2 percent vs 29.6 percent).
• Programs in low- and moderate-income communities were more likely to have external funding than those in high-income communities (71.4 percent vs 37 percent).
• Programs within the United States had fewer route leaders overall, but more route leaders from the school and school supports than programs outside the United States.
• Programs with more route leaders reached more students and were more likely to report sustainability than programs with fewer route leaders.
• Programs coordinated by parents and external organizations had a lower reach (total student participation) than those coordinated by school or district staff.
• Programs coordinated by parents as opposed to school staff had a slightly easier time recruiting route leaders and were more likely to have a higher number of walks per week.
• Programs were successful despite having a low level of support from school and without strong school involvement. They were also successful when the neighborhood and built environment conditions were not supportive of walking.