Opportunities for and Barrier to Non-Motorized Travel among Adults and Children
Noreen C. McDonald
University of Virginia
Abstract:
Concern about rising obesity among American adults and children combined with efforts to reduce reliance on automobiles and promote compact development patterns have focused attention on walking and biking. This conversation is taking place at many levels in our country today -- from articles in the popular press on how suburbia may make Americans fat to discussions among academics and policymakers about transportation and land use interactions. This talk will focus on what we have learned about non-motorized travel in recent years and identify some of the most critical outstanding questions. The emphasis will be on children, largely because that’s where my expertise lies but also because it serves to highlight many of the issues adults face.
Trip Patterns
Children’s travel resembles adults in many ways. Data from the National Household Travel Survey show that those 18 and under make an average of 3.5 trips per day, with over 75% of these trips being in a passenger vehicle. As a comparison, adults average 4.3 trips per day and make nearly 90% of their trips in passenger vehicles. Children spend 72 minutes traveling and cover 31 miles each day; adults spend 98 minutes per day to travel 51 miles. After the auto, the second most common mode is walking, accounting for 12% of trips. For trips of less than a half mile, walking has a 42% mode share. Bikes do not account for very much of children’s travel. The overall bike mode share is only 0.8% overall and rising to 2% for trips of less than one mile.
School Travel
Studies of adult travel tend to emphasize the work trip; similarly studies of children’s travel focus on the school trip. Understanding the school trip is critical for several reasons. First, it is a regular trip which households plan around and is a major motivator of children’s travel. For example, 36% of children’s trips from September to May are to or from school. Next, there has been a dramatic decline in walking to school in the last 30 years. In 1969, 42% of children walked or biked to school; in 2001, only 13% of children used these modes. This trend coupled with concern about rising obesity has caused policymakers to fund programs to get children to walk to school. SAFETEA-LU includes $612 million in funding over the next five years for Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Programs and many states, including California, have their own SR2S programs.
The drop in walking to school has forced researchers to consider what has caused the decline. Analysis of the data shows that while only 13% of students walk to school overall, large numbers still choose to walk when they live close to school. For trips under a quarter mile, walking accounts for 79% of trips; under a half-mile 69%; and under a mile, 51%. Beyond one mile, only 3% walk. The low overall rates of walking result from the fact that 80% of students live one or more miles from their school. This finding is critical because it recasts the issue of walking to school from a motivation question – why don’t kids walk to school – to a school location question – why don’t children live near their schools? This is not to assert that the motivation question is unimportant – it is critical and lies at the heart of most research on travel and the built environment. But it is important to realize that trip distance is more than a parameter to be controlled for; it is a critical planning variable.
Several reasons explain why children today live further from their schools, e.g. the rise of charter and magnet schools, suburbanization. However, one factor has particularly caught the attention of the planning community – school sprawl. The idea is that state requirements for large school campuses have forced districts to seek land on the edge of communities outside of reasonable walking distances for most students. However, there is little data on the effects of school siting on the use of non-motorized modes for the school trip. We are also starting to learn through evaluation of Safe Routes to School programs that infrastructure improvements can make students that live within walking distance of their schools more likely to walk.
Future Research
Research on the relationship between travel and the built environment has given us a much better sense of the factors which influence walking. However, there are still a large number of holes in our understanding. These include understanding:
· How household scheduling between parents and children makes it more difficult for both groups to use non-motorized travel,
· How the built environment differentially impacts leisure vs. destination trips,
· How school siting decisions influence walking to school, and
· How social factors, such as neighborhood trust and cohesion, influence travel decisions.
Selected Bibliography
Beaumont, C.E. and E.G. Pianca. (2002) Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl: Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Boarnet, M., K. Day, C. Anderson, T. McMillan, and M. Alfonzo. (2005). California's Safe Routes to School Program: Impacts on Walking, Bicycling, and Pedestrian Safety. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71 (3): 301-317.
Cervero, R. and M. Duncan. (2003). Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco bay area. American Journal of Public Health 93 (9): 1478-1485.
Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Inc and US Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth. Scottsdale: Council of Educational Facility Planners International.
Ewing, R., & Greene, W. (2003). Travel and environmental implications of school siting. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
McDonald, N. (2005). Children's Travel: Patterns and Influences. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
McMillan, T. (2003). Walking and urban form: modeling and testing parental decisions about children’s travel. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
McMillan, T. (2005). Urban Form and a Child’s Trip to School: The Current Literature and a Framework for Future Research Journal of Planning Literature. 19 (4)
Rodriguez, D. and J. Joo. (2003). The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research D 9: 151-173.
Saelens, B.E., J.F. Sallis, & L.D. Frank (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation and urban design and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 80-91.
Surface Transportation Policy Project, et al. (2003). Can’t get there from here: the declining independent mobility of California’s children and youth. Surface Transportation Policy Project.
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2000). Bicycle and pedestrian data: Sources, needs, & gaps. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation.